Penny Low
Singapore
“These amenities will offer recreational choices and also prevent traffic congestion to the new town when it is built. Will MND look into these suggestions favourably and also work with MOT to prevent congestion?”
“Going forward, the quality of our lives will also depend on how well we can integrate knowledge with technology and creativity to find solutions with daily, social and economic concerns. What plans are there to encourage people to act responsibly, dream up new ideas and design for a better world?”
“Let us navigate the sea of change with mastery of seafaring skills, guided by the light of the stars and not by passing fancy ships. Only then can we continue to be that extraordinary little red dot the world envies; only then will we know that the future generations will continue to be world-beaters and make their families proud.”
“These considerations should be part of the MediShield Life design so that it is holistic, it incentivises the desired behaviour and it improves the overall health outcome of our Page: 122 nation.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Clarification, Sir. The Minister mentioned that MediShield premium payments can be paid for by immediate family members.”
“Mdm Speaker, there have been more reports on the increase in rodents lately and I am wondering whether NEA has done any study to discover the reason for such an increase, or is it that there is just more visibility of rodents in, especially, housing estates.”
The complete record
Every one of 773 lines we hold for Penny Low, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 16.
“We seek Members' assistance – help us identify the suitable locations to set up these offices, so that we can deliver better and more integrated services to our clients as soon as we can. Yesterday, MOH has announced that the Agency for Integrated Care will take care of all eldercare issues. MSF will continue to oversee the network of Senior Activity Centres to provide social support for our elderly. We will also position the current Centre for Enabled Living into a focal point for disability services, which I will elaborate on later. Now, I come to the third priority of how we intend to build a stronger social service sector. I start with our structure and organisations. Today, we have a varied landscape across the entire VWO sector. There are some small ones providing specialised and niche services. They are very personal in their approach – they know their clients well and serve niche needs. But they have their own challenges. Because they are small, it is hard for them to raise funds, it is hard for them to attract people to come and join them. Because many social service professionals have fed back to us that beyond helping the poor, they would also like to see some professional development, personal development and opportunities to upgrade themselves. We can understand and appreciate this. On the other hand, we have some VWOs that are very big. They benefit from economies of scale when it comes to acquisitions providing career development opportunities. But their challenge is to maintain the same level of personalised services to their clients. So, we need to find a way to marry the best of both worlds. We want the personalised services at the front-end and the economies of scale at the back-end to stretch each and every dollar that we are given.”
“The elderly and persons with disability will not need to spend $20 on taxi fares just to go and collect a cheque. But the Social Service Office is not just about giving out the financial assistance. We also want the Social Service Offices to be able to play a role in integrating social service delivery in their respective towns. For example, in Toa Payoh Town, there are more than 20 facilities run by Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) providing different services. We need the 20 different facilities to come together to coordinate their services, share their expertise, and knowledge and to also share some of the backend support to better deliver services to those living in Toa Payoh. This is exactly what we will do and this was suggested by Mr Desmond Lee yesterday. The Social Service Offices will play a local coordinating role. We want to simplify the working relationships at the ground level and we would like to reassure Mr Faisal Manap that this is to simplify the work rather than to add to bureaucracy. We will never do that, because if we do, it will be an injustice to the people that we serve. So, for this year, besides converting the social assistance units at the five CDCs, we will be building four new ones. The first two will be at Kreta Ayer and Jalan Besar. The next one will be at Jurong West and another one to serve both Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang. Page: 14 Members may ask: how were these locations decided? We decided based on the caseload, the demographic profile of the population and the needs of the community. But rest assured, progressively we will work the Grassroots Advisers and the local community leaders to roll out these offices as fast as we can.”
“And maybe even lend a helping hand to the next generation. So, I would like to thank all my social service professionals who have done so much quietly behind the scene to reach out to them. Having said that, certainly we can do more and if there are suggestions which Mr Laurence Lien has for us to do better, we will certainly work with him to do even better for the sake of our fellow Singaporeans. Now, I come to the second priority for MSF this year. As Mr Alex Yam, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Desmond Lee and Ms Low Yen Ling have spoken about, delivery is the key. Delivery is as important as policy. We want to be closer to the clients, we want to meet local needs, and we want to provide our clients with coordinated and integrated care. We have been heading in that direction but we are not there yet. Page: 13 We will continue to move in that direction. This year, we will roll out 20 Social Service Offices from the third quarter. It will take us two to three years to lay the groundwork across the entire country. Many years back, when we were called "fook lei bo" or 福利部 in Cantonese as many people would remember, the people seeking help would have to walk up a hill at Thomson to seek help. That is where our current MSF building is located. Over time, we have decentralised the assistance offices to the five Community Development Councils (CDCs). This has enabled to reach out to those in need. Building on that foundation, we are going to push out our offices even more. This is why we are rolling out the 20 offices across the entire nation. We will build one in each town and, if needed, we will build one more for the new towns. People do not need to travel long distances to get help.”
“It requires very intense casework, but we are going to give it our best shot as these issues go beyond pure monetary assistance. If the issue is money, it would be relatively easy. We could find the money and help them. But what these people need most goes beyond money. They need mentors; they need people to handhold them, to walk the journey together with them. Along the way, many of them will stumble and they will need pick themselves up again. But we hope that the mentors will continue to stick around and walk Page: 12 the journey with them. 11.15 am The most important thing for this group of people is for us as a community and as a nation to muster a group of volunteers and mentors, to come forward to walk this journey with them, so that their children will have a better future in times to come. Yesterday, Mr Laurence Lien spoke about helping the poor. I just want to reassure Mr Lien and Members of this House that all social workers and all social service professionals try their very best to provide a holistic package of help for those in need. Many of them go beyond the call of duty, looking beyond financial issues to childcare issues, medical issues, employment issues and so forth. And I want to give credit to this group of social service professionals who are constantly on the go, reaching out to people and seeking out those who need help. I think we will do them a disservice if we suggest that they have somehow not tried to provide holistic help. Or that they have somehow taken away the dignity of the people they are helping. That cannot be further away from the truth. Our job is to provide dignity and the hope to the families in need. Our job is to build on their strengths, so that they stand tall again.”
“We are well aware that many of our elderly do not know where to go to seek help and we should not need them to because we have enough people – Social Assistance Officers, grassroots volunteers and grassroots leaders – to reach out and know who needs a bit more help. When I announced the changes in the PA scheme two weeks back, I visited Mr Anthony Chou. When news broke that Mr Anthony Chou did not have a bed, he received many offers for beds and furnishings for his house. And now we are in the process of getting this help to Mr Anthony Chou and we will channel any extras to the other PA recipients. Mr Anthony Chou has a simple desire – he likes to eat fish. And we have received many offers of assistance. This speaks about the spirit of fellow Singaporeans who I believe are generous in spirit and kind in heart. And with that, I am confident that beyond the scheme, we can deliver help to those who need it most. We will continue to adopt the same flexible approach when we review our other schemes as Dr Lily Neo has suggested. Now, we know that ComCare provides short-term help, and we know that PA scheme provides long-term help. Going forward, we are concerned about another group of people. These are the people who require help beyond one to two years, but who may not need permanent help. They may require help for a period of five to 10 years because their problems are complex. Their problems are not just financial. Some of them might have parents who are incarcerated, some of them might have children with learning disabilities, some of them might have long-term health issues and others might have complex family issues. We are reviewing the schemes to see how best we can pilot a scheme to handhold these people out of the circumstances that they are in. This is not easy.”
“That is the easy part which is to allow the flexibility in policy. In fact, we have flexibility in policy today; what we need the most are people on the ground – social assistance officers on the ground – who can, who are willing and who are prepared to make the judgement to extend assistance to those who need it for a longer period. We need social assistance officers, community leaders and my fellow Members of Parliament to assist us with this endeavour. A policy is of no use unless it can be executed well on the ground. I call upon my fellow Members of Parliament, social assistance officers, and grassroots leaders to help us make that judgement. We have the framework in place, and let us make use of that. Two weeks ago, I announced the change in the Public Assistance (PA) scheme for our needy and vulnerable. We now have a scheme that is more flexible and is not a one-size-fits-all scheme. We have a basic tier that will cover food, transport, medical and housing benefits. But we will also have an additional tier. The additional tier will cover some of the medical essentials like health supplements, adult diapers which some will need. On top of that, we have a discretionary tier for one-off essentials like commodes. Page: 11 Dr Lily Neo asked about how we will implement this system. I would like to share with Dr Lily Neo that the people on the PA scheme do not just get the public assistance. Our Social Assistance Officers and grassroots volunteers will visit them regularly to review their cases . This goes beyond just financial assistance. We will work with partners, such as the VWOs and hospitals, to deliver assistance to them.”
“This means that for those who need more, we should agree as a society that we will provide them with more. I hope Members of this House and fellow Singaporeans will agree with me that the best way to help those in need, with our finite pool of resources, is to provide more for those who need them most rather than an universal scheme to help everyone equally. I hope Members of this House and fellow Singaporeans will also agree with us and not feel aggrieved because someone else has gotten more help than what we may have gotten. This speaks about the soul of our nation. This speaks about how inclusive we want to be. Page: 10 The second priority for MSF this year is to provide more accessible and integrated care to better serve our people who are in need. We want to customise the solutions for them according to their needs and localities. And the third priority for MSF this year is to build up a stronger social service sector. There are four areas: how we organise ourselves; how we develop our people; how we increase productivity, and how we enlarge the circle of support which includes the community, private companies, and the private sector. Let me touch on the first priority which has to do with a flexible and tailored approach. I will start with ComCare. We are all aware that ComCare provides temporary assistance to many of those who are in need as well as many of those who have fallen upon hard times. A typical ComCare scheme, in terms of duration, can range from a couple of months to a year, but we are aware that there will be some people, especially those with medical as well as complex family issues, that may require help that goes beyond a year. We are prepared to extend assistance to ComCare recipients beyond one year.”
“This has not changed. Hope is about our ability to give a helping hand to those who are less fortunate amongst us. Sometimes, it is through no fault of theirs because life has thrown them a tough lot. We have to see how we can take care of them. Hope is about why this Government will continue to invest much more on the development of our children. Because as we have all said, we may be poor in this generation but we must do our best to give hope to the next, so that our children, and their future generation will have the best chance to move forward in life and identify themselves with this land where we call our home. Heart is about caring for the needy, the vulnerable, and the disadvantaged. There will always be some amongst us who will be needy, who will be disadvantaged and who will be vulnerable. It is incumbent upon us – those of us who are more successful – to try to reach out to these people. That perhaps is key to our happiness as individuals, as a community and as a country. Our home, our family, is the bedrock of our society's success. Our family is the source of our hope, our source of comfort when we are down. Our family is our anchor to our lives' direction. Our family also provides purpose for all our efforts in all that we do in our busy lives. So, I hope that all of us in this House and beyond will share with MSF this simple message: that we must continue to build on the Hope, Heart and Home theme for ourselves. Let me talk about MSF's priorities to enhance social services and the social safety net for 2013. We have three priorities and all revolve around the implementation of our policies. First, we endeavour to provide more flexible and tailored assistance.”
“Where the human spirit meets social concerns; meets business opportunities, we should support them wholeheartedly for an inclusive society. The Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Chairperson, let me first thank all Members who have spoken up and shared their ideas and suggestions for a better Singapore – a more caring and inclusive Singapore. When we talk about Singapore, I think we all understand, and we all accept, that we are not just talking about economics. We also want a better Singapore in terms of our social cohesion. Economics and social cohesion are not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. We are a young nation, barely 50 years old. Over the last 50-odd years, we have been fortunate to have strong economic growth. It has bought us time to build our social cohesion and our sense of national identity. We hope that this sense of social cohesion and national identity will carry us through in the coming years where our economic growth may be slower and our resources may be less plentiful. But regardless of how fast or how slow we grow, we hope that all Singaporeans will join our hands and join our hearts together, to care for those who are less fortunate amongst us. Our ability to share is not a function of economic growth, nor GDP. Much has been spoken about the Happiness Index in the past year. I hope we do not quantify more things, to try to make ourselves happy. I also hope that we do Page: 9 not try to quantify the intangibles that really bring meaning to life. Instead, I hope happiness can be defined not by just what we have, but by what we can share. Last year, during the Committee of Supply (COS), I shared with Members of this House the three fundamental beliefs of MSF – Hope, Heart and Home.”
“Madam, to say that Singapore is in a social recession and needs a social reset – meaning the need to shut down and restart – is simply denying the efforts and progress Singaporeans have made since the Hock Lee Bus Riots and 1960s race riots. This is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fact is, today, we live in a peaceful society with a much stronger social fabric that cares. The NVPC Giving Survey 2012 noted increased volunteerism and philanthropy. Last year, 300 volunteers stepped up for social good during the annual SIP Global Social Innovators Forum and Festival. Two weeks ago, a group of Hong Kong social enterprises (SEs) remarked to me that Singapore SEs are passion first, then business. In Hong Kong, it is the reverse. So, let us not disparage the efforts of ordinary Singaporeans to pitch in. Page: 8 However, as in my previous Budget speeches, there are areas of social deficits from changing demographics; to social capital; to uplifting the marginalised. I have long lobbied that solutions being from within the community via SEs is the most dignified way forward. Can the Minister, first, give an update and outline the growth plan for this sector? Two, think big and set up a social enterprise collaboration park where SEs can meet, inspire and collaborate with each other? Three, consider a more suitable legal entity and tax policy that recognises the social benefits that SEs deliver? Four, consider a social value weight in its goods and services procurement policy, for example, corporate gifts and such? Like all businesses, demand is the lifeblood of SEs. In conclusion, it is hard enough to do well, it is even harder to do good. So, when there are people who want to do well and do good, I would want to help them and be their facilitator.”
“Madam, I too wish that my Christmas wish can be fulfilled. So, like some Members who have clamoured for hawker centres for 10 years, or some have clamoured for this and that for many years. In the case of polyclinics, it is the same. As one of the fastest growing new towns in Singapore, the demand for primary healthcare services continues to grow in Punggol New Town. Page: 67 At the 2011 Committee of Supply, MOH had announced the building of a polyclinic in Punggol. Can the Minister give Punggol New Town residents an update on the progress of the polyclinic's development? And also, could the Minister elaborate on what residents can expect, from this new and much needed facility, whether it will have 24-hour service or not? Punggol is a young town and we want to encourage fertility as well. So, what is MOH's planning parameters in catering to residents on: (a) gynaecology and paediatrics care; (b) facilities for the elderly, step-down homecare; (c) dental services; and (d) the need for affordable healthcare? As Punggol 21 is being developed to be a model town, perhaps MOH can also review its current planning parameters, and apply design thinking into meeting the healthcare needs of the residents, making it a role model in the care of our residents. Health Promotion”
“I would like to ask the same question on behalf of the Punggol New Town residents. It is the fastest growing town and we have got many, many BTOs coming on-stream, and I think one of the biggest issues in Punggol New Town is the lack of the choices of food that is available. There are coffee shops and there are very few restaurants but there is no hawker centre at all in the entire new town. So, that is the first question. The second question is on "recycling, reuse and reduce". One of the biggest issues that the residents face is the lack of such facilities. There are some mega bins that are put in between a few blocks but they are too far and few. What happens is that, at most times, these bins are overflowing and they are not being collected on time Page: 49 as well. So, my question is whether the Minister has some plans to upgrade and increase the number of such bins and collection times as well.”
“The app features a fun, competitive yet educational game, so that users can see how they do and challenge each other to be on the billboard chart. The idea is to instil green civic responsibility and change behaviour. Such social innovations can work a lot for water, energy and waste usage. Could MEWR consider some of these technologies and co-create them with the community? Page: 27 Sustainability of Water Supply”
“Madam, how do we leapfrog the 3Rs of reduce, reuse and recycle and live green? I think we need everyone to be in it and there is now a huge incentive to do so via collaborative consumption or a sharing economy. Madam, we clutter our tiny homes with our wants, which are seldom used. In a sharing economy, access to goods and services are more important than ownership. So, imagine if we can encourage people to share, trade, swap or rent out their clutters, the benefits of 3Rs would be realised and monetised. A picture from the March issue of The Economist magazine shows that everything in the house can be rented out from the voids in house to the cars to the parking lots and even to a saxophone. The trouble, however, is that there is no efficient clearing house of what is available today and of when, where and how to get it. 11.45 am Thankfully, this can be overcome by encouraging local community sharing portals that creates a peer-to-peer experience at the local, consumer and business levels. Government agencies, too, can tap into these sharing portals to lead the way. Technology can also motivate action and change habits. For example, in the energy crisis aftermath of the Japanese earthquake, an app was born. It is called the "Teiden Kensaku" or the "Blackout Alert". It gives information about the real time energy usage in a town and connects it to the larger consequence at the regional and national level. It prompts voluntary individual action to prevent disasters. For example, when the energy usage reaches a critical point and an outage is possible, it sends alerts to its users, who could turn off their cooling, heating or unused appliances to avoid an outage.”
“Housing for Elderly and Singles My next cut was to be on housing for elderly and singles but I think the wish has already been fulfilled. I only want to say that singles also have a need to take care of elderly parents and disabled siblings and sometimes host some guests. Therefore, perhaps the Minister can consider giving singles more than just a 2-room flat option, giving them something slightly larger so that they can bring their parents or their disabled siblings to live with them, especially since in most cases their parents would have got two bites of the cherry and may not be eligible for loans or new HDB flats.”
“Some ideas can include a common tools sharing room or hub, where neighbours can share their little-used items, like power tools, bicycles, magazines and old textbooks. Why not facilitate a real space or a cyberspace, or an app where localised nanny networks, tutors, plumbers, car pools, travel kakis and freelance workers can offer their time and talent for local services? What about designating a pop-up shops area where residents can peddle their wares while getting to know each other? Or create community kitchens in community clubs so that residents can savour good, cheap food from different cultures, integrate and bond through food? What about designating a collaborative innovation corner where residents can gather and offer tips for free or for a token fee? It will add to the resources of a community, bring jobs closer to home while answering your neighbour's needs. In fact, it can also spur social entrepreneurial activities where companies like T-Story and other social enterprises where they get low-income and stay-at-home mums to sew up laptop sleeves from old t-shirts. This Page: 160 could be a form and a space for social enterprises to overcome high rental and provide jobs for those who cannot leave their homes. All said, in designing a heartland, MND needs to set its priorities right and consider designs that will enhance our social capital and well-being. This is especially important in new towns like Punggol 21, which is slated to be the model township and we have a chance to shape it accordingly. I hope we can have some such trials in Punggol 21 and I hope that in building the biggest heartland in Singapore, we build with it our homes, our dreams of a well connected, collaborative, compassionate and caring Singapore.”
“Similarly, the lack of consideration of daily chores like marketing, traffic and commuter needs, width of sidewalks, crowding, and so on, can create tensions. As such, I would like to suggest that the Minister consider the following. Page: 159 (a) Design people-centred spaces to increase physical activity level so that residents are encouraged to live healthily and reduce obesity, but do so with the concerns of surrounding residents in mind. (b) Design clever town layouts to minimise the demand for motorised transport so as to reduce road casualties, energy use, pollution and cost. (c) Design towns to be truly people-centred and inclusive. Barrier-free access and sidewalks should be generous and easily accessible. This is critical for the integration of the elderly, families with baby prams or marketing trolleys, and the physically challenged. Broad sidewalks have interesting impact on people. Broad ones encourage people to smile and stroll at a leisurely pace, but narrow ones can cause people to become uptight and defensive about their limited space. If you do not believe it, try walking on a broad sidewalk and a narrow sidewalk and you will see the different responses from the onward human traffic. (d) Central to successful high-rise and high-density living is the ability to integrate communities better, increase residents' connectedness and create more spaces for people to interact and build bonds. The community garden is a case in point where strangers meet to pursue a common interest, with facilitation of a small piece of land. I spoke about the sharing economy and collaborative consumption in my Budget speech, so why not allocate space for co-creation of ideas and sharing of goods and services?”
“Community design and land use plan impacts the way people commute, communicate and live. It impacts a person's physical and mental health, shapes a person's perspective, cultivate habits and behaviours that become social norms. In short, the environment has a profound but understated impact on the well-being of society. Today, 85% of our households live in HDB heartlands. Hence, if a heartland design goes beyond lodging function and aesthetics, and incorporates elements of what we aspire of the Singapore society, then HDB's role in nation-building becomes even more critical. So, what do Singaporeans want? I think we want a caring home where neighbours are considerate and look out for each other. We want a compassionate home where the young, old and disabled feel dignified and can move around with ease. We want a green home with affordable lifestyle choices and lower costs of living. We want a home where we feel safe and warm. In short, we want a home we can call home. So, how do we achieve this? From the onset of planning, we need to go beyond the pure aesthetics and apply design thinking with the ends in mind. At the heart of heartlands, it is people that counts. Our social fabric has always been the backbone of our peace and stability, which is why heartland designs, being the skeletal platform upon which people interact, can help promote communal living and social capital. The reverse is also true, and we have seen examples of this. Recently, in a new precinct, the designers incorporated a skate park in the middle of blocks. The result, noise pollution and litter got on the nerves of surrounding residents. This could have been avoided via design thinking. Building flats too near a community club, for example, is also a potential source of conflict.”
“Sir, yesterday, in The Straits Times' Forum page, a Jolly Wee wrote titled, "Best live within our means". Wee described how some people have lifestyles that are beyond their earning powers, and make themselves miserable. I showed it to a friend and he said, "This is logical, don't people already know?" Statistics show that more people are getting into debt at an earlier age, mostly consuming what they cannot afford. Needs and wants are less blurred, as materialism becomes a norm. Financial literacy, planning and prudence need to be instilled, especially when buying big-ticket items. Most people shun it. When they cannot make ends meet, they say they have no money to plan. And when they have extra, they say they are doing okay, so there is no need to plan. Hence, could the Minister consider incorporating financial literacy as part of the existing financial counselling which is administered ahead of house purchase? Today, the process itself considers the person's current finances, but not the impending expenses, like children's education, car purchases, and so on. I suggest that we use a life cycle and life goals approach, together with a financial health ratio check, and setting aside emergency funds, so that prudent decisions can be made to avoid fire sales and pitfalls in a downturn, or when one loses a job. Corollary, can the Minister consider lifting the income ceiling for direct purchase of HDB flats? If people are frugal enough and genuinely want to live in HDB flats despite higher income ability, we should not penalise them. It will be a less stressed and happier life when one practises financial prudence and lives within one's means. Page: 140 Fundamentals of Public Housing”
“The IDA ICT Roadmap identified nine tech themes to enhance the competitiveness of key economic sectors in Singapore and to build a well-connected society. It should go further. It should invest in ICT that shapes society, ICT that matters. Given the many socio-economic challenges and shortage in social services like childcare, eldercare, disabled care, flexi-work arrangements, transport issues and so on and so forth, I would like to ask MCI: (a) Is there a road map on how the current investments in ICT can help Singapore resolve pressing social concerns? (b) What are the specific measures to use ICT to forward social good? and (c) What is the update on infocomm plans for the social sector which was announced in Budget 2012? In essence, technology can create wonders for us and spur new frontiers for a brave new world. Letting it happen by default or based on what is hot alone will be erroneous. Instead, we should ask what shapes the world we want and invest into the technology that matters. Penalty for Failing to Meet IDA's Quality of Service Standards”
“Like the Agriculture and Industrial Revolution that changed society, the advent of ICT can change lives. Amidst the hustle bustle, have we ever paused to ask ourselves what do ICT tools do to us, what do we use it for and how can we use it to pursue meaningful ends? Some technologies simply keep us busy. Others make a difference between life and death, but may not be the most profitable. Many social entrepreneurs (SEs) work in this space, where social dividends matter as much as financial profits. But many are high touch and low tech, with productivity lags. The use of ICT could boost data transparency, knowledge sharing, mutual trust, productivity and collaborative innovation. For example, SEs like RSVP, Silver Spring and grassroots networks, are working to help keep seniors active. Could big data be used to create apps where information-on-demand can be accessed to provide or take courses, job match and disburse specific medical advice? What about wireless sensor Page: 63 networks that could help elderly find their way to bus stops or homes, or allow the deaf to communicate more effectively, or even connect networks of caregivers directly to experts and beneficiaries? These are technologies that matter. What about living in a community where ICT enable peer-to-peer sharing of tools and handyman, nanny, doctors and experts are available at the click of an app? The community feels secure, bonded and happy. What about using ICT to connect rural producers to real-time market so there is fair price? Connecting remote villages to teledoctors to save lives? Or using mobile phones to send remittances and crowd fund social ideas? These are technologies that matter.”
“Because this village is called Singapore, my home, our kampung. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget. 3.03 pm”
“If successfully implemented, it will provide a sustainable framework for the Government to think about our economic eco-system such that it brings about a higher quality of life and lowers the cost of living, reduce inequalities, increase trust and social cohesion amongst Singaporeans. So, to end, I think there should be no mistaking – we are committed to building an inclusive society, collaboratively, with each group and sector bearing responsibility so that society as a whole can progress, as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has put it very aptly in his Budget Speech. I am glad that we do not have a pure Robin Hood situation, where we rob from one and give to another. We can see that the Government is prepared to pick up the tab for economic restructuring and, as we know it, to achieve inclusive, quality growth for all. Perhaps, what we have is a happier Stone Soup situation. The story goes this way: long ago, a village was starving when a boy said that he would make "stone soup" to feed the community. He is poor but has a big heart and a big vision. He threw a stone into a big pot of boiling water and started to stir. This inspired the villagers to throw into the soup whatever little bits of vegetables Page: 70 that they could find – a carrot, some potatoes – and each contributed what little that they could get from their homes or even just along the road and in the trees that they could pick from. At last, the village soup was born and stomachs were filled. The positive energy of the stone soup story brings the real change we want for our people. No effort is too small, so long as we all do our part. We take care of one another. We progress together, levelling up where we can, waiting for one another when it takes a little longer.”
“I think these are entrepreneurship that could tackle social concerns based on the principle of self-help and mutual help, of trust, of achieving utility while reaping Page: 69 social dividend and economic benefits. Aided by modern technology and peer-to-peer connection or social networking, the Sharing Economy prioritises access to goods and services over ownership and convenience over ego. We can do more, own less and rent the rest with the help of ICT. It cuts waste, good for the individual's pocket and good for Mother Earth. It is smarter and a boon for cash-strapped families in a weak recovery. It also frees up the much-needed space in the house and puts cash in the pocket for more productive use. This accumulated saving could spur more innovative entrepreneurial activities, especially for young start-ups waiting to change the world with their new ideas. Obviously, to share effectively, people have to help each other, trust each other, learn to take care of common assets and build on their social bonds. The Government should create an incentive framework for the Sharing Economy to happen here, in the same way that it has set aside the $100 million for collaborative industry projects. Why not set aside another $100 million for collaborative consumption projects? Further, liberalise some stiff rulings in the transport, housing and other areas where there are currently a severe supply shortage, and allow people to start innovating. It will bring a paradigm shift to how we could frame our economy.”
“Many homes have power drills or tools that are used only once and occupy space. If these tools could be shared for free or for a fee, we will maximise their value and also utility. My first example has to do with land transport and this is the idea of the Zipcar. I used Zipcar in Boston and Connecticut back in 2007. All I had to do was have a phone and a zip card, find out if a car was available nearby and reserve it, and then use my card to unlock it and drive it away. I do not need to worry about parking, because I could park everywhere where Zipcar is made available. It was so convenient that owning a car became unthinkable. Another example is Airbnb, started in 2007 by two young guys with a need for rooms to accommodate conference guests. Instead of using more land to build hotels, Airbnb solves the bed crunch by allowing people to advertise their spare rooms or properties in a website and, suddenly, tens of thousands of rooms and houses are made available in more than 34,000 cities and 192 countries. If you search the listing under Singapore, you will find 471 properties listed, a boon to both owners and guests, with pictures, details and so on. Singaporeans are already contributing to the sharing economy and we should encourage it. Zipcar is estimated to be worth US$500 million, while Airbnb is valued at US$2.5 billion. These are just two amongst many of the examples that I could quote. But, what is more interesting would be how we can use this concept to solve some of the supply shortage crunches in Singapore today. Could we come up with car sharing, bicycle sharing, neighbourhood childcare networks, elderly step-down homecare, and so on and so forth?”
“I do agree with Member Inderjit Singh that we need to make sure that we do not put the cart before the horse. But it is far from being a strategy of "labour shock therapy" to turn off the tap to what our industries need. What piqued my interest was the $100 million that will be set aside for the Collaborative Industry Project that will enable SMEs to join hands to find common solutions to problems they face. Collaborative innovation is the way to go, but I would like to know how this will really work on the ground, especially in the social services sector. Meanwhile, at every Budget, I will relentlessly push the ideas of social innovation and social enterprise. This year, I will do the same and the new idea is called "collaborative consumption". Mdm Speaker, the well-being index I spoke of earlier champions multiple bottom lines and not just the financial or fiscal one. In past speeches, I have offered several examples of how social innovation could strengthen social cohesion while addressing practical economic needs. Page: 68 This year, the new idea is called the "sharing economy" or "collaborative consumption", which is a new idea that has taken the world of social innovation by storm. In 2011, Time magazine called it the top 10 ideas that will change the world. In February 2013, Forbes magazine estimated the revenue to surpass $3.5 billion this year, with growth exceeding 25%. At that rate, peer-to-peer sharing is moving from an income boost in a stagnant wage market into a disruptive economic force. So, how does this work? Simply put, this is like going back to the kampong days when people did not have everything they needed, but they shared what they had with each other. In other words, the emphasis is not on ownership, but on access to resources.”
“The simple message is: there is hope when we all work together. The centre is now almost built, and I will do my utmost to make it a success. Page: 67 So, please do not allow anyone to say that this Government or the leadership has neglected this key objective of social mobility and inclusiveness. Perhaps, what we need is a bigger, bolder vision to really stir the soul. Could it look something like this: could we, say, set the target to send our poorest children up the socio-economic ladder – such that in 20 years, X number of children whose parents are in the bottom 30 percentile of today's income ladder, would be amongst the top 30 percentile of tomorrow's income ladder? Are we brave enough? Mdm Speaker, let it be known that this House has, over the past 47 years with the PAP Government, stood firm in its commitment to improving the lives of Singaporeans. Today, it is part and parcel of the Singaporean culture, spirit and ethos to uphold the ideal of an inclusive society. The market served us. It should never be the other way around. Measure that. Put it into our Public Service Outcomes Reviews that MOF conducts. Better still, adopt my proposal from last year's Budget debate to properly develop a "Singapore Inc(lusive) Balance Sheet" and an index of well-being to institutionalise this fact that a PAP-led Government puts citizens' well-being first! Now, onto the second point on shared growth. I applaud the Wage Credit Scheme and the rest of the three-year Transition Support Scheme. In responding to the need to restructure the economy so that we rely less on manpower, the Government is saying that, through the packages, it will try to recognise the costs of doing that and will play its part to soften its transition.”
“Currently, there is a lack of childcare and kindergarten places and teachers, and this needs to be addressed urgently. Many of my residents are waiting and frustrated that some mothers cannot go back to work as a result of the lack of places. I urge the Government to tackle this actively. Beyond the clear and present shortage, I am glad that much work has gone into thinking about pre-school teaching pedagogy and its delivery. I hope that the enriched pedagogy will be extended to all, especially to children from disadvantaged homes. Starting with bigger investments in pre-school education and early intervention programmes will mean a lot, especially for the disadvantaged families. Since 2010, I have been a frequent visitor to the two blocks of rental flats in my division in Punggol North. There are about 500 units there, with many young children and the elderly. My heart aches whenever I see and hear that the little children of school-going age are still unable to read A-B-C or count one-two-three. They are capable of it, and I know that. But they did not have the environment to nurture them. We need to help them and give them a fighting chance to life, to break out of their poverty cycle. Therefore, my grassroots leaders and myself started a relentless campaign to persuade the then MCYS and HDB to allow the void deck space to be turned into a pre-school education centre. We also persuaded a VWO to design both the space and jobs to cater to the elderly population and generate jobs for the residents of the rental blocks. We hope to showcase students who show potential in both the academic and non-academic arena, and, in so doing, inspire the rest of the students and parents in our rental blocks to strive for a better tomorrow.”
“I do not want anyone in our society to miss out on a chance to better his life because he cannot afford the opportunities. I want to give everyone the same chance for a good start in life. I shall do this primarily through education." With that, we saw efforts placed on "levelling-up" policies – the re-invention of our technical education, which then we had VITB and Primary 8, where students suffered low morale as a result of being labelled "non-academic" or "cannot make it". Today, we have world-class and world-admired Polytechnics and ITEs that others envy, and our young people are proud to be a part of. Then, in 1993, Edusave was introduced to encourage children of varied talents to pursue their dreams – be it in sports, arts or others. It recognises that success can be achieved in different forms, given we could do more in this area. Under Prime Minister Lee's leadership, levelling-up through education has gone beyond that of the formal school years. We now have a systematic way to foster life-long learning – from the Workfare Training Support Scheme to the Continuing Education and Training (CET) system. These are pathways to ensure that people have the means to continue to learn, to re-skill and realise their full Page: 66 potential and earn a good living even as market conditions change. So, why has the PAP Government done this? This is because the PAP has always been conscious of the need to ensure there is social mobility and that we are an inclusive society. So, at every stage of your life, there is some help from the Government to level up, change course and do better than that we might expect from our "starting point". On pre-school education, Mdm Speaker, I am especially happy to learn about the large investments that will be put in.”
“The Workfare system reinforces the idea that jobs are the best form of welfare. Hence, the expanded and improved Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and the newly introduced innovative Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) will help up to 70% of our working citizens cope with cost-of-living issues while living a dignified life. It is a hand-up, not a handout. Page: 65 Third, which is probably the most important that underpins this Government's ethos, is really social mobility via education. Think of the massive ramp-up in education that has enabled Singaporeans to move from a position of few jobs in the 1960s, to the blue-collar jobs of the 1970s to white collar jobs in the middle class today. This was, in fact, the kind of lifestyle that our people used to aspire back in the 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s. In the 1970s, only 1% of the population had University education and 11% were in PMET jobs. In 2010, 22%, close to 23% of our resident population, had University education and about 50% of Singaporeans are in PMET jobs. By 2030, well over 40% of each Singaporean cohort will have accessed publicly funded University education and it is expected that two-thirds of Singaporeans will be in PMET jobs. That will be the aspirations that parents of pre-schoolers today have for their children. The commitment to education as the route to social mobility, therefore, has been a long-standing one. In fact, in December 1990, in a speech to the grassroots, the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong said: "I want to elaborate on one of the central pillars in my approach to building a better Singapore. Essentially, I want to maximise and equalise opportunities for Singaporeans to improve themselves.”
“However, each age has brought its special problems, and, as a sociology student, I know that, with success, you see further sedimentation of class and that is what the PAP Government must try to redress. And it did through this Budget. If we recall, in the 1960s, we were all almost equally poor but we had a lot of young people. Over the past 40 years, we reaped the demographic dividend via social cohesion and a vibrant economy. As wealth builds up and given the miracle of compound interest, wealth replicates itself a lot more with each generation, contributing, in part, to a higher Gini coefficient. It is not useful to beat ourselves up just because we have been successful in wealth creation. However, what we must do is to mitigate this via progressive taxes and egalitarian fiscal policies, so all boats can be lifted when the tide comes in. So, the PAP Government has never simply relied on market forces alone to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Equal chance does not equate equal outcomes, and there is a need for active state intervention to address gaps and market failures which erode meritocracy. There are three aspects in this Budget which I am delighted with. First, helping the marginalised keep up with living costs. The Government improved the support to the lower income and other disadvantaged groups. Positive steps include the increase in the quantum of the GST Voucher, the top-up of the MediFund and ElderCare Fund, the edging-up of the Public Assistance payout and additional help for the disabled population. Together, these measures help these groups to keep up with the rising cost of living. Second, jobs remain the best welfare. There is dignity in work and in wishing to take responsibility for one's needs. Jobs give people a sense of purpose and fulfilment.”
“Mdm Speaker, every Budget is a step in nation-building. I rise to support two important principles that undergird Budget 2013 − the notion of an inclusive society and shared growth, which are the cornerstones of the PAP Government's nation-building ethos. So, I am actually happy to hear the Member, Mr Pritam Singh's acknowledgement of the Government's ethos, but disagree that it is a departure from the Government's long-standing principles. In fact, part of my speech will show us why, and there is no need to second guess. Mdm Speaker, first, on inclusive society. When Mr Lee Hsien Loong first became Prime Minister, he reiterated the importance of building an inclusive society. And in recent policy debates, I hear of public intellectuals and Singaporeans at large concerned that we remain an inclusive society, and that no one should be left behind because of their background or the nature of their talent or ability. These people care, and that is good news to a government that has been committing 47 years to building this ethos. The PAP Government leads by example, actively helps its people beat the odds, whether it is SARS or financial crises, administering help even when it does not seem to be the wisest thing to do within the capitalist market system. Page: 64 It has done this through its commitment to educating the nation, levelling-up those in need, creating an active income policy, and negotiating with the business sector and labour unions as partners so as to ensure that business and economic growth translate into better jobs and wages, and, of course, ultimately, a better life. The aim is to serve its citizens first.”
“We should assume that we are unable to raise our TFR to replacement level. We have to do more smartly and with less. Yes, immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore's political, economic and socio-cultural landscape. This means that immigration will continue to be politicised and remain a contested issue. Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in. The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration. Singaporeans will be persuaded, at both cognitive and affective levels, if it can be shown that the overall welfare is increased, our interests adequately looked after, and our identities secure and safeguarded. More importantly, special efforts will have to be made for those affected negatively by the immigration policy, in particular, Singaporean workers whose wages or prospects have been or will be depressed by the large numbers of transient foreign manpower at the low-skilled and even at the skilled levels. Let me touch on immigration. I have reservations about how integration can be meaningful, given the rapid influx of immigrants not just between now and 2030 but in the past decade. Our immigration policy must strive to ensure that the average Singaporean is not made to feel inferior or that they are taken for granted. The "Singaporean First" policy must not be mere lip service. It must have substantive merit and meaning. For a start, the Government should completely drop the use of the term, "foreign talent". Used in official discourse to reinforce the message that newcomers add value to our society, this superlative buzzword is terribly marginalising and patronising.”
“There are a few ways to a vibrant economy, each with its own price tag. But we cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish. A vibrant economy cannot be sustained if there are no shared values. And a strong Singaporean Core can provide those sets of shared values. The White Paper's third pillar states that "we must continue to keep Singapore a good home. Our city must continue to be well-managed, well-planned, and well-developed". To that end, infrastructure needs of a changing population and economy have to be met in a timely and efficient way, while preserving and enhancing a green environment. Madam, no one can disagree with that. However, the White Paper was deafeningly silent on the question of affordability given the larger population numbers which will put pressure on the cost of living and the quality of life. What about the income divide? The overwhelming focus in the White Paper on the hardware means that the crucial software bit was left out in the cold. How do we endow a soul amid the sprouting of concrete and glass around us? We must not confuse state- or economy-building with nation-building. Page: 48 We have heard a lot about the benefits that come from a larger population, but what about the costs that come with a larger population? What happens beyond 2030? The White Paper, however, jam-brakes there. How are we going to support the increase in population when the new citizens themselves reach the end of their working lives in 2050 or 2060? The White Paper does not tell us. Are we kicking the can further down the road, a can that will only get larger with each kick? Are we going to require substantial population top-ups every generation such that the Singaporean identity becomes meaningless?”
“It is what that has made my family progress much, all within one generation. But the economic considerations cannot overwhelm our policy responses. In the latter approach of the economy supporting the population and workforce, we determine the population size that is optimal and the economic growth that can be supported by such a population. This approach does not preclude immigration at all. We will need immigration so long as our TFR is below replacement level. Even then, I question the planning parameter of the Page: 47 need to augment our population using a TFR of 2.1. The White Paper's emphasising the need for immigration — or the alternative scenario of a lower quality of life — remains quintessentially material and pragmatic. There is limited appeal to and a lack of definitive assurance of the affective dimension that a contested major policy like immigration is so badly in need of. A consequence of close to half a century of nation building, Singaporeans are beginning to imbibe an aspirational approach towards citizenship. This precipitation of a Singapore national identity and belonging means that a hyper-rationalistic justification of immigration is not likely to nurture an affective acceptance of the immigration policy and regime. As it is often said, the longest distance is between the head and the heart. Singaporeans' growing sense of national identity has made them more protective of the home turf; the economic and other rationalistic justifications seem all too expedient and enervating of the national spirit, identity and ethos. The immigrant is seen quite often in mono-dimensional terms, as an economic immigrant. A vibrant economy is our shared purpose, but what are the shared values that will discipline the shared purpose?”
“Mdm Speaker, like it or not, many Singaporeans are not so much concerned with transient immigration, as conventional wisdom may have it. Much as sometimes our treatment of transient foreign workers holding Work Permits and S Passes leaves much to be desired, they do the jobs that Singaporeans are not prepared to do. Where there is deep concern relates to jobs for PMEs. Here, our liberal open-door immigration policy is seen as compromising the prospects of Singaporeans. Employers often do not do enough to develop local talent since it is much easier and quicker to seek an "off the shelf" solution in a foreign professional. The second pillar of the White Paper is at best encapsulated in the following statement: "… our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy that can steadily create good jobs and opportunities to meet Singaporeans' hopes and aspirations." In this regard, the Government has stated that it is not growth at all costs. But I am discomforted by the thinking that the population and workforce must support the economy. Should it not be that the economy should support the population and the workforce? There is a fundamental difference between the two approaches, notwithstanding that the economy and workforce are interlinked. In the former, which is what the White Paper advocates and our current approach, if the economy is growing at a red-hot pace, then the population and workforce must be up to the task of facilitating that. The economy leads the way. This is where, if we need 6.9 million on this little red dot to support the economy, we jolly well proceed full steam ahead to make that happen. But are we letting the tail wag the dog? Are we putting the cart before the horse? Let me emphasise that economic growth is crucial.”
“It is a badge of dishonour in some of our taxpayer-funded institutions when the Singaporean nationality is seen as not being good enough. To compound the palpable concerns in all quarters, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is not that every citizen gains from it – at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for a local job lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure not keeping up with the influx of immigrants. In short, the opportunity cost of a liberal immigration regime is perceived by the average Singaporean to be very high. The concern at all levels of the workforce is that local talents are being passed over, given the preference for "foreign talent". There is also a strong perception that Singaporeans are doing the "heavy lifting". So, the societal ambivalence, angst, and, increasingly, anger towards immigration is to be expected. Singaporeans do not ask for preferential treatment but just fair and equitable treatment, a level playing field. In particular, Singaporeans regard National Service as a crucial marker of commitment and loyalty. But operationally ready National Servicemen are feeling that National Service is, indeed, a liability. Some employers prefer non-Singaporean male employees because there is no issue of their being away from work for operationally ready National Service. To these employers, let me say that we Singaporeans provide the security umbrella for your businesses and your comfortable and secure lives here. You ought to be ashamed of Page: 46 yourselves, especially the Singaporean employers.”
“However, no similar adjustments were made for Singaporeans who are also affected by the property price increases, never mind that some foreigners were also collecting rent on their homes in their home country. Some years back, when employers' CPF contributions were no longer compulsory for some foreigners, some Singapore taxpayer-funded institutions decided to make direct payments to the foreigners in lieu of the employer's CPF contributions. The thinking was that the foreigner should be entitled to the benefit of the equivalent of the employer's CPF contribution even though there was no statutory requirement to do so. So, pay equalisation works in one direction only: what the Singaporean gets, the foreigner must also get. However, Page: 45 what the foreigner gets, the Singaporean need not or cannot get. We hear increasingly of discrimination at the workplaces: how foreigners prefer to employ their own kind; how Singaporeans get passed over because being local is not good enough, and is being held against you. I know of many Singaporeans who would like to come back home with their families but, professionally, they are better-off being away. This "foreigner-is-better" mentality is real, not apparent. As a foreign Caucasian academic once declared to an academic friend of mine, when explaining why a Caucasian was used in the cover-photo in a publicly funded local educational institution admission brochure, that foreign Caucasian academic said, "It makes us a world-class school". Is it any surprise that our liberal immigration policy is also resisted by Singaporean PMETs since the operation in some of our taxpayer-funded institutions results in unfairness and injustice? What does it mean to be Singaporean in this case?”
“We will continue to need immigration – ranging from transient workers, permanent residents and citizens – but this immigration must ultimately be of benefit to Singaporeans. This relentless search for foreign talent has marginalised Singaporeans. I fear that a re-invigorated immigration policy will mean that more Singaporeans will be short-changed even more. As it is, a growing number of Singaporeans feel disenfranchised that we are second-class citizens in our homeland. Mdm Speaker, let me give an example. In some taxpayer-funded institutions, foreigners are paid more than equally-qualified Singaporeans for doing the same job. This comes about because foreigners are given housing allowances and education allowances for their children below 21 years of age. This was necessary perhaps two or three decades ago when these institutions were seeking to build their international reputations, the Singapore dollar was not as strong as it is today, and Singapore was probably regarded as a hardship assignment. But things are vastly different today. And, yet, we perpetuate this differential treatment. What signals are we sending to Singaporeans with this blatant discrimination? On Monday this week, the Acting Minister for Manpower noted that SMRT's PRC drivers' total package includes transport and housing costs. However, at the other end of the spectrum, as I have just narrated, such allowances to foreigners are not seen as part of the total remuneration package for them when comparing Singaporeans to non-Singaporeans. Recently, given the increases in rental and property prices, the foreigners in one taxpayer-funded institution were given higher housing allowances.”
“Abortion, at about 12,000 annually over the last decade, is one major leakage. We have a very liberal abortion regime. Can we do more for pregnant women, especially those who are married, to keep the unborn child they do not want? Another leakage, which has been much discussed, is that we must do even more to get the economically inactive Singaporeans into the workforce. Have we done enough or is it mere lip service? How do we have Singaporeans at the core, the heart of the nation, if the complexion of our society will change significantly with Singaporeans, including new citizens, forming only 55% of the population? By 2020, we may have 3.5 million or 3.6 million citizen hearts beating but warm bodies alone do not make for a national soul. It is not a numbers game, of course, but just as the Government speaks of maintaining the racial composition, a disproportionate number of non-citizens and new citizens in a short span of time on this island will dramatically alter the Singaporean identity. In essence, nation-building is about this national soul of ours. Do we impoverish it or do we sustain it with our population policy? The White Paper may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of a weakened nation not because of a poor economy but more likely because we continue to dilute what it means to be Singaporean. Mdm Speaker, I am well aware that we are almost about to fall off the demographic cliff and, as such, we need to outsource our fertility. Immigration is, and will remain, an imperative, but how we go about it matters tremendously. We need to ask the "how" questions a lot more and manage the downstream effects and the lived realities that ordinary Singaporeans encounter on a daily Page: 44 basis.”
“We have moved to the norm of one-child or two children family as a result of the strong anti-natalist policy in the 1970s and our dalliance with eugenics from the mid-1980s, which turbo-charged the natural contraceptive effect of education, wealth and more opportunities for women. As we continue to have more tertiary educated Singaporeans and new citizens on this island, I do not see how the TFR is going to go up significantly. I remain puzzled that we did not act affirmatively early enough since our TFR dipped below the replacement level as early as in 1976-1977. Small was beautiful then; but, now, big is beautiful. More crucially, does our poor TFR reflect an innate and inchoate fear of the future? The White Paper does accentuate this fear. The state can help with the costs of raising a family – that is the easy part. More difficult is the task of engendering a genuine pro-family culture and Page: 43 environment. Money cannot get us there. It is about substance, not form. This requires a whole and radical mindset shift, and not more talk or money. We need to move more resolutely on this front, especially in our schools and workplaces. Stress levels are high and we should look at the concern that our children do not have much of a childhood, and that many parents run home schools after they finish work. Yes, our schools may be teaching less so that our children may learn more. But it seems like they are studying more and have even more homework. I see the self-esteem of young people increasingly being defined or deflated by their academic grade point averages (GPAs). Mdm Speaker, not only must we encourage more marriages and procreation, a pro-family environment must require us to reduce the "leakages".”
“While we aspire to be a global city, a metropolis that is relevant, appealing to Singaporeans and the world alike, we cannot forget that we are, and need to be, a nation-state as well. To be more specific, we cannot forget that we are a city-state – there is no hinterland that is within our jurisdiction that you and I can retreat to if we do not like the bright lights of a global city. An American who does not like the global city of New York City can retreat to upstate New York or the Mid-West. The White Paper is disappointing in that, to all intents and purposes, it presents us with only one option. That in order for us to have the requisite economic growth levels by 2020 and 2030, we need to have a certain requisite population, something in the region of 6.5 million to 6.9 million by 2030. The White Paper has, unwittingly, heightened the vulnerability and fear factor since it presents, depending on your vantage point, the best or worst options for Singapore. It reminds me of then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's T-I-N-A slogan: That "There is no alternative". How do we create a sustainable and dynamic population and Singapore if we take that as our starting point? Let me deal with the three pillars of the White Paper. First, that "Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of our nation". What happens in the privacy of the bedroom has significant national consequences. As such, I welcome the latest enhancements to the Marriage and Parenthood Package. I hope they work this time but I am not so optimistic.”
“This House will successfully carry this Motion. But that is probably the easiest part for the Government. Securing a strong buy-in from Singaporeans is far from being a foregone conclusion. The White Paper on Population should be the start of a renewed effort towards continued and deep engagement with all stakeholders. It should not be a document to end consultation and discussion. We should not be afraid to robustly revisit the assumptions and the parameters in the White Paper over the next 17 years and beyond. I sincerely hope that the Government will take a nuanced and open-minded approach to the objections and concerns expressed in this House and not look at them along partisan lines. I can safely say that this House agrees with the imperatives of economic growth, immigration, integration and infrastructure development. We may differ on the methods but the end-points are largely similar. I am all for a population and Singapore that is both sustainable and dynamic. I am also for a sustainable and principled immigration policy, one that truly puts Singaporeans at the centre of all considerations and policies. The population policy must serve Singaporeans, not Singaporeans serving the population policy. Madam, I have deep reservations about the "operating system" behind the proposed roadmap. While the proposed amendments to the Motion do assuage some of my concerns, the White Paper is primarily an economic roadmap. And the themes of vulnerability, fear, crisis and doom are reiterated. It is not a Page: 42 hopeful document, and the interventions by the front bench, in my mind, reinforced that. As such, I am unable to endorse the White Paper.”
“So, as we design our physical, social and economic infrastructure, I urge that we find ways to create a collaborative environment that re-ignites the sense of connectedness within the Singapore Community; and inject a higher order of meaning into our daily lives, much like the Nicholas Chee suggestion of the Tech Shop in Silicon Valley. If we succeed, we will find that the "social economy" can be used to generate a lot of what we need – car cooperatives, bicycle cooperatives, neighbourhood childcare networks and community home-care schemes, and so on and so forth, entrepreneurship at the community level can also be given a boost. This will be a shift from the ownership and entitlement economy of today to one of a shared social economy that could potentially lower the cost of living while increasing social capital and strengthening the Singapore Core. I will elaborate more on this during my Budget speech. Page: 41 Mdm Speaker, at the end of the day, the White Paper is about the well-being of our nation. It is about Singapore that we want to call home. This is not just the responsibility of the Government, but the responsibility of all Singaporeans. I urge that we give this White Paper a chance for us to be future-ready but also, collectively, in whatever we do, let us put people at the heart of all these efforts. 2.05 pm Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Mdm Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to take part in this important debate. Our declining fertility rate, coupled with an ageing population, political and economic anxieties and vulnerabilities, presents significant political, economic, social and cultural consequences. The angst, anger and anxiety on the ground and within the Government are palpable. A leap of faith is asked of this House and of Singaporeans.”
“It is a combination of this idea of a shared tool shop described above, and also just-in-time education. Gone is the idea that one needs to go through a three or four-year degree course in university for just-in-case education, but rather, start adopting and learning just-in-time education. The Tech Shop is a place to receive the precise training that one Page: 40 needs to turn ideas for products into reality, using a tool library where, again, needed machinery or computer software can be rented to operationalise these ideas. Why have I shared these two examples? Research shows that beyond a certain level of national wealth or gross domestic product (GDP) where basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and transport are generally met, there is a diminishing marginal return for every increased dollar earned. Singaporeans are no longer interested just in growth but quality growth and how it translates into well-being. Just think about it – Singaporeans seemed quite happy in the 1970s when we were much poorer and people rolled up their sleeves to do chores within the house and also in the community. We were poor in the pockets but we had rich social ties. Today, we are more affluent, we have more things than we probably need while our expectations and wants have also skyrocketed. We lack the time and the settings to develop our social bonds with our neighbours and friends. Our young feel entitled to a better life than the past generation, and the working-age parents are striving ever harder to deliver that. As Tom Wolfe, an acclaimed social realist and author noted, as people become richer, their sense of entitlement increases and so do their level of frustration. Is that not a paradox?”
“If one does not accept these values, whether or not you are born in Singapore, it will grate on the rest of the Singapore Core. There is no point in having shiny new infrastructure, 5.9 million or 6.9 million people, if we live in conflict and discomfort all the time. If the Singapore Core lives out these values, this will translate into fair and just workplace practices and respectful cross-cultural communications in the workplace. The workplace must also be an extension of our Singaporean Community – in that we will reject workplace discrimination, in that we will accept flexi-time arrangements and paternity and parental leave, and facilitate cross-cultural understanding. How else can the plans in the White Paper be informed by these core national values? Like the workplace, the broader economy should also be a more accurate embodiment of our core values, especially compassion, meritocracy, social mobility, self-reliance, and so on. Here, I would like to bring up two examples. One, a Mr Nicholas Chee, a social entrepreneur who once shared this idea at a meeting at the Social Enterprise Association called "Unvoid the Void Deck". He grew up in a 1-room flat setting and wants to give back to that community. He asked if it is possible for the state and the community to develop a common tools room or workshop at the void deck so that social entrepreneurs may teach their skills to 1-room flat residents who can, in turn, make high-value artisanal products using community-owned tools or machines which they would otherwise not be able to afford. A very much sharing culture. At the other end of the spectrum in Silicon Valley, a new model has emerged. This is called a Tech Shop.”
“Second meritocracy – equality of chance for everyone so that everyone has a fair shot at moving up in life. Third, belief in self-reliance and resilience – hand-up and not just hand-out measures. Fourth, compassionate society – this should be at the core of the Singapore spirit. Fifth, problem-solving and forward-looking ethos – we are a people constantly on the look-out for what can be done better and we almost worry all the time about the future and whether life will be better. The White Paper is a manifestation of wanting to put right what is not yet right – problem-solving, forward-looking. In the same way, our population policy must be implemented in such a way that it ensures that additions to our social landscape, be they people from Asia or elsewhere, be they transient workers or immigrants, do not erode these values, otherwise our sense of well-being will suffer. If these are people from foreign shores who find these ideals appealing and opt to give up their previous formal affiliations to join our Singapore Community, then we should welcome them. If not, well, then, they should not be around. But it may take time for them to adopt this complete set of sensibilities of being a Singaporean. But let us not question their place in the core nor say that Page: 39 they can join us only if they have been through our schools, National Service, or done a fair amount of community service. I would grant though that the National Service scheme could be reviewed to address Singaporeans' perception that there are free-riders amongst immigrants. Perhaps, a task force can be set up to address that. But more critically, when immigrants pick up their pink identity card, we must expect and trust that they are committed to upholding our Singaporean way of life.”
“So, my point is this – the role of foreign workforce is closely intertwined with allowing Singaporeans to realise their full potential and enhance quality of life – at least until such time that innovations and robots can take over. Let me draw one more link. If we are all too successful at tapping the latent workforce but do not address the demand for care, the flexi-work arrangements, then we may not see an increase in our fertility rates. Our women will be stretched every which way – they are not machines, and they do not live according to mathematical formula or financial spreadsheets! So, let us not make the situation worse on one side when we think we are solving problems on the other side. It means we need a realistic and sensible labour force growth strategy. Let me move on to the Singapore Core and its values which are at the centre of the White Paper. The Singapore Community values the extra hands it can attract from elsewhere. But I recognise that the physical congestion and the cross-cultural differences have strained our hospitality in recent years. However, the White Paper, as I said, must be viewed in the context of how it would allow our Singapore Community to thrive as a people. To do that, the Page: 38 White Paper must operationalise in a way that upholds the core values of our nation. So, what are some of the core values that are germane to today's discussion? First, the celebration of diversity and hybridity – codified in our pledge, our multiracial, multi-lingual and multi-religious landscape spurs creativity and variety. You can see how we enjoy Singlish, fish-head curry and even take pride in the Peranakan culture in our everyday lives. We must uphold this tolerance for cultural diversity and reject cultural chauvinism.”
“And if the Singapore workplace is truly inclusive and if the social enterprise sector can develop further, then more needy and disadvantaged people will also be able to contribute to the economy, find good employment, achieve good livelihoods and gain a sense of self-worth and dignity. But for now, let me put the focus on the question of seniors and Page: 37 working-age women. Seniors are better educated and in better health. They are ready to reap the longevity dividend if the work environment allows. Women are as educated as men today, and they, too, want fulfilment of their potentials and financial independence. Entering the workplace becomes a means to these desires. If we put people at the centre of this discussion, we will also know that to truly meet the intrinsic and extrinsic needs of the individual Singaporean woman, the senior and the family, we must ensure that there is adequate provision of childcare and eldercare facilities – childcare so that working mothers and seniors are assured that the children and grandchildren will be in good professional care, and eldercare because that will release more working-age women from taking care of their old and frail seniors at home. The demand for foreign domestic workers may also rise if families prefer not to use institutional care but use home-based care instead. So, actually, we have a wicked problem. If we simply talk about the numbers, a rise on one side from tapping on the latent Singaporean workforce will mean the need for workers in building and running childcare and eldercare facilities.”
“We should pay careful attention to how things develop and review our progress after five years and adjust again if need be. This Paper is not just about population, it is about Singaporeans. What do I mean? If we frame our discussion around the strengthening of the well-being of the Singaporean Core, and we put people in the centre of this White Paper and debate, then it will be a plan to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I wish to explain this by citing the suggestion raised in this House that we tap on the latent workforce in Singapore in order to maintain a zero foreign labour workforce growth. I will also talk about what then must define the Singapore Core and the Singapore Community and I will then share my own wish for how we plan the economy and our physical landscape to serve people and not the other way round. On tapping the latent workforce, I have been speaking in this House about putting in more measures to encourage tapping of workforce since 2005. According to the Report on Labour Force in Singapore 2011, it states that the resident labour workforce participation rate of people over 15 years old is 66.1% versus 64.4% in 2001. For older residents of age 55 to 64, the labour participation rate has, in fact, jumped from 45.6% in 2001 to 63.4% in 2011 and the women workforce participation rate between age 25 and 54 also increased substantially from 65.4% in 2002 to 75.7% in 2011. This is very encouraging and I am sure that the Government has put in some measures to encourage it. But I believe that we can go higher and we have to do more. To do so, suitable incentive frameworks, part-timers/freelancers' guilds and a supportive community are pre-requisites.”