Seah Kian Peng
Singapore
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Given the decline in volume and given that I can understand SingPost having their challenges, how does the Ministry ensure that there is no degradation of services that are provided by SingPost?”
“Yet, violence, domination, pain, harm and abuse also occur within the walls of a family. We need to be vigilant and sensitive in our approach. Hard rules and automatic application of these rules are a poor response to the challenges that we face today.”
“Both parents and schools have a role to play in shaping our children in the way they should go and I agree with Mr Don Wee that it is important for families to have open conversations about these matters.”
“Just a quick supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. First, I must say I am surprised but happy that the number of cases has gone down. Having said that, we need to also pay attention to the number of unreported cases. Personally, I am sure we have heard from many residents who come to us for these cases.”
“Second, we propose to put in place new processes to prevent the misuse of the MPA by parents who have abandoned, abused or neglected their children and did not fulfil their parental duties. In so doing, we also protect and spare their children from unnecessary distress.”
“The way we feed ourselves will not be the same. The way we live and the way we work will also be different – telemedicine, work from home, online learning and the need for insurance. But there are other things which will remain the same – resilience, unity, and a single-minded commitment to our joint future.”
The complete record
Every one of 752 lines we hold for Seah Kian Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 16.
“In the course of this speech, I would like to point this House to what is going on in the universities as far as fake news is concerned. I support the Motion of a Select Committee, Sir, to address this problem, as well as the Ministries' recognition of the Green Paper that this problem requires a multi-stakeholder response. Not just from the Government, not just from a whole-of-Government, but it is has to be a whole-of-Singapore approach. The Select Committee should in my view, Sir, should consider four points, as I would set out in this speech. First, how do we define, what is or what is not fake news? Two, how do we utilise the Government's existing toolbox of soft measures as well as hard laws to combat fake news? Three, how do we equip users of the Internet, most of Singaporeans, to be the first line of defence against online falsehoods? And finally, how could we involve major Internet platforms or ICT companies in our efforts to combat this problem? Looking at the definition, as the first point, it is important to clarify, and for the Select Committee to look into this point, as to what the term ‘"fake news" or deliberate online falsehoods really mean and to frame the problem we are seeking to tackle. That phrase fake news for a variety of reasons and for a variety of people is a loaded term capable of being co-opted by different constituents across the world for different purposes. I note that three professors from NTU have directed their minds to this problem of what is fake news in an article they published in August. They undertook an examination of 34 scholarly articles and looked at a duration between 2003 and 2017 in order to map the different conceptions of fake news. They have gone on to say that fake news has two elements.”
“He said, “Singapore has far more vulnerabilities than most national states because it has none of the essential prerequisites for a viable, stable and prosperous state. It has nevertheless functioned fairly adequately for 27 years only on the basis of two intangibles – ideas and the human characters shaped by these ideas.” Ideas as shaped by human character, not ideas as tossed willy nilly into a pot, undiscerned, half-formed, half-baked. Let us all recognise the need to work out for ourselves in Singapore what is the correct approach towards preventing and combating deliberate online falsehoods. A Select Committee with the broad terms of reference as proposed in this Motion is the best way of working these out. Sir, I support the Motion. 4.34 pm Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Sir, I used to believe that if most of my friends are speaking about something, it is likely, more than likely to be true. If you apply this presumption to the Internet, it is basically that if something goes viral, that news must have veracity. I have changed my presumptions. The old presumption that if people are all talking about something or sharing some information by the Internet that is going to be true is now the reverse presumption – it is likely something you have to look at very carefully. Weaponised in this way, deliberate online falsehoods or misinformation can sow societal discord, as has been observed in the Green Paper by the Ministers and in various jurisdictions. Fake news also risks, importantly, devaluing and delegitimising the voices of expertise and the concept of objective data – which undermines society’s ability to engage in a rational discourse based upon shared facts. As an academic, there is an importance of objective data that is extremely important.”
“I have stressed the role of process in ensuring that the environment for our public discourse remains clean and unencumbered. As to the actual processes themselves – what they should be, how much is needed – I think these are the issues that the Select Committee is best placed to explore, as it allows the committee to draw representations from contributors and stakeholders of all sectors. Having a Select Committee will allow for a thorough discussion of the problems posed by this issue, such as responsibilities of social media and tech companies’ platforms, how to educate the public to discern news, the duty that websites have towards using deliberate falsehoods to attract more hits and to drive revenue. In particular, I think such a committee would also be able to articulate more clearly and in greater detail the principles that underline our governance model in terms of regulating information. Mr Deputy Speaker, I had earlier spoken about the need to balance our freedoms with duties but perhaps I ought to make it clearer than that. It is not just a balance, but a difference between means and ends. We do not pursue freedom for its own end. We do not, if I may put it bluntly, have a “philosophy of freedoms”. As Mr S Rajaratnam, our then Minister for Foreign Affairs, said in a speech to foreign correspondents, “We see freedom of the press not as the end, but as means to an all-embracing end – the integrity and independence of our country – its security, its prosperity, the eradication of anything that would sow seeds of social, racial and religious conflicts which is the rule rather than the exception in the world today.” Sir, he was speaking in 1986. Yes, more than 30 years ago – and the world has come full circle. So, I think we ought to hear his words to the end.”
“Another challenge is the need for individuals to recognise that they need to be socially responsible: Think before sharing. This is a moral argument. The limitations to public education now are in its outreach and time. It will be difficult to reach certain segments of the community, such as the elderly. Also, public education of this nature takes a long time before results bear fruit, and we do need some immediate solutions, given the gravity of the situation now. Intervention through legislation. In the UK, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into "fake news". Facebook and Twitter may face sanctions if they fail to hand over information to the Committee to assist in a Parliamentary investigation into Russian interference in the EU referendum. Some examples of what legislation can do include making falsehood publication a criminal offence, mandating the removal of such news from platforms and websites, and/or ensuring that readers have access to facts. This achieves the crucial objective of deterrence, which non-regulatory measures mentioned above cannot achieve. The extent of Government involvement requires deep discussion. Heavy-handed legislation may backfire on the Government acting as judge, jury and executioner of what constitutes credible information. We may end up freezing free speech online. Legislation, if overly relied on, may also weaken the ability of society to educate themselves and discern what is real or not for themselves. It is clear that the challenges brought by deliberate online falsehoods are many and complex. You will notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have merely challenged two assumptions and reinforced two principles in the wake of these false assumptions.”
“To do this, we need to actively invest in any efforts to discern, filter, contain, disrupt or even punish deliberate Online Falsehoods. Perhaps, the solutions may be both legislative and relying on market forces. Stronger fact-checking/ self-regulation by social media sites and technology companies. Popular search engines and social media platforms, such as Google and Facebook, have been struggling for years to fight false news, despite their best intentions. For instance, in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting last October, despite Facebook and Google promising to inhibit such circulation, falsehoods, such as the identity and the affiliation of the shooter, still ran rampant. There is much room for improvement, especially when one reason is that the algorithm in these systems often bring attention to posts that get their readers' interests – exactly what falsehood is designed to do. If the post garnered 10,000 likes and shares, then, surely, it must be real, right? Wrong! And this is where numbers provide false safety. There is very little wisdom in crowds, or, at least, very little that we ought to take at face value when it comes to important decisions. Israel, for example, has proposed legislation requiring social networks to take reasonable measures to monitor their platforms for incitement to terrorism and to remove such incitement, or be liable to pay fines. Stronger fact-checking, self-regulation by society, by individuals. It is understandable that many people do not have the time, resources or energy to recognise and safeguard against falsehoods, before believing or sharing with others. Yet, self-policing in this manner is very much dependent on the ability of individuals to spot such news, to begin with.”
“But there is a deeper objection, Mr Deputy Speaker, about regulation of information. It argues that a Government does not have a right to decide beforehand what is true and what is false. That people have a right to all the facts, and if one set of fact is proved wrong, only then will they decide to change their decisions. This is the argument from the "marketplace of ideas" – that people will change their minds when the facts change. As Cicero, the great Roman orator said, "Does not, as fire dropped upon water is immediately extinguished and cooled, so, does not, I say, a false accusation, when brought in contact with a most pure and holy life, instantly fall and become extinguished?" Cicero, I think, did not have experience with "halal pork"! The answer to his question, whether falsehoods wither and die when exposed to the light of truth is, of course, no! Lies thrive and contest against the truth, even when the "truth" is as evident as where a man was born, or the amount of money spent on healthcare. In the post-truth world, the role of facts, unfortunately, has been shown to have less force then supposed. Instead of changing their minds when presented with a different set of facts, people may instead choose to disregard these facts or find ways to find new facts which support their pre-existing ideas. This confirmation bias is well-tested and should be taken into consideration when we make the marketplace argument. In short: False assumption 2 – people change their minds when presented with new facts, which leads me to Principle 2 – We have a duty to ensure, to the extent possible, that the marketplace of public discourse is not crowded out by falsehoods.”
“We know this in the same way we know it is bad to eat too much sugar, that exercise is good and sloth bad. We know and yet we do not do what we should; instead, quite often, we do what we should not. So, we need the vigilance of laws, regulations and due process. Being vigilant does not mean being undemocratic. We need to educate the community, let them know if the news comes from a certified source, and equip them to decide whether to read or share it. At the same time, we owe it to them, to ourselves to ensure that the environment under which such decision making takes place is as uncluttered with falsehoods as possible. Having regulations and due process also reduces our hiding behind the excuse of "honest mistakes". We make claims, and then, when proven false, we apologise and say, "we are all human". We did not intend to mislead, to misrepresent, our memories are faulty, and blah, blah, blah. Intentions aside, we all know that the consequences matter. Having a review of how we regard such falsehoods will raise the bar for due care in public discourse, and also, hopefully, reduce the instances of being reckless with the truth. We are all imperfect beings – and, hence, need to show that we have taken due care when we engage in public debates. If Singapore had four seasons, I would say winter is coming. Those who follow Game of Thrones, "winter is coming". Given that the assumption of infinite time and capacity is false, our first principle must be to reduce falsehoods as much as we can, to be vigilant and guard against the purveyors of such harmful things. In short: False assumption 1 – people have infinite time and capacity to make decisions. So, Principle 1 is – reduce falsehoods as much as we can.”
“Last year, too, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) had to step in and come out to debunk a Facebook video that alleged a coffee shop in Ang Mo Kio was selling "man-made eggs from China". False information will be the Pope's theme for his annual World Communications Day in 2018. I think, if the Pope deems falsehoods harmful enough to cause "polarisation" of public opinion, all the more should Singapore urgently formulate recommendations to curb the peddling of misinformation, the chaos and the additional costs it brings. We know of instances of brands' reputations tarnished by appearing on fake news websites and, unwittingly, funding their activities. Back in March last year, Havas Group UK, a media agency, decided to stop all its ad spending on Google and YouTube after ads for its clients appeared next to "questionable or unsafe content" online. Consequences go beyond dollars and cents into the very destiny of men. In the UK, voters for remain or exit voted on the basis of information later found to be false. Countries are hoping to sway online citizens to be one way or the other, vote one way or the other, pressure their governments one way or the other, using – not evidence or facts, but by casting fear, seeding doubt, and pressing emotional buttons. There are many of us who do not have the knowledge nor the time to sieve through falsehoods; this is exacerbated by the mode of delivery of such news. How easy it is to like, comment or share information these days. We owe a duty of care to the public, by presenting them with straight facts, we owe it to each other to be vigilant of misinformation. We need to be vigilant and alert to decipher masses of information thrown at them.”
“Just throwing all the "data" we have into a pot and then leaving people to distinguish between good and bad information makes the assumption that people have both the time and the capacity to do this. I do not mean "capacity" in the strict sense of expertise or education – I mean it in the loose sense of "inclination" – or whether we "can be bothered." Indeed, most people cannot be bothered. Declaring my interest as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NTUC FairPrice, FairPrice, too, has had its fair share of Online Falsehoods. So, according to information online, FairPrice, for example, sells "halal pork" and also "plastic rice". In 2007, FairPrice filed a police report after we found a picture of "halal pork", allegedly sold by stores, on the Internet. If the first person who saw this checked with us and deleted it, it would have died there. Instead, the news was carried in both the mainstream media as well as online news media, and caused a stir in the community, and rightly so. It was so widespread that Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) had to carry out physical checks. That was in 2007. It went viral again in 2011 and again in 2014, and FairPrice had to respond publicly that this was a 2007 hoax that had resurfaced. Even today, 10 years later, I still get messages asking me about this. So, for the last time, I hope, this is a deliberate online falsehood! Indeed, a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth gets out of bed. Just last year, FairPrice also had to file a police report over viral claims that its house brand jasmine fragrant rice is made of plastic.”
“New processes are needed because the status quo is based on two assumptions which we now know to be questionable. First, the assumption of infinite, or even adequate, time and capacity to process information. There might be one camp choosing to oppose this motion who may think "here we go again – mollycoddling us by restricting information for our sakes". Freedom of information has a nice ring to it, and restricting freedom always requires justification. "Don't treat us like little children", they say, unable to distinguish between truths and falsehoods. And, indeed, the argument from freedom goes further – even if we do make mistakes, it is our mistake to make. So, the Government should not – and should not want to – protect us from our mistakes. Surely, it is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, and if those decisions are mistaken, it is a matter of accepting the outcome of a democratic process. That is true. But it is also true that people have a right to expect that the political leaders that they have put in place carry a duty – to ensure that their decision making environment – that is, the people's decision-making environment – is not populated by intentional falsehoods. That their leaders not be blind to the dangers that such falsehoods can have on freedom of opinions, religions, races and genders. Also, it should be noted that we are restricting fraudulent information and not restricting information per se. In fact, I see countering falsehoods as a way to safeguard freedom of speech – by ensuring the conditions are in place for there to be meaningful and free debate. Falsehoods mislead, crowd out truths and prevent constructive debate and discourse.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the speakers before me who have given their views on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. One way to think about today's debate is whether we should adopt a paternalistic or a liberal stance towards false information per se – whether online or off. I think our discussion today should take bearing from the existing principles that already inform this House's views on falsehoods and truths – namely, the relatively uncontroversial principles that we should, first, reduce falsehoods as much as we can and, second, promote the truth as vigorously as we can. But as with so much in policy making, this is easier said than done. Deliberate Online Falsehoods cut across these two broad spectrums: (a) completely false information, photos or videos purposefully created and spread to confuse or misinform; (b) information, photos or videos manipulated to deceive, or old photographs shared as new. More than half of British users of social media surveyed have admitted that they fail to check the original source of online material before sharing or "liking" it. What about Singaporeans? A June 2017 survey by the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) found that around 25% of respondents shared information that they later discovered to be false. Around two-thirds could not recognise falsehoods when they first saw it and only half were confident of their ability to recognise falsehoods. Most of us admit that we cannot distinguish the truth from falsehoods. Mr Deputy Speaker, today I want to make a simple argument – that we now need more processes to safeguard the two principles that have underwritten our governance philosophy all these years and which I have spoken about earlier: reducing falsehoods and promoting truth.”
“Just a short supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Does one of the possible solutions of the leak management and technological programme include going into possible reduction of evaporation from reservoirs? Is that one of the measures being undertaken?”
“By way of comparison, section 403 of the Companies Act states that "[n]o dividend shall be payable to shareholders of any companies except out of profits". The definition of "profits" in the current practice for companies include accumulated surpluses. I note that both the Companies Act and the Co-operative Societies Act of 2009 do not specify whether dividends can be declared from accumulated surplus even if there is no surplus for the current year. I have also asked the Singapore National Co-operative Federation and they have told me that based on the recent three years' audited accounts, there were nine loss-making co-ops with positive reserves, that is, their dividends could have been drawn down from reserves and that there were 20 profitable co-ops that declared dividends of lower than 10%, which is the maximum allowable under the Co-operative Societies Act. All boards have fiduciary duties to perform and I think we should not be overly prescriptive in this regard. Where they have reasons to make such a recommendation, the members of the co-op also have a say in approving or rejecting such a recommendation. Where there are grounds for the Registrar of Societies to act against the cooperative or its board, I believe, with the proposed changes, the Registrar is empowered to do so. All things considered and for reasons stated above, I hope the Ministry can consider permitting drawdown from reserves for dividend payments and to incorporate this change in this amendment Bill. Notwithstanding these clarifications and proposed change, I support the amendments to the Bill.”
“Although I know it is possible for co-ops to seek exemption from the Registrar for a certain period of time as is currently practised, I think this is administratively cumbersome to monitor and keep track. In section 72(1) on distribution of net surplus, I note that there are no changes proposed. I believe that, currently, co-ops may only declare and pay dividends, patronage refund and honoraria, collectively referred to as distributions, only from the net surplus, if any, of the preceding financial year. Surpluses from other previous financial years, whether it is from accumulated surplus, retained earnings or their equivalent, cannot be used for distribution. I believe it would be useful for the Ministry to consider allowing a cooperative to pay dividends out of its accumulated net surplus if there is no surplus for that year in which the dividend is declared. I say this because this is consistent with the object of promoting the economic interest of its members and it is also consistent with the Companies Act requirement. Let me explain why this change is proposed. In the case of the NTUC group of co-operatives, they had historically been conservative in its dividend distributions, resulting in accumulation of net surpluses from past years. As is, 10% of share capital is the maximum allowable under the Co-operative Societies Act to be declared as dividends. Secondly, there could be a possibility of their net surplus in any year being negatively affected by accounting mark-to-market loss for financial investments that were made, although, operationally, the results from core business is healthy and making a profit. Under the current legislation, the co-op would not be able to declare a dividend even though their financials remain sound.”
“For example, the amendments in section 83 empower the Registrar to issue an order to wind up a cooperative if the Registrar is satisfied that the co-op has breached any of its terms and conditions of registration, varied or added under section 9A. Section 9A itself allows the Registrar to modify the terms and conditions of registration. Hence, technically, the Registrar will be given wide-ranging powers to wind up any co-op by modifying their terms and conditions of registration. Section 59A also empowers the Registrar to appoint up to two individuals to serve in the co-op's Committee of Management. I assume such appointments will only be done in exceptional cases and in consultation with the co-op concerned, whose consent should not be unreasonably withheld. I am raising this point to ensure that the independence of co-ops is not compromised when such powers are conferred to the Registrar. It would be a sad situation if a co-op is wound up against the wishes of its members. In section 59(6), the term "manager" has been replaced by "chief executive officer" (CEO). The duties of the secretary or treasurer should not be delegated only to the CEO. Instead, this could also be delegated to the chief financial officer (CFO) or the board secretary or the equivalent. The proposed flexibility in the delegation of duties is to reduce the administrative load on the CEO. I hope the Ministry will consider this. In section 57(3), there is no proposed change on voting mechanism in the case of election or removal of officers that is by secret ballot. However, I propose that this will be aligned to the Companies Act, which allows voting by show of hands.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest in my involvement in the co-operative sector for more than two decades. Specifically, I am the CEO of NTUC Fairprice Co-operative and was previously the Chairman of the Singapore National Co-operative Federation. Co-operatives make substantial contributions to our social goals, especially when the economic environments get challenging. We take our bearing from our social mission to benefit the members, communities and the societies that we operate in. In 2012, the United Nations General Assembly declared that year, 2012, as the International Year of Cooperatives, highlighting the important role of co-operatives to socioeconomic development, particularly their impact on poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration. Many of my colleagues had participated and contributed actively at the public consultation period in the first half of 2017. The Registry of Co-operative Societies (RCS) has taken into consideration most of the feedback given and incorporated these in the Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill that is being debated in Parliament today. Overall, I welcome the proposed legislative amendments that will further protect members' interests through raising governance standards of credit co-ops, facilitating their operations and enhancing regulatory powers. However, I would like to raise some remaining concerns. First, on the Registrar's enhanced powers, and these are in sections 9A, 16BB, 59A, 83, 94 and 94A. Taken together, I recognise that the intention of the Ministry is to better protect members' interests when the Committee of Management is not performing its duties properly or when there has been misconduct and mismanagement. However, I fear this intention may lead us to over-regulate.”
“Thank you. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State in particular about the maintenance orders that are meted out by the family Courts. Does the Ministry keep track of whether these are adhered to and, if not, are there ways which we could make it less painful, make it more seamless for those who are supposed to receive the payments but are not receiving them?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask a supplementary question to this question?”
“With regard to the issues that the Member asked relating to weekends, again, the Member will realise that because of this SSO availability, and also we see more and more grassroots organisations able to reach out to residents better, and we also received residents calling our ComCare number 1800-222-0000, it is something that I want to encourage every Member here to memorise and see how we can facilitate the process, just give a call and see how we can help fellow Singaporeans. So, while the numbers have decreased, it also shows that we have come to a situation whereby we are able to reach out and the numbers have stabilised in terms of the number of SSOs. We are in a position to be able to help Singaporeans when they need it. Also, we want to make sure that the lifestyle of caring becomes pervasive and it is a norm among Singaporeans. When I look at the figure, I feel very happy because while in terms of the situation that we have here, but yet we are able to reach out to fellow Singaporeans and make sure those who cannot find a job, we help them to find a job, and those who need help, we get not only our ComCare avenues to help, but get the community to help each and every one Singaporean.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Some clarifications. First, the slight drop, it goes against the revised criteria where the ComCare Assistance has been tweaked. In fact, the criteria have all gone up. So, I am a little bit surprised that the numbers have come down somewhat. I would also like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Social Service Offices (SSOs) which have been in operation for some time, whether the fact that they do not operate during weekends, is that something which should be reviewed as a way to reach out to the people who may need help, particularly during weekends? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank Mr Seah for the supplementary questions. Let me answer the second question first. The SSOs which have been developed over the years have come to a situation whereby the numbers have stabilised and we are able to reach out to be more accessible to fellow Singaporeans. If we look at the trends, there seem to be indications that because of the increase in accessibility and because of the nature that we work where it becomes pervasive, the numbers that we have seen, in fact, not only stabilised, but have decreased this year. And even though we made some changes to the criteria, nevertheless, there are areas whereby, because of the changes in the criteria, such as student care, the help that we give, there was an increase in the number of those who received help. Also, because of the increase in numbers as well as the criteria that are given, we are happy to be able to help our fellow Singaporeans.”
“Clerk of Parliament, I support the proposal. [(proc text) There being only one proposal, the Clerk then declared Mr Tan Chuan-Jin to have been duly elected as Speaker of this Parliament. (proc text)] [(proc text) Mr Speaker went to the Chair and sat down. (proc text)] [(proc text) Then, the Mace (which before laid below the Table) was placed on the Table. (proc text)] [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“A supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that prior to the award of the tender to OKP, they had a good 10-year track record. The most recent one, unfortunately, the findings were not complete and, therefore, it was not quite taken into account. My question to him is, while it is important to look into the 10-year track record, more weightage should be given to the recency effect, the most recent incident. I asked this earlier, he did not quite nail it down, I want to ask again. Would such things be instituted in future tender awards? This PQM really needs to be reviewed, taking into account that notwithstanding that most recent incidents have not been finalised, it must be taken as a factor, to be seriously deliberated and considered. I hope this will be factored in, going forward.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have a few questions for him. It pertains to how the contract was awarded to OKP for the tender. While I recognise that the outcome of the earlier incident was not finalised, the fact is that there was a fatality in the Yio Chu Kang Flyover project and there were three injuries as well. So, my question is − notwithstanding the two-envelope system, notwithstanding that the outcome of the earlier incident was not finalised − I contend and I want the Ministry's view on this, on whether this has to be taken into account, regardless of whether the report is still outstanding. The fact also is that the winning bid and the next winning bid were a massive 34% apart. I think these are alarm bells. I know we are always smarter with hindsight, but I think these are serious lessons, and serious enough that, going forward, the lessons should be put into practice. It should be documented and it should be instituted, so that future tenders on this two-envelope system adhere to the principle and intention of why we have a two-envelope system.”
“We are very committed to encouraging fathers to be part of the family development and child-raising process. As such, we have been reaching out to employers to develop family-friendly workplaces and environment. At the same time, there are all the different platforms and initiatives undertaken to provide opportunities for fathers to play a role, not only from Government, but also from community organisations. I am very heartened that Members like Mr Seah and Mr Louis Ng, and my own Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, are trying to promote active fathering. I think this is something that we should develop further. We should harness this within our society so that the whole spectrum of fathering becomes part and parcel of the process of family development. I believe this will help to strengthen our families and will somehow enhance the development of our society.”
“I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. A few supplementary questions. So, 11,300 applied in 2016. When I compare this with the corresponding figures for previous years, I note that there were 12,000-over in 2015, and about 11,900 in 2014. Percentage wise, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that it was 16% for 2016. This is a big drop from the earlier percentages of 25% in 2015 and 35% in 2014. To me, these figures do not look very encouraging. Why are fathers not applying? Or are employers not approving or not encouraging fathers to apply? What is the Civil Service going to do about it? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I shall clarify further. In my answer earlier, I mentioned that 11,300 fathers had applied and 16% is with regard to the whole number and the base that we have. If members look at the actual take-up rate, in fact, it has gone up. In 2014, we had about 38.5% take-up rate; in 2015, it was 44.1%; in 2016, as at to date, it is 35.7%. But like I said earlier, fathers have up to 12 months to take the paternity leave from the date of the birth of their child. On the other hand, the employer has three months more to submit the claims. The figures for 2015 and 2016 have not been finalised and we expect the figures to be higher. If you look back, the trend has been going up, and it is encouraging. As for the Civil Service, the 16% is with regard to the total applications. But if you look at the numbers and figures for the Civil Service, in fact, they have also been creeping up. As at to date, 91.4% of eligible fathers in the Civil Service have applied for this leave. Again, similar to what I said earlier, we have not reached the cut-off dates. We expect the percentage to go up further, which is very encouraging.”
“The Committee on the Future Economy recommended that Singaporeans continue to acquire and utilise deep skills. This need for continuous learning is also what the SkillsFuture initiative encourages and supports. Therefore, it is important for the public sector workforce to adapt a vigorous appetite for lifelong learning and pick up skills relevant for new roles. How will the Government ensure that Public Service officers have the right skills to deliver public services effectively? 3.00 pm I am also interested to know, beyond just developing Public Service officers, how the Government intends to support its officers. The Public Sector is Singapore's largest employer and sets the tone for people practices across industries. How will the diverse and inclusive sector provide all its employees, especially the older officers, with the necessary support to perform to their fullest potential? Finally, the ever important dictum to do more with less. As portions of roles within the Civil Service get outsourced, we should end up with a trimmer and leaner workforce. Still, how do we instil the spirit and standards of innovation in the Civil Service workforce nonetheless? I hope the Minister can address these concerns of mine. Before I end, I also wish to ask of us, both inside and outside the House, that we should also acknowledge the good work and high standards that our Public Service is known for and delivers consistently. It is always easy to critique and pick on every mistake, every misstep. Let us give credit where credit is due. Let us be gracious in our criticism. Carbon Tax”
“I would like to ask the Minister how can we review our legislative and regulatory processes, to incentivise and facilitate innovation, while mitigating compliance costs. Technology has transformed the way citizens live, work and interact with one another. Many services and businesses have shifted to the digital space, with more transactions now happening online via desktop or mobile, and younger citizens are more at ease and satisfied with usage of online Government services. Recently, I read that, at JP Morgan, a software programme can review contracts that had previously required hundreds of thousands of hours of lawyers' time. I can imagine the nervous lawyers rethinking their billable hours, but I think this is an incredible leap forward and will certainly raise the expectations of JP Morgan clients. We can, and should, harness the power of technology for public ends. With the increased expectations come pressure on the whole-of-Government to meet higher expectations. The ability to understand and harness technology to serve citizens better is the crux of this transformation of the public sector, and I do not mean just digitising existing processes and services to go paperless. The whole-of-Government needs to leverage on the power of digital technologies and data to fundamentally re-imagine and transform our capabilities. So, I wish to ask the Minister what is the Government doing to build such strategic capabilities while circumventing legislative, security and privacy concerns, and how can these translate into better outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans? Lastly, I want to end with the public official himself. Technology will re-invent business models and affect existing jobs. We also expect roles within the public sector to change and evolve.”
“First, we need the different parts of the Public Service to work cohesively together, with a more integrated approach, to deliver more coherent services to citizens; second, we need to harness new technologies to better serve the public; and third, having the right skills to deliver public service effectively. Singapore has become a very complex place to govern. Population and climate change are cross-cutting issues whose impacts are probably felt in the long run, and not now. We have the "whole-of-Government" as an organising concept which is fine and sounds very efficient, but really, can we and should we mobilise the whole-of-Government to address a single issue? The truth is, we can but we cannot do so without recognising that there are tensions between different organisational forms. There are domain experts, and there are issue experts. We need the PUB to work on water, but we need them also to work with NParks, MND, HDB, BCA and a whole alphabet soup of agencies. The following questions come to mind: how is the whole-of-Government working together today to ensure that we are addressing them adequately and well? How are the different Government agencies convening to discuss trade-offs and make decisions that are in Singapore's and our citizens' best interests? To take a step back, it may not even be the Government holding the sole key to these decisions; these challenges will need to be tackled at a whole-of-Singapore level. The Government needs to be able to partner with, and harness the innovative spirit of Singaporeans, businesses and so on, so that we can move ahead together. There is still more room for the Public Service to be bold and innovative. We can, for example, reduce carbon emissions across all sectors in a most cost-effective way.”
“Mdm Chairan, I had previously spoken about the need for civil servants to have thick skin at a time when more is expected, more is demanded and less is tolerated. We have seen how ugly people − all over the world, not just in Singapore − can get, when they forget the basic grace and decency that make us human. We have also seen the best among us, the brilliant, the faithful, the generous. The Public Service works with the many publics when they design and implement policies. The Service works in a world where people with compassion and magnanimity live cheek by jowl with the perverse and the mendacious. The best, and the worst among us, and all those in between; it is a daunting task. The Civil Service needs to work in a world where regressions show you significant factors, where evidence-based policy-making requires you to review data and test assumptions. The Service also needs to work in a world where there is more demand than supply of resources. The Ministers move the Bills, we in this House debate, but the Service must take a considered view. Previously, we had PS21, a change movement launched in 1995 to prepare and transform the public sector to be future-ready for challenges and innovate to seize opportunities. In 2012, the Public Service embarked on a journey of Public Sector Transformation to evolve their approaches with a laser focus on the citizen and community, to realise the vision of "One Trusted Public Service with Citizens at the Centre". Today, transformation must continue. And more intensely so. There are three areas which I think we ought to consider: how to work together, how to work better, and, finally, how to develop public officers.”
“The Finance Minister has said that he will set aside funds for "diverse social spaces where people can come together, create shared experiences and forge stronger bonds." In that, money must go towards large projects, such as Jurong Lake Gardens. But I suggest that we also think of small spaces, of giving support to community green clubs, of allowing social groups and civil societies to flourish within their own homes, towns and districts, and to educate residents on the need to make room for trees, birds and wildlife within our urban environment. In the age of the Anthropocene, where human activity can be seen as the dominant influence on climate and the environment, we need to grow even greener, to keep our waters even bluer. The alternative is to be breathing in more polluted air, greenery around us turning to brown dirt, and sweating in the heat of global warming. We should be ready to pay the price for our industrial actions, whether it be in the form of increased water tariffs or by changing the way we live and behave. Madam, I support the Budget.”
“These include embedding towns and homes with smart technology and eco-friendly features, reducing reliance on cars by building up the public transport system and encouraging cycling, encouraging sustainable business practices and achieving zero-waste by encouraging recycling and reducing consumption. Many countries have had to balance a trade-off between development and environmental sustainability. In China, decades of rapid growth have been accompanied by severe air pollution. Singapore appears to have achieved both economic development and environmental sustainability at the same time. But as our Prime Minister noted during its launch, a large part of the Blueprint's success will depend on the collective action among individuals to adopt green practices in their daily lives, as well as build up new norms of sustainability within their communities. The environment is a common pool enjoyed by everyone. It can only be protected through the efforts of everyone. Environmental sustainability is truly a collective effort that begins with the individual but has important implications for our collective future as a community. There is no going round it. We must take the first steps in order to ensure a cleaner, greener and more comfortable living environment for ourselves. Water can be priced, but clean air cannot. Clean gardens cannot. Trees cannot. Wild roosters cannot. We cannot expect our children to grow up respecting nature and being willing to pay for clean air, clean water, to live together with trees and wild animals and insects if we do not, in our policy decisions, underline the importance of these voiceless stakeholders in the use of our public spaces and financial resources.”
“Mdm Speaker, these things are not learnt by increasing water bills from $30 a month to $35 or even $40. They are learnt by personal experience and emotions. I, therefore, ask the Government, the Minister, to consider introducing periodic water rationing. It is not a new suggestion but one that has a special salience in the light of this year's Budget. I suggest we do this, not during droughts, but during "peace time" as it were, following the footsteps of countries, such as Australia, where they are called "water restrictions". This is an inoculation against the environmental realities that are to come. This brings me to my second point. In 2016, Singapore joined more than 120 countries to ratify the Paris Agreement. It was a formal commitment to combat global warming and reduce climate change. Singapore pledged to cut emission intensity by 36%, that is, below 2005 levels, by 2030 and to stabilise emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. In this Budget, the carbon tax can be seen as part of a larger movement towards addressing the effects of climate change and other environmental challenges. Being densely populated and urbanised, Singapore is highly vulnerable to abrupt changes in the environment. The carbon tax brings Singapore in line with other countries as well as our regulatory environment for businesses. But I urge the Finance Minister to think also of the impact of mass human behaviour in this and bring into play the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint two years ago. The Blueprint takes a long-term approach to greening Singapore by committing $1.5 billion over the next five years, in support of the several programmes under the Blueprint.”
“Since then, we have had no water rationing, not because we have not had severe droughts but because our systems are now far more resilient. But research at the Institute of Water Policy at the National University of Singapore (NUS) has shown that such "resilience" should be interpreted with care. In 2014, Singapore experienced a two-month drought. It was more severe, in fact, than 1964. In fact, that month of February was the driest month since 1869, with near-zero rainfall. In neighbouring Malaysia, water rationing was implemented in Johor, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. In nearby Thailand, 20 provinces were declared drought disaster areas. In Singapore, there was no rationing and, in fact, water consumption increased by 5%. The researchers found that this has crucial implications for the city's water security. Extreme weather events, including heavy rainfall and exceptionally dry periods, are projected to occur more frequently for the Southeast Asia region as a whole. Droughts will become more likely. Historical data has shown that Malaysia and Singapore, as a region, has experienced severe droughts in 19 of the past 150 years. The probability of any year being part of such an event is 13%. We need, therefore, not just to prepare for everyday scenarios, but to ensure that our people are psychologically strong. Resilience, therefore, not just in systems but in our people. Singaporeans born after 1964 have never experienced water rationing. I think there are a few Members of Parliament who have not gone through that experience. They do not know the experience of having to go without water or bear the weight of 130 litres of water that we would need if we take a long shower of 15 minutes.”
“At least 30% because prices charged do not reflect the capital costs of the water and the wastewater system. PUB has said that it will be spending $4 billion from 2017 to 2021 on water infrastructure. The second objection is tied to the first − that raising the water price will hit the poor heavily while the rich will still be able to use as much water as they want. First, raising the price of water to reflect its true cost, I believe, is a fairer system than subsidising it willy-nilly. But we can and should raise tariffs without burdening the poor. In this case, the Government has proposed increasing prices in such a way that ensures burdens fall lightest on the poorest. One- and 2-room HDB flat owners will, in fact, see no increase in their bills at all. Last, I want to address the limits of water pricing. As policymakers, we use price for many things − we use it as an incentive, as a tax, as a signal on how much we value things. But water pricing is quite difficult. A household of five in Singapore pays $30 a month for water − 0.04% of the median income. Each month, for many of us, our handphone bill costs more than our water bill. Using price alone to motivate people to save water, I believe, is not going to work. Water consumption per capita has stayed roughly the same since the last price increase. It was 165 litres in 2003 and it has gone down a little bit to 151 litres today. It may be that the increase in price may reduce water consumption but I believe we would need something else to bring home the value of water. I started my speech by referring to the 1963 speech by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The year after, in 1964, Singapore held a water rationing exercise. It was to be our last such exercise.”
“His opponents at the time accused him of not doing enough to provide for water and promised to solve the problem by quickly expanding pipelines to run more water from Johor − disregarding the fact that it takes years to build pipes and that thirst kills in those days. Of course, the fact that we live in the tropics also means that rains are likely to come before the pipes were completed. During the speech, Mr Lee also spoke about engineering works, reservoirs and the need to ensure a long-term supply of water by negotiating water agreements. It was only after the agreements had been signed, he said, that works on expanding the pipelines began. Water was, and remains, a long-term engineering and infrastructural public good but its impact can be felt in the very short term and is, in fact, a highly political good. In the time since the announcement of the water price, detractors have lost no time in politicising the issue. I will address the two myths that have come up in the past two weeks, show how they are false and state my support for raising the water price, with the corresponding help extended to various households through the U-Save and Goods and Services Tax (GST) vouchers. First, there have been accusations that the Government is making money off water. Some of us may have received messages that PUB is making $166 million of profits a year. Nothing can be further from the truth. In 2012, the then-Environment Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had said that the Government pays $1.3 billion a year to run the system but collects only about $1 billion in water tariffs − marginal charges − and water borne and sanitary fees − these are fixed charges. In simple terms, we could say that water is thus subsidised by at least 30%.”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Budget, which takes into account very large issues for Singapore going forward − water, environment, climate change adaptation. I would like to speak on water first, making two points. First, why I think the revised water tariffs are a fairer mechanism than our current pricing system and should, therefore, be supported; and, second, why I think water pricing is a limited instrument in reflecting the true value of water, especially in the high uncertain future which lies ahead. After 17 years, the PUB has finally recommended an increase in water price. In the past 10 years alone, the price of electricity has increased by 22%. The price of water has, in fact, fallen by 25% in real terms since 2000. In the meantime, the cost of supplying water has more than doubled. The last time we raised the water price, it was against the background of an intense price negotiation with Malaysia over the price of water. At the time, it was truly an existential issue. But I would argue it has been so since our Independence and will be so as long as Singapore remains a small island of no more than 700-plus square kilometres with not enough land for the graves of our ancestors, the training of our armed forces, and, yes, the large catchment areas needed to store water. In 1963, we were dependent on Malaysia for three-quarters of our water supply. In that year, in his Fullerton Rally speech before the General Elections, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew spoke of water. He had to because it was a hot issue during the elections, which were held in the middle of a drought.”
“Just a question for the Minister of State. Some years back, we rolled out the Family Medicine Clinics. I would like to ask, as we have piloted it for a while, what is the outcome of this? Are we going to see more of this or are we putting a stop to it?”
“I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. It is heartening to know that the numbers have come down. Just a few supplementary questions. Amongst these individuals who are homeless, do we also know of those who may have a foreign spouse and are not covered under the 176 cases that are being monitored? If there are, what can MSF do? My next question is, that there are many concerned members of the public out there when they see such individuals. So, is there a particular hotline which they could call and the Ministry can then activate the resources to render help to these groups of people or individuals? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, this is about being human, about taking care of one another. Regardless of whether you are Singaporean or otherwise, if you find someone who is homeless, I think the reaction is to just go and see how we can help them. I assure the Member that we have staff who also walk the ground to look at how we can help people in Singapore who are without homes. About which number to call, they can call our ComCare hotline and we will direct the necessary help their way as much as possible.”
“I have just one clarification for the Minister. I note the increase in the number of fathers who have taken up paternity leave – it is a 10% increase, from 38% to 42%. I urge the Minister to look into the underlying reasons for the low take-up to get to the source. Indeed, we all want to make sure that the two-week mandated paternity leave will be fully taken up. But I think Page: 72 if we do not address the source, we are not going to get there. So, I urge the Minister to look seriously into this.”
“The Government cannot stop this ceaseless race, these endless comparisons that parents subject their children to. People accuse the Government of setting up high-stress exams; I say, it is neither the Government nor the schools which put the stress on children – it is the parents. Parents blame the PSLE not because it is an exam, but I believe it is because it is a nation-wide exam – one that allows a child in Woodlands to compare himself against another in Chancery Lane, against another in Bishan. Once we take away the common points of comparison, the argument goes, we no longer have this frenzy. Perhaps so, the comparisons can actually stop right now. They stop when we, as parents, stop. When we look, as we should, at child development in a manner that takes into account their health, growth and well-being. Page: 53 Mdm Speaker, this is what today's Bill was meant to be. It was tabled because we, the legislators, want to encourage young Singaporeans to have babies, to experience the joys of parenthood, to dream and love and cry over the little lives that come out of a happy union. Today, we can amend the law to better fulfil these ambitions, but it will take many more tomorrows because we can change the world into a better place for the children of Singapore. To do that, we need more than just the law. We need to rethink what it means to be a parent, what it means to support our children's development. Madam, I support the Bill. 2.48 pm”
“Indeed, it took some time coming but I am glad that through the persistent efforts of many Members of Parliament, including those who have retired, the Government has listened and answered our call. Still, I am wondering if more can be done for this group of single unwed mothers with plans to improve other aspects of unwed mothers' lives, like entitling them to receive the $8,000 Baby Bonus Cash Gift, and allowing them to rent or, even better, own a roof over their heads from HDB. Is MSF supportive of improving housing options to this group, although I know this comes under MND's purview? Imagine the stress of a pregnant, unwed mother having to deal with basic housing issues on her own, in an undignified manner and unable to feel a sense of security, nor provide a secure environment for her child once he or she is born. Madam, if I may, I think after this large step of granting greater equality to single parents, this is perhaps the last step the Government ought to take with regard to parenting, for a while at least. I have, for many times in the past, argued for the Government to do less and for the people to do more. In this, family life, children and how we define success, not just as parents, not just for our children, we need people, society and individuals to decide whether it is time to reset our highly competitive and academically-focused norms. The Government can and should put in place Bills like the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill. We should give greater support to fathers. We should continue to give greater support for adoptive mothers. We should most certainly give even much more support for single unwed mothers. But this is only half the story, and perhaps the easier half of child development.”
“Mdm Speaker, it seemed not so long ago that quite a few Members of Parliament and I had appealed for more support for fathers to be active in the child-raising process and where this show of support was manifested in the form of one week's legislated paid paternity leave in 2013. In fact, I recall speaking for this in Parliament for six consecutive years. I am thus delighted that the Government has now decided to mandate the second week of Government-paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) to be effective from January next year. It is a double celebration for me, both as a Board Member of the Centre for Fathering and as the Government Parliamentary Committee chair for MSF. Many new parents I know welcome the slew of measures as lending weight to nurture a generation of caring fathers and purging the traditional mindset of the woman as de-facto caregiver for newborns. Page: 52 It is, indeed, good news that shared parental leave has increased from one to four weeks. However, it is still up to the mother whether to decide to share her maternity leave with the father. Placing the decision in the mother's hands seems like a mixed signal from the Government. When sharing leave is still left to parents to decide, I am not sure if the take-up rate by fathers will be as rapid as we would like. As is – I asked a Parliamentary Question on this a few months ago – I note that the number of paternity leave fully taken up by eligible fathers has not been as high as one would expect. Perhaps, the next step is to consider independent leave for each parent. I also welcome the amendments to extend maternity leave benefits to unwed mothers and unwed persons who wish to adopt. This is a very significant move and much welcomed by all single mothers.”
“Well, first of all, we represent the majority. In highlighting any concerns, I think it is important, first, to state upfront who we represent and, if there are any conflicts of interest, that should be declared upfront.”
“I do not have any particular issue but I am just stating that there could be different interest groups that may make their cases known to a particular NCMP for them to take up his case. And, in effect, that Member then basically is just putting forth an agenda on that basis.”
“Mdm Speaker, I am not saying that all NCMPs represent special interest. I am just highlighting the potential danger of that and, in those aspects, to just pay attention to that area.”
“To add on, it will also be prudent of the PEC to consider a process that allows Singapore Citizens to register their objections to the Committee on that candidate's nomination. On the Prime Minister's announcement on tweaks to the NCMP scheme, I have some reservations on the voting rights. Given their nominated status, I feel that NCMPs do not have the mandate of the people. Hence, I am of the view that there is no basis to grant them full voting rights as elected MPs. However, since I fought hard for my seat in a GE, I could, of course, be thought to be biased. I, therefore, would not object to this but instead urge a closer review of the consequences of full voting rights and the danger of allowing NCMPs who may represent special interest to vote on Page: 64 matters of national interests. Of course, in many cases, the two may not conflict, but one can imagine that in those few that they do, difficulties may arise. We have always had a unique take to racial harmony that cannot be found in other nations. We believe that it takes careful, deliberate and calibrated interventions plus policies on our part to make racial harmony a reality in Singapore and leaving nothing to chance or fate. I have spoken about the legislative innovations in GEs to keep faith with both the legitimacy that derives from a popular process, while ensuring fairness in this process. In the same way, I consider today's debate on the Elected President as part of our singular and Singaporean way of dealing with race relations. In this and in so much more, we are guided by the phrase which our children pledge themselves to every school day – may our hopes and dreams bring Singapore every success. "Cita-cita kita yang mulia;berjaya Singapura!"”
“Using the $500 million benchmark, I believe about 700 companies are still eligible to nominate their most senior executives to be the country's next Elected President. Hence, the potential candidates that can come from this pool is still sizeable. Promise: berjaya Singapura. Second, I feel that Singapore has now come of age, with a large pool of Singaporeans with deep links and affinity to this country. Hence, I believe that we should consider only Presidential candidates who are born in Singapore, in contrast to those who have taken up citizenship along the way. In addition, we look up to a President as a symbol of unity to the nation. Currently, the required qualifications as stated in our Constitution are: being a citizen of Singapore, and not below the age of 45. I feel the candidate's age can be set higher, at not below the age of 50. I think the new 50 is the old 45. A potential Presidential candidate now applies to PEC for a certificate of eligibility. In turn, the PEC is tasked to ensure that a candidate fulfils the necessary qualifications of integrity, good character and reputation set out in the Constitution, before the certificate of eligibility is issued. The task on them is crucial, to mitigate the dangers of candidates who over-promise and over-commit beyond legislative provisions if they are elected, and having a process to deal with this. If the candidate is found, for whatever reason, intentional or not, to have delivered inaccurate information attesting to his qualifications, can the PEC consider a process to rescind the certificate of eligibility and disqualify that candidate? This is not of course something that we expect, only something we must guard against.”
“But given that the purpose of the Elected President is to block the squandering of our Reserves, we need to relook the WP and other parties' objection to today's Bill. Let me ask: who can object to a President who wants to prevent a populist rundown of Reserves? Who would do that except for people who may have plans to run this down? This may seem to be a hypothetical parlour game, but I assure you, for shareholders of any company whose reserves in their company or for residents whose reserves in their Town Councils have been run down, this is not. Fiduciary responsibility may seem to be a boring game, something that we expect and take for granted. But I assure you, for the people of a country with Page: 63 nothing but its Reserves, it is deadly serious. Singapore's Reserves have been built up over 50 years. In that time, we have had reason to call upon its use only once. We ought to be fearful of any party that thinks it will face the risk of running it down in its first term, and, moreover, that it will be calling for its use in such contestable situations that the President and his Council will feel obliged to block it. Mdm Speaker, the Government has accepted the Commission's proposal to revise the amount to $500 million in shareholders' equity, from $100 million in paid-up capital, as it is probably a better measurement indicator of the financial complexity of the organisation led by the private sector candidate. Given today's inflation and financial landscape versus 25 years ago, the previous requirement is no longer adequate to ensure that candidates have the fiscal savvy to hold the second key to the Reserves. In fact, throwing in the political complexity of today's world would mean that the eligibility criteria need to be updated significantly.”
“It is because we hold true to that ideal that we must make rules, knowing that we are not playing at some Platonic form of a game, but in the very real world. This hiatus-triggered principle is an example of Singapore's semangat yang baru, a legislative innovation that shows how seriously Singapore takes equality among races. Today, this need to ensure that all races have a part in national life has been corrupted by accusations that the revisions in the law are part of a political chess game. So, to gainsay these critics, I ask that the changes come into effect in phases: perhaps, the revised eligibility criteria before the next Presidential Election and the reserved election provision to be only after the next Presidential Election. Do we need an Elected President? There are those who take advantage of this debate to re-open old lines of argument. They say that we do not need an Elected President because the President is an alternative centre of power and blocking the Government could create gridlock in our policy-making. Some political party had in the past said that the Elected President undermines Parliamentary democracy, because the office is similarly popularly elected and the veto power effectively gives one person the power to stop an elected government from its work. These objections are based on a wilful ignorance of the clarifications of the role of the Elected President I have laid out above. A close reading of the Bill should put these to rest. Mr Low Thia Khiang says that the WP objects to the Elected Presidency because it "could potentially cripple a non-PAP government in its first term". On the face of it, they said that the "crippling" is caused by the President blocking replacements to some of the key appointment holders.”
“What then is the role of popular elections within this statement of purpose? In a way, the rules of Presidential Elections are analogous to those Singapore has adopted for all our political processes. We know that the processes of voting and popular election are subject to human biases and we need, therefore, to ensure that the best man or best woman has a chance of being in office despite these biases. Singaporeans have a pragmatic job scope for our President. We are more concerned that the Presidential candidates have the necessary experience and acumen to safeguard the nation's Reserves than his race. Saying this, however, does not mean we step down and say, "Okay, this is a free-for-all popular contest. If race does not matter, then surely it does not matter that, yet again, Page: 62 a Chinese is elected president". Here, it is important to understand what being race-blind means. It means that no one should be prevented from high office because of his race, no one should be discriminated from any office or job because he is a Malay, Indian, Eurasian or Chinese. It does not mean that we, therefore, treat all races the same in all aspects of life. The Americans took many years before they elected a Catholic President. Many more, before they elected an African-American. And they are an older democracy than we are. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, even in 2008, the vote for Obama was markedly along racial lines. It would be naive to think that after just 50 years of nationhood, we are race-blind when it comes to politics. It is thus that I support these amendments and, in particular, the hiatus-triggered principle because equality of races is not a given.”