Viswa Sadasivan
Singapore
“Having met some of the faculty and students of SOTA, I am confident the ideas that are likely to be catalysed will be fresh, bold and surprising! The NAC programme could have SOTA alumni coming together to apply for funding directly from NAC, or it could be more structured such that applications would be processed through SOTA.”
“Worse, there could be a transfer of cost, resulting in a further rise in inflation. As such, it would be useful if the Government could consider a six-month delay in implementing the foreign worker levy whilst sticking to the end date.”
“Sir, I see the value of ethnic category-based results to ethnic self-help groups, for example. Could the Ministry consider at the mass media level when the information is released to the general public – in other words, the announcement to the public – that it is presented as a whole instead of being divided along ethnic lines…”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response as well as the assurance he has provided. I am just wondering if the Government would be able to give further assurance to the ground, and in particular netizens, some of whom were concerned that this particular act of gazetting the TOC is politically motivated.”
“I brought up the minimum wage scheme as a proposal that I feel requires further debate, whether within Cabinet or outside. I am urging that before we push it aside or say that it may not be effective in our society – there are valid reasons for that argument as well – I am urging that we look at it once more, review it once mo…”
“Could the Minister give his opinion as to whether there is a correlation between the number of people who have registered and the convenience or inconvenience factor in voting? In some countries, I gather that Singaporeans living abroad have to travel seven hours to get to a polling station.”
The complete record
Every one of 174 lines we hold for Viswa Sadasivan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“If we do not drive initiatives such as this, the cultural and language divides could deepen with the non-Tamil speaking Indians watching more India based Hindi channels and not relating to the majority Tamil speaking members of the community. This will not happen naturally – the encouragement and impetus need to come from Government. Gracious city”
“Vasantham became a dedicated Tamil language TV channel in late 2008. A key objective was to increase viewership and loyalty, in the wake of competition from India based channels on SCV. While this seems to have worked to some extent with homegrown Tamil-speaking Singaporeans, it appears that Indian PRs and new citizens are still drawn to India-based TV channels. For non-Tamil speaking Indians – both new immigrants as well as home grown Singaporeans – India-based Hindi channels such as ZEE TV and Sony Entertainment appear to be the draw. This does not augur well for efforts to integrate the ethnic Indian community in Singapore. Vasantham can play a stronger role in engaging all ethnic Indians, especially the new immigrants. Firstly, there should be more programmes designed to reach out to the new immigrants. This could be through themes that strike a chord, or formats, such as quiz programmes, that seem to fascinate immigrant Indians. Secondly, Vasantham needs to proactively seek out talent amongst new immigrants. By involving some of these highly talented individuals, not only are we engaging new immigrants, it will be a shot-in-the-arm for the quality of local programming. Thirdly, I suggest half-hour English language programming three times a week on Vasantham – these slots will carry talk shows, interview programmes and info-educational programmes that will bring non-Tamil speaking ethnic Indians into the loop. The issues discussed will be relevant to the Singapore Indian community. And this is much needed as presently there is no such common TV space to address all members of the Indian community as a whole.”
“My second suggestion, Sir, is that we need to strengthen the social security of homegrown Singaporeans – this is not a new area. We have been paying a lot of attention to this for decades now, and especially after 9/11. Our leaders constantly remind us not to take our racial and religious harmony for granted. It is important to continue to assure Singaporeans, especially those who are in the minority, or are disadvantaged, that they do matter. You need this reassurance before you are comfortable accepting newcomers where there might be the further risk or at least perceived risk of you being relegated to a position further down the food chain. Similarly, we need to find ways to deepen the rootedness of Singaporeans. In this regard, I feel we have quite a way to go. We desperately need to find more radical and engaging ways of imbibing this sense of belonging, especially in our young. We can afford to have more closed-door heart-to-heart discussions on thorny, sensitive, even taboo issues. Sir, in conclusion, we have started planning the infrastructure, water and other material needs of a 6.5 million population down the road. Yes, we must be prepared to adapt and modify in some ways, but who we are as a society and what we stand for at the core must remain sacrosanct. And home grown citizens must feel assured of this before being comfortable playing host. I hope that as MCYS and National Integration Council (NIC) create ways to integrate PRs and new citizens, we do not ignore the need to build the social compact amongst home grown citizens.”
“The National Integration Council (NIC) was formed last year to seek ways to better integrate, in particular, the permanent residents (PRs) and new citizens with home grown citizens and into Singapore society. The challenge of integration is exacerbated during times of economic strife – where scarcity deepens social and economic insecurities. Home grown citizens tend to be more sensitive when the chips are down economically, socially and politically. So even as we put our heads together to find ways to better integrate new immigrants, it is important that we do not lose focus or attention on strengthening the level of comfort, confidence and contentment amongst home grown citizens. We need to be stronger at the core. I have two suggestions. Sir, firstly, we need to strengthen the material and economic security of home grown Singaporeans. The Government has done a decent job in this area but we cannot let up. There are clearly issues that appear to bother Singaporeans. Affordability of HDB flats – this issue has been brewing for several months now, especially amongst the younger generation. As long as this remains an issue, it will not help Singaporeans accept new immigrants, especially since quite a few see them as the key cause of this problem. Similarly, the issue of competition for jobs – this is a perennial issue, but one that comes into sharper relief when people are losing jobs or are afraid that they would not be able to find jobs. It is by no means an easy issue to address, especially since there are many competing stakeholders in Singapore. Even as we deal with the numbers and logic, it is important that we do not ignore, or worse, push aside the emotions around the issue, which may seem irrational or even indulgent to some.”
“Sir, I must say that I am pretty impressed by what I have heard from MOE yesterday and today. Obviously a lot of thought has gone into it. My clarification pertains to pre-school education, so it is directed at the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Masagos. I am curious as to why the 350 children who did not go to primary school were uncontactable. Could he tell us the circumstances? I find it very difficult to understand why or how in a country such as Singapore, we cannot contact the family. Secondly, this is a question that I have raised before in Parliament. Given the fact children who do not have the opportunity for pre-school education are disadvantaged when they go to Primary 1 – unless they are home tutored – I cannot quite understand the hesitation in making pre-school education compulsory in Singapore.”
“– pretty much a coast downhill. Thank you. Character building and role of parents”
“Third, involving the Alumni more meaningfully – alumni are a rich resource waiting to be invited back "home". It is a shame if we cannot see beyond fund raising when we think of alumni. I remember when I was in school in RI most of the sports teams were trained by highly committed, passionate old boys – and I think we did fairly well then in sports. We seem to have lost this tradition, unfortunately. I would like to conclude by acknowledging that this is not an easy challenge to tackle, and the Ministry of Education has been paying a lot of attention to it for sometime. Nevertheless we have to be unrelenting in our effort as, to a large extent, the quality of Singaporeans is dependent on how well we imbibe character and resilience in our young, not just knowledge and skills which, increasingly, in my view, are just hygiene factors. I would like to end by quoting Barry Schwartz, a renowned psychologist whose thoughts on the link between economics and psychology and education are gaining traction. He said, and I quote: "Teachers should strive to be the ordinary heroes, the moral exemplars, to the people we mentor. The single most important thing kids need to learn is character. They need to learn to respect themselves. They need to learn to respect their schoolmates. They need to learn to respect their teachers. And, most important, they need to learn to respect learning." That is the principal objective –”
“To give principals and teachers even more time to focus on teaching and character building, I have a few suggestions: Engage a professional CEO for each school – we now have a strong pool of retired corporate CEOs and others with credible management experience and network that would prove invaluable in the administrative, financial, business development, marketing, PR and fund raising aspects of running schools. There could be two leaders in each school – the CEO, who would be the administrative head, and the Head Master or Mistress who has the final say on all academic and pedagogical matters. This is a system that is similar to that practice in many hospitals where the CEO is a non-medical professional who, on medical issues, takes the cue from the Chairman, Medical Board – a seasoned medical practitioner. From what I understand, the system has worked well in hospitals. By engaging experienced, retired personnel to be CEOs and possibly hold other positions in schools – not only do you allow teachers more time to teach as non-core tasks are taken off their plate, you also give experienced retirees another meaningful way of contributing. Of course, there are principals today who have strong management abilities and if they are interested in that career path, naturally they should be given the opportunity. Greater community involvement – this is a core practice in many western countries, where individuals, groups (possibly NGOs) and corporate entities in the locale contribute extensively to the school. Some schools in Singapore do this, but often on an ad hoc basis. Schools could have stronger outreach programmes to make the community feel more welcome and participate in formal programmes such as adoption of specific initiatives.”
“This has had a lasting impression on me. Yes, I was fortunate to have a teacher like Mr Tang. But today, I am not sure if the same Mr Tang would have the time, the energy to do the same thing – given the pace of life and the workload that teachers have. Over the years, the Ministry of Education has introduced measures to free-up time for teachers to interact with students. The "Teach Less, Learn More" initiatives, the adjunct teacher and teaching aid schemes and having retired senior officers from the SAF to become operational managers and VPs in schools are examples. Yet, I am still meeting teachers who seem frustrated by the amount of administrative and other non-core duties that leave them with too little time and energy, let alone to interact with students to teach them. The non-core activities cited by teachers include NE lessons and activities, planning and organising special activities and events such as school visits by VIPs, Speech Day, career festivals, entrepreneurship workshops and formalised community engagement activities. In addition, some teachers tell me they are also roped in for marketing and PR initiatives in the school. While they acknowledge the need for these activities and the importance, they seem frustrated by the opportunity cost, which is less quality time with the students. In fact, even some school principals, I get the sense, would prefer more time to focus on improving the teaching and character building aspects instead of the administrative aspects of their jobs.”
“The "Goh Report" of 1979, authored by a team led by the then Minister for Education, Dr Goh Keng Swee, heralded the introduction of the New Education System which has been the basis of our education till today. The expressed purpose was to "eliminate wastage" in education and increase employability. Indeed, the education system achieved both, and today has earned respect especially for its systematic approach and rigour in delivering results. The New Education System has served us well thus far, but it is increasingly evident that it may not be enough in preparing us for the present and especially future challenges, where what is certain is uncertainty. We need a new breed of people, especially young people, with abilities to cope with adversity and to succeed, not just technical skills. Definitely, if we want to boost productivity and have greater innovation – we need to produce more lateral thinkers, problem solvers and, very importantly, a lot more people who take pride in what they do and think beyond just themselves. The key desired outcome of education today, therefore, would be to inspire a confident, self assured and driven young population, with skills to analyse, the propensity to come up with out-of-the-box solutions, and that is socially conscious. This spells character and attitude. Teachers are an intrinsic and vital factor in this equation. They need to have the time, indeed, the emotional bandwidth to imbibe this in our youth. Each one of us here can attest to one or two teachers who have made that impact in our lives. I remember my Primary 2 teacher, Mr Tang, who, through our many conversations made me realise that if there is something important enough to me I should just do it and not wait for someone else to do it.”
“I thank the Minister for his detailed elaboration of the 3rd Generation Force transformation efforts by the SAF – it is entirely impressive. My concern is this. As we transform and build up our capabilities, especially with higher profile inter nationally and in the region, and being involved in multilateral and bilateral exercises as well as being a lot more involved in humanitarian operations overseas, even though our objective for building up capabilities is as a deterrent, I am just wondering whether this has caused any anxiety or discomfort amongst our neighbours. And if so, how have we handled that?”
“I would like to thank the Second Minister for responding to my cut. Does that mean that a full-time National Service enlistee, if he is enrolled for full-time National Service in February and his course starts in September, that he might be considered for deferment when he finishes the two-year term so that he will not miss his place? I would like to seek clarification on this matter. Also, the Second Minister did not respond to my second suggestion of whether the SAF will consider rationalising in instances where Operationally-Ready Servicemen are called up for In-Camp Training twice in the same calendar year because of the technicality of it falling into two financial years.”
“This would provide much needed comfort and peace of mind – resulting in the enlistee doing National Service in a positive frame of mind. Second, call-ups for NSmen. There are instances where NSmen are called up for in-camp training twice in a calendar year, which can be very disruptive for the NSmen and their employers. This happens because MINDEF works on a fiscal year basis which means that if you are called up in January and then again after March – it registers as two separate years. But for the NSman and his employer, work commitments and leave are based on the calendar year. This anomaly needs to be rationalised as they can erode goodwill and commitment in good NSmen and employers. I would like to end by acknowledging that it is not easy to cater to the interests of such a large and diverse group. But when we see a policy or practice inadvertently affecting a significant number of enlistees which could erode commitment, we need to go the extra mile. The system should send a strong signal to those who evade, and an equally strong signal to those who step forward to serve.”
“Recognising the impact of National Service, MINDEF has been fine-tuning the policies and practices governing enlistment and NS call-ups to cater as much as possible to the diverse interests of those affected. In this regard, I have two specific suggestions. First, enlistment for full-time National Servicemen. I would suggest that MINDEF gives greater thought to how we can make it less inconvenient and stressful for those residing abroad. Firstly, we should be pleased that they are committed enough to do National Service. It is important that this goodwill and appreciation is conveyed during the various interactions which start when the enlistee turns 17. This is also the time when the enlistee and his parents are pre-occupied with university admission – which can be stressful as most overseas universities may not be sympathetic to National Service commitment and the need to defer studies for two years. The enlistment paperwork can be quite intense, often requiring them to make trips to Singapore, which can be costly. Finally, exactly when he is enlisted is a matter of significance. Typically, the university term overseas starts in September. If the enlistee is assigned to an intake after September, say, in February, he would miss the university enrolment date two years down the line. This means he loses an additional year, on top of the two-year National Service. Besides, some universities may not keep the vacancy for an additional year. Yes, we need to treat all enlistees fairly. But the opportunity cost for overseas enlistees, I believe, is higher. Would MINDEF consider giving greater assurance to affected enlistees that they can defer a few months before so that they would not have to miss university enrolment?”
“Likewise, if these community and school leaders who are in their late 30s and 40s, on average, not sufficiently clued-in on the deeper aspects of key historical events such as the 1964 racial riots, how can we expect youths to understand this? The truth is, if we do not have a deep enough understanding of racial and religious issues as well as other social fault lines, true community engagement would be impossible. The most effective way to engage youth and new immigrants is by reaching out to leaders in these two groups: (i) Youth Leaders – we need to start with leaders within the school system, which could include student leaders at secondary, JC, ITE, Polytechnic and University levels. We should also work with organisations such as People's Association (PA) and other prominent non-Government groups to identify youths who hold leadership positions outside the MOE catchment. (ii) New immigrants – this is likely to be a more amorphous and diverse group. I envisage the leaders of this constituency would be identified in collaboration with PA, National Integration Council (NIC) and religious groups. To conclude, the pace at which we are seeing new immigrants and the increased exposure, especially for our youths through the Internet, make it even more challenging for us to build a collective consciousness, sensibility and reflex as a society.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, my sincere apologies for not being present for my cut yesterday and my appreciation to Deputy Prime Minister Wong and the Chair for allowing me this opportunity to speak today. Let me first declare my pecuniary interest as I have been engaged by the Government to design and conduct Community Engagement Programme (CEP) workshops. But it is precisely because of this experience that I feel I have gained some insights to recommend what might be useful next steps for this increasingly important programme. In the last few years, the CEP Directorate in MHA has directly, or through other agencies, engaged hundreds of community and grassroots leaders including CCC and IRCC leaders. Similar workshops were conducted for all Cluster Superintendants, school principals and key HODs. Apart from gaining specific skills in accurately sensing anomalies and dealing with them, feedback from participants indicated that what they benefited most was the opportunity to share openly about issues that are generally considered highly sensitive, even taboo. The feeling was that hearing the viewpoints of the trainer and other participants in a "safe" and closed-door setting, heightened their awareness and sensitivity. This is, in turn, helped to build and deepen trust, which is critical for community engagement and harmony. What was instructive was that some participants shared their surprise and sense of awakening that in spite of having been born and bred in multi-racial Singapore, there were many aspects that they were not aware of or inadvertently had been deaf to. This got me thinking: if those who have lived here all their lives are struggling to understand the nuances of multi-culturalism, imagine the challenges faced by our new immigrants!”
“To illustrate his point, he used an analogy that has been etched in my mind since. He said, and I paraphrase, it is about making the bricklayer feel he is building a cathedral, and not just a wall. This is where the solution lies. Whether we want to push up productivity, or encourage MNCs to seek out local SMEs to partner and grow together, or find ways to provide relief to our less fortunate fellow Singaporeans – we need to go beyond technical definitions and create an environment that inspires people; instils enough pride in them to want to do better, to want to become better. And this translates to a desire to upgrade, to challenge oneself, to reinvent and innovate, and yes, to have the conviction to ask "why not" and to do the right thing – and all this because you genuinely want to do it and not because of incentives, because incentives cannot and should not always be there. For our economy to grow, indeed, for our society to ride through the challenges and come out stronger and flourish, we need more bricklayers feeling they are building cathedrals, not just walls. We need to create the environment for this to happen naturally. On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget. 4.53 pm”
“Let me end this discussion on MNC-SME partnerships by cautioning that it should not result in the entrepreneurial spirit in promising SMEs getting stifled – and this could happen if we are not careful, and especially if we push too hard in order to meet KPIs and targets. As Professor Huang Yasheng puts it, "… the 'orderly' environment here dulls the incentive to think out-of-the-box. Everything is too well organised. Entrepreneurship typically happens in a more chaotic environment …" Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude my speech by reiterating that the Government is on the right track by focusing on productivity as a key means to putting the Singapore economy on a different growth curve, less dependent on foreign workers. Similarly, the initiative to promote MNC-SME partnership is a good one that will give results if well managed or, more accurately, if not overly managed. But in both cases, we need to go beyond creating practicable measures – we need to deal with the social and psychological barriers that inhibit or, worse, prohibit the players from participating. We need to be wary of the temptation to deploy technical solutions and gain a false sense of accomplishment when the problem is attitudinal in nature. The truth is we need both – technical measures as well as ways to shift attitude and culture for the long term. Several years ago, I attended a conference at Raffles City on Knowledge Based Economy (KBE). There were many presentations to explain to the audience of CEOs what KBE was all about. For me, the penny dropped when Minister George Yeo in his speech described it as an attitude, an orientation, and less about harnessing the power of technology and computers.”
“There are essentially three critical components in the enterprise value chain that are related but autonomous activities: (a) Idea generation – some of the best ideas come from individuals or companies that are less corporate in the way they work. There must be a process of generating bright, exciting ideas and, very importantly, ensuring that bright ideas do not go unspotted; (b) Idea execution – a fundamental difference between creativity and innovation is that the latter is about execution which in turn requires discipline, drive, and a sense of realism, something which MNCs and larger SMEs are likely to be better equipped for; and (c) Idea selling – in today’s crowded, noisy environment, innovative marketing often decides whether the product lives, dies or is stillborn. This is an area where SME ideas combine well with the financial and distribution muscle of MNCs. Having said all this, I must caution against overly structuring the process or even making them too linear – a good measure of chaos is good and should not be meddled with. And I am certainly not advocating the creation of a steering committee to oversee this process to ensure results. What I am saying is that it is useful when you have different players, for all to know and accept the role of each player. And this role is based on the strength of each player. This could be articulated clearly in the initial meeting after which it becomes a round-table working mode that will allow leaders to be thrown up naturally.”
“These should be commercially driven business decisions, by and large, but with a conscious effort to seek out promising local SMEs to groom, invest in, or partner. In fact, experts argue that larger companies benefit from partnering smaller firms. Beijing-born Professor Huang Yasheng, an expert in political economy and international management from MIT, was in Singapore earlier this month to give a lecture at the Civil Service College. He had this to say, " …academic research shows overwhelmingly it is the small companies that create new technologies and new products. Big companies are innovative only when they acquire small companies …" Secondly, the Government, through SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore and other industry statutory boards, should develop a "match-making" system – this should be the role of Government, to be the facilitator. The various chambers of commerce and the industry associations should come on board to contribute to the "match-making". It would be useful for two other types of bodies to be co-opted to help propel this MNC-SME partnership initiative: professional associations that can provide the leadership in some of the partnerships; and management consultancies that could be on retainer to help in prompting and structuring the partnerships which can be complicated. To make the process exciting, there could be a quarterly forum where SMEs with bright business ideas can pitch them to interested TLCs and other MNCs for investment or partnership. The third suggestion is to innovate value by tapping on the specific strengths of entities in the MNC-SME value chain.”
“While one could argue that there is room for improvement, we must acknowledge that the Singapore Government does significantly more than many others to help SMEs grow. In fact, I feel our Government is doing this almost to a fault – to an extent that we could unwittingly be creating a "handout" mentality on the ground. Too much of Government help can blunt creative impulses and much needed survival instincts in entrepreneurs. Organisations, such as SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore as well as EDB have, in their own ways, been connecting SMEs and MNCs based in Singapore and abroad. Likewise, industry-based statutory boards, such as MDA, IDA and MPA, have been playing their part. However, these efforts have been ad hoc and not part of a larger, strategically driven plan. This initiative spelt out in the Budget, I believe, is designed to do exactly this. In this regard, I have three specific suggestions. Firstly, I feel it is critical that Singapore’s Temasek-linked companies (TLCs) become the standard bearers for this initiative. We have TLCs in virtually every sector of the economy. I believe each of them can do more in proactively seeking out local SMEs to invest in, undertake joint projects with, or partner when pitching for deals overseas. From what I understand, this hardly happens. Is it because we do not have enough SMEs which are good enough to partner? I do not believe so. I believe in every industry cluster, there is today a critical mass of home-grown SMEs that have the calibre or at least the potential to grow. What many of them need is that crucial break. I am certainly not talking about charity or national service here.”
“I think it is because their CEOs and top management have taken the lead to make it happen." Therefore, it is important that we pay a lot more attention in imbibing these values and putting forth the message that it is absolutely important for CEOs to take the lead and set the example. The second thing that is needed is to single out employees who display the desired spirit – they must be celebrated, not just recognised. Finally, these values must be imbibed in our young through our education system where they are encouraged to be curious, to question, challenge, take charge and lobby for what they believe in. This could be inconvenient and possibly disruptive – but this is what we need to do if we are serious about pushing productivity and if our economic survival depends on it. I urge Deputy Prime Minister Teo's Council to look seriously into some of these factors. Mr Speaker, Sir, the third and final aspect of the Budget Statement that I would like to comment on is building capabilities through partnerships. The Minister for Finance said, and I quote him, "We must build and maximise the synergies amongst companies in Singapore, both local and foreign. The MNCs, as well as smaller global enterprises, are growing their base in Singapore and expanding out from here into Asia. They are valuable partners to our local firms, helping them to plug into world markets and thereby scale up their operations, while collaborating with them to develop new, cutting-edge competencies." This is an excellent initiative and something that needed to be articulated. The Singapore Government, especially in recent years, through SPRING Singapore and IE Singapore, has demonstrated commitment in helping SMEs.”
“We are only now beginning to feel comfortable asking "why", but still a long way off from asking the crucial question for innovation, "why not". We have a modest, almost self-effacing culture where we are told that if our product or idea is good enough it should speak for itself. There is no need for us to sell or even explain its value proposition. But today we know that if you cannot persuade on the value proposition of an idea, it is as good as not having the idea in the first place. So, the question is how do we imbibe this culture, attitude and self efficacy in our workforce? Yes, we can send them for training in lateral thinking and taking charge. This may help but certainly it would not do the trick. Firstly, we need to imbue a culture in organisations that encourage ownership, risk taking, and a genuine desire to improve oneself. This will happen if it is an empowering work environment where the employee feels a greater sense of ownership of the larger process and the organisation instead of just his task. The leadership role of CEOs and top managers is crucial in being exemplary and setting the tone. I recall how the late Mr Nithiah Nandan, who was an iconic leader in our union movement, motivated a large number of workers to upgrade their skills by setting the example and going for training himself. More recently, Mr Liew Mun Leong, CEO of CapitaLand Group, in a recent speech, entitled "Fish Rots from the Head", lamented poor service standards. He asserted that it is leadership that makes the difference. I quote him, "The workers in our Japanese banks, at McDonald's, IKEA, BreadTalk, Toast Box and SIA are mostly Singaporeans. What makes these local workers perform better in their respective roles than their counterparts elsewhere?”
“From what I have gathered, with the exception of Japan, these countries have not invested as much resource per capita and certainly have not had such structured programmes and initiatives as Singapore in promoting productivity. So, what is it that they seem to have done that we have not or are not? I believe the answer may lie in three words: culture, attitude and self-efficacy. The many initiatives spelt out in the Budget are certainly useful and will contribute to turning the tide in productivity. They are at best a sufficient condition. The necessary condition, in my view, for Singapore to achieve the desired productivity growth would be a fundamental shift in the culture, attitude and self-efficacy of our indigenous workforce. Again, it is not that our Government has not highlighted the importance of this in the many reminders of taking ownership and workers being empowered and the need for us to think out of the box as we innovate. But it has not seemed to work on the ground. Why? In my view, it is most likely because when we think out of the box, we end up thinking within a larger box and, quite often, this is a result of group think and fear of consequences of being too radical. While we desire to empower, the workplace culture does not quite celebrate the spirit of taking charge when not anointed, or speaking out-of-turn which is often seen as being out-of-line. There is not much incentive to take initiative and do more than your fair share at work, and worse, risk screwing up. In fact, when you volunteer for a task you are not assigned, there is a good chance you could be seen as trying to suck up, "sabo", which in local parlance is short for sabotage, or simply being a "yaya " which means show off.”
“Given Singapore's full employment picture and relatively high wages, the National Productivity Board followed a "total productivity" approach, which emphasised productivity measurement, product quality, a flexible wage system, worker training, and assistance to small- and medium-sized enterprises. How different is this, in substance, from what we are seeking to do and achieve today? And true to form, our Government has been relentless in pushing productivity growth over the decades with initiative after initiative being fired at the Government and private sectors. From generous funding for training through the Skills Development Fund (SDF), to incentives for technological upgrading, to a mushrooming of Suggestion Schemes and Quality Control teams that appeared to be in a constant state of competition using the proverbial fish-bone diagram, which many of us were part of and, of course, Teamy, the Productivity Bee. It is a pity I missed Dr Ahmad Magad's rendition of the jingle yesterday which I hear was delivered in perfect pitch, one go, he informed, educated and entertained – that is productivity, I guess. Singapore was clearly the leader in the region, if not on a broader ambit, in identifying productivity as a key determinant of sustainable economic growth. Yet, despite this formidable first-mover advantage and sustained, intensive total productivity approach, we have not managed to push beyond 1%. According to the ESC Report, the USA, UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Japan and Hong Kong have done better than Singapore from 2006 to 2008 in productivity, whether it be in the services sector, manufacturing or in construction.”
“And this assistance should not be restricted by one's ability to get employed or own a home. We already have some forms of direct assistance. We need a broader range of such interventions, and they should be more substantive. Examples of such direct forms of assistance are: cash grants, restricted, albeit that can be used in the payment for essential services such as healthcare, water and electricity; monthly coupons for rations, transportation or other necessities and rental rebates. Even though I am aware of our Government's belief that it is better to teach one to fish instead of giving him a fish, I must admit I was surprised not to see any of these direct forms of assistance in this year's Budget as we used to have them in some form or other in our previous recession Budgets. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to talk about what appears to be the key thrust of this year's Budget Statement – raising productivity through upgrading skills, innovation and economic restructuring. The core argument for this is intuitive and the initiatives appear well thought through and should be supported. The question is, will these measures work? Why will it work this time if, in spite of all the systematic measures in the past 38 years, we have only managed to get productivity up to 1% and then appear to have hit a stone wall? The National Productivity Board (NPB) was set up in 1972 and according to the website this was its mandate: to improve productivity in all sectors of the economy. Increasing individual and company productivity at all levels was a Government priority.”
“Yet, the lower-income households have been shouldering a proportionately higher responsibility in caring for the elderly in their households, as evidenced in their much higher share of healthcare expenditure. And to add to this, the average monthly income of those in the lower-income group, which in 2002/2003 was just one-twelfth that of the top earners and it rose by a much smaller percentage over the years compared to the top earners. The question is what does the Budget have that would give the lower-income households comfort, not to mention, relief? Property tax savings of $240 or in that ballpark, a year – this applies only if you own a property. Increase in parent relief for taxpayers who are living with and/or supporting their parents, grandparents or handicapped dependants though the quantum of the relief itself is significant, it is not likely to translate into significant dollar savings as it is a relief and not a rebate. Also, it is unlikely that this would benefit the less well off as the lower 70% of Singaporeans have not been liable for income tax with the introduction of GST. Increase in course fee relief or expansion of wife relief to spouse relief; this is useful only if you are eligible or are in a position to attend a course or are employed. The point I am making is that the Budget did not go far enough in meeting the objective of being more inclusive and ensuring we do not end up leaving fellow Singaporeans behind. They, too, have their aspirations, if not for themselves, for their children. I would have liked to see more initiatives that will give some form of direct assistance to this group of Singaporeans as they are struggling to catch up or simply get on their feet.”
“The latest Household Expenditure Survey released by the Department of Statistics highlights three findings (between the years 2002/2003 and 2007/2008) that are instructive: Firstly, when you compare the average monthly household expenditure according to type of home, those in larger homes have a significantly higher level of expenditure that increased over the years. For example, for landed property residents the expenditure increased by 3% from about $7,000 to $8,000. But for residents of 1- and 2-room HDB flats, the average expenditure dropped by 0.7% over the years from about $998 to $950. Secondly, households in 1- and 2-room HDB flats spent proportionately more on healthcare – 8.2% – compared to households in other home types which spent between 4.3% and 6%. According to the Department of Statistics, "this reflects the higher proportion of households with at least one elderly person in the 1- and 2-room flats than other housing types". Thirdly, when you look at the average monthly household income, those in the lower income quintile saw a significantly lower income appreciation over the years compared to those in the higher income quintiles. For example, the average monthly household income of those in the 81st to 100th quintile grew by 6.8% from about $13,000 to $18,000 while that of those in the lowest category, ie, 1st to 20th quintile, grew by just 2.9% from $1,104 to $1,274. In gist, what this tells us is that the lower-income households were forced to tighten their belts over the years even though their average monthly expenditure was already low to start with – barely one-seventh that of landed property households.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Budget Statement. This year's Budget Statement is predicated on the recommendations of the Economic Strategies Committee. I would like to comment on the strategy of boosting productivity and deepening corporate capabilities of SMEs. But before that I would like to talk a little bit about whether the Budget provides for inclusive growth and a broad-based increase in the incomes of citizens which was an expressed goal of the ESC report. Mr Speaker, Sir, while it is logical and sensible for the annual Government Budget to facilitate economic growth and the creation of jobs – better jobs – it is also a reasonable expectation that the Budget will provide for the here and now concerns and welfare of Singaporeans who are struggling to make ends meet. I am afraid that for this group the Budget does not to provide sufficient comfort. I am talking, of course, of those in the lower-income households. Many in this group do not have jobs and find it hard to gain employment, they are unskilled or very lowly skilled and are therefore barely earning enough to make ends meet given the rising cost of living. They might have disabilities or are suffering from chronic ailments that are physically, emotionally and financially debilitating or have to care for elderly parents and/or disabled persons even though they barely earn enough to support themselves or their immediate families and do not own a property because they simply cannot afford to.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. It is very clear that in the area of service integration and sharing of resources that have been benefits. The question is really whether competition is indeed useful, necessary and in fact desirable in the healthcare sector. From what the Minister had said so far, there have been modifications to the existing practice by the Ministry of Health, which appears to be working on the ground, especially in the area of regionalising the clusters. The anecdotal feedback that we have been getting on the ground is that it is reaching out to the customers and consumers pretty well. Does this mean that in the next few years, we might be seeing a complete restructuring and perhaps an end to the existing two-cluster holdings?”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his response. A quick supplementary question. What exactly is the take-up rate of the Park and Ride lots at this point in time? From what I have gathered, there is a lack of awareness of the Park and Ride Scheme, where these parking lots are available and so on. If the take-up rate is low, is it because there is no demand for this service or is it because there is a lack of awareness? And if the latter is true, then what specific actions are being taken?”
“I thank the Minister. The key points he has highlighted include new sources of energy have come about since liberalisation, the price have been kept low, and reliability. Could these not have been achieved without liberalisation?”
“A supplementary question to the Minister following up from the point raised about accessibility. I believe that a student who does not go through pre-school education would be somewhat disadvantaged when he goes into primary one. So, if the cost of sending the child to pre-school is prohibitive for the parents, is there a risk that lower income families might not send their children for pre-school education and as a result, the child would suffer? Hence, the argument is that it is very important for us to make sure that access is universal. Can the Minister comment, please?”
“As building owners and people who use the building, they may want to impress upon the building owners that these are the kinds of standards that we should live by. So, we will continue to educate the public, work with the building owners, impose new standards and I am confident that, over time, as I mentioned earlier, with all these programmes, we will be able to achieve the 7% to 11% that we announced in our blueprint.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if his Ministry or the Government, in general, has any plans to encourage or, if necessary, enforce some form of measures to get office building owners to increase the temperature of their office complexes. Because some of these offices are unbearably cold, and I cannot see why it has to be so. I am sure there can be a lot of savings of energy as a result of this. Are there any plans? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, at the moment, what we have are guidelines for building owners to set their room temperatures between 22 and 24 degree centigrades. Of course, we should take the lead. For Government buildings, they should also be doing so. But having said that, the more important thing for us now is to ensure that buildings themselves are efficient in the way they use energy. A lot of effort has gone into, for example, changing the chillers and coolers to more efficient ones which are available out there in the market. Meanwhile, Sir, BCA and MND have already drawn up a building code for all new buildings. They will have to meet certain requirements. We are confident that when they meet these requirements with regard to energy and water efficiency, our carbon footprint will come down in terms of energy consumption. So, rather than stipulating it upfront, let us work with the industries on how best they can be more efficient in the way they manage the buildings. Whether or not we will come to that, I think this is something which we have to continue to evolve. We have studied the legislation of other countries, and we think it may not be necessary at this point in time. The more important thing is to try and level up the building sector as much as possible. Clearly, I think the public will also have a role to play.”
“Could I have the Minister's assessment as to what could be the single most important factor that is impeding the migration of private transport usage to public transport usage?”
“The Minister has highlighted some very useful examples of how we are responding to the demand on the ground. What I am puzzled by is, despite all these measures, why does the Minister think that there appears to be a groundswell of discontent and feeling that first-time buyers are not able to buy the flats. There seems to be something that is out of sync. Is it because the schemes are too complex for people on the ground to understand and, therefore, take advantage of? Is it because the communication of these schemes is not clear enough? Or is it because the people on the ground have unrealistic expectations?”
“00 PM Column No : 1237 MRT STATIONS (No eating and drinking rule) 14. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Transport in view of the tightening of the "No eating/drinking" rule in the MRT stations, (a) how many people were fined for eating and drinking in the MRT stations since May this year; (b) what is the guideline for the definition of "eating"; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing passengers to put sweets in their mouth as some elderly people have to do this to overcome motion sickness. 15. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent case where a commuter was caught eating a sweet in an MRT train (a) what were the circumstances that led to the issuance of a fine; (b) why was the commuter’s explanation not accepted and the commuter not let off with a warning; (c) how serious is the problem of eating/drinking in MRT trains; and (d) whether there is a public education campaign to raise awareness about this regulation.”
“For this, we need an emotional anchor or a collective reflex for which I am confident our National Pledge would serve as a reference point. I am glad that we have had a chance to have this discussion. I do believe it is useful and I do believe it would provoke further discussion on the Pledge and the importance of some of the tenets of the Pledge on the ground. I think it is important for us to move away from hardline positions and look a lot more at shared interests, and there are plenty of shared interests even as we discussed and debated the various points. We can disagree on the substantive issues I raised but I would find it very hard if Members cannot accept that we as Members of this House do see and should see the importance of re-affirming our commitment to the key tenets of the National Pledge. I am confident that the House will support the amended version of the motion and once again my sincere thanks to Members for actively participating in the debate on this motion, and provoking thought and discussion on the National Pledge in society. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank you. Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies. Column No : 1236 ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes to Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.”
“All I am asking for was for us to find more ways for us to address the inadvertent signal we could be sending to the ground which I have sensed that the creation of these ethnic-based self-help groups could go contrary to the spirit of the Pledge insofar as wanting a multi-racial society. That is all I am asking for. To rationalise and deal with some of the contradictions that may be perceived on the ground. Democracy and justice – I am not saying that the Government is stuffing ballot boxes or doing things that are non-Constitutional. I was highlighting a lingering perception that I sensed on the ground that politically, it is not a level playing field and if we do not address this, there will be growing cynicism especially amongst our youth who will choose to express their displeasure through angry postings in the Net which is not useful. Thirdly, on economic progress and happiness. I did not say economic prosperity is not important and that it should be put on the back burner. It would be naive to promote an argument of that nature. What I was highlighting was that national economic progress must result in happiness for the individual and this may not always be the case. My intention in moving this motion was not to take shots at the Government or its policies. It must be evident in my speech that I have a healthy regard for the Government and appreciation for what we have achieved, and that we should not take that for granted. My motivation is simple. As a citizen of this country, I am deeply concerned about the level of rootedness and the latent threats to harmony that if these two issues are not adequately addressed, we may not succeed as a nation, a people.”
“I completely agree with the amendment he has proposed because it is in keeping with my own objectives in moving this motion. While Minister Mentor Lee highlights the realities that we have to be cognisant of, I am sure he would agree with me that the day we stop believing in the aspirations and working towards them, is the day we cease to make real progress. So while reality sometimes will bog us down, will frustrate us, I think we must continue to believe that we can strive towards these aspirations which could appear extremely distant at this present moment. It was precisely this commitment to the aspirations of equality that drove our Government to ensure that ethnic minority groups and their needs would be given special attention. It may sound paradoxical but moves like affirmative action are indeed motivated to attain the aspirations of equality – an aspiration that is captured in our Pledge. To conclude, let me briefly clarify three key points I made in my speech that appears to have been misunderstood. Firstly, ethnic self-help groups. I am not at any point advocating doing away with them. On the contrary, I did highlight the good work done by Mendaki, Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), CDAC and the Eurasian Association. I also highlighted that I have served on the Executive Committee of SINDA for the past 12 years and am very committed to what SINDA is doing because firsthand I have seen the good work it has done on the ground and the way the Indian community has benefited.”
“And the manner and tone he adopted is something that is highly appreciated. Not only is it thought-provoking, it is also delivered with dignity and therefore a lot more persuasive. He said power and resonance come when actions match words. I could not have put it better. I could not have agreed more which is why, in my speech, I not only acknowledged the positive actions of this Government and the people, in getting here, what I have recommended are also specific actions to help us move towards the aspirations as enshrined in the Pledge. I am heartened that the Minister does see economic goals and our aspirations as not being mutually exclusive. That is precisely what I am asking for, to move towards, to pay even more attention to the tenets of the Pledge when striving for economic progress. I never saw the two as mutually exclusive. I agree that we should not implement change for the sake of change and especially if we know it is going to cost undue distress on the ground. When I called for re-politicisation of our people, for example, I did not envisage a situation where there are riots or rallies at every corner on every subject. Even if you wanted this, I am afraid it is an unlikely scenario because of our current political culture. What I really ask for is about getting people to get more interested, more connected with what is happening politically, because I do sincerely believe that this is going to help Singapore as we move forward. My final comment is on the contribution made by Minister Mentor Lee just now. I thank Minister Mentor for giving us perspective at a point when we needed it, all of us; perspective that can only come from a person of his wisdom and his experience. He said the Pledge is not an ideology but an aspiration. A timely reminder.”
“I said there is a perception that it is not a level playing field on the ground. I did not say economic process is less important. I merely said that deeper, longer term challenges for us are issues of rootedness, commitment and happiness. What I stated in my speech are my honest sense of the perceptions and sentiments on the ground based on my interactions both formal and informal. We can debate whether this is accurate, whether this is true or false but the best way to ascertain the sense of the ground is by doing a qualitative independent survey which perhaps the Government can consider doing. Mr Sam Tan, all the same – the many points of disagreement notwithstanding – has, I am pleased, accepted one of my suggestions. It seems to have passed his stringent test that the vernacular TV channels should carry more content on each other’s culture and happenings. Mr Zainudin Nordin, I am glad, agreed that racial and religious harmony is a journey and not to be taken for granted even though we have put in place good structures and learnt important lessons from the 1964 riots. I have no issues with the amendment the Member proposed to my motion, essentially because in my speech, I did take pains to acknowledge the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-Government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge. The key words, for me, in my original wording of the motion are "re-affirm our commitment to the key tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge". I am glad that the Member acknowledged that we can do better which is my key argument. So we are in agreement in essence. Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen gave what I consider a thought-provoking speech.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to move the motion and conclude at this point. My sincere thanks to the many Members who rose to share the views and insights pertaining to the motion, and the amended motions. It is not important that Members agree with the points I raised. What is important is that there has been active discussion and thought. Where we can persuade each other, that is great. Where we cannot, let us agree to disagree. This, after all, is the democratic process. What is important is for us to feel free and empowered to express our points of view without fear or favour in the best interests of our country. I do not intend to respond to all the points made by the Members. I will keep it brief, as advised by my good friend, Mr Sam Tan, yesterday. Minister of State Mdm Yu-Foo Yee Shoon – in an inimitable, non-confrontational and persuasive style – reassured the House that no one will go hungry or be left behind as Singapore progresses. Thank you, Mdm Yu-Foo, especially for taking pains to highlight the constellation of help available for the needy. This is indeed comforting but my suggestion to Mdm Yu-Foo as well as to the Ministry is that it would be most useful to publicise some of these benefits a lot more. Not just to the beneficiaries but to people like me who obviously are not aware of them, because it does inspire much-needed confidence. Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Sam Tan, most eloquently fired a series of salvos at me, adding much colour to my speech. In the process, there appears to be some misconceptions – perhaps I was not clear in my speech. For example, I did not say categorically that the democratic process is flouted by Government.”
“To a good extent, this is demonstration of faith in a government that has, by and large, been upright, effective, responsive and consistently delivered on promises. It is time now for the Government to reciprocate – by demonstrating the same measure of faith in the people. I say to the Government and to this House, let us take a chance on our people, on ourselves. Let us act on the firm belief that our National Pledge will serve as a bright shining light that keeps us on track. We have reason to believe that we will succeed if we are faithful to the Pledge that was crafted 44 years ago with passion, conviction and foresight by our founding leaders in their infinite wisdom. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank you, once again, for the opportunity to move this motion. Question proposed. 21 pm”
“This Government has time and again demonstrated the ability and will to change course when it is deemed to be in the best interest of society – the 1987 reversal of the "stop at two" policy, the introduction of the IRs and then the F1 Grand Prix are just some examples. We now need to demonstrate the same will and courage in other areas that have a strong bearing on our resilience as a people, a nation – specifically, areas I have taken the time to elucidate. Yes, in recent years especially, we have seen the Government opening up and paying more attention to some of the points highlighted. But there have been mixed signals which are confusing to the ground and this does not incentivise sufficient positive action. Incremental change is generally prudent and less disruptive, but I fear this may not be enough to address the issues I have raised. The clock is ticking. We need to act fast and radical changes may be called for to get the desired outcome. Yes, there are risks. There will always be risks in change. But that has not and should not stop us from doing what is right. I put it to the House that, in this instance, inaction is not an option. We need faith. Faith in our people’s capacity for good judgment. Faith that Singaporeans will not abuse what is given to them – the privileges, the choices. Faith that we will value the increased space for expression and action and use it well, and appreciate the support given to us in times of need. Yes, there will always be some who will go the other way, but let us not punish the rest of society for this. This Government has good reason to trust the people – Singaporeans have stood by this Government through thick and thin for 50 years.”
“Political associations should be encouraged, and campus rallies should be allowed once again. I know that for some of us in the House, especially for Minister Mentor Lee, this suggestion could be somewhat heretical as unpleasant memories of the 1960s and 1970s are still fresh in the mind. But we are indeed dealing with a very different Singapore today: people are generally politically apathetic, risk averse, more educated, affluent and so stakes are higher. Regardless of the changed circumstances, there is, as always, the residual and potent energy of youth which today is channelled increasingly towards activism in cyberspace creating an underground culture that may not always be constructive. If we read the content in the blogs and internet sites we can sense restlessness, frustration and even anger. It is my firm belief that if the mainstream environment comes across less sanitised and more politically engaging, we will, in due course, see a healthy migration of these energies. This is good because in the mainstream there is a greater level of transparency and accountability. But this will only happen if there is real and discernable relaxation of rules pertaining to political participation and activism. Today, there still is a climate of fear though a lot less prevalent than before. This will change if the right signals are given, clearly and unequivocally. And only the Government can do this. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by saying that we are at a point of inflexion – an opportunity to change; to reverse some trends and attitudes that are detrimental to our progress, indeed our survivability, as a nation.”
“Whatever the case might be, one thing is clear to me – what we have right now has not worked well enough, and if we do not intervene promptly and creatively, the tenet of being a united people may not happen in substance. My third and final suggestion seeks to help align our current policies and rules with conventional principles of democracy. From the late 1960s there were stringent rules that may have discouraged active political activism, even participation. Detention of political activists under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and media controls, whether real or perceived, right or wrong, created a climate of fear that inhibited political participation. Over the years, in my view, this could have crystalised into a political culture of apathy and disinterest. This in turn exacerbated an already fragile sense of rootedness and a lack of patriotism. Our senior political leaders have been highlighting the challenges they have been facing in persuading the best and the brightest to serve in political leadership, and why salaries had to be significantly high to help them make the decision to come on board. This situation does not augur well for Singapore on many fronts – it poses problems in succession planning, retards socio-political resilience and could result in brain drain the moment we face a serious enough crisis. For these reasons, it is imperative that we consciously and proactively start the process of re-politicisation – to get people, especially the youth, interested and involved not only in social work but political matters. A good place to start this would be our universities, which have been the traditional base of political interest and activism.”
“The other contributing factor could be that those assigned to "teach" National Education (NE) may themselves not be sufficiently motivated to do so. Perhaps our teachers are too bogged down with work to have the bandwidth necessary to impart NE with conviction. Also, I suspect that a subject like NE is best conveyed through informal activities and not through formal lectures with the indispensable power-point slides. There could be other more salient reasons or challenges. I feel it is necessary for us to do a systematic review of how we can increase the sense of rootedness and commitment especially of our younger brethren – and this would need to include an open-minded review, and rethink if necessary, on how NE is taught, and how NE initiatives could be better coordinated with similar activities by OnePeople.com and the Community Engagement Programme managed by MHA. In terms of improving the knowledge our youths have about our history and current affairs, I would recommend a systematic revival of importance given to subjects such as history and geography in schools, which in the recent past have been relegated as being "soft subjects" that provide less utility than science subjects. More than teaching these subjects, I hope we can find a way to inject curiosity, interest and fascination in our youth, so that they would be motivated to find out more as a life-long journey of inquiry. Recently, I met a young lady who had a good honours degree from a local university who did not know the difference between the President of Singapore and the Prime Minister. It is not just confounding but upsetting to be confronted by such realities. Something is very wrong here.”
“We understand the economic and business justification for this, but there continues to be the undesirable effect of wages of Singaporean workers in this category getting depressed. I understand the NTUC is trying to address this issue, but from what I have gathered from talking to lower skilled Singaporean workers, their wages have come down. This cannot be a source of happiness for these workers even though there is prosperity for the nation. The second broad suggestion I have to help align policies with the tenets of the Pledge is that we need to urgently address the issue of rootedness and commitment to nation. I view this as a time-bomb ticking in our midst. There is enough evidence that there is a lack of a sense of rootedness on the ground, especially in younger Singaporeans. This could be attributed to many factors which would include a lack of knowledge and understanding of our history and current affairs, a lack of meaningful engagement on matters of national concern, and easier prospects for leaving the country. I do not believe our youth are apathetic. In fact, when effectively engaged they can have strong and constructive ideas and often the commitment to walk the talk. What puzzles me is how come we are in this situation even though we have had National Education, and before that, when I was in school, civic education, for decades now? It cannot just be because the young of today have not experienced the difficult times in the earlier years of nationhood. I suspect it could partly be because, as a society, we seem to have lost the oral tradition of sharing experiences and telling stories. We need to revive this, and fast, while we still have enough people of the older generation who have the stories and are in a condition to share them.”