Vivian Balakrishnan
Singapore
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not issue advisories on wait times at overseas airports. Travellers may wish to monitor airline and airport websites, as well as news reports for real-time information on wait times and potential disruptions at specific airports.”
“When the conflict in the Middle East deteriorated and commercial flights were halted in March 2026, the Singapore Government mounted four repatriation flights from Muscat, Riyadh and Jeddah to bring stranded Singaporeans home.”
“The Government has stepped up public engagement to explain our foreign policy fundamentals and responses to key international developments to Singaporeans and to hear their views. We do this through dialogue sessions across segments of society, including students, youths, businesses and community leaders.”
“And the larger point during the Committee of Supply was that precisely, because the world is in such a difficult, prickly, volatile and dangerous state, actually, if we keep our wits about ourselves, we maintain unity and we continue to have this clear eye-realistic, but principled, approach, there are many opportunities for Singapore.”
“Well, in short, I completely agree with you. And that is why we have indeed been hosting these events and in your own capacity as a national athlete and also as an official now, you have seen how it works in practice.”
“Since 2022, about half of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) employees are women. The proportion of women in senior appointments has remained stable at about a quarter. We recognise that overseas postings are disruptive for officers with families, especially female officers who bear greater caregiving responsibilities.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,437 lines we hold for Vivian Balakrishnan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 49.
“By virtue of the amendments under clause 16 of the Bill, the Minister may order the restriction of movement of people and vehicles in diseased areas in order to contain the problem. I would like to assure the House, however, that the Minister would exercise this power only in serious cases of diseases that can affect humans. Clause 29 of the Bill updates the provisions for establishing quarantine stations for animals and birds in veterinary centres. It provides for the AVA to establish or designate more quarantine stations if the AVA assesses that this is necessary for disease control. The AVA can also license veterinary centres to ensure that they are properly managed and equipped for the treatment of animals and birds. Technology has progressed globally to a level where there are genetically modified organisms and GMO derived products which have been commercialised or are in the process of being commercialised. Clause 30 of the Bill provides for the regulation of the import and the possession of animal-related GMOs in order to ensure that there is no inadvertent introduction of undesirable animal-related GMOs or GMO-derived products that can compromise the health of our population, or of our animals and birds. Strengthen provisions for animal welfare and prevention of animal cruelty Sir, the abandonment of animals, besides being a cruel act, also contributes to the proliferation of stray animals. Over the years, the AVA, unfortunately, has not seen any reduction in the rate of abandonment of animals by owners. Each year, the AVA and SPCA have to put down about 9,000 dogs and 12,000 cats. The AVA and SPCA also impound around 200 and 1,000 pure breed dogs each year respectively. Clauses 20-22 of the Bill strengthen the AVA's power to deal with cruelty to animals.”
“This proposed power would be exercised only if the AVA is satisfied that the suspected diseased animals or birds on board the vehicle, ship or aircraft, can pose a significant risk to the health of our population, or our animals or birds. Section 11 of the Act currently requires imported dogs and cats to be confined on board a ship, unless the AVA authorises their landing. This is to prevent the introduction into Singapore of any diseases that these dogs and cats may carry. Any animals and birds imported or transhipped by sea via Singapore could potentially introduce diseases into Singapore. Clause 9 of the Bill therefore expands the scope of section 11 to enable the AVA to confine to the ship, any animal and bird being imported or transhipped by sea. Clauses 6, 13 and 14 of the Bill enhance AVA's powers to examine and deal with animals and birds that are diseased or suspected of being diseased. Animals and birds to be imported or exported out of Singapore can be detained at a quarantine station for examination to ensure that they are free from disease. They can also be destroyed if they are found to be a disease risk. AVA can also examine animals or birds suspected of being diseased to make a disease diagnosis. This can include taking environmental samples, such as their feed or bedding materials, or destroying the animals and birds, if indeed that is necessary to diagnose the disease. Animals or birds which have been in contact with, or exposed to, diseased animals or birds, or which may perpetuate the disease, can also be destroyed to prevent further spread of the disease. If there is an animal or bird disease outbreak, the movement of people and vehicles into and out of a diseased area may become the means for spreading the disease around Singapore.”
“This Bill strengthens the provisions for disease prevention, control and detection, so as to enable the AVA to deal with animal-related diseases more effectively and promptly. Let me elaborate on these amendments. Singapore is a major international trading hub for aquatic animals, such as ornamental fish, with its trade valued at about $75 million annually. Currently, the Act does not cover fish diseases. Clause 3 of this Bill proposes to include fish into the definition of "Animal" in this Act. The definition of "fish" covers fishes, crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic animals. This amendment will provide the necessary protection for the health of fish in Singapore and the regulation of trade in aquatic animals in accordance with international requirements. Clause 3 also allows for the Minister to expand the definitions of "animal" and "disease" through an order and a notification in the Gazette respectively, should diseases transmitted by other organisms currently not covered in this Act subsequently become significant. Currently, the AVA can deny diseased animals or birds being imported into Singapore. The amendment in clause 8 of the Bill will further enhance the AVA's powers by allowing the AVA to prevent the entry into Singapore of any vehicle, ship or aircraft, suspected of carrying diseased animals or birds, without the need for the animals or birds to be inspected and found to be diseased. For instance, the animals or birds may not be showing signs of a disease when they left the source country, but it is later known that they have been exposed to the disease and therefore pose a risk.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Animals and Birds Act was enacted in 1965 to consolidate the various legislation relating to animals. It contains legislation to prevent the introduction and spreading of animal and bird diseases, to control the import and export of animals and birds, to prevent cruelty to animals, control livestock products, and to regulate the use of veterinary biologics. This Act has not undergone any major review since its enactment. My Ministry has proposed this Bill for the purposes of, firstly, to enhance the prevention and control of animal, bird and fish diseases; secondly, the strengthening of the provisions for the prevention of animal cruelty; and thirdly, improving the operational efficiency of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority in administering the provisions of this Act. I shall now go through and explain the rationale of the main features of the Bill. Enhance the prevention and control of animal and bird diseases Sir, there is always a potential risk, although generally remote, for a disease agent present in animals, birds and fishes, to develop an ability to infect humans. In recent years, there have been reports world-wide of outbreaks of animal diseases that can be passed to humans, such as the Mad Cow Disease, the Avian Bird Flu and the Nipah Virus Disease found in pigs. These diseases pose a threat to public health. Also, there have been outbreaks of other animal diseases, such as Foot and Mouth Disease, which do not affect humans, but could nevertheless have a significant impact on trade in animals, birds and their products. Singapore is currently free from such diseases, but we need to be vigilant and alert to keep these and other emerging threats at bay.”
“Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.50 pm”
“The Bill incorporates various provisions of the current Environmental Public Health Act, as set out in clauses 2, 11, 12, 17 and 18, to enable the AVA to take an approach in the regulation of food establishments similar to that under the Environmental Public Health Act. The penalties of the existing Act were determined in 1973. Under various clauses of the Bill, such as clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15, read with section 37F introduced under clause 17, many offences committed under the Act will now carry a maximum penalty of $5,000 for the first offence, and $10,000 and/or a jail term of 3 months for subsequent offences. The proposed amendments reflect the seriousness of offences in relation to food safety and are commensurate with today's cost of living. The increases in penalties in the Bill take into consideration the quantum of fines that can currently be imposed under the Environmental Public Health Act. The existing Sale of Food Act has no provision for the composition of offences. But ENV can currently compound offences relating to food establishments committed under the Environmental Public Health Act. The new section 37G of clause 17 provides the AVA with the power to compound offences committed under the Sale of Food Act for up to a maximum of $1,000. This provides consistency in enforcement power with the Environmental Public Health Act as well as for an effective and expeditious enforcement to be carried out on less serious offences. Sir, these amendments are consequential to the transfer of food safety responsibilities from the Ministry of the Environment to the AVA. They are necessary to allow AVA to implement these new responsibilities. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Introduction Sir, the House has just passed the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (Amendment) Bill, which provides for the expansion of the food safety responsibilities of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority. It also provides for the transfer of the Food Control Department of the Ministry of the Environment to the AVA. This Sale of Food (Amendment) Bill is consequential to this transfer of food safety responsibilities to the AVA. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on the main features of the Bill. The Bill transfers the administration of the Sale of Food Act to the AVA by virtue of clauses 3, 4 and 19. This transfer enables the AVA to regulate the safety of imported processed food. Currently, the Ministry of the Environment regulates all food establishments in Singapore. These include restaurants, supermarkets, hawkers, market stalls and caterers. Food establishments may also be non-retail in nature, such as those that manufacture, process, prepare and pack food for distribution. The Ministry of the Environment regulates all local food establishments under the existing Environmental Public Health Act. In the new rationalisation of food safety, responsibility is between the AVA and the Ministry of the Environment. The AVA will take over from the Ministry of the Environment the regulation of those food establishments which are non-retail in nature. The Ministry of the Environment will continue to regulate the safety of food at the retail end, such as restaurants, supermarkets, hawkers, market stalls and caterers. Sir, to allow the AVA to regulate these food establishments that are non-retail in nature, the AVA has to be provided with additional powers for the regulation of food establishments.”
“I want to assure the proprietors of these establishments that they would not get two sets of inspectors descending on them and checking on them with different standards, and levying two different sets of fines. This will not occur. On her last question, the AVA will be responsible for food from source, production, processing, import, warehousing, wholesaling and distribution, but we will stop at retail. We believe the Ministry of the Environment, which has got lots of experience and expertise in hygiene and in monitoring post-handling of food, is better placed to monitor things at the retail end. So that is how we intend to demarcate the system, for now anyway. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SALE OF FOOD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Sir, let me handle the questions one at a time. The Food Control Department of the Ministry of the Environment is being transferred to AVA, so we are not creating a new department. The staff, and their responsibilities and expertise, are coming across to join AVA. Of course, you may ask what about the name "FCD", which a lot of people are familiar with, in the same way that the name "PPD", if you remember the old Primary Production Department, was dropped when we created AVA. With this integration of the Food Control Department into AVA, we will also drop the reference to FCD. So the staff, their expertise, and their resources, will move across. We will not be creating a new structure for the sake of creating new structures. As far as resources are concerned, let me assure the Member that we are not going to consume more resources just because of a re-arrangement of the structure. However, depending on the state of play in food biotechnology, and the threat assessment to our public health and safety, the Ministry will, if need be, have to devote more resources into this area. As I alluded to earlier in my speech, this is an area which is evolving, and there are potential risks - in some cases, deliberate, as for instance in food bio-terrorism, or in some cases, inadvertent. So, the need for vigilance and the need to be prepared to devote the resources to this matter will always be there. The Member's next question was whether there will be more inspectors on the retail end. As I said earlier on, inspection at the retail establishments will be performed by inspectors from the Ministry of the Environment, not by officers from AVA. The purpose of this Bill is actually to create a clearer demarcation of responsibilities.”
“This is an international foods standards body recognised by the World Trade Organisation. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the transitional provisions relating to the transfer of the Food Control Department from the Ministry of the Environment to the AVA. It covers matters such as staff, property, assets, liabilities and contracts of the FCD. In this respect, I wish to stress that the FCD officers who will be transferred to AVA will do so under employment terms which are no less favourable than those already accorded to these officers prior to their transfer. This transfer will enable AVA to accommodate the enlarged scope of regulating the safety of imported and locally processed food up to just before retail. On an administrative note, clause 6 of the Bill amends the small "f" in the name "Agri-food and Veterinary Authority" to a capital "F", to emphasise the expansion of the food safety responsibilities of the AVA. Sir, we are facing new challenges in food safety. The rationalisation of food safety responsibilities will allow us to better manage these challenges, to ensure that all imported food comes under our food safety net, and that food safety standards are applied consistently to both locally produced as well as imported food. With these amendments, the AVA and the Ministry of the Environment will be better positioned to deal with the threat of unsafe food, to further protect the health of our population. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“With this rationalisation, both the AVA and the Ministry of the Environment will continue to work closely to increase the robustness and responsiveness of our food safety system, as it capitalises on the inherent strengths and expertise of the two agencies. AVA's expertise in pre-market approval, backed by its up-to-date diagnostic capabilities, will ensure that food arriving at the retail end is safe and wholesome. The Ministry of the Environment will focus its capabilities in food hygiene and environmental public health at the retail outlets. The synergy attained in such a structure will ensure that food safety standards are applied consistently to locally produced, as well as imported food, and all food imports will come under our food safety net. This rationalisation of food safety responsibilities between the AVA and the Ministry of the Environment will take effect on 1st July 2002. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on the main features of the Bill. The definition of "primary food" has been deleted and references to "primary food" throughout the Bill have been amended to "food", in order to reflect the enlarged scope of the AVA's food safety responsibilities. The word "food biotechnology" has also been added to the definition of the "agri-food and veterinary sectors" in clause 2 to include genetically modified food and other types of food produced as a result of advancements made in food biotechnology. The Bill also makes explicit the AVA's power to liaise, or collaborate, with any organisation for the purposes of determining standards related to the agri-food and veterinary sector by virtue of clause 4. This is because the AVA will take over the Ministry of the Environment's role as Singapore's contact point for Kodex Alimentarius Commission.”
“The demarcation of food safety responsibilities is generally by food types. The AVA regulates the safety of primary food, ie, meat and fish, and their products, raw milk, eggs, fresh fruits and vegetables. The Ministry of the Environment currently regulates the safety of processed foods, as well as for handling of all food at retail. This demarcation applies to both imported as well as locally produced food. Sir, this current mode of demarcation of food safety, between the AVA and the Ministry of the Environment, is not always clear or intuitive. The general public and the people in the food industry are sometimes confused as to the responsibilities of each agency. In addition, the AVA and the Ministry of the Environment adopt different approaches to food safety control for imported food. The AVA emphasises safe standards at the sources of food supply, while the Ministry of the Environment relies mainly on monitoring of food products at the retail end. Sir, in order to strengthen our food safety system, the food safety responsibilities of the AVA and the Ministry of the Environment will be rationalised along the lines of the food supply chain, rather than by food types. AVA will now regulate the safety of all food from production, to import and wholesale, right up to just before retail. AVA will also set food safety standards, enforce them, and oversee food labelling. The Ministry of the Environment will now regulate the safety of all food at the retail end, by ensuring proper food handling, and preparation at restaurants, supermarkets and other food retailers, such as shops, hawkers and market stalls.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The objective of this Bill is to provide for the expansion of the food safety responsibilities of the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority and for the transfer of the Food Control Department of the Ministry of the Environment to the AVA. Sir, let me explain the rationale behind the Government's decision to rationalise the food safety responsibilities of AVA and ENV. Sir, ensuring the safety of food is an increasingly important public health concern world-wide. The World Health Organisation has estimated that one person in three in industrialised countries may get ill from eating unsafe food. As Singapore is heavily dependent on food imports, we are vulnerable to public health risk from unsafe food from around the world. Food production is now a globalised business. We have observed incidences of unsafe food causing food poisoning outbreaks on an international dimension. Food made in one country can use ingredients from other countries, some of which may not meet our safety standards. Members of this House may recall the dioxin incident that Singapore experienced in 1999. AVA and ENV then had to take certain imported food products off the shelves, because of the dioxin contaminated food products from Europe. Progress in food biotechnology, and the use of new additives in food production, present new challenges to our food safety system. In view of these new technologies, all new chemicals, which can present new health risk to our population, the Government sees a strategic need to further strengthen our food safety system to minimise these risks. Currently, food safety in Singapore is under the purview of the AVA and the Ministry of the Environment.”
“So, Dr Teo, take heart from that. As regards high-rise farming, there is obviously a limit as to how much we can do. We cannot put the farms on top of our HDB blocks. They cannot take the weight of the irrigation systems which will be needed. However, if such high-rise farms indeed are economically viable, and the private sector is willing to bet and put money into it, MND will certainly facilitate this. 3.30 pm”
“As the sickle is about to be wielded, I am only going to talk about farming. Given our land constraints, it is impossible for us to be self-reliant. Our key is diversification. I just want to remind the House that we import vegetables from 32 countries, meat from 25 countries and fish from 89 countries. So we have multiple sources of food. The AVA seeks out and is continuously on the lookout for new sources of food. As we identify new sources, we try to transfer technology into these places. As we try to transfer technology, we also look to match-make them with our private sector so that funds from the private sector can invest in these agricultural expeditions, for instance, shrimp and fish processing in Myanmar, Malaysia and Vietnam, shrimp farming in Malaysia, vegetable farming in Indonesia and China, sea food processing and, of course, fresh pork supply in Australia. You can see the nice photos of that in yesterday's newspapers. With respect to local farms, our objective is to provide technical advice to our farms because our farms cannot be the low-tech wide expanses of farms which you see in overseas countries. They have to be high-tech and high-productivity farms. There are no current commercial deep net cage fish farms in Singapore. However, the AVA has just completed a four-year pilot project to show that it is feasible to have good quality tropical fish in deep net cages in Singapore waters. The main constraint, however, is the absence of a reliable supply of fries. In this respect, I am glad to say that AVA has demonstrated that unlike human fertility, we are pretty good at fish fertility and we have been able to produce commercial quantities of fish fries which will be essential ingredients for our deep net cage fish farming.”
“This became neither fish nor fowl, and it ended up becoming a hybrid, which was just as messy. After 1992, the HDB stopped building these dry markets and moved on to a new concept, which we called the "new market". These were similar in character to the wet markets, but there was a key difference. They were designed to be more hygienic, easily maintained, better drainage, wider aisles, and there were larger market stalls. These new markets are usually co-located with other retail and eating facilities in stand-alone neighbourhood centres. Such integrated facilities provide a better marketing and shopping environment for the residents. Examples of these would include Rivervale Plaza in Sengkang Town and the Yew Tee Shopping Centre in Chua Chu Kang. Since October 2000, the HDB has also started tendering out designated sites in new towns to the private sector for the provision of retail marketing and eating facilities to meet the needs of the residents. The successful tenderer is allowed to decide whether he is going to construct a new market or a supermarket. But, obviously, this will have to take into account the residents' needs on the ground. We think that, in this way, we will evolve forms of markets which will address the needs of the residents, whilst at the same time being practical and hygienic.”
“That is why before HDB embarks on any upgrading programme, it will always consult advisors and grassroots organisations, as to the form and the structures which need to be put up. However, I just want to add a cautionary note that it is impossible to please all-comers and to make everybody happy with all the different perspectives. At the end of the day, we have to come out with a design which is workable, and which addresses as many needs as possible. Dr Michael Lim also brought up his perspective about pre-designating religious sites. Let me assure the House again that planning is a most difficult process. We have to trade off sometimes between flexibility and being overly specific at a premature point in time, in which case, we actually constrain flexibility. But having said that, wherever possible, if we are certain on the specific use of a site, the HDB will seek to transmit that information to the advisors and to the grassroots organisations as soon as possible. But I think Members will have to appreciate that sometimes we do not have all the answers at that point in time. I want to move on to Mr Ang Mong Seng's point on wet markets. Prior to 1982, the HDB built wet markets in HDB towns. However, sometimes these things became a bit messy and unhygienic, and I take his point that this, to some extent, would have been caused by the fact that there was relative overcrowding, or too many people using it. But after 1982, a policy decision was made to stop building wet markets, and instead to build dry markets. These dry markets really consist of a cluster of market produce shops and a supermarket. But, in reality, what happened was that the shopkeepers and the residents started treating these like wet markets.”
“Sir, let me answer the points raised by Mdm Ho Geok Choo on promoting the informal sector in HDB flats. In her speech, she mentioned the possibility of coming up with more rules and registration procedures to facilitate this. I am glad to inform her that there is no need for registration and additional rules in this area. HDB already permits various small-scale business activities to be conducted from HDB flats, and these activities will include making satay, tarts, baking cakes, music, tuition and so on. However, HDB's foremost priority is to preserve the residential nature of these flats. As long as these activities do not contravene and change the fundamental nature of these residences, HDB does not require them to even register with us. 2.30 pm With respect to the public health standpoint, I think she can take it up with the Minister for the Environment, whether they will permit food prepared within these flats to be sold to the general public. With all the concerns now on public health, especially after Question time today, I think all Ministers will be a lot more cautious on that note. I want to move on to Dr Michael Lim's points about new towns. In particular, he talked about having beautiful designs, which are not necessarily the most functional. All of us in this House are realistic enough, and practical-minded people, who do want beautiful designs to be, first and foremost, practical. We are mindful of this. We are also mindful of the fact that it is not enough to just have something beautiful, but we want it to be easily maintained, because in the long run this affects our cost. I take his point that the people who have a greater stake in this are the professionals and the residents on the ground.”
“At this point in time, we import 18.36% of vegetables from China. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2002 TO 31ST MARCH, 2003 (Paper Cmd. 3 of 2002) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head V (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [15th May, 2002], "That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Leong Horn Kee]. Question again proposed.”
“We pick the samples at random and we send them for tests. We do not allow them to submit to us.”
“Let me perhaps elaborate on the system which we have in place to reassure Singaporeans. All importers are required to apply for an import permit from the AVA for each and every shipment of vegetables into Singapore. These permits are only issued to traders who are licensed by the AVA. Without a valid permit, no consignment can be imported to Singapore. These vegetables which are imported into Singapore are sampled for inspection and testing by the AVA's Veterinary Public Health Laboratory. The samples are collected when the vegetables arrive at Singapore's Pasir Panjang Vegetable Wholesale Centre. The AVA tests for pesticides and for other harmful chemicals in accordance with the prescribed protocols and the standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (this is an international food safety agency) and our own food regulations of Singapore. The intensity of these sampling tests would depend upon the past history of these types of vegetables and of the importer who has brought them in. With all these measures in place, we are sure that by the time these vegetables reach your plate, they are safe for consumption. As to his point about diversifying our sources, we already import from 32 different countries and, although Malaysia is still our largest source of vegetables, as I said earlier, other sources include China, Indonesia and Australia and these sources have been increasing over the passage of time. So I want to reassure Singaporeans that the vegetables are safe. In fact, vegetables are good for their health in spite of what our children may say, and we have more than adequate sources for obtaining vegetables.”
“In cases of severe financial hardship, the HDB does, on a case-by-case basis, allow families in these circumstances to sell their flats before the minimum occupation period has expired. PROMOTING AND NURTURING CREATIVITY IN SCHOOL 4. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked the Minister for Education (a) what proportion of the time in the curriculum and the student's time in school is devoted to promoting and nurturing creativity and (b) will his Ministry be conducting a study to evaluate the success of this effort and, if so, what kind of performance indicator will be used.”
“Sir, the report carried in the Business Times yesterday referred to cases which were in arrears in excess of three months. These are quite distinct figures from the figures which I have given, which cover cases which have approached the Board for assistance. The key point here is that there is actually no need to go into arrears. The take-home message is that if people were to approach the Housing and Development Board early enough when they anticipate that their financial circumstances have changed, there are more than adequate measures in place to assist these people. The Member's next question was on people who still continue to experience financial hardship beyond the six months. There are measures which are in place. We can reschedule the loans. We can add more names to the co-owners of the flat and take any other measures which were not utilised earlier to assist these people as well.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of clarification. Too many people have talked about skinning cats in this House and I want to remind everyone here that we are a civilized people. We do not indulge in barbaric acts like that. In fact, the Bill to amend the Animals and Birds Act, which had its First Reading a month ago, provides for increasing the fine and imprisonment for people who indulge in cruelty to animals. So I would advise people who persist in such barbaric acts to keep away from Singapore.”
“I rise on a point of clarification since my son's conversation has been a subject of much interest. We ended our conversation with my son saying, "Yes, he would defend Singapore because this is his home, his family and his friends are here." One additional statement which was a bit odd when I first heard him, he said, "And if Mr Nathan treats me well." I think what he actually means is that if the Government treats him fairly. But really the more important point behind all this that I wanted to make was that it is important for each generation to ask themselves the fundamental questions of nationhood and transmit that to their children.”
“I certainly do not want to blame the schools. This is a real problem. And, yes, it is the family; it is society. But I am being honest with you. I think if you ask your own children, to varying degrees, this is an issue. It is something which, I am submitting to this House, is worth us worrying about, thinking about, and trying to do something about it. We need to sort out the answers among ourselves first. Because what do we tell our children if we have not sorted this out. If we cannot, with a good conscience, send our children out to fight and to die, then we really have to worry about whether we even have a right to sit here. So these are the reasons why I am telling Members I have a heavy heart, I am worried, and has been hanging over my head, my mind and my heart for the last few days. Dr Wang Kai Yuen rose ---”
“I look at the National Library - I am not going to bring it up again for discussion - but I look at it with a heavy heart. I drive past my old school, ACS, I see the missing clock tower with a heavy heart. You look at hawker centres which have disappeared, it also brings something to you. It is not that we want to resurrect all those things, it is not possible, but the fact that we have a heavy heart about it, I think, is a good sign. Whether you realise it or not, there is emotional rootedness to this place called Singapore. Yes, we have been very stiff about saying, wipe out dialects, wipe out Singlish, but the truth of the matter is, there is emotion resonance in these. And we have to realise that, yes, maybe it still makes sense to remove them but be aware of the cost, and be aware that emotional rootedness is as important as material rootedness, as important as mental philosophical rootedness. So I want to end up by telling my son that, like the first generation, we need to reaffirm our faith in this country; we need to say that, yes, this is an artificial country but it is still my country. Yes, my ancestors came from elsewhere and they were not citizens, but I am different from my ancestors because now I have a country and I am a citizen. We need to tell our children that, yes, the world is in revolution but Singapore will survive. It will survive because we know who we are, what we stand for, our hearts ache and belong to something, to some place, to some ideal. And what we are going to leave behind is worth an inheritance and ultimately worth dying for. In the final analysis, this is our Singapore. I support the motion, not just going through the motion, but I support the motion from the bottom of my heart.”
“And if we start creating a system where we say this is my problem, my business and I will lead it, I will be pre-eminent and predominant in making decisions on that exclusively, that is the beginning of the end because we will unravel the whole thing. So we need to move beyond this. The Government is obsessively secular, and I think we must continue to be, because that is the best guarantee for religious freedom and religious security in Singapore. Let us talk about the hearts and the minds. Samuel Huntington has said that in the future our loyalties will be determined by what we believe rather than where we live, and this applies, I think, very much to Singapore. So, what do we believe in? I share Mr Raymond Lim's views yesterday. He said, yes, we have done Singapore 21; we have done Shared Values; Agenda for Action. We are even embarking on the Remaking of Singapore. But, really, I think the best statement of our Shared Values is still encapsulated in the pledge written, again, by our first generation leaders one year after independence. It is the concept of a united people, regardless of race, language or religion, a democratic society, justice and equality, and all this in pursuit of happiness first, then prosperity and progress. These values, I think, still stand. It is the philosophical basis for the existence of our nation, and it is good enough to fill our minds and to continue to fill the minds of our young people. For the hearts, my son said, "Well, I suppose if my family is here, my friends are here, it may be worth fighting for this place." In order to get to Parliament from MND, or even to the Istana from MND, I have to drive past Stamford Road.”
“And do not say, "Well, if you get to fly up on that trapeze, you will be a star and everyone else will be a pedestrian watching." We have to allow people to go up on the trapeze. Let some of them succeed, bring glory to the whole act. But at the same time, we still have got our safety nets, because some of them will also fall. And when they fall, hopefully, they will bounce back up because we have converted our safety nets into trampolines. Culturally, it is not enough to say that we exist because we want to be an independent nation. We draw on our historical ethnic roots, whether it be from China, Malaysia, India or the West. But we cannot rely on them because in Singapore, this peculiar multi-racial mix and this political formula that we have is unique. You cannot rely on the models which existed in the past or the models which exist currently in Malaysia, India, China or the West to use as lessons for how we need to do it. Our ethnic groups must realise that isolation is not an option. Reverting to medieval times is not an option. Copying other countries is not an option. We have got to understand this principle of co-determinism, that what happens to the Malays, the Chinese or the Indians in Singapore is not something which you will decide individually as a Malay, a Chinese or an Indian. When people talked about collective leadership for the Malay community, what they did not understand is this concept of co-determinism. The ultimate fate of the Malays in Singapore is going to be determined not by the Malays alone, but by all of us and, similarly, for the Indians and for the Chinese.”
“We agree that we have to connect ourselves to the world. We have improved our technology. We have to have education, and we have to have free trade. We are all agreed on that. We also accept, all of us on both sides of the House, that there will be increasing disparities in the income spread. There are two solutions in front of you when you see an increase in income spread. Do not get on the bandwagon, in which case everybody stays the way we are now. But it is not possible, because staying put means you sink to the bottom of the sea. Or we say that we will accept that there will be an increasing income disparity, but the issue is what do we do for those who are falling behind. And the metaphor which I could use is that, yes, we have all talked about safety nets to catch people who fall. But at what point does the safety net becomes a hammock, where you can fall and lie there and say, "This is good enough. I don't need to get up." At what stage do you have to convert a safety net into a trampoline, so that you can say, "Yes, I've fallen off, but there's an inherent spring in this, and I can use it to bounce back up." And the way to bounce back up, although it may be something which our population does not want to hear, is about training, education, retooling and reskilling. There is no other way to bounce back up from an economy which is changing, because your job has gone, because someone else is doing it more cheaply, or a robot is doing it more efficiently, or because nobody needs that job any more. So we have got to find ways to convert our safety nets into trampolines. At the same time, we still need the trapeze, because you need some people to do those high flying, dare-devil stunts.”
“As the world becomes smaller and smaller, and more and more things become common, we sometimes forget that whilst civilisations can change, 10,000 years is a very, very short time in evolutionary terms. Our genes have not changed, certainly not in the last 10,000 years or even longer. Therefore, human nature has not changed. And what we are experiencing now is the clash of a change in environment impinging and impacting on basically an unchanged human nature. So, in this world which is increasingly interconnected and global, we are suddenly realising that, hey, how I feel and how I think actually disconnects with what is happening around me and what I see around me. And so we get this movement which we loosely call fundamentalism. It is a human reaction against changes which we feel or we fear we have no control over, and which we feel or we fear dehumanises us. Because, after all, the knowledge-based economy does not confer meaning, identity, purpose of life, solidarity, love, comfort. It does not provide all these things. But as humans, we still need these things. And fundamentalism is basically a reaction against that. So before we start pinning labels on people and saying these are terrorists and these are not, sticking it even to religious labels, remember that underneath all this, are much, much deeper tectonic shifts. It is a clash of environment versus human nature. And Singapore, as this tiny dot, bobbing around in the sea, surrounded by tsunamis, is not immune to these changes. Our key challenge therefore has to be how to manage some of the problems or consequences of these changes, key amongst which are the economic and cultural disparities. And this is where you see the opposition, and us disagree. Let us talk about economics first.”
“But you and I know fully well that in this day and age, it is impossible for any one person to claim or to pretend that he represents all views. We come here as colleagues with our own set of beliefs, ideas, prejudices and biases. We hope that it reflects what the larger society feels and thinks about it, but it is not so simple. When we cast the vote, does that mean every single person out there agrees with us? This whole thing about having Parliament and representative democracy may not actually work in the future. You can, in a sense, have the ultimate expression of democracy because, after all, in a world where everybody is always on and always connected, do you still need Parliament? Well, that may be for a debate in a couple of decades or a hundred years from now. But the point is there is a change, and it is just that we do not have all the answers to that. There is an optimistic side to the knowledge-based economy. Because in the knowledge-based economy, as opposed to an industrial economy, land, capital, machinery and cheap labour become less important. It is about ideas; it is about systems; it is about organisation; it is about branding, and these are all things which Singapore has an inherent advantage in. Yes, this knowledge-based economy will cause problems and will cause dislocation, but we are actually ahead of the curve. And the fact that we worry about it and we are thinking about it now actually gives us hope that we will be amongst the first people, the first wave of nations to be able to take advantage of this revolution. But there is another side to this issue of globalisation.”
“If you take an even broader perspective, what is happening really is what the Tofflers called the "Third wave of change in civilisation". Ten thousand years ago, when mankind discovered agriculture, society changed because they stayed put in one place. Land was important. They grew their crops. Extended families were important because that was their labour source. And if they grew enough crops and the weather was kind to them, they had surpluses and they stored up. That was the original CPF. They prepared for a rainy day, and life went on. The industrial revolution occurred about 300-400 years ago. In this case, it is not the farm any more, which was the main source of wealth, but the factory. Families became nuclear families instead of extended families. Political power changed from a feudal structure that characterises agricultural society to the two competing models - representative democracy versus totalitarian socialism. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, we know which political model won as far as running an industrial age society is concerned. Economically, it was about land; it was about labour; it was about capital. But what is happening now, when we talk of the information age and knowledge-based economy, is that another paradigm or sea change has occurred in the means of production of wealth. It is now about ideas. It is about social capital, and it is still about money, except it is now global and it is moving very, very quickly. And what we are still trying to find out and we still do not have answers for is: what does this mean to us politically, socially and culturally? This is Parliament. This is a form of representative democracy. We are supposed to represent our constituents.”
“This is, after all, still a city-state where the Chinese race is the dominant race, as far as numbers are concerned, and that makes us different from our region. So there is no reason for Singapore to exist from a natural geographical, historical, size or racial reason; which then brings us to thinking why are we here today and why does Singapore exist. It exists because of a man-made obsession with an ideal called multi-racialism. We did not seek our independence for economic reasons or even to make a living. We could make a living as a British colony, as Hong Kong did for a long time. We could still make a living as part of Malaysia, as the Chinese in Malaysia continue to do so. But we were thrown out of Malaysia and we got independence because of this belief that we wanted a multi-racial place, a Singaporean Singapore, where all of us would have our chance to have our day in the sun. That was an artificial ideal which was promulgated by our first generation, which caught on amongst the population. And we said, "OK, fine, as an act of faith, we will do it, and we will create a nation." And whether you want to call it luck, circumstance or whatever, the point is, we succeeded and we got here today. Next, external forces. This is supposed to be a debate, but I have been intrigued by the fact that there has been almost universal agreement among all the MPs, including the Opposition, on the external forces impinging on us economically. They all talked about globalisation, about new technologies, about free market. There is actually no debate about the recipe for economic growth. The debate, if any, is about the implications of these three forces on our society and how we are going to deal with it.”
“History, yes, the Malays had come here first and we regard them as the indigenous people of Singapore because the Constitution says that. And the rest of our ancestors came here. Again, is there a historical reason for Singapore to exist? You go far back in time - the Sri Majapahit empire, Sri Vijaya - you can always say, "Well, this is part of the Rhio Archipelago, part of Indonesia, part of Malaysia, part of Johore". You can go back endlessly. There is no natural historical reason for the existence of Singapore. Size, we are very, very small. No doubt my Ministry is doing its best to increase it but the fact is even after our extreme efforts, it will still be very very small. We are, in a sense, trying to be Downtown Manhattan, without upstate New York, without the hinterland of the United States. And yet, we have to be a country, we have to be a nation. We have our own airport, seaport, Armed Forces, Police, Parliament. Again, there is no natural reason for our existence as a nation. What about the composition of our people? A normal definition of a nation is a group of people with shared characteristics, a shared history, a shared language, a shared religion, who happen to congregate and multiply in a certain area. Our multi-racial composition between the Chinese, Malays, Indians and others is not a natural development. It occurred because Stamford Raffles happened to come along here. He decided that he liked the harbour. Selective immigration occurred even 150 years or more ago. It is a freak of circumstances, not a natural occurrence. We are different from our surrounding neighbours, in terms of our ethnic composition and of our outlook.”
“You will or will not send our people towards a better life, and a better life may sometimes mean the ultimate sacrifice and these are difficult things which we would have to face. So what are the real issues or real questions facing us as a country, as a nation, at this stage? I want to make a couple of points. My son will not understand them now, but maybe he will read the Hansard years hence and understand that this speech is for him. Firstly, that Singapore is an artificial country. Secondly, that we are subject to external forces which we do not have absolute control over and these forces will play within our turf, within our country. Thirdly, whilst we talk about filling the stomachs of our population, we must not forget to fill the hearts and minds of our people. And fourthly, as leaders down here, I remember Dr Wang's speech yesterday, in a sense, we need to be able to spell out a vision, to give hope, to give guts and to build the ability of our people. Because if we do not do that, our country has failed and we would have failed our duties. Back to the first point - an artificial country. Geographically, if you go back far enough in time, geological ages, Singapore is at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. In fact, the Johore river and all those things that we are so concerned about now for our water supply probably ran through Singapore and probably its riverbed was somewhere in the east coast of Singapore. There is no geographical reason for the existence of Singapore except that the sea level went up and so now an island forms. Now all this ruckus about reclamation is almost ironic humour that geography and geology are playing on us.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my great grandparents came from India and China over 100 years ago to Singapore. They were immigrants. The less charitable would say, they were opportunists who came in search for a better life and to make a living for themselves and their family. Two nights ago, my son, 11 years old, five generations later, asked me, "Daddy, if there is a war, why should we fight for Singapore?" It was a question which I could not answer fully because I was rushing to drop him off somewhere and going off for my MPS. But it is a question which troubles me and haunts me even now as I speak. When you look at the television, newsreels and the newspapers, you see Palestinians, suicide bombers, young men and young women. Rightly or wrongly, whether you believe in them or not, the point is that these people have a cause and have an ideal for which they are dying for. And in Singapore we have our younger generation asking, "What is it about this place, why should I fight for it? What happens if I die?" We just came back from a holiday in Australia and my son said, "Look, there is more space there, it is less crowded, we can get a car, we can drive around. What is the point of sticking it out here?" Then yesterday, I was having a chat with one of our Mayors, who said that every time she is asked to be a guest-of-honour at a National Service passing-out parade, it brings tears to her eyes. She is a serious person who does not exaggerate. I believed her and asked her why. She said, "Well, because we might send these young men one day to their death." I am a doctor and we would like to think that doctors deal with life and death. I look around here and I realise that in this Chamber, in your hearts and minds you too discuss life and death issues.”