Xie Yao Quan
Singapore
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister mentioned the incidence rate of bullying behaviour in our schools and I would like to stress that this is based on reported incidences.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I thank MSF for responding to our cuts and I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $5,822,529,800 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.”
“What would be a fair valuation of fairness to current, affected homeowners? The Government will need to use sound and consistent principles for such an exercise, to justify the higher public spending that this implies.”
“My idea of balance that I prompted you on was not so much about keeping versus sharing at the individual level, but about spending and saving at the societal level.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just reiterate two points that I have made in my speech. First, I think it is more meaningful to look at how a term of government balances its collection against spending over its entire term in government.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for both clarifications. My basic response to both clarifications is yes. I accept that surpluses can be transferred into Past Reserves at the end of a term of government.”
The complete record
Every one of 336 lines we hold for Xie Yao Quan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“Nonetheless, I strongly believe that we can and should do more, in terms of providing many more flats with much shorter wait times, partly because our experience today is pointing to a real need for this solution, and partly because I believe that this is a case where demand for shorter wait times can be induced by the right amount of supply. Flats with shorter wait times should become an anchor product, a staple, in our future BTO launch inventory. They should make up a larger portion of our annual supply. This would certainly be useful for first-timer couples who are marrying later in life, or those who are already married but looking to settle in their own "nest" before starting a family and certainly for those already with a child. Building more flats ahead of demand would increase the risk of over-supply. Yet, this risk, I think, is well manageable. To be clear, my suggestion will not solve the current supply crunch because it will take three or more years for the higher supply of shorter wait times to enter the market. And so, this is a suggestion for the longer term, given our experience today, in order to reduce the likelihood and the effects of a repeat experience in future. For the current supply crunch, we simply have to launch more, which the Government is already doing, and to build fast, while maintaining standards and give home owners their keys as soon as possible. Besides wait time, there is one more aspect to accessibility, which is the success rate at BTO exercises. Success rate – getting a number to choose a flat. On this, there are anecdotal accounts of difficulties with the ballot, but let us look at the overall system objectively.”
“Sir, there are Singaporeans struggling to get a balance flat, essentially flats with zero wait time, immediately available. And there does not seem to be enough of these. And then, there are Singaporeans who are getting BTOs, but rueing the four- to five-year wait time to collect keys. Taken together, they point to a general conclusion, that perhaps, we should have many more BTO units with much shorter wait times in our system. To be fair, the Government had already rolled out BTO flats with shorter wait times before COVID-19 and even after COVID-19 made construction delays the dominant issue, never mind building ahead of demand. By the BTO exercise in November 2021, HDB was able to resume the launch of flats with shorter wait times. Indeed, in the November 2021 exercise alone, there were more than 2,000 4- and 5-room BTO units, or almost 20% of all 4- and 5-room units launched across 2021, with shorter wait times of around three-and-a-half years. Then, last year, in 2022, HDB launched almost 5,000 4- and 5-room BTO units, more than double the number in 2021, with shorter wait times of 3.8 years or less. These units made up almost 30% of all 4- and 5-room BTO units launched in 2022. And the shortest wait time amongst these was two-and-a-half years, with 1,300 units available. So, a sharp ramp-up in BTO units with Shorter Wait Times, and I would add, quite a remarkable ramp-up too, a decisive ramp-up, straight out of the gates of COVID-19 disruption. I would note too, that a number of these projects drew first-timer application rates of only 1.5, 1.9, two times, for 4- and 5-room units – quite low, despite the wait times. And so, the market is telling us something about the latent demand for shorter wait times.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, many Members like me would have received multiple appeals on housing in the past months. The residents appealing are likely couples about to get married or couples already married and looking to start a family or, indeed, couples with a child. Their appeals are likely along these lines. They are already in their 30s. By the time they move into a BTO flat four to five years later, they would be in their mid- or late-30s. Yet, resale is not an option because prices have shot up. Therefore, their appeal is either to please help them get a good number in the upcoming BTO exercise because they simply cannot afford to lose more time in trying again in a subsequent exercise or, more starkly, the second type of appeal, please help them get a Sale of Balance Flat (SBF) because they need a unit available immediately. I have also had parents reaching out to me on behalf of their children. So, it is not only young couples who are concerned, but also their parents who have themselves gone through their housing journey with the nation, raised their children in HDB homes and are now watching to see if their children will also benefit from our housing policies the same way that they have. Top of mind for these Singaporeans, I think, is housing accessibility – as in whether I can get a flat and get it fast, in time for my life plans. Then, there is the issue of affordability – whether I can pay for the flat. Accessibility and affordability – two operative words in the Motions before this House. The two issues are linked. They feed into each other and I will speak on both. But let me speak first on accessibility as it is more top of mind for Singaporeans.”
“At the same time, not all social conservatives are Christian or Muslim. Indeed, many conservatives are either of other religions, or not religious at all. Their socially conservative views, while deep-seated, are not religious in nature. I also hope that our engagements going forward will be in the real world, offline. Not in social media where certain narratives get amplified much more than others. Social media creates echo chambers and not equally. Some chambers may be small, but their echoes are especially loud and reverberate well beyond the realms of the chambers themselves. We have Singaporeans who are concerned about how and what social media is buffeting us with, and I think, rightly so. We need safe spaces, in the real world, where all views can come forth and be heard equally, where we can get a good sense of the real balance of views amongst all of us. And in these safe spaces, no one should have to labour under the fear of name-calling or being cancelled, especially by bad actors under the guise of anonymity. Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I support both Bills.”
“If the next step after repealing section 377A is to recognise and allow same-sex marriage, what will happen to the norms and core values of our society? These concerns are fundamental and important, and it is precisely because of this that together with repealing section 377A, the Government is also proposing to amend the Constitution to protect the current definition of marriage. Yesterday, Minister of State Sun Xueling pointed out that the Government has put in a lot of efforts to address the issue of section 377A and the concerns of various groups in society. I would like to say is that these two Bills reflect the political courage of a responsible Government and Parliament. Although the section 377A issue is difficult, we did not abdicate from our responsibilities. There is an ancient saying that “the policies of the country must benefit the people, and the key to political education is for the policies to be implemented smoothly”. The Government has faced the issue squarely and found a compromise. Through these two Bills, the Government has achieved this. The key to a successful policy is its smooth implementation. This time, the PAP did not lift the Whip. The ruling party’s job is to rule and enable policies to be carried out smoothly, and the ruling party has achieved this. This is a victory for our democratic system and for all Singaporeans. (In English): So, where else do we go from here? My hope is that all sides will continue engaging with each other and do so with ever greater depths of mutual respect, understanding and empathy. And it starts with avoiding unhelpful assumptions. For one, gays and lesbians are not a monolith. Not all homosexuals are judicial activists; and judicial activists do not speak for all homosexuals.”
“I believe, instead, that this change is about all of us, our society as a whole, maturing, progressing organically. Change takes time – and this has taken quite some time – but this change has not been precipitated by the narrow words or actions or deeds of a few. I think this change represents part of our broader progress towards becoming a more inclusive society, in various other dimensions like wage level, age, disabilities, mental health and yes, we have become more inclusive on the dimension of sexual orientation, too. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, sir, try to imagine as a parent that one day your son tells you, “Mom and Dad, I am gay. I have a partner. I want to bring him to see you”. What would you say? What would you think? It may be a difficult problem and I do not wish any parent to go through this test. But, if this is the reality, then I guess that our first response should be that our love for our children remains the same. In addition, we would not wish the son to be considered a criminal because of his sexual orientation. This second point is the crux of section 377A of the Penal Code. Regardless our attitude towards homosexuality, we would have homosexual friends or even family members in life. Like anyone else, they deserve to be loved and respected. I think we can also agree that we have no reason to regard their sexual life in private as a criminal offence. It is inhumane and unfair. I therefore support the repeal of section 377A. This is what we should do as an inclusive society. This is our duty. Of course, I fully understand that many Singaporeans are worried about the consequences of repealing section 377A. What will LGBT and gay rights group advocate next?”
“And I think they would also completely understand if their friends were to turn to them and say: look, we really will not agree to allowing your son to marry here in Singapore, because it runs against our beliefs and it runs against what we would like our children and grandchildren to believe about marriage, or at least, what we would like our children and grandchildren to see and hear for themselves before forming their own conclusions. On marriage, I think, this is the prevailing morality of our society, and our laws and policies should also protect this, even as we repeal the law on gay sex. Indeed, it seems, from a survey conducted by TODAY just two months ago, that younger Singaporeans generally think this way too. Sixty-eight percent view the repeal of 377A positively and at the same time, an almost equal proportion wishes to uphold the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman. Let me also say this. Some have commented that where we are today is effectively one step forward and two steps back for the gay community. I have to respectfully disagree. I think this is real progress. Gay sex is decriminalised in Singapore, finally. At the same time, we are coming together as a society and coming to terms with the reality that a majority of us are not yet ready to give up our fundamental beliefs including on marriage and so, let us find a balance, let us find mutual accommodation. This is a mark of our maturing society. This is real progress. Some, on the other hand, have characterised the repeal as a capitulation by the Government – and society at large – to the relentless campaigns and militant advocacy of some gay rights activists. I think this is quite unfair too.”
“I do not think they belong to a minority of young parents today. Far from it. Yet, if their son does turn out to be gay, I would make a guess that they will: one, love him all the same; and two, they will certainly not want their son, and his acts of intimacy with his partner, consensual, in private, to be labelled as criminal. Why should their son be labelled a criminal? This, I think, is the crux of the section 377A issue. Regardless of our views on homosexuality, I think we can generally agree that we know a gay friend or even family member, and we love and respect him like we do any other friend or family member, and we have very little reason, really, to see him as a criminal. I believe this is the prevailing morality of our society. And because our laws ought to reflect the morality of our society, repealing section 377A and decriminalising gay sex is really the right thing for us to do. I am glad we are doing it. We could very well stop here. Legislatively, there is no obligation or inevitability that as we decriminalise gay sex, we will also protect the institution of marriage. It is a deliberate act of Parliament, a carefully considered and balanced decision and move, to do both at the same time. And we do it, because we know that taken together, this set of arrangements would be one that our society, as a whole, can probably accept, and it can point a way forward for all of us. Going back to the story of my two friends, the young parents. Yes, if their son does turn out to be gay, they will certainly not want their son's private activities to be criminal, but I think it will be much less certain if they will accept the notion of a son-in-law, or of a grandchild, or grandchildren, within the context of such a marriage between their son and his gay partner.”
“On the other hand, there was Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng, for example, who has been advocating strongly for repeal, indeed, since 2007. Yet, in this debate, eventually, by the end of his speech, he has also expressed strong support for protecting the institution of marriage. So, very different starting points – repeal on the one hand, protecting the institution of marriage on the other – and a broad tent of views, a broad tent of starting points, even amongst PAP Members of Parliament representing various parts of our society. Yet, we have found mutual accommodation and we have found convergence in support of both Bills. And we have closed ranks and come together to try and bring all Singaporeans along on the way forward, together, in the national interest, our personal views notwithstanding, as my colleague Mr Murali Pillai has so eloquently put it. This is how a responsible governing party works. This is our democracy in action. And I am glad that Opposition Members and Nominated Members have all joined us in seizing this moment. We owe it to Singaporeans to do right by our democracy. We discuss the difficult issues directly, and above all, we stand for unity and compassion as one people. Mr Speaker, Sir, now, let me get to the substantive matters. First, on the repeal of section 377A. I will start with a quick story. I once asked two friends – husband and wife, in their 30s, young parents to two kids and we were talking about their expectations of their children. And I asked them, what if their son turns out to be gay, and wishes to bring his partner home to meet them, what would they think? Without missing a beat, they replied to me, they cannot even begin to contemplate and imagine such a scenario.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on the substantive matters concerning the Constitution amendment and the repeal of section 377A, let me first make one point that I think has not been made enough. This is the fact that the debate that we are having yesterday and today in this House is a milestone – a huge milestone – for our evolving democracy. It reflects the political leadership of a government and a parliamentary majority who have resolved to rise to our duty, not abdicate from our responsibilities and find the political courage and gumption to confront the difficult issues head on and do what is right even if there is no political favour to be gained and, indeed, every chance of a political cost to bear. Once the prospects of the Courts striking down section 377A in a future challenge became clear, this Government of the day did not choose to "unsee" what it had seen. The Government did not look the other way. Instead, we sprang into action, put it squarely on the agenda as our duty required us to and set out to find a way forward for all Singaporeans, difficult as it may be. So, I say – especially to the youths who desire a more robust democracy in Singapore – I say let us celebrate this moment. This is our democracy in action. This is our democracy growing stronger. I listened to my colleagues yesterday – Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Alex Yam, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Ms Jessica Tan, for example – who hold very strong beliefs on the family unit and want the institution of marriage to be protected and strengthened. Nonetheless, eventually, by the end of their speeches, they have also expressed their strong support for repeal in this debate.”
“I would just like to ask if he has considered the impact of this proposal on both cost of living and economic competitiveness, as so many of our Members have raised. Sir, in summary, notwithstanding the concerns about cost of living and economic competitiveness, this Bill raises the curtain on exciting opportunities and possibilities for Singapore, and I support the Bill.”
“Singapore was the first to introduce a carbon tax in the region. And in very short order, Singapore will have the highest carbon tax in the region. How do we make sure we remain competitive in the region and that whole industries, like petrochemicals and electronics, do not lift and shift out of Singapore? How do we ensure that Singaporeans can continue to look forward to good jobs in these industries in a low-carbon future? Can the Government share more details about how it plans to work with industry to build new capabilities, and indeed, turn this strategic challenge into new and exciting opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans? Indeed, traditionally, emission-intensive industries can, and must, become a part of our future green economy. And while the competition may be regional, markets for these emission-intensive trade-exposed industries are, in fact, global. And these markets will lead and define the demand for low-carbon products and services in the future. And so, we have an opportunity in Singapore to build future green capabilities for the world, position Singapore as a global hub to leapfrog the status quo and help the world produce green products and services. How might we better communicate this vision to all Singaporeans and make all of us part of this journey to turn the carbon constraint into exciting opportunities, and to turn the low-carbon challenge into a whole new world of possibilities in the next chapter of our Singapore Story, just as we have done for water, gas and land, in the Singapore Story thus far. Sir, before I conclude, I would also just like to make a quick response to Member Mr Louis Chua's suggestion just now, if I heard him correctly, he was suggesting a US$100 carbon tax.”
“Of course, in the medium term, by the end of a few years, we hope that individuals' consumption patterns would have changed and businesses would be well on their way to transit to low-carbon business models and practices, and the cost impact of carbon to both individuals and businesses and across the whole economy would have reached a new equilibrium, plateau, or even come down. But there is no avoiding that we are raising carbon tax soon in the eye of this "perfect long storm" and a cost impact – higher costs – now and in the near term is almost unavoidable, coinciding with a period in which costs of living are sharply rising. Electricity prices will go up because of the higher price of carbon. Public transport costs will likely go up too. So, I like to ask and seek clarification on how does the Government plan to help Singaporeans cope with and adjust to this new normal of low carbon? How do we cushion the impact – and for which groups – yet maintain the integrity of the price signal of carbon across the whole of society and bring all segments in our society along in this journey towards a low-carbon future? It is heartening to hear the Government's commitment to use part of the carbon tax revenues to help Singaporeans cushion the impact, by way of, for example, more utilities rebates and public transport vouchers (PTVs), but can the Government share more of its thinking about how it plans to deploy this, for whom, how much and what would be its guiding principles and key considerations as it moves ahead in this direction? Beyond the impact on costs of living, another very real concern of a higher carbon tax is the potential impact on Singapore's economic competitiveness, especially for traditionally emission-intensive trade-exposed industries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite apt that after a long debate yesterday on the GST increase – whether it is necessary, and whether it is the right timing to do this next year and in 2024 – we are debating today about a higher carbon tax, from 2024 onwards. Just as we need a higher GST to help fund the healthcare needs of a population that is ageing surely and quickly with every passing day, we need a right price signal for carbon across the whole of our economy and our society, in a world that is heading quickly towards temperatures that are 1.5 to 2 degree celsius above pre-industrial levels, a world in which extreme weather has become more and more real for more and more people. Climate change is an existential threat, so we need the right price signal for carbon in Singapore urgently to drive the necessary changes in behaviour, by both individual consumers and businesses and producers. Singapore introduced the carbon tax in 2019 at a nominal $5 per tonne of CO2 emission to help the whole of our society transit and adjust. Three years on, there is an urgent need to do more, to ensure that "the price is right" – that the price signal for carbon is right. Yet, this could not have come at a more challenging time. In what Senior Minister Tharman has described as a "perfect long storm", climate change is converging with other structural fragilities, like rising interest rates and inflation. And the need to bear a higher but right cost of carbon – now – is competing with very real concerns about costs of living, concerns that are immediate and real.”
“— one family doctor was quoted as describing Healthier SG as "our great leap forward for primary care and preventive care for chronic conditions." But a "great leap forward" may not end up in success. So, I prefer to see Healthier SG as a "moonshot" for SG Healthcare. And when JF Kennedy resolved to send a man to the Moon, he said, "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Indeed, Healthier SG entails hard work ahead for us in this decade, very hard work. But this is precisely why we must do it, and we will do it together to secure a better and healthier future for all Singaporeans.”
“Indeed, we should welcome such redundancy and it could serve as a useful buffer. If we focus instead on optimising capacity and funding efficiency at the margins for these programmes, we will blunt the larger intended purpose of the programmes under the Healthier SG strategy. I will make one last point about the community and that is eating and food choices in the community. Member Ms Hazel Poa suggested taxing unhealthy food to subsidise healthy food. And I would just like to ask her for clarifications about her specific ideas for taxing unhealthy food and in the larger spirit of Healthier SG, having heard the essence of the strategy, whether she feels that, an intervention like taxing unhealthy food would cohere with the overall spirit of the strategy and is still a good idea. Madam, let me conclude. In the White Paper —”
“But recently, there has been concerns amongst residents that some of the exercise groups by HPB could be cut or consolidated away because they are not hitting and maintaining a certain attendance rate. If the purpose of these exercise groups is simply community programming, then I would agree with this approach because we need to be prudent. But if such community exercise programmes are so important in Healthier SG, if these programmes are the tip of our Healthier SG spear, then we need a different approach. We need to have K-pop classes available in the mornings and evenings on weekdays and on weekends. We need to have Zumba and Stretch Band and HIIT classes equally available, mornings or evenings, weekdays or weekends. We need each and every local community to be abuzz and completely teeming with community exercise groups and health promoting activities catering to the entire range of needs and lifestyles within the community. This will really bring Healthier SG alive in the community and send a strong signal to residents that we want them on board, even if this may mean some redundancy or unused capacity at the margins.”
“We should aspire to – as many Members have mentioned – the UK model for example, where GPs can eventually refer patients for direct admission to a hospital within a healthcare cluster, without the need to go through an Emergency Department, for clinically appropriate cases. I hope as we progress in this multi-year Healthier SG journey, we will keep pushing the boundaries on healthcare financing as a key lever to drive integration and what is currently described in the White Paper will not be become our eventual end-state. My last broad point on Healthier SG: in certain aspects of the strategy, let us avoid optimising at the margins, only to blunt the tip of the spear. What do I mean? The Motion before us today has only three limbs and community-based programmes are one of the limbs. In fact, the White Paper also emphasised that, "good health is sustained through everyday choices and habits, which take place outside healthcare facilities" – outside the clinic. So, community-based, health-promoting programmes are a centre of gravity of Healthier SG. These programmes in the community are what I would call "the tip of our Healthier SG spear" and as Minister mentioned in his opening speech, they occupy that space and the time between the visits to the clinic, to the GP, so they are really important. They are the tip of our spear and we must keep it sharp. Keeping it sharp means amongst other things, ensuring that there is adequate funding to this part of the strategy, and as importantly, we need to rethink how we measure effectiveness and efficiency of such funding. For example, exercise groups by HPB had emerged with a vengeance since we opened up and residents have really welcomed this.”
“It is timely and apt that Healthier SG emphasises upstream interventions, primary care, preventive care, collaboration between GPs and community partners to promote health. All this is good, but we also need to pay an equal amount of attention to integrating much more downstream. In other words, strengthening the integration between GPs and specialists that are based largely in our hospitals. GPs have spoken of the need to become more equal partners in care, vis-à-vis their specialist counterparts. GPs want to feel that after a referral is made to a specialist in a hospital, there is tight two-way communication and the loop is closed, and GPs do not feel like they are losing their patients to the system, and in the system. Of course, details about such integration between GPs and specialists ought to be worked out by the healthcare clusters but I wished the White Paper had made a stronger mention of our larger, strategic intent in this regard. For Healthier SG to really tackle chronic diseases across our population, we need to integrate much more, both upstream and downstream, across the health and healthcare value chain and address all archetypes, including those with more advanced diseases and requiring more specialised care. My fourth broad point: on healthcare financing, our reforms can go further to truly drive integration. Ideally, capitation funding to GPs should flow through the healthcare clusters rather than from MOH, as is currently proposed in the White Paper. Capitation funding to GPs through the clusters will drive fuller integrations between GPs and the clusters as regional health managers.”
“On a related note, may I suggest even more boldly, that clinical manpower recruitment, posting and deployment in general across our three healthcare clusters, should be centralised at the Ministry level going forward? Currently, the healthcare clusters have principal responsibility for this strategic manpower function. Taking this responsibility off the clusters and moving it to the Ministry level will ensure a coherent manpower planning strategy nationwide in support of national desired outcomes, and as importantly, this would free up strategic bandwidth within the clusters for them to step up to their very important new roles and responsibilities as regional health managers under Healthier SG. Besides clinical manpower planning, we would need equally robust manpower planning for our cybersecurity and healthcare IT talent. As the White Paper noted and many Members have noted, IT is a critical enabler and quite often a pain point. But the competition for tech talent has never been more intense and will probably intensify further. So, how does the Ministry plan to manage the competition and secure the healthcare IT and cybersecurity talent it needs to deliver on Healthier SG? We need to get this right, because this is about securing public trust in the protection of their healthcare data, and it is also about securing the trust of professional users in the usability and inter-operability of our healthcare IT systems. In summary, my second broad point about manpower planning for Healthier SG: we need this to enhance clinical manpower stability in polyclinics, we need to free up strategic bandwidth for healthcare clusters and we need to secure critical IT talent. My third broad point is: let us remember to integrate downstream even as we look to integrate upstream.”
“And I think we also need a mindset shift in our population, from a doctor-centric view to one that respects all healthcare professionals including nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals, and what they can do. In summary, my first broad point: our Healthier SG strategy needs to be inclusive socio-economically, inclusive digitally and inclusive for all healthcare professionals. My second broad point is that manpower planning will be key in Healthier SG. The most natural question in this regard is how many family doctors, nurses and so on, would we need to fully realise the strategy, but I prefer to leave this to MOH's COS debate next year. I think that would be the best time to discuss manpower numbers. Today, I would like to raise some other points about manpower planning. First, for the public healthcare sector, we need stability to become a key principle in manpower planning. Family doctors and physicians in our public polyclinics will take on a significant portion of the Healthier SG workload even as we enable GPs to step up and to do more. So, within the polyclinics, I would like to ask what happens to enrolment arrangements when family doctors and physicians within these polyclinics move, get rotated or cross-deployed, as they routinely do. Do patients move with the doctors? Fundamentally, are Singaporeans going to be enrolled to a polyclinic or to a particular doctor within the polyclinic? May I boldly suggest that we need less rotation and more stability in our manpower planning for all polyclinics across all three healthcare clusters in order for Healthier SG to work as it should?”
“We need optionality as a core design principle of key Healthier SG touchpoints. The third question I have is, how do we ensure Healthier SG is Inclusive for All Healthcare Professionals? I did a word count. The word "doctor" was mentioned more than 160 times in the White Paper, unsurprisingly. Compared to "nurse" and "nursing", which were mentioned 22 times, "pharmacist" was mentioned six times and "allied health", seven times. So, the doctor appears overwhelmingly to be the centre of gravity in the Healthier SG strategy, but what about the roles of a nurse, a pharmacist and an allied health professional? Is there room for more equal roles, more co-leadership to shape preventive care in the community? Because, let us pin the flag squarely on the mast. The focus of Healthier SG is chronic diseases. Prevent chronic disease onset in the first instance and if disease is inevitable, manage these diseases well. So, it is not complex medicine per se, but medicine that is person-centred, relationship-driven and certainly high-value. And in this respect, nurses are very good at titrating medication and at engaging, motivating and cajoling. These are key activities in preventing chronic diseases and in managing chronic diseases, that nurses can be very good at. And in comparison, what is more exclusive to doctors is the gestalt to diagnose diseases and to provide prognoses of disease trajectories. So, I wish we had a fuller articulation of the vision for nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals, including medical social workers, in the overall Healthier SG strategy – all practicing at the top of their respective licenses in the community, alongside doctors, to prevent and manage chronic diseases across our population.”
“I wish the White Paper had provided some insights to these questions. The second question that I have is how do we ensure Healthier SG is inclusive digitally? The Healthy 365 app will be the "digital front door" for citizens to enrol with a family doctor and Healthy 365 will also be the "digital front door" for capturing individual behaviour, for tracking progress and for generating healthpoints in exchange for rewards. But we know that a number of seniors have dropped out of exercise groups when these groups went onto Healthy 365 for the sign-up and bidding of slots. They dropped out because they did not know how to do this on Healthy 365. Seniors have also given lots of feedback about polyclinics and their recent shift towards more and more of an appointment-based system in lieu of walk-ins. Seniors wonder how they go about booking polyclinic appointments online or on mobile? If they call the hotline, what number should they call? How long do they have to wait for their calls to be answered? A "digital front door" in Healthier SG can well become a "digital gate" for some and we have to avoid that. The White Paper further mentions HealthHub as the second "digital front door" for every individual's health action plan. But each of the three healthcare clusters also has its own app – its own "digital front door". So, put together, these could add convenience to users but they may also confuse them. The point is: while digital is essential and we must have digital channels, we have to also preserve traditional touchpoints. In other words, we must provide optionality in the key touchpoints of Healthier SG. Optionality by providing both traditional and digital options rather than substituting the traditional with the digital.”
“First, Healthier SG must be inclusive because it goes to the heart of our social compact, and our social compact must, in turn, be for all Singaporeans. On this point, I have three key questions. How do we ensure Healthier SG is inclusive socio-economically? We know the lower-income segment has poorer health outcomes and a lower propensity for health-seeking behaviours for various reasons. Therefore, I wished the White Paper had included specific mention of how we plan to support our lower-income segment through additional, differentiated measures to remove the particular barriers to health-seeking behaviours that this segment faces. For example, because travelling distance may be an especially salient barrier for this segment, do we need to be particularly deliberate in ensuring proximity of family doctors in both GP clinics and polyclinics to our rental communities? How can we improve seemingly basic things like nutrition, sleep and smoking cessation through targeted interventions for this segment because these things may not be basic for them? How can we help this segment find time and cognitive bandwidth to exercise, when time and cognitive bandwidth may be particularly scarce for this group? Because the social needs of this segment are especially high, how can we be particularly deliberate in enabling GPs to work with community partners to address such social needs? How can we better bring Social Service Offices and social service agencies into the framework of healthcare clusters and Primary Care Networks so that we strengthen and tighten the nexus between social services and health for the low income? Who will have primary responsibility to pull all the assets together to wrap around the enrolled person?”
“Madam, in 2020, I said in my maiden speech in this House, during the thick of COVID-19, that while we worked on the immediate task at that time of flattening the epidemic curve, we also needed to keep our sight squarely on our longer-term health care challenges and bend our long-term healthcare cost curve. Today, we are debating a new health and healthcare strategy for Singapore, laid out in the White Paper on Healthier SG. The last time MOH published a White Paper was 30 years ago. That paper was on affordable health care and it was a landmark paper that went on to define the development of our healthcare system over the last 30 years. Thirty years on, we have this White Paper on Healthier SG. And I believe it will be no less of a landmark paper, providing an additional strategy – a strategy reboot – for a vastly different population with very different needs and against the backdrop of a Government healthcare budget that has increased many times in the last 10 years. This White Paper shows how urgent and important our challenge of bending the healthcare cost curve is. I stand in support of the Motion. I had two key considerations in mind as I prepared this speech. First, because the challenge before us is so important and so urgent, we must take a thorough and critical look at every piece of the Healthier SG strategy and leave no stone unturned. In this regard, I will make quite a number of points in my speech. But second, I will focus only on the strategy – and the key strategic pieces – and set aside for now questions that are of a more operational nature, even if there are a number of these. With this preamble, let me lay out my views on the White Paper on Healthier SG.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive update on the decision to take back ownership and management of the Sports Hub and also the plans to unlock the Sports Hub's full potential for Singapore and Singaporeans. I am very glad to hear about the move and I have a clarification for the Minister about the leadership of the Sports Hub going forward, starting with the CEO. I think we will need a CEO going forward who is able to understand the vision, execute on the vision and really bring it alive. And importantly, a CEO who is able to build the leadership team to help him or her to achieve all of this. Can the Minister give some update about what is the selection process that we can expect, maybe in the months ahead and what are some of the principles or qualities that we would be looking for in a CEO to lead the Sports Hub in its next chapter.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Finance Minister's considerations for not cutting duties on petrol, chief amongst these considerations being that it subsidises private transport, which the less well-off may consume less of. So, I appreciate the considerations. But diesel undergirds so much of our supply chain and, indeed, the delivery of essential goods and services. And that is the reason why I filed a question specifically on the possibility of cutting the duty on diesel products. I just hope to seek a clarification from the Finance Minister as to the possibility of this.”
“As Singaporeans, we cheer our national athletes on when they compete, we celebrate with them when they win and partake in their disappointment when they do not. But, I think, we will reach the next level in our high-performance sporting culture here in Singapore when we can go beyond spectatorship, transcend spectatorship, to be an active part of the system and an active part of the movement. 6.00 pm In this respect, MCCY has created a One Team Singapore Fund (OTSF), where individuals and corporates can make donations with dollar-for-dollar matching by the Government. Can MCCY share its future plans for this Fund, so that we can continue to encourage a spirit of giving towards high-performance sports in Singapore?”
“Chairman, I would like to speak briefly about sports today – the role of sports in our lives and in our community. And I would like to start by recalling Minister Edwin Tong's response to one of my Parliamentary Questions recently. In his response, the Minister laid out very comprehensively the overall framework – of our sporting system, sporting programmes and sporting infrastructure – and at various levels, from sports in the community, to sporting performance at the highest level. And his response reminded me then that sports are a little bit like clean air in our lives; we tend to forget that it is there, until it is no longer there. But I think, through years of effort, we have built up a framework that has allowed sports to become so integral a part of our lives and our community here in Singapore. It is in this spirit that I raise two questions, around what more we can do to strengthen the role of sports in our lives and our community. First, on inclusive sports. Sports have the power to uplift and empower individuals. It uplifts the spirit, it allows for the display and expression of talent and flair, it can help a person discover himself or herself. By extension, sports have the power to uplift and empower whole segments in society – more vulnerable children, youths at risk, persons with disabilities, seniors. It can transform lives. The Delta League by the Home Team is a good example. And SportSG has also launched the SportCares programme. So, can MCCY share its future plans on its SportCares programme, so that we can continue to grow a movement of inclusive sports to transform lives in Singapore? One Team Singapore Fund Chairman, second, on high-performance sports.”
“He suggested that older students in higher education should all have a chance to learn such skills. This would better equip students to provide peer support and, indeed, a strong tapestry of peer support is also key to tackling stigma. Peer support can be that first net to catch and embrace persons dealing with mental health challenges. And this should not just be for youths. We should strive to build up a state of peer support that permeates through a person's life course, through youth, as a working adult and, importantly, as a senior, when challenges such as isolation become particularly salient. But peer support cannot replace professional help, when it is needed. In this respect, for professionals working with children, the obligation to inform is a particular challenge at times. It deters some children who need help from coming forward. And the interplay with the existing stigma adds to the complexity. It is hard work for mental health professionals who are working with parents and children to see how best they can support each child and every case is different. But where there are successes, we should get these stories out, so that we can encourage more children and more parents who need help to come forward. Stigma and other crucial issues relating to better mental health and care are a long journey that takes all of us. And the formation of the Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well‐being is a strong signal of the Government's commitment to this very important journey. I look forward to an update by the task force about its work later. Permanent Mental Well-being Office”
“Chairman, it is heartening to see more open conversations acknowledging the stigma around mental health and the need to break this stigma. Our key task ahead is how to break the stigma, keep chipping away at it, keep shifting the needle, as a whole of society. As a first step, I believe we need to raise our collective awareness, knowledge and empathy on mental health. So, for instance, understanding that signs of distress do not mean a disorder per se. A person who shows signs of anxiety, for example, may not have an anxiety disorder. A person with low mood, low energy, feeling "depressed", may, nonetheless, not be facing a depressive disorder. Symptoms and seeking help, counselling, therapy for these, do not mean there is a clinically-diagnosed condition. There is a difference. And conversely, understanding that a person living with a clinical disorder may not actually show signs. People around him or her may not even know. It may not be obvious. So, we need to continue working at our collective understanding and sensitivity on mental health as an essential first step in tackling stigma as a society. Because this translates into our words, the language that shapes our discourse. And words do matter. Where our words are understanding, authentic, but sensitive and nuanced, it helps someone else to reach out to us. The right words can open up more doors for a person who may need help. The right words can also help us to reach in, to open the doors of someone else's heart. So, building a kind, compassionate environment free of stigma starts with our words and our language. And it also takes real skills, skills to truly listen and respond with empathy. 2.15 pm In a dialogue I moderated, a youth in his early 20s made this important point.”
“Community Care Apartments for Seniors Chairman, since MND and MOH launched their assisted living pilot, the Community Care Apartments last year, there has been a lot of interest by seniors – seniors who wish to right-size, live independently, with the right care support when needed, and in the company of fellow seniors. I have asked before in this House, and I would like to ask again, if MND plans to launch more of such Community Care Apartments? And would MND be minded to work with the private sector, to promote the development of private assisted living options? Private Assisted Living Options”
“Chairman, heartland shops are a precious part of our HDB estates. They provide convenience to residents by bringing various goods and services close to homes. They provide jobs and livelihoods in the community. Heartland shop proprietors are quite often also residents within the same estate and they hire assistants, roles quite often filled by residents who are caregivers or seniors, who need or value work flexibility and proximity to home. And heartland shops provide a place for residents to meet one another, for ties to form, a focal point for each community. In short, heartland shops make our HDB estates not only places to live, but also work, play and bond. They make our HDB estates "Home". 3.15 pm Yet, many forces are disrupting the retail sector at large. And heartland shops, too, would need to keep abreast with changes, transform where they must, and indeed, look beyond the estate to capture new opportunities. To this end, how does MND plan to support heartland shops to thrive and remain a vibrant part of our HDB estates? Built Heritage Chairman, in November 2021, MND announced a pilot heritage study for the Old Police Academy site, with a view to informing both future studies on other sites and the larger assessment and planning process, how we can continue to strengthen this, including the possibility of formalising a framework by which such heritage studies may be required. Could MND update on its plans to formalise such a framework to require heritage studies for certain sites?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. Buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions. Therefore, green buildings will be a key lever for our net‐zero ambitions. How will MND and BCA continue to support our transition to green buildings and a low carbon built environment? Also, MND announced last year that it was driving R&D in urban sustainability such that our urban infrastructure is made much more climate‐resilient while reducing carbon emissions. Can we have an update on the progress made and how MND plans to encourage stakeholders to adopt these solutions? Have we achieved any innovation that has the potential to be commercialised and exported to the world? Green HDB Estates Mr Chairman, HDB envisages the Green Towns Programme as a 10‐year plan that aims to reduce energy consumption, recycle rainwater and cool the built environment in all HDB towns. Can MND provide an update on the progress of the HDB Green Towns Programme? I know the target for solar panel installation has been revised upwards. How about the targets for other aspects of the programme? How much have we moved beyond pilots to deploy solutions at scale? Rooftop Multi-storey Carpark Urban Farms”
“Chairman, the digital economy allows us to transcend our geographical constraints and create value for the world. Our digital capabilities must become a strategic competitive advantage for us. We cannot stop, for competition will not stop. And, indeed, we have to go even faster and further, as competition will only accelerate. In this regard, what are MCI's strategies to build up an ICT workforce in Singapore with deep expertise and with ever more and exciting opportunities for Singaporeans? More broadly, what are MCI's plans to nurture a digitally-enabled workforce at large that can access opportunities brought about by digital technologies across the economy? At the ecosystem level, how is MCI driving investments in new technologies and their translation into applications to enhance Singapore's long‐term competitive advantage?”
“Chairman, as we move towards a digitally-inclusive society, we will not only need to focus on promoting digital literacy and skills, but also on supporting all businesses, especially small and medium‐sized enterprises, and all individuals to guard against both cyber and data threats. This will strengthen our collective defences and resilience against bad actors and preserve overall confidence in our digital future. In this regard, what plans does MCI have to support our businesses and citizens? Cyber and Data Threats”
“Madam, I echo Member Patrick Tay's call to MHA to do more to shift buyers of private security services towards outcome-based contracting – outcomes that can and should be achieved by security technology playing a central role to augment manpower. Unfortunately, the practice today, especially in the residential sector of the market, is still "cheap-sourcing" – based on headcount. The operating model and mindset are still very much about having warm bodies on site to do tasks that technology can already do today. We need to help the sector progress beyond this "headcounts" mentality. I think it is a big reason why the sector continues to face an estimated shortfall of 10,000 to 15,000 officers today. Meanwhile, existing officers in the sector put in longer hours and unsustainable shifts to plug the gap. I understand from the Union of Security Employees that split shifts with two hours in between, for example, are a common practice today. But during these two hours, the officer may very well be unable to leave the site, especially if it is in a far-flung location. Job conditions for our officers can become much better if operating models and practices shift decisively. In addition, I would like to ask if MHA has other plans to uplift security officers, encourage women participation in the sector and enhance respect by society at large for the profession. More Effective Measures to Combat Scams”
“Madam, I thank the Member for his clarification. I will keep this short in the interest of time. I listened to Prof Hoon Hian Teck yesterday and he spoke about every society having to find its own judgement about where is the sweet spot. And, so, to Mr Perera's question, I think it is really a question of judgement. And if we look at the entire revenue mix, our NIRC rate now as it currently stands of 50/50 is, in my view, the right balance and we should look at other revenue levers in the first instance. Thank you.”
“But I believe that a key step or, indeed, steps going forward, must be the discourse that we have on these very important issues. The discourse, the process, beyond policy pronouncements, are key steps ahead in renewing and strengthening our social compact. As fellow Members have said, it will show who we are and what we value. To this end, I hope our discourse ahead can be based on facts where we explain and correct misconceptions where we must, instead of propagating and reinforcing these. I hope our discourse ahead will recognise and be rooted in our own local context where examples of other countries are thoughtfully analysed and interpreted. Above all, I hope our discourse ahead will seek to elevate us collectively to an ever more mature, more inclusive democracy. Raising taxes is one of the hardest things to do for any Government. If the alternatives are really so straightforward, this Government must be mad to want to press on with GST. I think Singaporeans understand, deep down, that all options have been fully considered and raising GST is necessary – alongside other levers, of course, but raising GST is necessary. So, let us focus our discourse ahead, our next steps, on how we can make this work, on what else we can do, on how we can all play a part, using this Budget as a “first step”. And that, I think, will make for a truly renewed and strengthened social compact that all Singaporeans can be proud of. Madam, I support the Budget. [Applause.]”
“Cost of living is a very real concern and, yes, a small minority of businesses may be using GST as a pretext to raise prices, perhaps, even ahead of the hike itself. But the reality is there are many other forces, apart from GST, pushing prices up. In fact, there are many businesses as well who are trying their best to absorb what they can even as they have no choice but to pass on some of the costs to consumers by charging higher prices. We are all in this together. So, I hope that, on cost of living concerns, all of us – consumers, businesses, workers, the Government – can recognise the part that everyone else is playing to help address the problem. And I urge the Government to continue monitoring the situation closely and provide decisive support, as necessary, even beyond this Budget. But let us start with all of us seeing the cost of living issue objectively and quite apart from GST factors because, ultimately, we have to refrain from making GST a strawman or a convenient scapegoat stopping us from doing what we ought to do as a people. We can address both GST and rising prices with separate appropriate measures and this is what this Budget has done exactly. Madam, to conclude, I have laid out how in renewing and strengthening our social compact, healthcare will remain central, and why raising GST in our uniquely Singapore design is the fairest way ahead and how, while those with more will contribute even more, ultimately, we all need to be in this together. Actually, on further reflection, another key phrase by the Finance Minister struck me and, that is, that this Budget is the "first step". So, it means there are more steps to come. What steps then? We may ask. Well, it may be future policy moves in the same direction.”
“In fact, coupled with the Progressive Wage Model, which, essentially, is about getting the whole of society to chip in to supplement and uplift wages at the bottom, when this Progressive Wage Model works alongside Workfare by the Government, the combined boost in gross wages for our lowest-wage workers will be almost $1,000 every month by 2025. This is, in my view, an overdue but nonetheless decisive move that will profoundly transform jobs and lives at the bottom and form a key part of our renewed social compact. On this note, I also urge the Government to consider raising the chargeable income ceiling for the zero-rated personal income tax bracket from $20,000 today to $30,000 in a future Budget to ensure that our tax regime continues to keep pace with wage developments and stay progressive. Madam, my last reflection is that a renewed and strengthened social compact is not and cannot be about asking only those with more to contribute. It cannot be about "what can you give to me" because all of us, we, are in this together. So, while those with more will contribute even more in future, we must be careful not to take it to the extreme. We will have a very different ethos if we devolve into a state of "what can or should you do for me". Hence, everyone pays GST and we put in place large transfers to achieve net effects but the same GST rate applies to everyone in the first instance rather than a tiered system or a system of exemptions by segments, by categories, at the outset. I think it sends an essential signal that, in the first instance, we are all in this together. A related issue here is rising prices.”
“If we include enhancements to the GST Voucher scheme, which is permanent and permanently helps Singaporeans with higher GST, then, for the same period from 2022 to 2026 alone, the couple will receive an additional $1,800 in GST Voucher cash. Actually, the absolute cash amount is more than $1,800 but the incremental alone is $1,800, thanks to enhancements to the scheme. And on top of that, around $590 in Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates, which have also been made a permanent feature of GST Vouchers. So, transitional support and permanent enhancements combined, this typical family will receive additional support totaling almost $7,400 over the next five years. Very significant. Another example – an elderly couple, retired, in a 3-room flat. The total additional support they will receive for the next five years comes up to $9,200 – very, very significant and I think a very strong signal of how we are strengthening our support for those with less. Another major move is enhanced Workfare. Workfare is effectively a negative income tax for those at the bottom. It makes our personal income tax regime highly progressive and what this Budget does is to enhance Workfare to make the overall regime even more progressive. Specifically, a 50-year-old getting $2,500 per year in Workfare support today will get $3,600 per year in future; a 30-year-old young worker who has not been eligible for Workfare today will get $2,100 per year in future; and all persons with disabilities under the age of 44 who have been getting $1,700 per year today at the lowest tier of Workfare support will, in future, get the highest tier of support at $4,200 per year. These are major advancements for those with less.”
“If we were to analyse the pros and cons of this move, we must first understand the fundamentals of our unique GST system. Under this system, many of those who pay GST are foreigners and tourists. GST collected from them are also a big chunk of the total tax revenue. Hence, our GST system is a two-pronged one. First, it gets substantial tax revenue from non-Singaporeans; second, they are spent on Singaporeans, especially in healthcare. Therefore, our GST system is on the side of Singaporeans. It is our friend, not foe. Coupled with the Government's support measures, the impact on lower- and middle-income Singaporeans will be minimised. (In English): Madam, my second reflection is that in this social compact, those with more will be contributing even more to support those with less even more strongly. The higher taxes on property, luxury vehicles and top individual earners send a strong signal that, in our social compact going forward, those with more will contribute even more. At the same time, those with less will get even stronger support than before. In terms of cushioning the impact of GST, this Budget provides both transitional and permanent support which, when added up, amounts to a very significant level of support, perhaps, the most in our fiscal history. I did the sums. Based on MOF's example, for a typical lower-income family – a couple with two young children in a 3-room flat, the husband the sole breadwinner – they will receive $5,010 under the Assurance Package from 2022 to 2026. But this is only the transitional support.”
“In other words, if we look beyond the theoretical nature of consumption tax as being regressive and an undue burden to the middle- and low-income, if we look at the specific design of GST here, where non-Singaporeans and a small portion of Singaporeans, some high-spending Singaporeans, pay most of the tax that we then use to benefit all Singaporeans and, when we return the GST paid by the middle- and lower-income to make the tax effectively progressive, if we look beyond the theory and recognise the uniquely Singapore design of GST here, in practice, we can conclude that it actually works for all Singaporeans. Therefore, we should really be looking at our GST system as a lever of first resort in our fiscal toolkit, rather than a lever of last resort, as it is being framed, I think, from time to time in this House. To be clear, I am not saying that we cannot and should not do more on other levers like personal and corporate income taxes. Mr Louis Chua has also raised salient points about these and I agree with him. We can do more and I do hope that the Government will do more in good time. But my basic point is to let us look at all our revenue levers as a whole mix and recognise that we are already moving on property and personal income taxes as part of this mix but, at the same time, higher GST must also be an essential part of the same mix. In fact, because of the way in which we have designed it, GST should be a lever of first rather than last resort in the mix. Getting this consensus right is important for our renewed and strengthened social compact. Madam, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this year's Budget, what attracted the most attention is the GST hike.”
“It goes like this: "The younger generation wants to earn its own keep and is capable of earning its own keep. And so the money available today, let the older generation spend it and make full use of it, today. No need to save it for us. No need for the older generation to leave anything behind." Many kids today would tell their parents the same. But parents will want to leave something behind for their children. It is who parents are. It is a basic instinct, a basic desire. Parents want to gift a legacy for their children. And, in my view, it should be the same for a country's finances. Each generation must want to leave something behind for generations that follow. Our forefathers have left much behind for us. It is the most precious thing and Singaporeans should carry this on. So, I think the current 50-50 formula for our NIRC is just right and we should resist the urge to spend more of NIR today, leaving less for tomorrow. On the other hand, for GST, because and only because of the specific way in which GST has been designed here in Singapore, I believe that increasing GST is the fairest way for us to raise the revenues that we need. It is the fairest way because a large proportion of GST – more than half of GST – is paid not by the average Singaporean but by foreigners working and living here, by tourists visiting Singapore and by a minority of Singaporeans who spend more. So, all of them contribute to most of the GST. We then take some of this to return back to most other Singaporeans a portion, if not all, of the GST that they pay and, whatever GST revenue is left for the Government in this way, the net GST revenue, we spend on healthcare for all Singaporeans.”
“The question is, how can we help all Singaporeans who need a TKR and opt for one in future to afford it? Take cancer, as another example. In my House Visits, I have met many residents, either in remission, or even on active treatment and management. They show that it is now possible to live well with cancer, because of incredible advances in cancer care. But again, there is a real and high cost. How can we help all Singaporeans and their caregivers and their loved ones, afford such life-giving care, if cancer finds them one day? There are many other examples. Inevitably, with many more seniors with advances in standard care. In the years ahead, we must spend much more on healthcare. Billions more. And so based on that scale of what is needed, some levers of revenue generation, on their own, are simply not going to be enough. In this Budget, the Government is sharply increasing tax on the highest-end properties, but this will only raise a few hundred million more each year, not the billions that we need. Realistically, two key levers that can meet our needs come to mind: one, GST; and two, the contribution of returns from investing our reserves, or what we call NIRC. A higher NIRC means we take more of the investment returns to spend today and plough less of these returns back into future investments for future returns to benefit future generations. Today, the NIRC rate is 50% and if we increase NIRC to say 60%, we can raise enough to fully fund future healthcare. This was a specific suggestion by Mr Louis Chua yesterday, who by the way, I think made a very good and insightful speech. So, increase NIRC to 60%, rather than raise GST. That is the suggestion. And I have heard a compelling argument for this.”
“Madam, last year, I spoke about our social compact. So, I am glad to hear the Finance Minister say that this year's Budget is "a first step in renewing and strengthening our social compact". "Renewing and strengthening our social compact", precise choice of operative words and a profoundly important aspiration. And today, I wish to offer three key reflections. First, a renewed and strengthened social compact must be about the state playing an even more activist role in healthcare, to ensure quality and affordability for all. And we have to find a way to fund this. Over the years, we have invested billions in our public healthcare system. Because we have decided early on, that quality and affordable healthcare would be a key pillar in our social compact in Singapore. And because we cannot rely only on the free market to achieve this, the Government has been playing an activist role. To have kept that commitment and stayed the course, investing billion after billion, year after year, this is something that should not be taken for granted. Yet, as we look ahead, we need to do even more. This is because our future healthcare challenges will be different and amidst these challenges, Singapore must continue to be a nation where all Singaporeans can aspire to take good care of their parents while providing the best for their children and where every Singaporean can have basic peace of mind for him or herself. More advanced diagnostics and therapeutics are becoming what we call standard care. Take total knee replacements (TKRs), for example. These can drastically improve quality of life, as patients who have actually gone through TKRs would know. And TKRs are indeed becoming more and more common. But the real cost of a TKR is thousands of dollars.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for laying out in his response, the really comprehensive framework of support and the system that we have in place to support our national athletes. And I just like to acknowledge that this system has been built up and put in place over many years. And indeed, looking at the recent news coming out from a neighbouring country where the funding for their national sporting council was severely cut because of COVID-19 and with severe and direct impact to many of their national athletes, I think it lends perspective to the framework of support that we have in place for our athletes. Nonetheless, I think there is always room to do more and in that respect, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first one, of course, inspired by Loh Kean Yew's historic win recently. I would like to ask if the Minister could share more information on how the Government plans to continue supporting world champions like Kean Yew to continue performing and excelling and winning at the highest levels. The second question; more directly, I understand that Kean Yew did not win any prize money from his recent championship. But in the case of athletes who do win prize money, are they allowed to keep this money or are they expected to contribute some part of it to the Government?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two questions for the Minister for Health, and this is with regard to averting a testing crunch that we see around the world amidst an Omicron-driven wave. My first question is, in the event of such a wave, how do we plan to avoid a run on testing facilities in our healthcare system for people who are keen to get a test – either PCR or ART – and this includes, of course, primary care providers that the Minister has mentioned in his answer, but also, importantly, emergency departments? How do we avoid a run on healthcare facilities for people who are keen to get a test ordered? The second question is about self-testing. How do we plan to ensure an adequate supply of ART kits to keep prices of these kits steady?”
“Not only does it remind the future generations of our roots, but also reflects the values which the society holds dear. In September, a man was charged under the Preservation of Monuments Act for wakeboarding at the Civilian War Memorial. This was clearly disrespectful of the National Monument. This may be a rare incident but I hope that this incident did not leave any permanent damage on the memorial. But society and the Government have a responsibility to safeguard our National Monuments from damage and disrespect. Today, we have more than 7,000 conserved buildings which are under URA and 73 National Monuments under NHB. To a layperson, it is not always clear what the difference is between a conserved and protected building. I am very happy to hear that the Government has reviewed the Preservation of Monuments Act and is stepping up protections provided under this Act. National Monuments ought to be accorded the highest level of legal protection in Singapore. The Minister said that the Preservation of Monuments Act will align NHB's powers of enforcement with those under the Planning Act for conserved buildings. This is a good step, but I suggest that the Government look into whether there is a need to strengthen the legal protection of National Monuments beyond that which is accorded to the conserved buildings. In addition, I would also like to ask about the efforts which NHB has undertaken to educate the public, particularly school children, on the significance of our National Monuments. (In English): The above clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.”