8 Nov 2006

     Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.
 
     The President's Address is moving, because it addresses the very principles of Singapore's success.  The President has given a clear message to Singaporeans that the success of Singapore cannot only be measured by its economy, infrastructure, GDP and per capita income, but also by its ability to uplift the less able and the less successful in the society, so that no one will be left behind.  This inclusive approach, where all Singaporeans matter, is key in ensuring that we will continue to maintain a cohesive social and political compact while facing the intense competition brought about by globalisation.
 
     Sir, by all international benchmarks and standards, Singapore has been very successful in the last 41 years since independence.  I would like to point to a distillation of the values which have contributed to our success so far.
 
     One remarkable work which discusses these values comes from Dr Henri Ghesquiere.  His book is entitled "Singapore's Success - Engineering Economic Growth".  The book is full of abstract principles and insights, many of which, in my opinion, are objective and accurate.  This is a man who has a PhD in economics from Yale University.  He has studied the economies of more than 14 countries.  He has worked in the International Monetary Fund for 27 years.  Last December, he retired as Director of the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute.  This institute was a joint venture between the IMF and the Government.  It was created eight years ago, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, to train visiting central bank and government officials from the Asia-Pacific region.
 
     To my mind, there are three principles underlined by Dr Ghesquiere which cut to the heart of Singapore's success.  These three principles are: meritocracy, our handling of race relations and our sharing of wealth.  But as an outsider, he identifies them in terms of principles, facts, statistics and charts.  An outsider's view, no matter how informed, does not resonate as strongly as an insider's.  Our relationship to these principles is in the form of personal stories and experiences.  And I think it is worthwhile to dwell on these, to underline this Parliament's commitment to them.
 
     Sir, Opposition parties or the PAP, whether on the Government's side or the opposite side of the House, I believe we all share these values.
 
     First, meritocracy.  Sir, I would like to share my personal experience to explain how meritocracy works in Singapore.  I came from a low-income family, and both my parents did not have a chance to receive education.  My father was a taxi driver and my mother was a housewife.  Life was hard then, but we managed to live from hand-to-mouth, from the little income that my father brought home.  Life was made much harder when my father suddenly fell ill to cancer and he left us after putting up two months of spirited fight against the illness.
 
     I was about to take my GCE 'O' level examinations when my father passed away.  His final words to my mother were: “Let the children continue to study, no matter what.  This is the only way for them to have a good future.”  Quite frankly, it was a daunting task for a widow whose sole responsibility had been to look after five children to suddenly assume the role of sole breadwinner and to ensure that the children could continue with their education.  Luckily, there were the bursaries available in the schools that helped me and my younger siblings to carry on with our studies.  And I managed to receive a scholarship from the Government to complete my tertiary education in NUS.
 
     Sir, my personal life journey makes me truly believe that, in Singapore, no one will be denied of opportunities, if he or she works hard and has the gumption and courage to fight on.  And the very principle that drives the whole mechanism to give Singaporeans opportunities is meritocracy.
 
     Second, our handling of race relations.  Sir, much has been made of the post-65 generation, or P65 as they are called, and their strengths in connecting with the young.  I am also one of those in the P65 generation, but I am referring to the pre-65 generation.  I think the pre-65 generation also has the strengths to connect to the not-so-young.  One of our strengths must surely be our personal and emotional view of Singapore's history.
 
     Mr Speaker, Sir, I was born in the late 1950s and had personally experienced two extraordinary events before Singapore gained independence.  The first was the communist insurgency, and the second was the racial riots.
 
     I lived in a two-storey pre-war shophouse along Rochor Road during my childhood days.  At the time, Rochor Road was a place for gangsters and agitators who wanted to stir up trouble, and these included the members of the Barisan Sosialis.  I remember there were street demonstrations organised by the pro-communist elements.  When things got out of hand on the streets, the police fired tear gas onto the demonstrators to disperse the crowds.  My family would huddle together and my mother would shut the windows and doors.  But they were rickety wooden things with big and small cracks in between, and the smoke from the tear gas just seeped through the cracks.  The tear gas was prickly and spicy.  When it got in contact with the eyes and nose, tears and mucus would just flow out uncontrollably.  It was a very unpleasant experience and painful sensation even for the adults, not to mention a young boy like me.  I am not sure how many Members in this House had inhaled tear gas before, but my neighbourhood had experienced it a few times, for it seemed that the crossroad junction of Queen Street and Rochor Road was a hot place for street demonstrations in those days.  The street protests had badly affected the livelihood of the people in the area, as customers would be too frightened to come and the shop properties and vehicles were often damaged by the agitators and trouble makers.
 
     Another unforgettable violent event was the racial riot in 1964.  Again, the neighbourhoods of Queen Street and Rochor Road was one of the flashpoints in this historical event.  During the period of racial riot, I saw two Malay men alighting from a green bus that drove into the bus terminus which happened to be opposite my house.  The green bus was heading south from Johore.  The two Malay men were walking on the street, then someone shouted ”pak”, which meant “attack” in Hokkien, and a group of Chinese men ran after the two Malay men.  One of them managed to escape while the other fell into a deep drain and I saw many Chinese men piled into it and one of them was carrying a long bread knife.  All of them were roaring.
 
     Sir, I was six years old then and this event happened almost 42 years ago.  But these images still look so vivid after all these years.  I would not want my children to see what I had seen.  I would also not want any children at the age of six or seven to have to see it.  But having witnessed it, it has been etched into my mind, which means that all my life, I will be carrying this burden of that horrifying experience.  I know what it is like to have men kill one another just because of their race.  I have seen how senseless and meaningless it is.  I have worked hard to prevent it, not as an abstract principle, but as a value of life and death.
 
     Mr Speaker, Sir, we pledge as a country that we will all stand shoulder to shoulder, regardless of race, language or religion.  Working in CDAC, I know that I am working for the interest of the Chinese Community.  But at the same time, I have very close contacts with my counterparts in the other self-help groups.  We have collaborated on many joint projects whenever the conditions are right and the opportunities arise.  We are different and yet united.  I believe that this is one of the reasons for Singapore's success.  And we should continue to hold this value of unity in diversity dearly as it is the basic social and political foundation to ensure stability in the society.
 
     Next, our sharing of wealth.  Sir, Dr Ghesquiere points to Singapore's obsession with long-term economic prosperity for our society as a whole.  He quotes Dr Goh Keng Swee, Singapore's first Finance Minister and also Defence Minister as saying: “We must strive continuously to achieve economic growth, which requires political stability, and should not be distracted by other goals.”
 
     Sir, I believe the Government has achieved this.  Over the years, we have seen and heard from the Government that, given the rapidly changing global and regional challenges, Singapore must continuously remake itself to make sure that we do not lose in competitiveness.  By and large, we have proved ourselves on this front.  Now, we have to pay more attention to wealth sharing.
 
     In this area, I think we have made a good start.  Dr Ghesquiere points to our strategy in this respect.  He writes: “The preferred strategy was to arm men and women with the means and opportunities to earn a living and acquire assets for their families by raising the skill level, including that of lower-income groups, and thus ensuing upward mobility.  For Singapore's elite, this win-win offer was perfectly rational: wealth would be shared or it would not exist.  The only viable model was export-led growth that would take advantage of Singapore's location and make optimal use of its one resource, its people, creating social unity in the process.”
 
     Sir, social cohesion is our aim, and one way to preserve this is to share wealth.  I feel that we can do more to help the lowest 20% of households in Singapore.  The Progress Package is a good way to do this.  But we need to change the way we explain what we do.  We explain the package as a way of recognising Singaporeans' contributions.  But then, this leads to the middle-income group voicing out that they do not get as much as the lower-income group, despite contributing and paying more income tax.
 
     Sir, I think we need to be explicit on this.  The Progress Package is, in fact, a leg up for the poor.  It is to help them progress.  I know that our Government deliberately shies away from welfarism for a good reason.  We have a tough Government that does not hand out things for free.  But, it is also no secret that from time to time we creatively give welfare, handouts in the name of Progress Package, ComCare Fund, New Singapore Shares, Workfare Bonus, etc.  Sir, I am not complaining about all these schemes.  In fact, I am supporting these, provided we do it the right way without taking away the motivation for Singaporeans to work hard, upgrade and improve their lot.
 
     Sir, we have witnessed in recent years the widening of the income gap and that the lower-income group has a smaller wage increment compared to the other income groups.  If this is left unchecked and uncorrected, I fear that one day it will threaten our harmonious social fabric when the financial divide between the haves and have-nots has become too wide a gulf to bridge.  We should not restrain our ablest and the brightest to make their millions and in the process create economic wealth and jobs for other Singaporeans.  However, we can create a social environment for the better off to help the worse off through voluntary work and donations.  We have made reasonably good progress in this area as the number of volunteers has increased over the years and the Government has given double tax deductions for donations to charities.  I think more can be done, given the widening of the income gap.
 
     One group of Singaporeans who are more vulnerable and can fall through the social safety net are the senior citizens.  Despite our short history, Singapore is one of the fastest ageing countries where, in 24 years' time, one in five Singaporeans will be 65 years or older.  And as older people are more prone to illnesses, the healthcare cost will be a major concern for them.  Although 2030 seems quite a distance away, I feel that we should start doing the groundwork now to prepare Singaporeans for their old age needs.
 
     Sir, I am very happy to note that in its Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry of Health has included improvement to the ElderShield as part of its future plan.  I applaud the MOH for taking a far-sighted view on ElderCare by taking an early intervention to tackle the medical needs of older Singaporeans before the first sign of trouble emerges.
 
     I was told that, in Israel, there is a party called the “Pensioners' Party” which got into their Parliament on the basis of one issue, the elderly.  The people who voted for this party are not just the old but also the children of the elderly who do not want the problems of their elderly parents to land on them.  It is said that two parents can take care of four children, but four children are not enough to take care of two parents.  So, if we do not address our ageing issue properly, we may end up having a Pensioners' Party in Singapore one day.
 
     Sir, let me share what I have experienced as an MP for my constituency, Radin Mas.  Radin Mas is an old constituency in terms of its history and the number of old people.  Here, more than 20% of residents are above 60 years old.  This is likely to be what Singapore may look like in 2030, if the present population policy remains unchanged and the Eldercare and ElderShield schemes are not revised timely.  During my house-to-house visits and the meet-the-people sessions, I came across many elderly who live alone without financial support from their children.
 
     Many of them are on some form of financial assistance, from the Government's Public Assistance Scheme, to the CDC's welfare grant and the CCC's ComCare Fund.  And to be honest, Sir, my CCC's ComCare Fund has run out of money and we have to put up a request to the Central Singapore CDC for top-up.
 
     Sir, my observation is that three factors contributed to the plight of all these senior citizens.
 
     First, they are under-saved for their retirement needs. Second, they are under-insured for their old age medical needs.  And third, their children are providing insufficient financial support.  Some do not even provide support at all.
 
     Through my conversations with them, it is clear that very few elderly know how much they have to save for their old-age needs.  Quite often, their CPF savings could last them from the retirement age of 55 to 65 or 70 years old.  Thereafter, their CPF savings would run out and they had to turn to others for help, if their children are not willing or not able to support them.
 
      As the average life expectancy for Singaporean men is 77 years old and women, 81 years old, they would have to live on financial assistance for 7-15 years if their life savings are depleted at 65 or 70 years old.  This should not be the state of condition that we would like our senior citizens to go through.
 
     Sir, to address their concern, we need to firstly strengthen the family network to ensure that inter-generational ties are strong enough to withstand the pressures that will be brought to bear.  For children who do not want to take care of their aged parents, the option to toughen the Maintenance of Parents Act should remain open if the current provisions are found to be inadequate to compel the children to care for their parents.
 
     Secondly, there will be an increasing lobby for more healthcare benefits for the elderly.  We need to seriously look at what can be done on a long-term and sustainable basis to address this, whether in terms of medical insurance or preventive healthcare.
 
     Thirdly, the question of livelihood.  As our senior citizens are generally more healthy, better trained  and still able to work beyond 62 years old, I hope that the Minister for Manpower could keep this line of thought open, ie, to allow our workers to work to 65 or 67 years old if they are still physically fit and possessing the right skill set for their job.  However, we should not artificially extend the retirement age just to solve the ageing problem without due regard for older workers' competency and productivity.
 
The greatest thing

     Mr Speaker, Sir, I started my speech by speaking on Singapore's success using a serious research by Dr Henri Ghesquiere.  Now, I would like to end my speech with a fairy tale from Hans Christian Andersen.
 
      In one of Andersen's stories, a whole kingdom was in search of  "the most incredible thing".  Whoever created this most incredible thing would marry the king's daughter and inherit half the kingdom.  A young artist then carefully built an extraordinary clock.  A thing of beauty which, upon striking of each hour, different groups of figures would appear - the three wise men, five senses, seven deadly sins, and so on and so forth.  This was an incredible thing, and the artist was about to win the hand of the princess.  Suddenly, a gangster burst into the room and smashed the clock into pieces!
 
      "Breaking a work of art like that.  Surely that must be the most incredible thing!", cried the judges, and they gave him the hand of the princess.  "The Most Incredible Thing" is a tale for the children, but a wise one nonetheless, for we need to know the difference between creating a truly incredible thing, and destroying it merely because of the desire to score political points or playing to the gallery.  [Incidentally, for those who want to know, the gangster did not get to keep the princess, or the kingdom, but you have to find out the ending by reading the story yourself!]
 
      Sir, we have done a great thing in building this country, a little "red dot" that shines on the world map.  This is a new Parliament, with many new MPs, including a new Opposition Member.  I would like to urge all of us to remember the story of the beautiful clock.  Singapore is fragile, as well as successful.  The greatest thing that we can do would be to work on it, delicately, carefully, to try to make it an even greater country.
 
     To do so, we need to create new conditions for Singapore's success, by allowing the ablest and brightest to take to the sky, and uplifting the less successful and needy to live their lives with dignity and purpose.  If we can do so together, putting aside our partisan loyalties and our overriding concerns with economic indicators of success, that, to me, would be the "most incredible thing".
 
     With that, Sir, I support the motion.