Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of thanks to our President.

In his Address, the President mentioned that if Singaporeans were fearful and reluctant to adapt, we would lose ground. He urged us to respond boldly and creatively to these challenges for a Singapore we will all love and be proud of.

Sir, I applaud the President's call because it is indeed in our minds that the most important battles are fought. What we 'see' in our minds determine what we will do which then determine the results we will get.

Albert Einstein once said, "The significant problems that we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when they were first created." I would put it in simple English: "Many of today's problems cannot be addressed by yesterday's mindsets."

Sir, I would like to present three mindsets that I consider a bit outdated and would like to challenge. Outdated mindset (1) that Government holds the answers to all our problems; outdated mindset (2) that the current "many helping hands" approach is working well in helping those who need help; and outdated mindset (3) is what I call the "either-or" mentality.

Allow me to explore these mindsets with examples from the social service and special needs sector with which I am familiar.

Let us examine the first mindset held by many people which I believe is outdated, that Government holds the answers to our problems. There is a saying that the world is moving so fast these days that the man who says that something cannot be done is generally interrupted by someone already doing it.

Sir, the problems and challenges that we face are so mega and even global that no one holds the key to all the answers, not even Government. In fact, from my observations, unless Government finds a more effective way to obtain and process ground feedback on key issues, root causes and possible solutions, it is highly possible that policies and programmes that are developed may be flawed or, at best, average.

I recently surveyed close to 200 special educators, medical professionals and parents with special needs children on a project I am conducting on early intervention and special education. The findings would be out early next year. But the issues that were brought up were surprisingly consistent. When I challenged the professionals on why they have never brought these key issues up before after so many years, their response to me was "nobody asked me."

This reminds me of a feedback from another well-meaning parent of a special needs child who wrote in recently to me. He wanted to give us feedback on how to get feedback. And he said, "Where can we say that a system is working very well? Take the analogy of a product or service, you simply cannot hear from the manufacturer, the salesman or the product designer. It would pass the excellence test only when the users of the system are in agreement that the product or service is good."

Perhaps we can adopt a best practice of how to get more authentic and direct ground feedback from one of our local hospitals. A friend of mine, the CEO and his executive team in this hospital, willingly admitted that in a large organisation like theirs, there would always be a gap between the vision and what happens on the ground. So they found a classic and simple way to slice through the hierarchy and get down to listen directly to the customers through monthly focused meetings with their ex-patients. They did not claim to be magicians who can resolve all the ex-patients' concerns but immediate action is taken for those that can be rectified. And this has happened for several years now.

Sir, I suggest that leaders at all levels consider doing the same. Strange things happen when people become public figures or when they hold important titles. The more other people think you are important, the more they tend to interpret your comments or your questions as instructions or orders. Many then push back and stop questioning you and sometimes they go to great lengths to withhold the bad news from you. Hence, Government leaders and those who develop policies must formulate some systematic ways to stay close to the ground and not hear only from parties who have either designed the product or the service or whose interests are dependent on the status quo.

By the same token, just as Government does not hold all the answers, neither do the rest of us citizens. Citizens who consider themselves the conscience of our society or who are advocating for their own needs must exercise what I call both courage and consideration. We must never be silent on the things that matter because that will be the end of a life that is worth living. And as the saying goes, progress results only when there are some men and women who refuse to believe that what they know is right cannot be done. But neither should we assume that we are the only people whose needs and views must be addressed.

So, Sir, no one holds the answers to all our problems, not even Government. The new mindset for the future is together we, the people and the Government, hold the answers.

Sir, the next outdated mindset I like to share and challenge concerns the "Many Helping Hands" approach that is often exalted whenever we speak of an inclusive society and that no one is left behind in Singapore. Let me just explain this approach, as I understand it.

Under this approach, different parties in society - individuals, Government agencies and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) or charities - work together to help those who are in need. The current operational model mostly works this way. Government sets policies, outsources the work, and dispenses the funds, for example, to the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). NCSS then outsources execution work to VWOs and polices them. And VWOs, at the tail-end of the value chain, deliver the service.

MP Mr Low Thia Khiang shared last week at a media interview about his concerns that the "Many Helping Hands" might become “No Helping Hands”. Sir, please allow me to share from a different angle on this same topic, but speaking from ground experience in the special needs community.

My biggest concern with the "Many Helping Hands" approach is not "No Helping Hands" because I know there are many people in Singapore who care and are willing to do more than just talking. My fear is that if we are not careful, Singapore will face a "Wrong Helping Hand" syndrome.

Sir, I urge that we send this sacred cow of "Many Helping Hands" to the vet for re-examination. What are the roles of the State or the Government, NCSS - the overseer of VWOs - the VWOs and the people? Who does what best?

In a recent 2006 AGM of the NCSS, it was shared that some charities were considering purchasing indemnity insurance for their board members to address the fears and concerns of these volunteers for fear of being sued. In the same minutes as well, it was recorded that auditors have to be persuaded to audit charities or VWOs as they are considered high-risk and the auditors do not want to be sued.

A recent survey conducted at the National University of Singapore (NUS) revealed that charities have been extremely conservative in managing their funds. I was given feedback that the reason is because many of these volunteers in the board are afraid that they will be taken to task and one day be sued like the NKF directors. They think, "Better to play safe."

Another example. A volunteer hawker representative I know in my GRC was tasked with the job of relocating all the hawkers into a new temporary market. We spoke and he shared about his concerns of what would happen if some of his fellow hawkers default in their payment for the sharing of the construction cost of the market. This hawker, an appointed volunteer, is just a sugar-cane juice seller, tasked with a very big job.

Sir, I urge that we re-examine the mindset that just because volunteers have the compassion, they will always be the best party to manage and deliver the services they are tasked with, no matter how big the responsibility. Many voluntary organisations lack critical mass. I know because I volunteered for five to six years in this field. Many of them lack critical mass. Many volunteers lack focus and time too because they are busy people. In a few cases I surveyed, staff from some VWOs commented that their bosses are given the power but some of them lack the necessary competence in either management or leadership or technical expertise to run the job.

Have we not learned from the spate of sagas involving VWOs that something fundamental might be wrong? Is introducing a bigger whip, more audit committees and more regulations to make sure VWOs behave themselves, the only answer?

We must exercise more due diligence and be more realistic in what we expect from volunteers, one key pillar of the "Many Helping Hands". More fundamentally, as our problems magnify, should all aspects of critical functions, such as taking care of the growing elderly and our adult disabled, the education of special needs children or even some parts of healthcare, be run only by voluntary organisations? As for the role of the Government in the "Many Helping Hands" approach, Sir, I believe that in addressing these future social issues such as the elderly, the disabled and the education of special needs children, Government's role would have to move.

We can take a reference from the system integrator sector of the IT industry. System integrators systematically study the needs of their clients and then based on agreed available money and human resources targets, they then assemble different components to stitch a solution for the clients. And then depending on their own strengths too, they would decide which component they should deliver directly, and which they should outsource. Often times, they get paid only when it works. And at times, payment is withheld until things completely work.

In the same way, in deploying the "Many Helping Hands" approach, Government can consider moving away from its current detached mode and equip itself with people and better expertise to systematically, and in a structured way, identify and prioritise needs on the ground and then stitch together solutions that work. In areas that it does not have core competence in, it should outsource those functions. In areas in which it has competence, it should take on the task of delivering that function itself.

In the world of education of special needs children, for instance, Government can outsource areas which are best delivered by experts in that special need. But it must not shy away from providing direct service in curriculum planning, curriculum design, academic assessments, which it does so well in mainstream education.

Sir, I challenge the illusion that the current way we deploy the "Many Helping Hands" approach is the best way forward to ensure that no one is left behind. I ask the House to consider adopting a new mindset that the roles of State, VWOs and people must be more correctly defined so that each does what it is best at.

Last, but not least, the outdated mindset I wish to touch on next is the "either-or" mentality that many of us hold. Many people think in black and white and as a result, our solutions to problems usually lack imagination and inclusiveness.

In the world of education of special needs children in Singapore, for instance, the issue of integrating the children into mainstream schools has always been a bugbear. A stalemate has always arisen because people passionately gravitate to either one extreme, ie, you integrate them or you segregate them. This child is either in a special school run by charities or mainstream school run by Government.

But, Sir, things need not always be either this or that. If we would only think a bit deeper, integration can come in three different levels. There can be physical integration, where these children can be seen and heard; there can be social integration, and there can be academic integration. Even if children cannot study in the same academic classes - English, Mathematics, Science - could they not share the same toilets, play in the same playground, go to the same canteen to eat together, attend the same non-academic lessons? Is life always ending up in "either-or" decisions?

Sir, we have a growing elderly population, one of the fastest growing in Asia. If from young, one has never interacted with peers who are different, then how do we expect that as adults, the same persons will suddenly become inclusive and able to accept other people who are different from them? To push it further, with this lack of interaction and exposure to people who are different since young, how confident are we that our adult children will be able to accept and even care for their own parents when they become old, sick and maybe disabled?

Mayor Zainudin just testified that there is an increasing number of Singaporeans abandoning their elderly in nursing homes, even when they can afford to keep them at home.

Sir, the “either/or” mentality is one mindset that we need to examine. It is one that stifles creativity and is not useful in addressing the multi-faceted challenges we face today. Instead of “either/or”, we can think “and”.

But all is not lost, Sir. In my daily life as a full-time volunteer and as an MP, I see encouraging signs that our future challenges can be surmounted.

In a spate of six months, I am part of two national work groups started by Government/MCYS to study the difficulties faced by the special needs community. I look forward eagerly to the response to the first report we put up.

I also experience this. The Minister for Education and several officers - principals, teachers - despite the system, have on their own offered tremendous help to the special school that a group of us volunteers have started. In this same special school - talking about the elderly now - I have a few officially retired principals and teachers who applied and took on jobs with lesser titles. Despite their age, they work tirelessly each day for the children, as if they have never retired. One of them, 68-year-old Mrs Jean Koh, who is running our facilities, suffered a stroke a few years ago, and she is still running around cooking and feeding the students and the staff, though she cannot see well.

Waiting for me and my grassroots leaders of Jalan Besar GRC is a group of post-75 youths who will be starting a youth-with-a-heart project to lend their hand to serve in our community.

We also need not panic that if more help is given, we will fall and slip right into the black hole of welfarism. I spoke to more than 100 parents recently in another project that we did. Many parents of special needs children I spoke to did not ask for handouts. Some of them come from lower-income families. They asked instead for programmes that will train up their children, that will hone their children’s employability skills, so that these children, when they grow up, can find jobs to feed themselves one day, a much more dignified way of existence.

So all is not lost.

Sir, this Chamber sits 84 Members, elected by more than a million voters of Singapore who are counting on us to help surmount the challenges of today. If we would reduce the political posturing quotient and have the courage to slay the sacred cow mindsets that are outdated, replace them with more updated paradigm, we will surely leave Singapore in a better shape than when we first begun our term. Singaporeans can soar like eagles, even if our take off point is a little red dot in this world.

I repeat, Sir, today’s challenges cannot be addressed by yesterday’s mindset. The real battlefield is in our mind. Henry Ford said, “whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you are right.”

The future of Singapore lies in the mind of everyone who calls Singapore home.

With that, I support the motion.