Debate on President's Address 2011

Mr Speaker, Sir, I congratulate you and I stand in support of the President’s call to create a better life for all Singaporeans. I fully agree with the President’s comment that it is in a new environment that our future will be built. Sir, that means challenging the mindsets and policies that are often thought of as obvious or common sense – things that many of us think “cannot be done in any other way because that is the way it has always been done”.

Sir, in re-examining Singapore’s policy blueprints in this new age and how these might be changed, I urge Government to exercise the three “Cs” of courage, clarity and conscience.

First, on courage in re-examining Singapore’s modifications of the traditional Westminster parliamentary model since the 1980s. The Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMP) Scheme was introduced in 1984 to provide a voice for the Opposition in Parliament. It allows the best performing Opposition candidates to be appointed as MPs even though they had lost in the elections. It was a scheme to address the then lack of sufficient alternative voices in Parliament.

Another feature, the Nominated MP (NMP) Scheme was introduced in 1990 − a move to appoint (instead of being elected into office) MPs who do not belong to any political party or represent any constituency. The Scheme was to provide opportunities for Singaporeans who do not participate or want to participate in politics to have a voice and/or present alternate views in Parliament.

The Elected President (EP) Scheme was instituted in 1991 and transformed the presidency from a ceremonial head of state to a directly elected office with additional power to safeguard Singapore’s rich financial reserves. The move was intended to ensure institutional checks to prevent any irresponsible government in raiding our national reserves, subjecting our country to economic loss.

The NCMP, NMP and EP Schemes are all departures from the traditional Westminster parliamentary system and installed in a different political climate.

The fact that we have in this House a team of elected Opposition MPs through a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) win, no less, bears testament to the fact that the political conditions have evolved from the time these schemes were introduced.

The new political environment the President alluded to is indeed an awakened, no-holds-barred world facilitated by an open-access, free-speech new media. Even in new media, evolution is taking place. The emergence of moderate voices in both pro-Government and pro-Opposition online communities are signs of a politically maturing electorate. I was encouraged recently to read several postings by pro-Opposition netizens who chided their online peers for their hobby of posting videos and photographs depicting often poor, vulnerable, elderly individuals without the intent to help the individuals. These moderate voices demanded that instead of simply publicising these stories on cyberspace, netizens have the duty to direct them to the relevant agencies, or even their MPs for necessary help.

Sir, against this new political backdrop which also features the many vocal PAP backbenchers and Opposition MPs in this House, I believe it is time for a review of the current political blueprint of Singapore. It is time for the Government to study the relevance of the modifications it has made to the political system thus far, and consider the merits of reverting to the parliamentary democracy system that trusts an electorate to vote and be represented by the candidates they elect to office. I believe that there is no need for the Ruling party to play the paternal role and artificially inject alternative voices in Parliament or install additional checks on elected representatives of Singaporeans.

I therefore urge the Government to examine if the created offices of NMP, NCMP and EP are still relevant in today’s new political environment. If the conditions under which they were introduced are no longer the same, let us have the courage to slay these sacred cows before they become overgrown and irrelevant.

Next on clarity. Sir, a policy area that I strongly seek clarity is in funding public services. Wikipedia defines “public services” to mean services provided by government to its citizens, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing providers for services that are deemed desirable for outsourcing or are under or not provided by the private sector. The term “public service” is associated with a social consensus that certain services should be available to all, regardless of income and are expected to be provided by government.

Sir, I am a little dismayed that asking for more money or funds is becoming a standard conversation piece in most dialogues held between Government agencies and especially Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) who are often assigned the task of providing some form of public good or other community services.

There appears to be a disconnect between (1) how much the Government thinks it should be funding, eg, social services; and (2) how much the public and service providers expect and demand. Prime Minister Lee has a point when he cautioned VWOs at the ComCare Fifth Anniversary event last December, and I quote, “We should always be mindful that welfare schemes start with the best of intentions but, over time, they grow, they get bigger, they get more comprehensive and they build up into a taxing burden, because they are easy to implement, easy to expand, hard to trim, impossible to stop.” While I fully agree with the Prime Minister about the danger of unstoppable welfare services, I think it is also important for us to clarify on what constitutes welfare schemes and what are essential services that the people expect the State to provide and fund.

Sir, it is important that crucial conversations take place between Government and the rest of Singapore to clarify and try to seek consensus in which and how public services are funded and charged. In modern developed countries, the term “public services” often covers education, public transportation, town planning, public housing, healthcare, military, police, fire services, broadcasting, waste management and social services, especially for the disadvantaged.

Service providers and users of their services need a framework that provides more clarity in funding philosophy and guidelines that take into account at least three kinds of services – essential services, community services and other form of services:

(1) Essential services or public goods such as healthcare, education of both mainstream and special schools, public housing, national security services and welfare for the vulnerable;

(2) Community services that support Government strategies such as eldercare, active ageing, health promotions, disability support and assistance for the poor; and

(3) Other services initiated by public-spirited parties who wish to promote better quality of life such as Make A Wish Foundation which grants wishes to children with chronic illnesses and Food From The Heart which distributes unsold food items to the poor through a volunteer network.

If a service is deemed to be a public good, and outsourced, then the provider should be treated as any outsourced vendor and be paid a competitive price. An appointed provider should not then have to pitch and raise funds either directly or through agents such as the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) to pay for their basic operational cost.

In the case of special education, for instance, the State should be bearing the full cost of operating the special schools for agreed expected outcomes. But the current funding formula which calls for 75% funding by MOE and 25% by NCSS seems to reflect a lack of clarity on whether special education is a public good. Formulae of this nature make little sense, complicate the reporting matrix and distract our special school leaders from their core education mission. I therefore recommend a review of the funding policies and practices of public and other community services and ask for more clarity in this area.

Third, conscience. Sir, I want to conclude by arguing for a place for even more conscience in policy formulation in the new environment.

On vulnerable uneducated and non-English-speaking workforce, Sir, the “Occupy” movement which started in Wall Street and is now igniting protests across the world is a reminder that economic growth must engage and bring along those who are at risk of being excluded or, worse still, left behind. I applaud the excellent work of the Government in helping Singapore tide over some of the worst financial crises in recent years − a feat I often feel is under-stated and under-appreciated. I support the strategy of increasing the real incomes of Singaporeans through productivity enhancements.

Sir, I serve in Kampong Glam, which houses many uneducated or less-educated, elderly and poor. I often have to seek jobs, with the help of other agencies. Because of their profiles, many of these residents were placed in the security and cleaning industries – a fact which often disturbs me. I now fear that the new productivity movement which emphasises multi-plexing job scopes and higher value-add and, in many cases, English proficiency, are no longer within the reach of my residents. The security industry, for instance, which reported a higher increase in average income due to better designed higher-value jobs, now appears to be not so accessible to those who do not qualify. Many of my people seem to be resigned now to a career cleaning and picking up after other people.

Sir, we need to raise the boat of this group of Singaporeans who are too able to be placed on Public Assistance but structurally too immobile to enjoy the fruits of the current productivity movement. I propose a taskforce to be set up to lift this vulnerable group.

On special needs population − still on the subject of conscience − recently, when I asked a youth with special needs what “Family” meant, he said “Ohana” – a term echoed from his favourite cartoon “Lilo and Stitch”. When I further asked what the Hawaiian word “Ohana” meant, the teenager repeated what he heard from TV, “Ohana means ‘family’. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.” Although I am not quite sure he understood what he said or repeated, I felt the words were profound and they reminded me and my fellow volunteers to persevere and plod on to not leave behind or forget those who are vulnerable and at risk in our society.

I recently facilitated several focus groups to prepare for the next Enabling Masterplan for the Disabled. Last week, I also read two papers outlining the challenges that the deaf and blind in our country faced. I recall the papers and appeals I have submitted to Government Ministries for inclusion and excellence for the special needs community in education especially.

Sir, it is to the credit of several Cabinet Members and civil servants that so much has improved for the special needs community in the last 10 years. Thank you, Prime Minister, Minister Tharman, Minister Vivian, Minister Gan Kim Yong, Mr Wong Kan Seng who opened the doors for the deaf to have an SMS emergency line, several Mayors and others in their respective teams who listened and helped. Yet so much remains to be done to include these sons and daughters of Singapore in mainstream Singapore.

Sir, as long as we still need to fight for public services such as access to good education and transport for them, the people with special needs in our country are still not fully members of “Ohana” in Singapore.

When a child is born with a congenital condition, he is not covered under the MediShield, the national medical insurance plan. If a special-needs child needs special education, he cannot be guaranteed of a good education because the quality of education he receives is determined by the aspiration and expectation of the charity leader who operates his special school. Unlike his mainstream peers, his school records are likely to be stored in an Excel spreadsheet or database rather than the sophisticated million-dollar IT student tracking and records system that only Government can afford for other students of his same age. The special school students’ teachers are unlikely to receive the type of variable and performance bonus plans their mainstream peers receive.

What this student with special needs ultimately gets is fought for and granted usually by some kind political leaders or civil servants whose conscience is touched. If he has no intellectual disability and makes it to tertiary institutions, he is likely to have to struggle as support for him is dependent on the kindness of his teachers and his school. For the deaf, unless they enter the right polytechnic, it is quite likely that there is little access to sign interpreters and note takers so vital for them to access learning.

The adult with special needs in Singapore is also unlikely to receive lifelong learning like his able-bodied peers, nor have his rights defended by a union representative because the union thinks that the job of representing a disabled worker is best done by a charity.

Sir, it is time to stop treating people with special needs as people we have to do something good for or something to do good to. Each one of them is registered in Singapore’s birth of registry and deserves the right to basic healthcare insurance, quality education, security and, yes, even the right to make informed decisions in the event of a general election. Their advocates should not have to fight so hard to play catch-up to ensure they are included within the system throughout their lifespan. They are not objects of charity and are more than Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or Community Involvement Projects (CIP) projects of Singapore. They are not the addenda to the main Singapore book of success. They must be considered every time a page is written and not as afterthoughts. We need a mindset shift in how we view this population.

Sir, American political activist, Martin Luther King Junior once shared these words, which I feel are relevant to the importance of doing the right thing. He said: “Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic (or practical)?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But Conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.”

Sir, it is time for Singapore to take that position to do what is right. Today, I will only ask for three specifics which I hope the Government will approve for this community:

(1) Reform the Special Education Governance System and set up a Special Education body which incorporates the best personnel and practices with representation from each major disability group. The body must look at identifying, implementing and reporting the enablers that will move special education to excellence, to make every special school a great school, in the image of what Education Minister Heng Swee Keat said and has envisioned for all mainstream schools. Lest the governing body turns out to be an assembly of persons who cannot value-add or too busy, I ask that proper due diligence be conducted and consensus be obtained before appointing members of the body;

(2) I ask the Government to fund personnel and a structured support system for students with special needs in every tertiary institution. Take a reference from the well-admired Disability Support Service Centre that is set up in the University of Berkeley; and

(3) For Minister Manpower to set up a Taskforce with the goal of providing Continued Education and Training for the special-needs workforce, similar or better than that available to the able-bodied.

In conclusion, Sir, I will share what one of my favourite authors observed about life. Rick Warren said that there are actually three levels of living life. There is the survival level. There is the success level. And there is the significance level.

At the survival level which means physically barely surviving, one worries about getting one’s next meal or a roof over one’s head. Whilst the majority of Singaporeans are not at this survival level, there are nonetheless some who fall through the holes of our social safety net and it is the duty of both the Government and people to find them and help them; to move them from survival to the next level.

At level two – success − it concerns the pursuit of happiness for oneself; happiness being defined as, all of us agree, more than the chase for GDP, encompassing quality of life factors like owning a home of one’s choice, elevators that never break down, an environment that is free of air and noise pollution, worklife balance, financial security, and the like. I assume that is what the other Members of the House were talking about yesterday, and that is happiness, success.

But, Sir, it is at the third level of living – significance – that Singapore can be a truly inspiring place to live in. Significance goes beyond looking out for the interest of oneself and one’s family only. It is not simply reading the President’s Address, play the role of critique, and holding other people accountable to pursue the Singapore Dream. It is not simply having something to live on, but something to live for. It is applying conscience and courage to stick our necks out, roll up our sleeves, give up some of our own comfort and convenience to add value to the lives of other people, especially those who are at risk of being left behind or forgotten; perhaps not just within Singapore but also in communities who are barely surviving beyond the shores of Singapore, our neighbours.

Today, I urge the Singapore Government and Singaporeans to apply courage, clarity and conscience as we partner to create a better future for all of us. And I pledge my best to help Singapore achieve not just success but significance. With that, Sir, I support the Motion.

Community, Parliament, MPDenise Phua