Speeches
Promoting the spirit of giving, boosting youth volunteerism and strengthening social harmony
Sectors
Community
Youth
12 March 2014
Speech by Mr Lawrence Wong, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth at the 2014 Committee of Supply debate
Introduction
Madam Chair, with your permission, I would like to display some slides on the screens.
Yesterday I spoke about looking to the past and to the future, as we imagine for what Singapore can be. We must also think about the values we should uphold, because these will underpin the choices we make. As we approach our 50th birthday, it is timely to reflect seriously on these values and how we want to anchor our society as we enter a new phase of development.
Living harmoniously together
When Mr S Rajaratnam was asked many years ago whether we can create a national identity, he said and I quote “we must first accept the premise that it is an act of faith that a national consciousness is desirable, possible and inevitable”. So it's an act of faith and it was on this conviction and faith that our pioneers went about building Singapore and strengthening our Singapore identity.
At the same time, we uphold a high ideal in Singapore, which is that the Singapore identity is open and inclusive. It is an identity that espouses unity and diversity. We do not insist on any Singaporean having to choose between his ancestry and being Singaporean. You can be Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian, Jew, Parsi, Arab, whatever your origins – you can be that and Singaporean at the same time.
This is our approach to multiculturalism and this is how we have developed over the last 50 years - learning to trust and respect our different races and religions, and to live peacefully with one another.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap asked about more public consultation and dialogue in order to strengthen this approach to multiculturalism. And indeed, we do have many platforms for consultations and dialogues. Some of them are open, some of them are closed door, depending on the nature of the topic. Some of the sessions are with specific communities, some cover many communities. We have many platforms as well. Our schools and our public housing estates are natural platforms for interaction and mixing. Our Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) promote dialogue and foster friendships across faiths and ethnicities. We have a national community engagement programme which brings different communities together to discuss many issues on interaction and multiculturalism.
On occasions, some of the issues we discuss have to be done in closed doors. That is because we know that there are sensitive issues that need to be addressed and not all issues lend themselves well to an open discussion, which may end up causing different groups to raise the demands that they want, reduce the common space that we share and raise temperatures. We don't think that is a useful approach. But we have a mix of different platforms, both closed door and open consultations, which we will continue.
And indeed, that is the approach we have. We want to give maximum space for each community to nurture its own roots. The proviso is that these efforts must not pull us apart, but should bring us together. To cite the analogy that Mr George Yeo once gave, we want to let Singaporeans nurture our own ancestral roots, but these roots must all support the same Singapore tree. And that is how, I think, we can continue to strengthen our multiculturalism in Singapore.
There are also important institutions that help to promote social mixing and multiculturalism, and strengthen our common space. Mr Teo Ho Pin spoke earlier about this in the Budget Debate, on the role played by the CDCs. Actually I had asked Dr Amy Khor to speak on that too earlier because of her capacity in PA and as a mayor. But since Mr Patrick Tay was not here to file the cut, I think she does not have the opportunity to respond. But I will just say that I agree with Mr Teo that the CDCs play an important role in strengthening social harmony. MCCY and PA will study how best to support the CDCs to do more in this area.
One challenge we face in Singapore is that living in a crowded city heightens our sensitivity towards disagreements. Little things such as noise, smells and the use of common areas can cause unhappiness. We can find it especially difficult to get along with those who live closest to us.
Good neighbourliness is an important place to start in building harmony. For example, residents in the Opera Estate hold an annual street party, where they play games and enjoy pot-luck. It is a small way to bring neighbours together, but has been going strong for the past 14 years, and still going strong. One of the organisers, Mr James Suresh, says, “We aren't just a loose collection of people who happen to live on the same street. We are neighbours, and when we begin to think of each other as friends, it becomes natural to care for and help each other.”
Managing community disputes
By showing care and concern for our neighbours, we can make Singapore a better home. I emphasise community ownership, as many members here did just now as well, because the effort has to come from ourselves. We can live peacefully together if we show consideration and learn how to give and take. To this end, I agree with many members like Ms Irene Ng and Mr Hawazi Daipi that citizens should try to resolve their personal conflicts amicably, amongst themselves.
We have spoken to some stakeholders on managing community disputes. Many say that building strong neighbourly ties can help to reduce conflict. If neighbours know one another, they will be more likely to broach issues sensitively, and come to a consensus. Most of the people we consulted called for more public education efforts to encourage consideration and graciousness in our community. And we agree with them as well as with suggestions from members to put more effort in this area because day-to-day acts of kindness will also help to make our communities a more pleasant place to live.
And indeed, every day, there are many Singaporeans practising good neighbourliness and kindness in their communities. Like Mrs Chandra Sivarama Krishnan who has been there to help her elderly Chinese neighbour Madam Ah Ho for 20 years. Her neighbour can only converse in Chinese, but the language barrier has not stopped Mrs Chandra from reaching out. Though they can only communicate through hand signals, Mrs Chandra helps her neighbour with reading letters received in English, and she explains the contents as best as she can. She also checks on her neighbour regularly to make sure that she is doing well. Once, when the electricity supply was cut off, she helped to ensure that the problem was fixed. Her story shows that kindness can go beyond the boundaries of race and language, and these are the acts of kindness we want to promote.
So, MCCY will continue to work closely with partner agencies such as HDB and the Singapore Kindness Movement (SKM) to encourage neighbours to get to know one another, to strengthen the “kampong spirit” in our urban city.
At the same time, we recognise that there are some who need help resolving tensions with their neighbours. It is sometimes useful to have a neutral party to help disputing parties communicate better. Grassroots leaders already undertake this role, and they do their best to informally mediate disputes between neighbours.
Residents can also seek formal mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or the CMC. It has a fairly good success rate. Out of the 521 cases heard last year, about 70% were successfully resolved.
And we believe that mediation continues to be a very important process as both parties agree on a solution, so there is ownership and responsibility to follow through. It also helps to preserve and mend relationships, so that neighbours can continue living harmoniously alongside one another. So we also intend, as part of our enhanced framework, to increase the CMC's capacity, and provide more mediation training to grassroots leaders.
However, as several members have noted, we cannot compel people to go for mediation. Currently, 60% of the cases registered with CMC do not turn up. There are also several difficult and long-standing cases that are initially resolved through mediation, but later flare up again.
Several Members spoke about this, of some of these very difficult cases and “deadlocked disputes”. I share their concerns, and that's why we had earlier set up an inter-agency team involving my Ministry, together with MinLaw, MHA, MND, and the team has proposed several measures to strengthen our framework for the management of community disputes.
A key part of the framework is a Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal to adjudicate difficult cases between neighbours. The Tribunal will have the powers to mandate mediation, to give parties the chance to communicate and compromise. The Tribunal can also make judgements and issue orders which will have to be complied with, failing which there will be consequences including prosecution. So the Tribunal will provide legal recourse for difficult cases, and especially for aggrieved parties. But I must qualify that the Tribunal should neither be the first recourse nor the main way we resolve our disputes. This would be counter-productive. We want to promote community ownership and collective responsibility, and mediation should remain the first priority. I think Ms Irene Ng agreed to that and several Members as well. So we do want the Tribunal to be there but it should be there as a last resort, for the difficult cases.
For the Tribunal to work well, we will require better frontline responses to community disputes, and more effective enforcement capabilities. These are complex implementation issues, which the relevant agencies are working through, and we will build these capabilities progressively, starting with a few estates, learning from the experience, and then scaling up over time.
I think Mr Vikram Nair also asked about clear rules and penalties. As I mentioned earlier, our key thrust is on public education and mediation but we recognise that there are cases which do require rules and penalties and so we are also looking at legislative amendments such as to the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act to allow the Police to take enforcement action if needed.
Ms Irene Ng highlighted that some of the more difficult dispute cases may involve persons with mental health issues, and that we need to find different ways to tackle such cases. I agree with her and we are looking into this as part of the framework for the management of community disputes. But I would say that this is in fact a broader issue that requires further study into our mental health provisions, especially in the community. And again, here, the relevant agencies are looking into this namely, MOH and MSF.
The spirit of giving
I have spoken about the importance of good neighbourliness and kindness to harmonious living. Another value that Singaporeans cherish is giving. Singaporeans are a generous people. They are willing to give of time, treasure and energy to those in need.
This spirit of giving was certainly in our Pioneer Generation – they were prepared to serve, make sacrifices for one another and for the nation. And this same spirit of giving must continue in future generations. I think one good sign we see is in the trends for volunteerism. A survey by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre shows that nearly one in three Singaporeans is engaged in volunteer work today, compared to just one in five two years ago. And Singaporeans are also donating more to help others.
We hope that more Singaporeans will continue to step forward. One challenge as Mr Seah Kian Peng highlighted is the “bathtub effect” in our volunteerism trend. Volunteer involvement is high among Singaporeans aged 15, in the younger age groups but it declines sharply in their mid-20s as they enter the workplace, and participation comes back up in their 30s, but it is still not as high as before.
And highlighted by members like Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Penny Low, obstacles to volunteering are chiefly when individuals enter the corporate world. So we must do more to take a life-stage approach to volunteering, like Ms Low said, and encourage corporate giving.
In his budget round-up speech, DPM Tharman spoke about transforming the workplace culture and our social culture in two aspects: embracing older workers, and self-service as the default. I would like to suggest a third aspect, which is to make giving part of the DNA of corporate Singapore. And I believe this is something which several members also spoke about, including Associate Professor Eugene Tan, in an earlier speech.
The workplace is where individuals spend a significant amount of their time. And our workplaces need to transform, if we want acts of giving to be a natural extension of work life.
I have spoken to several corporate leaders, and many have expressed interest. However, some don't know how to get involved; they lack confidence that their contributions will be put to good use, or they think that giving makes little business sense. Some local companies may also find it harder to get involved than larger ones, or the MNCs, which have the experience of corporate giving in other countries. They also face resource constraints, and the resultant costs may not seem sustainable.
Despite these challenges, there are SMEs in Singapore who make an effort to practise corporate giving because they want to give back to society. Take for example civil engineering company Feng Ming Construction. Feng Ming has a policy of donating one percent of the value of each contract that it clinches. And aside from cash donations, Feng Ming also organises visits to homes or orphanages, and movie day outs twice a year, with all the staff taking part. According to the managing director Mr Lim Hong Beng, he does this to instil values in his staff. And he said, “If you take from society, you must give back to society. This is something I always tell my employees.”
So to transform our workplaces, we have to transform mindsets – that companies have the ability to give, no matter the size or their industry. When our corporate leaders set the tone, individuals in the workplace will have the opportunity to practise giving too.
Companies can also encourage other companies to be involved. One example is ABR Holdings Limited. They manage several food and beverage companies like Swensen's and Gloria Jean's, and they have nurtured a spirit of giving that not only engages their own employees, but also other businesses and their consumers. They use their F&B outlets for charitable causes, bringing cheer to children from Club Rainbow with life threatening and chronic illnesses by hosting birthday parties for them at Swensen's. And when it comes to fundraising, ABR also ropes in their suppliers. For the World Mental Health Day last year, ABR provided dollar-for-dollar matching for donations from their suppliers to the Institute of Mental Health.
These are just some examples of how companies can leverage on the networks and resources that are already at their fingertips to do good for communities in need. And I hope that more companies will start to get involved. Public sector agencies can also step forward. Making giving a workplace norm sends a powerful message. It says that giving can coexist with the demands of building one's career and family, because one can be never too busy to do one's bit for society.
So, we in MCCY plan to do more to break down these barriers to corporate giving. We will work with our partners like NVPC, as well as like-minded companies to champion a strong corporate giving culture in Singapore. This is a key priority for us in the coming year, and I will share more when our plans are ready.
Nurturing and inspiring our youths
Finally, let me touch on our plans for youths. Several members spoke about this, and I share their hope and optimism about our young people. We want to expand opportunities for our youths to contribute in a sustained and meaningful way. And that's why we decided to set up the Youth Corps.
Both Ms Penny Low and Mr Hawazi Daipi asked for more details about the Youth Corps. Over the past few months, we have been consulting youths from our Institutes of Higher Learning as well as many community partners about what they would like to see in the Youth Corps. We have also been studying youth-related and community organisations in other countries.
We are still finalising the programme details, but for now, we envisage that it will be a 1-year programme with the following key components:
a) First, a structured residential training programme that equips youths with knowledge and skills in leadership, project management and service learning
b) Second, an overseas community project in one of the regional countries
c) Third, a community project in Singapore, undertaken in partnership with an existing NGO or community group, which would be sustainable and impactful, and meet the needs of the community
There's still much to be done, and I've asked MOS Desmond Lee, who is also a board member of the National Youth Council, to chair an advisory committee comprising experienced youth leaders and members from the 3P sector to guide the development of this programme.
The Youth Corps will be launched in phases with a pilot intake in June this year; we think about a size of 200 youths. And this pilot group will be drawn primarily from nominations by youth sector organisations and Institutes of Higher Learning. This first run will enable us to improve the design of the programme, and fine-tune the working protocols with different partners. So we've brought in Outward Bound Singapore as a key partner to implement the Youth Corps, and we're also looking for other community partners to be involved.
After this first run, we will open up applications to more youths later in the year. I encourage those who are passionate about impacting their communities to come forward and apply. We have a rigorous selection process as Mr Hawazi Daipi mentioned, but we don't want that to be a deterrence to youths from stepping forward. We are not looking at academic qualifications. We are looking for youths with strong leadership qualities, a commitment to serve the community, and a desire to learn. And we do want a diverse mix of youths in the Youth Corps. And that's why, when we do the Youth Corps programme, we look forward to a mix of students from ITE, polytechnics and universities coming together.
The Youth Corps will be the first national-level programme of its kind. It is also a first in many steps towards more impactful youth development and engagement. To better support youth engagement in the community, NYC will strengthen its partnerships with schools and tertiary institutions, as well as other youth organisations. For example, we are working with schools to enable students to contribute their SG50 celebration ideas, something that Ms Penny Low highlighted just now. We have also developed resource kits for interactive lessons that will inspire students to organise their own activities, which can also be supported through the SG50 Celebration Fund.
In the coming months, MCCY will look at how to better engage youths through more youth-oriented spaces such as *SCAPE. All this will require more resources in NYC, so we will plan to strengthen its capacity and enlarge its reach to even more young Singaporeans and youth organisations.
Concluding remarks
Finally, Madam Chair, to wrap up, let me go back to our SG50 anniversary, our celebrations next year. It's an occasion to celebrate what we have achieved, but it is also an important milestone to reflect what we want for the future.
What will Singapore be like in 50 years' time? In the Singapore Conversation, many Singaporeans shared about their aspirations for the future – we want a strong “kampong spirit”, we want to build a caring and compassionate society; we also want to strengthen the things that bind us together, like our national heritage, our shared memories, our communal spaces. The arts, heritage and sports, which I spoke about earlier yesterday, are part of this shared identity.
At the end of the day, it is for our youths today to shape the next 50 years and the Singapore they want. This generation of youths – those in their teens to their thirties are the post-post Pioneer Generation. In other words, we have the Pioneer Generation who are above 65, and the post-Pioneer Generation who are now in their 40s to early 60s; the youths today are the third generation.
Our pioneers laid the foundations for Singapore's rapid development. The next generation benefited from their hard work, and continued to build modern Singapore. What will the third generation do?
Now, we are all familiar with the Chinese proverb that family wealth does not last three generations. It's not just a Chinese saying. In fact, similar sayings can be found in many cultures. But there are also exceptions to this. And so it is for our country – our nation's destiny is not preordained, it is what we choose to make of it.
As we celebrate SG50, I hope that our youths will take the time to reflect on what they would like to do, and what kind of Singapore they would like to have in 50 years time. Their attitudes and mindsets are important – if they take today's Singapore to be the pinnacle of achievements, then the rest of the journey will be an inevitable downhill slide. But if they see today's Singapore as a springboard for new and better possibilities, if they uphold the same pioneering spirit of our founding generation, then 50 years later, we will see an even bigger and better celebration for our centenary.
Madam Chair, we are investing in our youths, and I have faith in them. They are our future, and we will work with them to make Singapore a good home for all generations.
MCCY budget 2014 announcements
Info-graphic
Speeches and fact sheets
COS 2014 Managing Community Disputes Video
COS 2014 The Spirit of Giving Video
COS 2014 Nurturing and Inspiring our Youths Video