Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore currently faces trials posed by both globalisation and more intense foreign competition. This unprecedented combination of challenges to our economic fundamentals and economic growth has resulted in a "perfect storm" for our country and constituents alike. Growth has happened in the view of the Government and its statistics. However, economic growth has not trickled down and been felt by many people. This is made worse by the volatility of economic growth and the shortening of business cycle.

For those more experienced Members of the House, I am sure they will remember the nature of cases we saw during our MPS 10 years ago and the cases we see now even in the midst of the "growth". In the past, the complaints were about people having the money, wanting to buy bigger HDB flats and chasing HDB to get their flats "very fast", constituents griping about cars being too expensive and of maid levies being too high.

Today, we see constituents who are behind in their HDB mortgage payments and who say that they are being chased "very fast" by Singapore Power because of their arrears. They are no longer seeking to buy bigger flats, but are instead requesting to downgrade to rental ones. They are also no longer complaining about maid levies which have, in fact, at long last, come down. But they are unable to pay for basics like water, electricity and conservancy charges. Sir, the contrast could not be starker.

I would urge the Government to look beyond the economic statistics and see the human costs that restructuring and changes have imposed on the less skilled and the less well-educated.

This Government has an in-built philosophical aversion to direct "welfare" for fear of an erosion in work ethic. That fear whilst correct, when faced with full employment and sustained high economic growth, is irrational when we are confronted with permanent structural unemployment and periods of volatile economic growth. For far too long, the Government has treated the term "welfare" like a dirty word. They call their schemes "HOPE", "Public Assistance", "Work Assistance" when, in fact, they are akin to "welfare" by any other definition. With the ComCare Fund, Sir, I believe there is more that the Government can do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a government and its people and whether they are perceived as a great nation is measured not only by the number of patents, the efficiency of our airports or ports, but also by how we, to quote the Prime Minister, succeed in "building a community". But what is a community? What defines a community worth living in, growing old, fighting for, and perhaps someday worth dying for? What is there beyond the five "Cs", as articulated by the Remaking Singapore Committee? The answer, I believe, lies in helping those who have been left behind.

The Government has accepted growing income disparities as the price of economic growth and success, but I believe that to be united as a nation, a people and a community, there should be an explicit social compact whereby those who succeed help in some form those who fall behind through general taxation. A critical part of that social compact and social cohesion, besides a comprehensive social safety net, is the sacred duty of every government to provide basic affordable healthcare for all.

For a long time, the Government has treated healthcare not as an investment akin to education, but as "consumption", something which, if the gates were swung open, would lead to a ladder of escalating healthcare costs. Basic affordable healthcare is an important part of the social compact between the Government and its people, between the young and the old, and between the employed and the unemployed. I would say that healthcare is a social investment akin more to home ownership, of which we are so proud as a nation.

The Health Minister has called for the implementation of means testing for "C" class wards. I know it will not be implemented this year, as the Minister has just said in his answer to oral question. The details, as it stands, are unclear, as to the mechanics and the quantum. I am against means testing for class "C" wards because I believe that basic affordable healthcare is one of the fundamental duties of a government on behalf of taxpayers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have pledged to be a united people, regardless of race, language or religion, so as to build a just, equal and democratic society for all. I fail to see how discrimination in something as basic as healthcare in the form of means testing will go in any way to build that just and equal society. It will instead serve to erode that unity within the community. If the Government chooses to go ahead with means testing, then I would argue that it has to be designed such that if subsidies for a particular income group decrease, so, likewise, there should be an increase in the subsidies for the less well-off. In essence, from a revenue point of view, it cancels each other out so that, at least, it makes it "redistributive" rather than "discriminatory".

Sir, the Government has also signalled its intent to return to a modest surplus budget for FY 2005, in the belief that the economy has turned a corner and we are back on track for another period of steady economic growth. I wish to remind the Government that this economic growth takes place within the context of the lack of "trickle down" and a structural unemployment rate of 4%. I believe that this celebration is premature. We should not count our chickens before they are hatched, as a longer a period of sustained growth of 5-8% is required to bring back a general feeling of prosperity and confidence to the economy as a whole.

I fear that because the Government has that "feel good" attitude, it would justify to itself the necessity to raise fees and charges with the rest of the corporatised public service providers following suit. Whilst the Government may "feel good", the people are definitely feeling less than good and will feel very bad if the prices of public services rise.

Sir, behind the "feel good" economic projections and statistics, there lies another set of numbers which urges us to do more for those being left behind.

According to the Straits Times' report of 26th February, there was an increase in the number of people seeking financial aid from the CDCs, from 14,300 to 31,570 between 2001 and 2003, an increase of children benefiting from the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund, from 3,735 to 10,419 in the same period. Another article on the same day also stated that 70% of those in 1- or 2-room flats had no idea of assistance schemes, even though 60% of them described themselves as in financial difficulties.

The 2000 Census showed 12.6% or 116,000 households had incomes below $1,000 per month. Since the last census, I believe the numbers have increased. We have an increasing number of people who need help but we also have increasing numbers of schemes and funds to help. Yet, at the same time, an astonishingly high percentage living in 1- or 2-room flats have no idea how to access to the help being provided for them. I would call on the Government to reach out better to these people who need help.