This year, we opened Parliament sooner than we usually do after a general election, because we have urgent business dealing with Covid-19 and the economy.

Covid-19 has caused a massive upheaval in our lives. After eight gruelling months, we have stabilised our situation. But it has taken a tremendous effort to get here.

From the very beginning when Covid-19 hit us, our overriding consideration was to protect the lives of Singaporeans. Many countries talked about flattening the curve, infection curve, of letting the disease burn through the population until herd immunity developed. But that would have meant many Singaporeans getting ill, and perhaps thousands dying, especially the old and vulnerable. We were determined right from the very beginning not to go down that route.

Implementing the circuit breaker in April was a very big move. We knew that it would cause extensive social and economic disruption and demand major sacrifices from Singaporeans. But we decided, Cabinet decided we had to go ahead to slow down the infection rate and get things firmly under control, buy us time.

Fortunately, we timed the circuit breaker right and luckily it worked. Each of these operations was huge and all of them had to be done in parallel. Thanks to the heroic efforts of many unsung heroes working quietly behind the scenes, we've got here today.

SUCCESSES AND SHORTCOMINGS

Judging by the health outcomes we've done well so far. Our fatality rate and absolute numbers are one of the lowest in the world. New infections in the community are down to just a handful a day. Fewer than 100 patients remain in hospital. And this has given us the confidence to reopen our economy and society gradually and carefully.

Of course, our Covid-19 response was not without shortcomings.

With hindsight, we would certainly have done some things differently.

For example, I wish we had known earlier that people with Covid-19 were infectious even when they were asymptomatic, didn't show any symptoms. Then when we brought Singaporeans back home from all over the world in March, we would have quarantined all of them earlier, instead of only those returning from certain countries, so that the virus did not spread to their family members or their colleagues and friends.

And we would have tested all of them before releasing them from quarantine whether or not they showed any symptoms, instead of assuming that no symptoms meant no infection.

We would also have recommended that everyone wear face masks sooner than we did. But at the time we took the best available scientific advice. Once the World Health Organisation recognised that asymptomatic transmission was a major problem, we changed our policy and distributed face masks to everyone.

We would also have acted more aggressively and sooner on the migrant worker dormitories. We knew that communal living in the dorms poses an infection risk. Communal living in any form poses risks, on board ships and army camps and student hostels, nursing homes.

We stepped up precautions. For a time, these seemed adequate. But then bigger clusters broke out in the dorms, which threatened to overwhelm us. All this is wisdom after the fact. We must learn from these errors and do better the next time. But in the fog of war, it's not possible always to make the perfect decisions. Yet we have to decide and move. We cannot afford to wait.

The key is to watch things closely, learn from experience, and adapt our responses promptly as new information emerges and as the situation changes.

I know we have made things more difficult and burdensome for employers, especially the contractors and sub-contractors. They have found it frustrating to deal with all the new rules, approvals and inspections, even as they try to get their businesses up and running again. But I hope that they understand that we are doing our best to smooth things out for them, and are doing all this in order to keep our people safe.

It's better that we make these measures work and get businesses to operate safely than to suffer a new outbreak and have to shut down again.

Overall, we've been able to deal with Covid-19 only because the public service, the political leadership, our businesses, and the Singapore public have worked closely together, each doing their part and more.

The situation is currently stable but we must not let our guard down. A recent Straits Times survey showed that almost half the respondents were weary of the safety measures. The irony is the more successful we are in keeping cases low, the more people wonder whether all these painful measures are necessary.

LESSONS FROM COVID-19

I recently received an e-mail from a university student. His socialising had been disrupted.

He complained that our reaction to Covid-19 was one of the greatest overreactions to a public health issue. As proof he pointed out that our hospital systems were far from overwhelmed. He said that instead, we should let young Singaporeans do us the service of achieving herd immunity.

You only have to look at the situation in other cities that have let this happen to imagine how this could have turned out for us.

The Covid-19 virus remains as infectious and potent as it was before. This has not changed. What has changed is that we have taken measures and we have built up our capabilities to contain it. If we relax these measures now because the numbers have come down, we will have a resurgence. Just look at Europe and many other places in the world.

Covid-19 will not be our last public health crisis. Sars was 17 years ago in 2003. After Sars we knew that sooner or later, another novel pathogen would appear and pose a threat to humanity.

So we had better learn from Covid-19, how to deal with a pandemic and be as ready as we can through the worst one when the worst one befalls us. Even as we manage the immediate situation, we must look forward and prepare for life after Covid-19.

SOCIAL SAFETY NETS

Let me start with social safety nets. In our early decades of nationhood, we did not need extensive social safety nets. We had high gross domestic product and income growth, jobs were aplenty for a young population. The economy was buoyant, unemployment after the first few years was very low. If you lost your job, a new one was just around the corner. Now, we've moved into a different phase of development. Our economy is maturing, incomes are growing less rapidly. There is a higher premium on specialised skills and education. As a result, when someone loses his job, especially as a mature worker, it's harder for them to move to another job, especially across different sectors.

Therefore in the last 15 years or so, we shifted our approach and progressively strengthened our social safety nets.

We introduced many schemes in these last 15 years - ComCare in 2005, Workfare in 2007, Silver Support in 2016. These schemes and many others are targeted at the lower income, and those who have fallen on hard times. They supplement their wages and Central Provident Fund contributions, so that the recipients gain both current income and also retirement security.

As we expanded our social programmes, we've also extended the coverage of other schemes and subsidies beyond the lower income to include middle-income households too.

We also give special support to our Pioneer and Merdeka generations to help them see through their retirement years. Altogether, we now spend three times as much on social programmes every year as we did 15 years ago. These are all peacetime measures. But when Covid-19 hit us, they could not be enough.

We had to draw on our past reserves to fund them. These are emergency measures. They are crucial for now, but they cannot continue indefinitely. We have to start thinking about what comes after them, about the level of social support we will return to after Covid-19 is over.

In the new normal, we fully expect more economic uncertainty and turbulence and the longer-term trends of an ageing population and rising healthcare costs remain unchanged. So we'll certainly need to strengthen social support for our people during and after their working lives.

How will we do this?

Several ideas have been raised, including in this House in this debate. The Government is not ideologically opposed to any proposed solution. Our approach has always been pragmatic and empirical; make the best use of our resources to meet the needs of different groups in our society in a targeted manner, because if we help everyone equally, then we are not giving more help to those who need it most.

Take, for example, older workers. Older workers are valuable and experienced. Having been in the workforce for longer, they tend to draw higher salaries than younger workers. But their skills may be less current. If they lose their jobs, they find it harder to find another similar job, particularly at the same pay. So they are at greater risk of long-term unemployment.

Solutions like unemployment insurance can offer older workers transient relief at best. But retraining and upskilling older workers will enable employers to continue finding value in them and to be less likely to make them redundant. And if the older worker does get retrenched, with these skills he or she can find a new job more readily.

The best unemployment insurance is in fact the assurance of another job.

Another group is the low-wage workers. We need to support them to improve their lives, so that they can catch up and narrow the gap with the rest of society. The Workfare Income Supplement has made a material difference to them, and we've been enhancing the Workfare scheme every now and again. And in this downturn, we made a special payment under the Workfare scheme, because we want to help those who are most in need and we don't want to put the burden on employers. The Government takes it on.

The progressive wage model has also helped them. And we will extend the progressive wage model, as you've heard from Ms Josephine Teo yesterday, to more sectors over time.

We should take some time to assess the landscape after Covid-19 to see how things unfold and what specific problems develop. We must keep an open mind as we build and improve on the systems we have and consider solutions that can work in our context.

FOUNDERS AND INHERITORS

It's not just floating ideas like minimum wage or unemployment insurance, but assessing their impact carefully - who wins and who loses within the workforce, how will our SMEs or the public be affected?

We must identify pragmatic solutions which will make a real and sustainable difference and give people justified assurance that when they need help, they will get the help that is relevant to them. And it must not create new problems in the process, for example, by eroding our spirit of self-reliance.

One permanent imperative as we think about new schemes is to keep our programmes fiscally sustainable. As a matter of principle, our social safety nets should be paid for out of current revenues. We should not draw down on what we have inherited, nor should we mortgage the future of our children.

When our founding generation was building up our reserves, they never asked themselves whether they had too much savings. The question was whether we could steadily squirrel away a bit more in our reserves year after year, decade after decade, as protection for a rainy day.

Now the opposition says, show me how much we have in the reserves, before I decide whether I support your Budget and tax plans. Let's have a look at the money.

Basically they're asking, I have something in the bank already. How much of that can I touch? This was not the attitude of our forefathers, the founders who were building for the future, but the attitude of inheritors who think they have come into a fortune and want to consume the fruits of their predecessors' labours. And this is fundamentally the wrong approach.

How much reserves are enough or too much, there can be no good answer to this question. The future is unknowable. We have no way to tell what may hit us from out of the blue.

Therefore, we should not think of ourselves as inheritors spending what we have been lucky enough to be endowed with. Rather we should take the attitude of founders, even though we may be third, fourth or fifth generation in reality, but we should think of ourselves as founders for the future generations.

Whatever reserves we have, big or small, let us not think of touching them in normal times. They are our rainy day fund, our guan chai ben. In Chinese, it sounds better. They call it a coffin fund.

Every year we live within our means. And whenever we are able to, we add a bit more to the rainy day fund to make ourselves a bit more secure for when it really pours. And that is the way to build Singapore for the long term, and secure the future for our children and grandchildren.

FOREIGN WORKERS

The second area that we will review is our foreign worker and work pass policies. This is not a new issue, but in an economic downturn, this issue becomes sharper. It's a case not just in Singapore. All around the world, anti-foreigner sentiment is on the rise, because people are feeling worried and insecure about their futures.

Many Singaporeans are feeling anxious and pressured about their jobs. Their sense that foreigners are competing with them for jobs is palpable. Some feel unfairly treated when they see foreigners replacing them or taking up good jobs ahead of them. These feelings are completely understandable.

Singapore is a small country. Our population is small. It's not growing very fast. Soon it's going to level off. To grow our economy, we have no choice but to top up with foreign workers and work pass holders. And yet we cannot throw open our doors, just throw open our doors, nor have we done so.

We only have 31/2 million Singapore citizens and half a million permanent residents. In South-east Asia, there are 650 million people. In Asia, China and India alone add up to nearly three thousand million people. All can potentially come in, many would love to come.

Without tight controls we would be overwhelmed. And that's why we have our foreign worker policies. They help us control the inflow, and ultimately ensure that the foreign workers who do come in add to the workforce in Singapore rather than substitute for them, and benefit Singaporeans rather than hurting them.

How we control the flow depends on the type of foreign worker. At the lower levels, we got work permits, and we use a mix of levies and quotas - we call them dependency ratios - to directly control their price and quantity. It's a rough and ready approach, but it helps us deal with the large numbers and limit them effectively.

In the middle levels, we have the S Pass. Now it's not just a matter of numbers but we also want to look at the quality. Because the S Pass (holders) are competing with people who are graduating from our polytechnic, diploma holders and slightly above that and we want to make sure that there's a balance.

So the S Pass still has levies and quotas, but we also impose other requirements on minimum salary and on qualifications.

Then for the upper levels, the PMETs, professionals, management, executives and technical workers, we have the Employment Pass (EP). Here the key issue is about controlling the quality and making sure that people we bring in are those who are able to contribute to Singapore.

So we've been using salary benchmarks as a proxy, along with other qualifying criteria.

While the perception of foreign competition is sharper during this downturn, actually both Employment Pass and S Pass holders have been coming down since Covid-19 this year.

But we still have to make adjustments to our work pass schemes, because there is now more slack in the job market but also because over time, the education levels, the capabilities and incomes of our local workforce have gone up.

More Singaporeans are now ready and available to take up PMET jobs. And in fact more have done so. The proportion of PMETs in the workforce has grown steadily from 40 per cent 20 years ago to close to 60 per cent now today. And the purpose of the Employment Pass scheme is to top up at the higher end of these PMET jobs. Therefore, we need to tighten up the Employment Pass qualifying criteria.

And that is why at the lower levels of the Employment Pass holders, the proportion of Singaporeans is higher and at the higher levels, the proportion of Singaporeans is slightly lower because we're deliberately bringing in employment holders, Employment Pass holders who are at a higher level and can contribute to us. It makes sense.

But we need to tighten up the EP qualifying criteria and this is what we have been doing. We raised the EP entry floor from $3,600 to $3,900 in May this year. And the Ministry of Manpower just announced last week a further tightening to $4,500, with a higher floor of $5,000 for financial services. We're raising the S Pass salary floor too.

We have to pay attention to market conditions and adjust at the right pace. But this is the correct long-term direction.

But I know Singaporeans are not just concerned about the macro overall numbers, but also at the micro individual level they are concerned about fair treatment, that Singaporeans are being considered fairly for jobs, for promotions, or when it comes time for retrenchments.

There is no comfort in knowing that the total numbers are not too many if personally we feel we have been discriminated against at the workplace or that the EP holder working beside us somehow has an inside track because of old school ties or some other personal connections.

And that is why we have Tafep, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, where Singaporeans who feel unfairly treated can seek redress. We also have a Fair Consideration Framework, which we are tightening further as you've heard.

And we are working with the unions to make sure any retrenchments are done fairly, and no company is retrenching a Singaporean only to fill the same post with a foreigner without very good justification.

The Government takes this issue of fairness very seriously. In evaluating EP and S Pass applications, we take into account whether the employer has kept up support of local PMETs in their employment, and has been responsive to government efforts to help them recruit and train more Singaporean PMETs. Or conversely, whether the employer has discriminated against qualified Singaporeans.

This has always been the government policy, but we particularly want to emphasise these considerations now in these uncertain times to remind all employers to play their part in building up the Singaporean workforce, the Singaporean core.

One specific red flag is when we see a company that has an over-concentration of a single foreign nationality in its ranks, especially when compared to other companies in the same sector. This concentration, if it is unchecked, can cause social resentment and workplace problems.

It makes it harder for the company to blend into and be accepted by our multiracial society. It can cause problems within the company too because employees of other nationalities, Singaporeans or others, may find it harder to fit in, to take pride in their work and see a future for themselves in the firm.

Therefore when that happens, we ask the firm to please relook their hiring practices. Most companies are responsive and work with us in good faith. In fact, many global companies understand that a diverse workforce is to their advantage and have explicit human resource policies for this.

The issue of concentration can easily be played up. And we know that there are some people who are stirring this up. For example, a Facebook page posted the wefie of DBS CEO Piyush Gupta with a room full of Indian employees last September. It was captioned "Eyesight Test. Find a Singaporean or Chinese in this DBS photo".

The picture resurfaced recently and went viral, which just shows that during tough times this subject is more neuralgic. Last September was a different world. Many people took offence, got worked up and berated DBS, flamed them.

But it was fake news.

Why? That picture was taken in India, where DBS had opened a new office, and not in Singapore. The person who put up the post surely knew this, yet he irresponsibly misused the wefie to insinuate that DBS in Singapore was not being fair to Singaporeans.

And damage was done.

The Government will always be on the side of Singaporeans. What is the point of creating jobs for foreigners if it doesn't benefit Singaporeans? Why would we want to do that?

Ultimately, our aim is to grow the economy, create good jobs for Singaporeans and raise our standards of living. Foreign workers and work pass holders help us to achieve this.

GUARDING OUR REPUTATION

By being open to talent from all over the world, we create more opportunities for ourselves.

Singapore has succeeded by being an international hub tapping talents worldwide and serving a global market. So even as we adjust our work pass policies, we must be careful not to give the wrong impression that we are now closing up and no longer welcoming foreigners.

Such a reputation would do us great harm.

We are conscious that IT is one of the areas where we worry about an over-concentration of foreign work pass holders. But when you get a good project like this, an IT centre for a major foreign bank, major global bank, wanting to come to Singapore, and therefore going to recruit a proportion of Singaporean IT professionals and other EPs, other management staff, should we say no?

They see good prospects in Singapore. They see us as a stable base to work from. We want to talk to them, to see how they can fit in here in Singapore to create good jobs for Singaporeans.

But for them to come here, they must feel welcome and be allowed to bring in the talent that they need, because we don't have the full complement of specialist engineers and other expertise for all these types of work yet.

And also, regional and global headquarters by design need to draw talent from around the world and to be run by international teams. That's the nature of regional and global headquarters. And if we want good companies to come to Singapore, we must be prepared to have them come and to bring to Singapore that constellation of talent to be able to operate out of Singapore and manage activities and locations all over the world. They will employ Singaporeans too, but they cannot be staffed by Singaporeans alone.

Once these companies establish themselves here, most Singaporeans will be able to take advantage of the opportunities they create, pick up their skills and knowledge and rise up the ranks. This is how we've always done it.

But it's not just global companies that need foreign manpower. Local companies also need global talent to grow and develop. Our SMEs need skills, knowledge and expertise that they may not have in Singapore, for example, to develop an external wing and to move up the value chain. And by doing so, they too create good new jobs for Singaporeans, besides, promoting entrepreneurship and making it easier and more attractive to start companies in Singapore.

So the economic benefits of our foreign worker policies are very clear. But there's a more fundamental question which we have to ask ourselves, and that is what sort of society, what sort of people do we want to be?

We've always been a people open to the world, welcoming others who can add value to our society, and bring the best out of us. This is our history and our ethos from our beginnings as an open port and an immigrant nation. The bicentennial last year reminded us of that.

This generosity of spirit gives our society and economy vitality and resilience. It's made Singapore the exceptional cosmopolitan city that we are today plugged into the global economy and making a living by making ourselves valuable to the world.

We may be under stress now but we cannot afford to turn inwards. We will adjust our policies to safeguard Singaporean jobs. But let us show confidence that Singaporeans can hold our own in the world.

NEW EXPECTATIONS

The Government will lead this conversation with Singaporeans, build a political consensus around the right solutions and move us forward. Whether we succeed depends on how well our politics work. Singapore has achieved a high degree of political consensus on many of our social and political issues, and economic issues. This is one major reason for our rapid progress and one major benefit of the People's Action Party's (PAP) dominant position.

But our society is not static. Each new generation of Singaporeans is more educated, more connected to the world, and surer of themselves. Their attitudes and aspirations change too. They desire more diversity, alternative voices and checks and balances.

This trend is not new. The desire has always been there but it is growing.

In the last general election, many people voted for the opposition, while fully expecting that the PAP would remain in power as the Government. In fact, the Workers' Party campaigned on this platform, if I'm not mistaken, seeking to form a strong opposition but explicitly not seeking to form the next government.

The PAP will respond to these social and political trends as we have always done. We have not stayed on top all these years by being static, but by adapting to our evolving society and changing needs. We have been assiduous in our leadership renewal. Each new generation of PAP leaders has developed their own leadership styles and their own policy priorities. They've created their own bonds with their generation of Singaporeans to be in sync with their mood to win their trust and support and develop new ideas that resonate with them.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his founding generation of leaders governed Singapore in a direct no-nonsense way. It was necessary and appropriate at the time, and Singaporeans then strongly supported Mr Lee. Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team had a different touch. His approach was about bringing people together and building a societal consensus on the next lap of Singapore's growth. It was a contrast to Mr Lee's approach, but it was appropriate for his generation of Singaporeans, and Mr Goh made it work.

My team and I are not like Mr Lee. Neither are we like ESM Goh's teams. We found our own ways to engage with this generation of Singaporeans.

My successors will have to do things in their own different ways too, establish their own standing and build their own bonds with the next generation. The 4G leaders have been doing this for some time. They are conducting the SGTogether conversations now. They want to accommodate this growing desire of Singaporeans not only to be heard but to be involved.

In Parliament, with a stronger opposition presence, I expect the tone of the debate to shift. PAP ministers and MPs will have to raise their game, be prepared for sharper questioning and defend the Government's policies and decisions, while speaking up for their constituents. They also must be prepared for more substantive debates and engagement with the opposition.

I hope the opposition will also step up, go beyond asking questions and criticising the Government's proposals, which is part of their responsibility, to go on to put up serious proposals and ideas of their own to be examined and debated, and if found meritorious, adopted, to show that they are willing and able to play their part as a loyal opposition.

For our part, the Government will take an open and constructive approach. And let me explain what I mean by this bland term "open and constructive approach".

On the specific details of policies, we can be quite relaxed about it. We will be open-minded, we'll listen to the different voices. We can try different schemes, solutions. We will take in all constructive views and perspectives. But we of course have to make sure that the discussions are supported by facts and logic and informed by our context and experience.

But if it is a major issue which concerns the fundamental interests of the country, the Government cannot wait passively for a consensus to form. We will still have a full discussion, in fact probably an even fuller discussion. But at the end of the discussion, if there are still different views, the Government will have to make the decision it judges best and take responsibility for it. Having been elected to govern, we must govern.

WESTMINSTER-STYLE POLITICS

That's on issues. But politics is not only about issues but also about power. And if the issue is not policies and priorities, but a challenge to the Government's fitness to govern, then the Government will have to stand up and defend itself vigorously. It must put down the challenge and prove that it deserves to be the Government, because otherwise it must step aside and let another team take over. This is how the political system is supposed to work.

We have a Westminster style of democracy modelled on the British and adapted as we have gone along. It's adversarial by design. In Parliament, the leader of the opposition sits on the opposite front bench directly opposite the prime minister. That's why Mr Pritam Singh is there sitting opposite me. He is not there as a supportive cheerleader, helping the Government to perform better.

He is there to challenge the incumbent PM and the Government to point out their faults, to highlight where the Government has fallen short, to keep chipping away at the Government's and the PM's credibility. And so at the next general election, or sooner if the opportunity arises, the opposition can knock the Government out of power and take its place.

I'm seeing this not as a criticism of any political party in Singapore or anybody in Singapore, but I'm saying this is how the system is designed to work.

Every encounter is a gladiatorial contest. Lots of drama and theatre and prepared soundbites. The wittier and more contemptuous, the better. The British or Australian PM has to stand his ground, defend his government's policies and maintain psychological dominance to show that he deserves to be the PM.

If not, MPs on both sides will sense it, and so will the public. And this will influence election outcomes as well as leadership contests in their parties.

I listened carefully to Mr Pritam Singh on Monday describing how he intends to perform the role of Leader of the Opposition. I applaud his tone and his approach. The government benches will do our part to work with him to keep Parliament a constructive forum for debate.

I believe that it's good to have an adequate number of opposition MPs in Parliament. It keeps the Government on its toes. It shows the public that the Government has nothing to hide, and will answer all questions, however awkward. But that does not mean that the more opposition MPs and the more fiery the debate in Parliament is, the better. Or that the tone of our political debate cannot change for the worst.

The adversarial dynamic that is inherent in the parliamentary system can go wrong. We all hope that diversity will make a hundred flowers bloom. But how do we prevent diversity from producing polarisation? How do we make sure that disagreement does not result in paralysis?

It has happened in so many other countries. Politics permeates every issue. Every subject becomes partisan. Even public health issues, whether to wear a mask or not, becomes a partisan issue. If this happens to Singapore, we will not just cease being an exceptional nation, it will be the end of us.

We must not go down this path. At the most fundamental level to make our politics work, both the Government and opposition must share an overriding objective, to work for Singapore, and not just for our party or our supporters. Our debate must be based on principles and facts and guided by shared ideals and goals.

MPs must speak up for what they sincerely believe in. You are elected not just to repeat what you have heard others say, but to think on behalf of others and to make arguments which make sense, which will benefit the interests of the people you are representing, of the voters who elected you. But to think for yourself and not just to be a mouthpiece.

We must be in politics in order to protect Singapore's security, grow our economy and secure our future. If we do that, then there's a basis for us to manage the inherent tensions in our system and for politics to work out productively.

Ultimately what sort of politics Singapore has depends on Singaporeans themselves because they have a vital responsibility to engage in the public discourse, to send the right signals at the ballot box, to reward political parties that do the right thing and deliver for the people.

The standards they demand of political leaders, PAP and opposition, will influence the quality of the political leadership, the level of discussion and debate in Parliament. They will determine whether our politics enables us to thrive and prosper, or divides and destroys us.

PAP'S SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Speaking for the PAP, we have a special responsibility to make our system work and provide the leadership that Singapore needs and deserves. It's a responsibility that the PAP carries, but no other political party in Singapore shares to make our system work. And let me explain why.

The PAP is inextricably linked with Singapore's founding, its history and development. We built this place together with Singaporeans. How politics and government work in Singapore is quite unique. We have put enormous emphasis on the quality of government - the public service as well as the political leadership. We have gone to great lengths to recruit the best people we can find to enter politics, join the Government and serve Singapore.

This quality of government, coupled with the trust and support of Singaporeans, enables us to deal with problems rationally, comprehensively and effectively. Jean-Claude Juncker, he was Prime Minister of Luxembourg and more recently he was President of the European Commission, he said this about European politics and politicians: "We all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it."

But in Singapore, the PAP Government has been able to do the right thing for Singaporeans - sometimes difficult and hard things - and still get re-elected. Sometimes we pay the price in the vote but, overall, we have continued to win elections.

And therefore the Government has been able to think long term, well beyond the next general election. We have no incentive to kick the can down the road because down the road we will very likely meet the can ourselves again. And therefore we made plans over 50, 60 years, or in the case of climate change, 100 years. As a result the country progresses, Singapore benefits, and the PAP continues to win elections - so far.

It is a virtuous, self-reinforcing circle. This model has worked well for Singapore. Once broken, it will be very difficult to put it back together again.

Can it continue to work like this? With more diversity and contestation, can we keep our focus on the long term, and plan and build ahead for Singapore? How long can Singaporeans vote for the opposition in some constituencies, in the expectation that somehow, somewhere else, their fellow Singaporeans will ensure that the PAP is returned to power? Can we continue to get good people into politics, to maintain the quality of our ministers and MPs, and make things happen for Singapore, if more and more citizens prefer the PAP to form the Government and yet vote for another party's candidates to be their MPs for diversity, for checks and balance?

At what point does a vote for a strong opposition become a vote for a different government? Is it really true that one day if there is a change of government, a new party can run Singapore equally well, because we have such a good public service, as Mr Pritam Singh suggested on Monday? It's like saying you have the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, anybody can be the conductor.

These questions have no easy answers. In the nature of politics and of human societies, things can and do go wrong. Each successive generation of Singaporeans has to keep on doing its best to keep the system working right.

The PAP feels acutely its special responsibility to keep on doing its best for Singapore, and keep Singapore working in this unique way. That is our sacred mission. We will do our utmost to persuade good men and women to enter politics, to take over the torch and lead the next generation forward. We will fight hard to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, and win every vote and show Singaporeans that the PAP continues to deserve their support and trust.

Of course, there is no guarantee that even under a PAP Government, Singapore will forever be successful.

Now, the world is not quite the same as it used to be. Our streets and our skies are quieter. I received a foreign visitor recently, she said she felt sad when she came through Changi Airport. It used to be bustling, crowded, full of life, now it is deathly silent.

Forty years of building up our airport and airline, Covid-19 came, and all of that suddenly came to a halt.

THE SILVER LINING

So what now? We have survived many life and death crises before. Singapore was born from crisis.

But each time, we did survive, and actually came back stronger. Each time, the dire circumstances became the occasion and the platform for ambition and daring. And each time, we transcended ourselves and built again.

We should fight Covid-19 with hope in our hearts, because there is a silver lining. This searing experience will help a whole new generation of Singaporeans appreciate, treasure what we have, and what makes us an exceptional nation.

We are here by dint of will and imagination, in defiance of all the odds and of all those who said we wouldn't make it, we did. As in all the previous crises, Covid-19 will be the occasion for us to do better, emerge stronger, and become more united.

Do not doubt. Do not fear. Jewel will shine again. Changi will thrive again. SIA will be a great way to fly once more. Our economy will prosper anew. Our children and our grandchildren will continue marching forward, to build a fair, ever more just and equal society.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.