NATION BUILDING TENETS

NATION BUILDING TENETS:

(Motion): Order read for resumption of debate on Question [18th August, 2009],

"That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies.". – [Mr Viswa Sadasivan].

Question again proposed.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to recite the Pledge:

"We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation."

Sir, upon closer scrutiny of the Pledge, I realised that the Pledge only comprises three sentences. Because in those three, albeit long, sentences is captured the essence of how we should live our lives as Singaporeans, and what we want for Singapore. It is somewhat like a Vision Statement.

To me, Sir, the most poignant statement is the line, "regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality". Each time I read this line, I feel a sense of purpose and pride as a Singaporean. This is the heart of the Pledge. It is the one organ that is responsible for supplying the body with oxygenated blood. Each time the heart beats, it applies just the right pressure on the veins and arteries for the blood supply throughout our body. Hence, this statement in the Pledge is the key element that underpins our belief in the plurality of our nation.

This year, we celebrate 50 years of self-government. It is worthwhile for us in this House to reflect honestly on what we have attained. As this year's national song title asked us, "What do you see?", and I also would like to ask this House, "What kind of Singapore have we built?"

Yesterday, as I sat in this Chamber and listened to Mr Viswa Sadasivan, this was the picture that was painted:

– we are more an "Inc" than a "nation", more concerned about the bottomlines and KPIs;

– we lack freedom of expression, as Singaporeans live in a "climate of fear";

– we are a society confused by the mixed signals;

– this is a country that takes its "citizens for granted";

– the Government lacks accountability to its people, and he said, "accountability requires the Government to go beyond lip-service ...".

He also mentioned that we do not care enough for our old and needy; and we lack justice and fairness, and to quote him, "When justice, especially in the way it is meted out, deviates significantly from the common man's sense of fairness, questions of legitimacy arise."

To be honest, Sir, I was worried. I ask myself – is this really what Singapore is today? Is that what we have become after 50 years of nation building?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think and I feel that this is not what Singapore is today. We have built and done much more for our country. Let us not be too harsh on ourselves.

Allow me, Sir, to cite some of the good work our forefathers, leaders and citizens have done that resulted in this country that we are enjoying today.

Racial and religious harmony was not a natural instinct when we attained self-government 50 years ago. The multi-racial and multi-religious profile of our country posed a big challenge for the government of the day as there were potential community fault lines that could scuttle the good work that needed to be done. The harmony that we have today was made possible through the will and determination of our founding fathers. Many would not even know that 34 people were killed and 563 injured in two outbreaks of racial riots in 1964. But Singaporeans of that era, shocked by the horror of those riots, have resolved from then on never to take racial harmony for granted.

Singapore, in the 50s and early 60s, was not too much different from the preceding century, where identity was concerned. Singapore had developed and thrived since our founding as a motley mix of immigrants, united by the necessary business of making a living. A sense of community and common destiny was gathering momentum, however, forged by the experience of the war years.

At the heart of the challenge to turn Singapore into a functioning state was the handling of our racial relations. It is no understatement to say that our efforts at instilling racial harmony are primarily responsible for the tremendous economic success and political stability we enjoyed in the last five decades.

Since the early days of our nationhood, we have worked hard at maintaining peace and stability for our country. But maintaining racial harmony is a long journey, and we would be foolish to assume that we have arrived. We only have to look at the ill-fated first steps of our journey as a nation to realise how fragile race relations can be.

The lessons of the racial riots in the 1960s remain an indelible part of our history. Everyone whose lives were touched by the riots understood how we all lost when racial differences spilled over into actual conflict. Lives were lost, work slowed down, there were food shortages, hawkers could not conduct their business, and children could not go to school. It was a setback for all of us, and generations after have remained convinced that we cannot afford to ever bring ourselves down that road again. We cannot afford a repeat of the panic and irrational fear that led to segregation of the races after the two riots of 1964. Houses and buildings can be rebuilt in a flash, but trust and harmony take generations to restore.

Peace and harmony did not happen today by chance. Our leaders made that one decision never to allow these events to happen again. Yes, we cannot erase race and religion from society. Indeed, race and religion run so deep in our lives that it is unthinkable to try and remove them. It is like the East and the West, and never the twain shall meet. But that does not mean we cannot get them to communicate and to maintain harmony. So, our leaders created a new set of values that could be commonly accepted by the different communities – the principles of meritocracy, justice and equality.

What has been the outcome? Where there were squatters and swamps, we turned them into housing estates and playgrounds. Where there were sorrows and sufferings, we brought happiness, comfort and relief. We gave jobs to the people, we trained the untrained so that they could get reemployed. We helped the poor not through the outright handouts, but through a deliberate policy to give them the tools to enable them to break out of the snares of poverty. Education is compulsory and dote on each child through their school years to ensure that by the time they leave, they are equipped, if not academically, then technically. Not one is disadvantaged because of his or her race or religion. You name the professions, be it medical, legal, accounting, engineering, banking, and they are all there – Chinese, Indians, Tamils, Malays, Eurasians and more.

Speaking from my experience with NTUC, we see tripartism between labour, management and Government working at its best. The Government is so concerned that the voice of the workers would not be heard in its policy deliberations that the NTUC Secretary-General is made a Cabinet Minister. Again, so concerned is this Government for the elderly and aged sick that a Minister is assigned full time to take care of policies on the aged. We spend so many hours in this House explaining policies on healthcare, housing, transport to barrier-free environment because we care for the people. This is one Government whose heart throb is one with its people. This is one Government which does not take its people for granted. At the end of every term, it stands before the people to be judged by them.

The policies have worked. The people across all races know this. These policies benefit everyone, everywhere, everyday. Therefore, in this motion before the House, while it offers us the opportunity to discuss the issue of nation building, I think we can do better.

With that, Sir, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion on Nation Building Tenets.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zainudin, could I have a copy of the amendment, please? [ Copy of amendment handed to Mr Speaker .]

The amendment seems to be in order. Mr Zainudin, do you have enough copies to distribute to hon. Members?

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Yes, Sir. May I request the Clerk of Parliament to distribute to hon. Members a copy of the proposed amendment to the motion? [ Copies of amendment distributed to hon. Members .]

Mr Speaker: Please move your amendment.

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Sir, I beg to move,

"That we delete the words in line one, after the word "house" to the end, and there insert:

"acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies."

Sir, while I thank Mr Viswa Sadasivan and Mr Michael Palmer for moving the original motion, I must say that the motion does not do justice to what those present here and those before us have been working on all these years. The original motion overlooks the progress and the very exemplary manner in which we have delivered all our policies even handedly on the basis of justice, equality and meritocracy.

I see no reason why we should only emphasise the principles of meritocracy, justice and equality in economic policies. Rather, in the last 50 years, we have achieved so much in our nation building that we are often cited as an example of a good government that has brought prosperity and progress for its people through its multi-racial policies. It is my submission that all the key policies, whether economic, social, security or political, must be grounded in these common values of meritocracy, justice and equality.

Take the case of the Health Ministry and its introduction of the Advanced Medical Directive Act, which was passed in 1996. This policy was widely discussed and debated, and religious groups were consulted to take into account the sensitivities of the teachings of the different religions. The other example is the introduction of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in 1998 to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act. It was to recognise the need to ensure that the minority voices were heard and represented in the highest policy-making body that this amendment was made. This is an example relevant to our maintenance of race and religious harmony, and meritocracy. Another is our education policy on selection of candidates for scholarships, admission to schools and universities.

We have also encouraged our people to mix freely. We have incorporated racial integration explicitly into our public housing policy. While we may not have many close friends from other races, we will not be strangers to their practices and traditions. This willingness of our people to embrace the diversity of ethnicities and religions continues to be passed on from generation to generation. This is also something that we have come to accept and treasure in Singapore, in order to keep our small, multi-cultural society cohesive and harmonious.

Sir, as our population grows and our country progresses, we must be mindful that the social environment has also moved. We are a global city. We trade with the world and we communicate with the world. We can read and watch events in our living rooms as they unfold anywhere in the world. As the Prime Minister has said in his National Day Rally speech, there is also a growing religiosity among the various groups. Religious fanaticism and the spread of militancy among some quarters elsewhere can spark off incidents in our community if we are not careful. After all, the fault lines are there – we cannot deny that – like crevices in a wall, where external water can seep in.

Singapore's demographic landscape is changing as we continue to progress. Higher population density can easily create tension. We face critical challenges to racial harmony and social stability in our country. These challenges, if not addressed, would lead to the undoing of the precious harmony that we have carefully built over 40 years.

Globalisation has connected us all together more closely than ever before. All over the world, people of different backgrounds now live and work together in mixed societies. We face new challenges as we welcome foreign talents and new citizens to our country. Apart from the knowledge and skills, they bring to our country new cultures, traditions and perspectives. The recent Straits Times Forum page articles on the issues of integration with our new citizens are a clear indication that we have some way to go in dealing with these current challenges. Eventually, the level of integration boils down to the depth of interaction with our fellow citizens, and equally for us to understand our bearings as Singaporeans. If we do not grow this common space, then sadly we would be back to where we started 50 years ago.

Just as we did in the past, we must allow room for diversity and talent to thrive if we are to progress as a nation. We must be gracious enough to share our experiences and trade our cultures. Likewise, new citizens would also need to reciprocate and understand the Singaporean way of life and values. It is this spirit of give and take that would allow every section in the society to work together as partners for a common cause – to build an equal and harmonious society.

The other challenge that we face in our quest for racial harmony is the engagement of our younger generations, who have never experienced the horrific consequences of racial strife. We need to find new platforms to demonstrate that the values of multi-culturalism and racial harmony can and must coexist with the commitment to meritocracy. Civic movements in Singapore are too often carried forth by our seniors. We need more of our youths to step forward and champion the cause. Perhaps the way to go is to connect with our youths in their own style and lingo, through mediums which best reach out to them, be it Facebook, blogs or YouTube – it is what makes them tick that will work. As future flag bearers of this country, they will determine the destiny of Singapore. It is thus vital for us to imbibe values of harmony in our young as early as it is possible.

Sir, there is only so much that the Government can do. And also that there is so much that we, the hon. Members in this Chamber, can do to promote racial harmony, compared to the collective efforts of more than three million Singaporeans. We can start the rhythm but, ultimately, for the sound to travel across the communities, it must come from the people beating the drums.

There is no shortage of community efforts to address these challenges. OnePeople.sg , which champions racial harmony initiatives in Singapore, has developed programmes to foster harmony among our youths, community and religious leaders and the wider community as a whole. This is done through workshops, camps and conferences for our youths to engage deeper on issues relating to inter-racial understanding and appreciation. Inter-faith learning journeys and inter-faith dialogues in partnership with the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) are organised for religious leaders to understand the practices and beliefs of different faiths. Community Engagement Workshops are conducted for Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles to sharpen their knowledge and nuances in handling racially charged issues. At the OnePeople.sg portal, resources are also available to raise the depth of our community level efforts in the promotion of racial and religious harmony.

Sir, the People's Association (PA), over the years, has also developed strong community bonding initiatives at the grassroots levels as well as a vibrant PA youth movement to engage young people to take an interest in community issues. PA has also successfully developed grassroots circles to engage new citizens. In addition, the Community Development Councils also play a crucial role in community development in strengthening harmony and integration by building community networks at the local district levels through far-reaching initiatives.

While there have been much efforts to grow the harmony we have in our beloved country, we have still not arrived. Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, shared his thoughts on harmony recently. His remarks that we are very much a "nation in transition" invoke the reality that faces our nation. Racial and religious harmony, as an important part of our nation building, will always be work in progress.

One of my proudest moments when I am walking around the housing estates is to watch the children from different races playing together, holding hands, dancing and laughing. I always remember the times when I took the National Pledge as a school boy, standing shoulder to shoulder with my other non-Malay school mates. The National Pledge makes it even more meaningful, because it was penned by our late Minister S. Rajaratnam, a member of a minority race. Similarly, in singing the National Anthem, I cannot but be satisfied that it was composed by the late Mr Zubir Said, also a member of a minority race. Our National Flag was designed by a Committee headed by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye. And it was Sir George Oehlers who was the first Speaker of Singapore's Legislative Assembly in 1963. These events alone show that justice, equality and meritocracy were principles that we have infused into our system from the days of our gaining self-government.

Sir, as a multi-racial and multi-religious country, we will face undercurrents and challenges from time to time. We can certainly be proud of how far we have come, but we must never relent on working towards strengthening our ties. While there are many initiatives by the Government, community and religious organisations to promote harmony, it is strong connections among the people at a personal level that will keep the wheels of harmony turning. The extent of harmony we will achieve in the next 50 years will depend on the extent in which we are willing to respect, understand and appreciate our differences. It is our personal responsibility to ensure diversity continues to be the greatest asset of this country. And looking forward to the future, it is for us to build a country and a nation that is going to surprise our next generation like the way our forefathers have done. Nobody expected us to arrive and build this country as it is today. Similarly, in 50 years' time, the foundations that we have built will allow for another surprising outcome for Singapore in the future.

Sir, with that, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed, as an amendment, that the words from "house" in line one to the end be left out, and there to insert the words as proposed by the Member. It may be convenient that the debate on the original motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single Question. Do I have Members' agreement on this?

Hon. Members: indicated assent

.:

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed with my speech, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Member on his amended motion. He said that he acknowledged the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years, etc, and achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge. I would like to ask, what does he mean by "achieving the tenets"? Is he saying that we have achieved the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge or is he saying that it is in progress?

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Sir, what I mean is that in the last 50 years, we have built our nation and we have also achieved what is in the Pledge. But, moving forward, there will always be challenges. That is what I mean by "achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge".

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I do not think we have achieved the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge, but I can recognise that we have made progress.

Sir, I am of the opinion that we should not read too much in the Pledge and attempt to interpret for one's own convenience and to suit one's own argument. The language used for the Pledge is simple, succinct and to the point. The first part of the National Pledge says, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion ...". This is a statement of fact – that we are a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society, and we are all Singapore citizens. By having this common identity of being Singaporeans, we should be united as a people. We are a young nation.

The second part of the Pledge is to forge a consensus for a roadmap forward – "to build a democratic society based on justice and equality ...". It clearly defines the guiding principle by which Singapore, as a society, should forge ahead with actions based on justice and equality tenets towards the type of society we wish to build, ie, a democratic society.

The last part of the Pledge expresses our ultimate goals and aspirations for Singapore as a nation. Why is the need to be a united people and to build a democratic society? It is to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. Therefore, Sir, my view is that we should read and understand the Pledge as a reminder of the fundamental statement of what we want to be as a people, as a society and as a nation. Some may want to argue over the details or even how to formulate or implement policies to conform to every word of the Pledge. But I believe that we should leave the Pledge as it is and not attempt to interpret it in one's own way, breaking down its component parts for application in argument.

The National Pledge represents the spiritual part of our nation. And unless it is really necessary and justifiable, we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.

Sir, last but not the least, ideals and principles enshrined in the National Pledge are always work in progress. And the Pledge begins with, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves" – not the Government of Singapore pledges itself. Therefore, each of us, as citizens, if we find Government policies or some social behaviour which are not right for Singapore, then, as a citizen, we should make it right for Singapore.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have requested for copies of the National Pledge to be disseminated as reference to my speech and as a reminder to the House the "living words" of this Government.

Sir, the amended motion on nation building tenets provides a timely reminder that our society is a multi-cultural and meritocratic society, and that to progress as one Singapore, we need to work together regardless of our racial, language, religious or income differences. The amended motion reaffirms that this Government has lived and will live by all the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge and refutes the special emphasis, in the original motion, on commitment to non-discrimination in the making and conduct of economic policy.

Sir, economic life is an important aspect of existence, and the original motion affirms the Government's commitment in ensuring that all Singaporeans have equal access to Government opportunities regardless of race, language or religion. The progress that this Government has made to be in the first league of nations is testimony to the vigilant adherence to the principle of non-discrimination as reflected in the Pledge, and the emphasis that the principle operates through all aspects of policies.

It was not good economic policy, per se , that lifted us out of poverty but a combination of good political, economic, and social policies. The efficacy of any policy depends on other policies, so we will never realise the fruits of economic policy, whatever our effort, in the absence of social policies that stand on a solid ground of non-discrimination.

Sir, one of Singapore’s founding fathers, Mr S. Rajaratnam, wrote this Pledge in the wake of the storm of racial riots that plagued our nation during the turbulent 50s and 60s. Mr Rajaratnam had intended for the Pledge to stand as the beacon of hope and guidance for a new country that had just set foot onto the long and arduous path towards nationhood.

When Mr Rajaratnam was tasked with writing the National Pledge in 1966, he understood that ethnicity formed the core identity of most people, especially within a multicultural setting that lacked a strong, overarching national identity, a situation in which a newly independent Singapore found herself. He correctly identified language, race and religion as potential fracture points that would immediately shatter any attempts at nation building and therefore emphasized the role of non-discrimination as the foremost principle governing our political, economic and social affairs.

Wise words, Sir, stand the test of time, and his words were wise. The central tenet of non-discrimination enshrined in the Pledge still rings true to this very day. We must not mistake the calm seas that we inhabit today as proof that the tempests of yesteryears are over. The harmony and prosperity that we currently find ourselves in is not the natural state of affairs but, rather, the product of good governance and an unwavering commitment to meritocracy and to a policy of non-discrimination in all aspects of life.

Our policy of non-discrimination forms the glue that gels or that seals the potential rifts of discord that constantly threaten to tear us apart. Deviate from the principles emphasised in our Pledge, and I guarantee, Sir, that all our collective years of nation building, painstakingly undertaken by the PAP Government and the people of Singapore will come to naught.

Our incredible journey from third world to first within a generation was made possible only through the collective effort of every citizen, each working in unity with a government dedicated towards the betterment of Singapore. Our unprecedented success against all odds in turn reflects the Government’s commitment to non-discrimination in all areas of policy and its desire to involve every citizen in the nation building process.

But it is crucial to note the following: that the cooperation and unity that underlie our hitherto success stems not from a well-defined national identity, nor from a long and shared sense of history, but from an implicit trust forged between the Government and the people over the flames of adversity and the shared trials and tribulations experienced by all Singaporeans during our journey after independence.

Sir, trust is by nature delicate, difficult to build up, but easy to shatter. We have arrived at a key crossroad in our history as a nation, a moment where we seek to define ourselves, to understand our place in history, and to chart the path forward that we wish to take as a people. The Member may like to know that we must at this critical junction build on the collective unity that we have taken years to achieve; any attempt by opportunistic voices to discredit the good work done by the PAP Government will create a swirl of uncertainty that will slowly but surely hammer away at the foundations of trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years and, ultimately, unleash a torrent of discontent and ill-will that will dismantle all that we have achieved and deliver the coup de grace to our existence as a first-world nation.

Sir, on social policy, we have to first navigate the dangerous waters surrounding our racial and religious harmony when it comes to social policy, which has a direct impact on the personal lives of Singaporeans. When creating social policies for Singapore, our racial and religious mix must form the backdrop of all deliberations. We have to be mindful of different viewpoints of each group on sensitive issues and to make a conscious effort to operate in the secular common space. As Prime Minister Lee emphasised in his Rally Speech, all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, religion or status would be treated equal; no particular group would be shown any special favours. But this does not mean that the Government should shy away from adopting the approach of a particular group, provided that there are cogent reasons independent of racial or religious considerations for doing so.

Sir, racial and religious harmony, as it is currently practised in Singapore, does not guarantee a homogenous Singapore society – with a single shared culture. Today, even after 50 years of nation building, a "Singaporean" ethnicity has not evolved. Although we cannot rule out that a Singaporean race would evolve in the future; such a development may just happen with the passage of time and a feeling of "Singaporean-ness".

As Minister Mentor Lee pointed out at an event in July this year, the multi-racial performances at the event were a contrived effort that represented an ideal that we may never completely reach, but because of this ideal, we will continue to make progress.

Although there is this ideal of promulgating a shared Singaporean identity, in trying to encourage this development, we must remain vigilant and sensitive to the feelings of individuals and of communities. One wrong reading of a situation could spell disaster for Singapore. Prime Minister Lee recounted such an incident where two families, one Malay, another Chinese, tussling for the same spot at a void deck to hold their respective functions. It was settled amicably when the Malay family gave way, even if it had the right and necessary permit to hold the function. Sir, timely intervention helped avert an ugly situation from arising. This incident gives hope; that as a nation, as one Singaporean people, although we have yet to arrive, we are slowly but surely reaching the goal of One People, One Nation and One Singapore.

Perhaps this explains why some surveys indicate that many our youths do not feel patriotic or why some express a desire to migrate. I would like to let Mr Viswa know that in fact their views do not reflect the Government’s failure to commit to the tenets of non-discrimination. Rather, they reflect the fact that we have arrived at the crossroad that I had mentioned earlier in my speech. Thrust unexpectedly into the murky waters of independence and headed towards a waterfall on a small, rickety boat with a crew that had never worked with one another before, we had little choice but to rely on trust to guide us to safety. So the citizens worked hard at rowing, believing that the Government was leading the boat with everyone’s best interests at heart. And so we averted disaster and emerged into the oasis of the first world.

The youths of today are no longer content with relying solely on the implicit trust between the Government and the people. They seek a more active role in charting the path forward that Singapore will take. This should hardly surprise, for we have arrived at a state in the evolution of our history as a nation where we seek to define ourselves and to understand our place in history. So, Members who have spoken earlier, clearly are mistaken when they attempt to discredit the PAP Government’s achievements over the years, for the "unpatriotism" that we witness today is the product of the passage of time, rather than the Government’s lack of commitment towards nation building.

Sir, the path forward should therefore build on the implicit trust that we have accumulated. We need to root young Singaporeans in their community by engaging them in community programmes that allow them to contribute by giving back to society-at-large. Doing so provides a sense of involvement and a stake in the community. We already have such programmes in the form of youth clubs that engage in voluntary grassroots work, but we can do more to increase the numbers of and membership in such clubs. Sir, we must also allow for greater participation in the political process. We have made progress in this area through the Feedback Unit and increasing opportunities for participation in Parliament, and we must continue to move in that direction. The upshot is that in charting our path forward, we must stay united as One People, One Nation, One Singapore.

But what then defines us as One People, One Nation, One Singapore? Answering this question requires us to define our national identity. I would like to think of national identity as a shared vision, a belief in our common destiny as a people. The Americans believe in their role as the bastion of democratic values and in the liberty to pursue their individual happiness; the Chinese believe in their millennia-old civilisation and share a common desire to make China great again. So, in the context of Singapore, what is our national identity? Sir, I do not have an answer. As a young nation of 44, we are still in the process of defining ourselves as a people.

What will the Singaporean identity look like? Again, I do not have the answer. What I am certain of, however, is the paramount importance of involving all parties in the process of developing a uniquely Singaporean sense of identity. Our unique multicultural flavour means that our national identity must be specific enough to distinguish us as a people, while at the same time broad enough to allow for different racial groups to preserve their own identities while taking part in and contributing towards a larger identity and purpose. America is a good example of where this has occurred. Americans tend to retain their ethnic identity and refer to themselves as Asian-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, and so on. But outside the United States, they all refer to themselves as Americans. So we must provide enough space for each race to preserve its own ethnic identity while creating enough common ground for all races to identify with a larger cause.

What does the path towards a Singaporean identity look like? Progress must occur at a comfortable pace for all parties – we cannot force a minority which is not ready to assimilate into what the majority determines should be the Singaporean identity. The process of change must happen naturally and gradually, through dialogue and interaction and consultation with all stakeholders. Constant and free-flowing communication between various ethnic groups is what will drive the development of a Singaporean identity. But for this communication to be successful it must be civil; it must be tolerant of differences; and it must accept differences. In a way, it is like a negotiation between cultures; giving and taking perhaps consensually and parties walk away from the negotiation together, in a win-win situation.

What the Government can do is limited; it can only provide a conducive forum for cultural negotiations to take place by prescribing rules of engagement. It cannot take the role of cultural parties involved in deciding what and how the Singaporean identity should be. The Government can only step in when lines are crossed and social behaviours become inappropriate or destructive. However, the ideal situation will be when all stakeholders exercise self-restraint and self-regulation, and treat each other with utmost respect. It is the mark of a civilized society when we are able to disagree respectfully but then work towards an amicable resolution. Sir, as our society progresses, more thorny issues with the potential to divide Singaporeans will surface. This is especially so in the cutting edge areas of biotechnology where potential ethical, religious and moral issues will be raised, and the shift towards greater awareness of human rights. Each race or religion will have their own teachings and ideals, and will seek to promulgate their ideas on their followers.

Sir, it would be appropriate at this juncture to remind our community leaders that we must preserve our common secular space for all, and proselytisation must remain within reasonable limits. Much as we enjoy our racial and religious harmony now, it cannot be taken for granted. Community leaders must have, at the forefront of their decision-making process, considerations of whether their actions will have a larger impact on Singaporean society at large. As Prime Minister Lee and our leaders have mentioned, the majority of our racial and religious groups in Singapore have done very well in this respect. And indeed, it was heartening and encouraging to see religious and community leaders, in full force, at the National Day Rally. Their presence served to underscore their commitment towards Singapore’s nation building efforts.

Sir, only when there is peace and harmony in society, can Singapore progress as a united nation. As the cliche goes, united we stand, divided we fall.

And it is no truer when it comes to nation building and progress as a nation. For a small country with no natural resources, we are only as good as the sum of our parts. And our parts are made up of Singaporeans – Chinese, Indians, Malays, Eurasians, rich or needy – and wherever they may be physically, we hope they continue to contribute to Singapore. It is inevitable that many of our top talents will end up working overseas, but we hope that they can still contribute to Singapore in their own ways; be it by being our informal ambassadors overseas, or discovering new business opportunities overseas for future Singaporeans to follow their footsteps.

In relation to the point that we have to depend on our people for progress, we have to ensure that we provide all Singaporeans with good education and training, so as to build our capacity in the changing economy. We know that certain groups in society may be lagging behind others and we must try to equalise opportunities as much as possible. We will therefore have to put in place social policies or education policies which will encourage equality for all but not at the expense of meritocracy.

In this aspect, the PAP Government has been living the tenets of the National Pledge and much has been done to alleviate the distress of the lower income groups and to provide opportunities for the poor to break out of the poverty trap through a well-placed meritocratic system that provides equal opportunities to all.

Sir, I will like to share a conversation I had with an American recently. Sir, two US visitors from Ideo, a design company from US met me recently. One of them, based in Shanghai has been working in Singapore on a business re-engineering project.

He told me that to be in a world class city, is not about the hardware but software. Compared to Shanghai with its big and modern skyscrapers, Singapore may lag behind but in his opinion, Singapore has a higher value proposition to offer. He explained that Singapore’s value proposition lies in its software or human capital which has evolved as an important strategic asset giving Singapore that brand of success. This is possible because we have not just invested in educating our young but we also invest heavily in continual education and training for our workforce, to level up our human capabilities and strengthen our value system.

Sir, indeed it is sad to say that some Singaporeans cannot seem to appreciate what we have and they continue to ask, "what more is there for me?". Our challenge really is addressing the expectations of such people. There is no end to fulfilling expectations but we can count ourselves lucky that a majority of Singaporeans have moved from basic sustenance level to arrive at the state of self actualisation. Amongst them are those whose only preoccupation is aspiring to move to the next level of contentment. Sir, to these people, including Mr Low Thia Khiang and the Nominated MP, I would say to them that I am not sure that such an utopian state could happen anywhere in this world.

Sir, allow me to end with an analogy that encapsulates the main points of my speech. Sir, most profitable firms apply the principle of non-discrimination in their hiring and compensation process, and what binds their staff together is therefore equal access to the opportunity of making money. Great companies, however, also have a vision shared by their employees. Apple is one of the most innovative and dynamic firms in the world because it combines non-discrimination with a vision that all its employees share. Japanese companies combine profit-making principles with a sense of community, so when the going gets tough, the employees stand united behind the company. We have to do the same in Singapore.

Sir, the importance of remembering the nation building tenets should therefore not just be focused on economic policies but rather what Singapore has progressed to and for what makes us tick as Singapore and as Singaporeans, it is not just our economic progress, but also we are – as a country, as various communities within the country, and as individuals – proud to call ourselves Singaporeans.

On this note, I support the amended motion.

Mr Speaker: I propose to take the break now. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.50 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

[

Mr Speaker in the Chair: ]

NATION BUILDING TENETS: Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I embrace the National Pledge. I believe in the whole of the National Pledge. If Mr S. Rajaratnam were here, I will tell him that I and my Party thank him for crafting such an excellent legal document. I think we should look at the Pledge as a whole and not as a contract word for word, and try to argue on the words. The whole thing is a great ideal. I think we can accept this as the foundation stone for nation-building for Singapore.

Sir, you see the importance of unity. Mr Rajaratnam did not say "united people", he said "one united people". For the people to unite, there must be justice and equality, and I think these words are very meaningful and very important to Singapore – "united people". But we cannot have united people if the Government discriminates against certain sections of the people. In a democratic country or society, we believe in free thought. We should be allowed to think as we like, whether we like the Opposition or the ruling party. But as it is, there is great discrimination from the first day I entered politics until today. At first, it was worse. The ruling party threatened that anybody who supported the Opposition would get the facilities last. So if you stayed in a HDB flat, and if the lift gets spoiled and you get caught in it, you will be the last to be rescued, which is quite a frightening threat actually. I think the people should take it with a pinch of salt but, sometimes, such a threat can be quite frightening.

With regard to transport, the MRT Station is built ready for use but the train shall not stop at the Opposition ward. Sir, I can remember those days very clearly. Fortunately, for us, the train did stop at Potong Pasir. Believe it or not, I wanted to plant one tree, and it was refused. I had told the story many times but I think it is worthwhile telling once more. In those days, the PAP was generous enough to give me a walled-up empty office space at the void deck. The public got to know about it. The owner of a flower nursery donated one exotic plant to me, and I believed he also gave one each to Mr Goh Chok Tong and Dr Tony Tan. Of course, I straightaway told him that I would be planting it in the constituency itself, and not take home to plant it. Like a dutiful MP, I wrote to the Minister, I said, "Can I plant one tree in my constituency?" He said, "No. The planting of trees in the constituency has been mapped out by the Parks and Trees Division." So I wrote to the Parks and Trees Division, "Can you please give me a map of the planting?" And they said they do not have such a plan. So I wrote to the Minister and I said they did not have such a plan. And their reply was through the HDB which said, "You cannot plant a tree there because the soil does not suit that plant." I do not know how he said it was the soil. Did he make a test of the soil? Anyway, I stopped linking with him and I planted the tree in any event. Believe it or not, that same night, some hooligans came and pulled the tree out with the roots still intact and threw it in front of the office. I was really surprised. It was a good tree, and the Chinese name is supposed to be the "seven sisters" tree because they have fruits like gingko nuts. I suppose there are seven of them in a bunch. That was the treatment I got but we still persisted. I planted it in a big pot and it started to fruit, and somebody must have thrown a bottle of bleach into the pot and, sad to say, the tree of course wilted. I should have taken it home to plant it. Anyway, that is the story of the tree.

Sir, how can we have unity in our people if the Government behaves in such a way? Nowadays, of course, I think the Ministers are more enlightened. They do not behave like the Ministers before. The Minister's name was Mr Teh Cheang Wan, in case Members do not know. But he is not living now. He is dead. If we want to have unity, I think the Ministers should be more enlightened and do not behave like Mr Teh.

Sir, justice and equality, these are the values that we should adhere to. If you want to have unity, you must have justice and equality. I have one brother older than me. Believe it or not, we never quarrelled and we never had a fight in the house. I know why now – it is because our parents were equal and just. Whenever they bought a shirt for my elder brother during the New Year, they would buy one for me. If they bought a pair of shoes for him, they would buy one for me. So we always had equal treatment.

If the Government does not take it too seriously about the Opposition, treats them fairly, I think they may get Potong Pasir back. A bit of equality would do a lot of good. Sir, we should look at this Pledge as a whole, not word for word. "One united people, build a democratic society based on justice and equality, to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress". Sir, these are the key words. The American Constitution also said they want to acquire happiness. That is a very elusive thing.

But I think we can achieve it with this Pledge. I think if Singapore builds on the foundation of this Pledge, it would not go wrong.

4.25 pm

The Minister Mentor, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, I had not intended to intervene in any debate. But I was doing physiotherapy just now and reading the newspapers and I thought I should bring the House back to earth.

Mr Rajaratnam had great virtues in the midst of despondency after a series of race riots when we were thrown out during Independence. And our Malays in Singapore were apprehensive that now that we were the majority, we would in turn treat them the way a Malay majority treated us. He drafted these words and rose above the present. He was a great idealist. It came to me; I trimmed out the unachievable and the Pledge, as it stands, is his work after I have trimmed it. What is it an ideology? No, it is an aspiration. Will we achieve it? I do not know. We will have to keep on trying. Are we a nation? In transition.

I want to move an amendment to this amendment that "acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets ...". These were aspirations. This was not an ideology.

Mr Speaker: Can I have a copy of the amendment? [ A copy of the amendment was handed over to Mr Speaker. ] Thank you. Everything seems to be in order. Minister Mentor, carry on.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, reference was made to the Constitution. The Constitution of Singapore enjoins us to specially look after the position of the Malays and other minorities. It comes under Articles 152 and 153. I will read it:

"Minorities and Special Position of Malays. It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore. The Government shall exercise its functions in such a manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays who are the indigenous people of Singapore and, accordingly, it should be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster, promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests of the Malay language."

And on Muslim religion, Article 153:

"The Legislature shall by law make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs and for constituting a council to advise the President in matters of the Muslim religion."

We explicitly state in our Constitution a duty on behalf of the Government not to treat everybody as equal. It is not reality, it is not practical, it will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle. So this was an aspiration.

As Malays have progressed and a number have joined the middle class with university degrees and professional qualifications, we have asked Mendaki to agree not to have their special rights of free education at university but to take what they were entitled to; put those fees to help more disadvantaged Malays. So, we are trying to reach a position where there is a level playing field for everybody which is going to take decades, if not centuries, and we may never get there.

Now let me read the American Constitution. In its Declaration of Independence on 4th July 1776, adopted in Congress, the Declaration read, in the second paragraph:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution, passed a few years later, says:

"We the people of the United States [this is the preamble], in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Nowhere does it say that the blacks would be differently treated. But the blacks did not get the vote until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s with Martin Luther King and his famous speech "We Dare to Dream". An enormous riot took place and eventually President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, and it took many more decades before the southern states, which kept the blacks in their position, allowed the registration of black voters and subsequently even after that, to allow black students to go into white schools. It was 200 years before an exceptional half-black American became President.

So, my colleague has put it: trying to put square pegs into round holes. Will we ever make the pegs the same? No. You suggest to the Malays that we should abolish these provisions in the Constitution and you will have grave disquiet. So we start on the basis that this is reality. We will not be able to get a Chinese Minister or an Indian Minister to persuade Malay parents to look after their daughters more carefully and not have teenage pregnancies which lead to failed marriages; subsequent marriages also fail, and delinquents. Can a Chinese MP or an Indian MP do that? They will say: "You are interfering in my private life." But we have funded Mendaki and MUIS, and they have a committee to try and reduce the number of such unhappy outcomes.

The way that Singapore has made progress is by a realistic step-by-step forward approach. It may take us centuries before we get to a similar position as the Americans. They go to wars – the blacks and the whites. In the First World War, they did not carry arms, they carried the ammo, they were not given the honour to fight. In the Second World War, they went back, they were ex-GIs – those who could make it to university were given the GI grants – but they went back to their black ghettos (in 1945) and they stayed there. And today there are still black ghettos.

These are realities. The American Constitution does not say that it will treat blacks differently but our Constitution spells out the duty of the Government to treat Malays and other minorities with extra care.

So the basis on which the Nominated Member has placed his arguments is false and flawed. It is completely untrue. It has got no basis whatsoever. And I thought to myself, perhaps I should bring this House back to earth and remind everybody what is our starting point, what is our base, and if we do not recognise where we started from, and that these are our foundations, we will fail.

Nobody can speak – I would not say authority – with the knowledge that I have because I knew the circumstances in which the Pledge was made. I admire the sentiments of Mr Rajaratnam. At that moment in 1965, my worry was, what would the Malays in Singapore do, now that they knew they were a minority, and that we would wreck havoc with them as we were made to suffer when we were a minority. When I returned on the 9th of August, on the advice of our Special Branch, I did not go back to my house. I stayed at Sri Temasek, which was my official residence. I stayed there for one week, then I went to Changi Cottage and stayed there for two months to make sure that everything subsided.

These are realities. Today, 44 years later, we have a Malay community, I believe, at peace, convinced that we are not discriminating against them, convinced that we are including them in our society.

Our Member works in SINDA. I am told he has been there for 10 years. He will know Indians are not equal. There are those Brahmins; they will not be in SINDA. It is the non-Brahmins who are in SINDA. So I think it is dangerous to allow such highfalutin ideas to go undemolished and mislead Singapore. We are here today, we have this building, we have all these facilities. All around us is evidence of our accountability. Without being accountable, we would not have been re-elected and there would be no Singapore of today.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as an amendment that after the words "achieving the" in Mr Zainudin Nordin's notice of amendment, to insert the words "aspirations and". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted". Mr Calvin Cheng.

Mr Calvin Cheng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the chance to speak. I feel a lot of pressure now having to make my maiden speech after Minister Mentor has spoken. I will try my best.

I thank Minister Mentor for giving us a reminder of the origins of the Pledge – origins the young might have forgotten.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. I however do so with some reservations. This is because although the Pledge enshrines ideals that we want all citizens to aspire to, many of the basic tenets, the building blocks of the Pledge, are, in my opinion, open to interpretation; consequently, the national policies that one would support would differ according to how one interprets these tenets. In this speech, I hope to clarify the following. Firstly, that some important ideas enshrined in our National Pledge will mean significantly different things to different people. Secondly, as a result, these different meanings, if adopted, will lead to vastly different policies in practice. And, thirdly, I will argue that it is important that Singaporeans debate, discuss and understand these different meanings and be aware of their practical implications.

"We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion …". These lines are fairly un-contentious. Although some may argue that other social divisions should be included, I believe that this is not necessary. Race, language and religion are the biggest divisions in most multi-cultural, multi-racial societies such as ours, and pledging ourselves as one united people, despite these major differences, is a sufficiently noble, important and challenging task. However, even though the meaning of "regardless of race, language or religion" is clear, I wonder how practical it is to formulate all policies according to this line of the Pledge. These divisions are very real and even though the idealist in me would very much like to see a single Singaporean ethnic identity, I feel this may be a pipe dream.

Even in America, allegedly the poster boy of the melting pot, multi-cultural society, race and religion still remain very important. This has been most markedly demonstrated during the last American presidential election where race and religion of Barack Obama was a very important issue. I thus think it is still important to bear in mind the differences in race and religion when formulating policies. That said, I am young. And being young, I hope and I dream. Even if complete assimilation is impossible, I hope that integration can be further increased, for example, by allowing more interaction between the self-help groups and their volunteers. Even if separate ethnic identities will always prevail, I dream that one day a strong Singapore identity will arise that unites us around our similarities and commonalities.

The issue of differences in meaning arises with the next line of the Pledge – "to build a democratic society". It may appear self-evident what democracy is, or what a democratic society is. It is not. I find it extremely annoying when people tell me, "Singapore is not democratic". I am annoyed not because they are right, nor because they are wrong, but because they assume that they have a monopoly over the meaning of democracy.

Western liberals are particularly guilty of this, and they assume that their version of democracy is the benchmark by which all democracies and democratic societies have to be measured against. Some Singaporeans have also adopted this attitude, and have criticised Singapore for being undemocratic, because we do not meet the standards of western societies.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the western model of democracy is wrong – I am just saying that their model, which even differs from western country to western country, is but one possible model of democracy. Most political theorists would agree that democracy is a system of governance "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Beyond this three-part description, there is enormous dispute over what democracy is.

For example, should democracy be simply a system of majority-rule, or should a protection of the minority, the minority who would lose in a democratic vote, be also protected? Is a representative democracy where citizens elect representatives to govern for a period of time sufficiently democratic, or is a truly democratic system direct democracy, where citizens vote directly on the enactment of laws and policies as much as possible? These are all questions that, when answered, lead to different models of democracy.

I do not believe there is a right or wrong to these questions, and each country, each culture, must choose a system of democracy suitable for itself. But Singaporeans must be aware that this choice is not merely an academic exercise but will have practical implications. For example, if we believe that there should be a protection of minority rights in a truly democratic society, and that simple majority-rule is not sufficiently democratic, then Singaporeans must ask themselves whether sometimes, even if the majority feels a certain way, the minority still deserves to be protected. For example, I think it was this sort of thinking that led to the debate on the repeal of section 377A.

Yet, not all minorities can be protected – this is simply neither possible nor practical. If we do, every group with special tastes, with unique preferences, will be able to claim protection, and the smallest minority is a minority of one. In practice, even if we think that democracy requires us to protect minorities, there needs to be a balance when formulating national policies that takes them into consideration. It is my opinion that the best form of protection for minorities is the equal regard that all individuals get in the eyes of the law.

Our founding fathers have, like in many countries, chosen a system of representative democracy, specifically parliamentary democracy, as Singapore’s system of government. In a system of representative democracy, regular elections are held to decide who will form the government, rather than to decide the issues of the day.

Once elected, a government has the authority to formulate policy and enact legislation, until it loses its mandate in the elected chamber, or when fresh elections are called. Singapore has this system, and with variations, so do countries such as the US, Britain and many democratic countries. On the other hand, Switzerland has a system of government that incorporates more elements of direct democracy, where ordinary citizens can propose legislation, and referenda are regularly called for the citizens to vote on. If one day, Singaporeans were to think that this is the sort of democracy they want, and this is the type of democratic society they want to build, they must do so with their eyes open to the practical implications. For example, direct democracy is very time consuming and citizens have to educate themselves about the proposed legislation before voting in the referenda, turning up on voting day to vote, and do this several times a year! For Singaporeans who even now complain that they do not even have time to make babies, they should especially make sure that they consider carefully!

I have not yet heard strident calls for more direct democracy, but another more important debate about the form that democracy should take will be more familiar and significant to Singaporeans – voting procedure. In Singapore, some political parties have called for a system of proportional representation to replace the current "first-past-the-post" system. In the current system, it is possible for a party with 51% of the popular vote to win 100% of the parliamentary seats. To some, this is unfair – the Workers' Party, for example, in its manifesto, calls for "An alternative system of proportional representation ... that could reflect party votes at the national level".

There are strengths and weaknesses to both systems, and both are used by democratic countries elsewhere. In deciding what sort of democratic society they want to build, Singaporeans should be aware of the practical implications of both. In a first-past-the-post system, stable governments with clear majorities are more likely. This, if I am not wrong, has been the view of the People’s Action Party. A proportional representation system, because it allows smaller parties with small proportions of the popular vote to gain seats, is more likely to result in a proliferation of parties in Parliament, and thus a need for coalition governments. Experience in other countries has shown us that coalition governments tend to be more unstable and weak, leading to more frequent elections.

A proportional representation system is also more likely to introduce fringe parties to Parliament, like when the Pirate Party of Sweden won a seat in the European Parliament recently. Fortunately, these are not real one-eyed bandits but people who believe that the sharing of music on the Internet should be free; more dangerous would be the introduction of extremist parties, like the blatantly racist British National Party, into an elected chamber. Yet, the supporters of a proportional representation system are not wrong: it is a fairer, more proportionate system that more accurately reflects voter preferences. There is something intuitively unfair that a party with 51% of the popular vote could technically end up with all the seats in Parliament. In deciding what sort of voting system will help Singapore build a more democratic society, Singaporeans should thus be very aware of the costs and benefits of both systems in practice, and choose very carefully. When theory becomes practice, and when idealism is tempered by pragmatism, an idea that may sound very attractive conceptually may not be so easy to implement in reality.

I now move on to the next part of the Pledge that reads, "... based on justice and equality". When Mr S. Rajaratnam penned the Pledge, I believe he put these two concepts together on purpose, for there is a conviction that a just society is an equal society, and an equal society is a fair society. Justice, equality and fairness are thus ideas that are inextricably linked.

However, when Singaporeans put their hands to their hearts and pledge to build a society based on equality, what do they exactly mean? What is equality? There are many ways to discuss this but I would like to focus on two meanings of equality that I think are most important to Singaporeans and, depending on which meaning they believe in more, would shape their thoughts about what national policies, especially economic policies, should be formulated to build a society based on equality. The first is equality of opportunity and the second equality of outcome.

I think equality of opportunity can best be encapsulated by the phrase, "a level playing field". It means that whoever we are, wherever we come from, regardless of what socio-economic group we are born into, or gender, or race, we have an equal chance to succeed in life. It is this type of equality that I think underpins a meritocratic society. A society that offers an equality of opportunity will have institutions that are blind to the differences I talked about – class, gender, race – and every man, every woman, would have, in theory, an equal chance to get into the best schools, obtain the best jobs, or even run for the highest political offices in the land. A society based on the equality of opportunity strives to ensure that each citizen is not disadvantaged by any discrimination.

Fundamental to the idea of equality of opportunity is the principle of dessert. The thought goes like this: if the playing field is equal and nobody is unfairly disadvantaged, and if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, then the outcome must also be fair and just. Whether you win or lose, you have an equal chance to succeed. If you are one of the winners, your prize is well-deserved. If you are one of the losers, you have nobody to blame, as you had an equal chance to succeed, but you did not. But is this really just?

There is a fundamental weakness to the idea of equality of opportunity and this is it: no matter how level the playing field is, no matter how fair the rules of the game are, some of us are always more likely to lose. This is because even if opportunities are equal, human beings are not born with equal talents. When I was young, I was pretty sure I had an equal chance to become a star basketball player or even a supermodel, in so far that there are no laws in Singapore that stop me from doing so. That I am neither now is not a reflection of unequal opportunity, but the fact that I am challenged in terms of height and in looks, something that I was born with through no fault of mine.

The role that luck plays in our lives is also very important, when judging whether mere equality of opportunity is enough to create a just society. As the cliché goes, accidents happen, and like most clichés, there is truth in it. Sometimes people do badly in life not because they are lazy, or made the wrong decisions, or are unwilling to try, but because they are plain unlucky. This is not shifting blame or avoiding responsibility, but a very real fact of life. For instance, illness could incapacitate an otherwise talented man in the prime of his life.

The fact of the matter is this: equal opportunity may lead to unequal outcomes, and these unequal outcomes sometimes outrage our sense of justice. This leads me to the other very important meaning of equality: equality of outcome.

As my colleague Mr Viswa has pointed out, Singapore has a relatively high income inequality, closer to the standards of under-developed countries in the world; its income inequality, as represented by the Gini coefficient, is higher than many of our neighbouring countries. Income inequality is an inequality of outcome. The important question is this: Even if we accept that Singapore is meritocratic, and even if the Government has successfully ensured a more or less even playing field and equality of opportunity to all citizens, it remains a fact that Singapore has one of the highest income inequalities in the region.

Can we as a people accept that this inequality is just, that this inequality is fair? Is equality of opportunity all we need to care about when we pledge to build a society based on equality?

As I argued before, equality of opportunity and a meritocratic system can still produce very unequal results because people are born with different abilities, or are just plain unlucky even if they are hardworking, committed or even talented.

The important issue is thus this: if we believe that unequal outcomes that arise from equal opportunities are still unjust, then we have to do something about it and the only thing we can do is to tweak the outcome. That is where the problem starts because when translated into practical economic policies, it reveals a tension between the two types of inequalities.

Let us go back to a practical issue – the very important issue of income inequality. If we believe that it is unjust for some people to be very rich whilst others hover on the edges of poverty, regardless of whether they had an equal opportunity to succeed, then one of the most powerful ways to address this inequality is to redistribute income. But by redistributing income, by taking away some from the rich and giving it to the poor, through taxation for example, we are actually telling the winners this: that though your rewards may have been justly won, through you taking your opportunity, through your hard work, your industry, we are nevertheless taking some of these rewards away from you, and giving them to those who have lost out, so we have a more equal outcome. To some of these winners, this may seem not only unequal, but outright unfair and unjust – they succeeded fairly and squarely, and yet do not get to enjoy the full fruits of their labour. Perhaps this is the reason why advocates of low income tax are convinced that higher taxes will discourage industry and impede meritocracy. On the practical level, the policy level, a belief in equality of opportunity is thus not wholly compatible with a desire to see more equal outcomes.

In his speech, my colleague Mr Viswa talked about spending more money on public assistance to the poor and the needy. This is necessarily also redistributive in nature, and focuses on creating a more equal outcome, or at least reducing inequalities. Yet, this is what must be done if Singaporeans are convinced that the equality that they believe in, the equality that they pledge to, is not merely an equal opportunity to succeed, but also a more equal society on the whole. If, on the other hand, Singaporeans believe that as long as our society is meritocratic and we all have an equal opportunity to succeed, that this sort of equality is enough to build a just society, then the national and economic policies they support will be vastly different – perhaps a regime very much like the one we have now, lower income taxes, less redistributive economic policies and an ethos that focuses more on people having an equal start to life, rather than an equal end to it.

Mr Calvin Cheng (Nominated Member): 4.59 pm

Let me end this segment of my speech with another sporting analogy. In a race, there are several runners. Everyone starts the race at the same time, and nobody gets an unfair head-start. Some people, the fitter ones, are running faster. The less able ones are slower and halfway through the race, one of the runners stumbles and falls. Imagine these runners are all citizens of Singapore – us. We now have to decide, do the faster runners stop and try to help their fellow citizen who has stumbled, catch him, haul him up and help him along? If they do, it will mean that they will run slower themselves and finish the race in a slower time. Or should they continue running and try to finish the race as fast as they can, and let the stumbler lament his bad luck? This is the question we have to ask as Singaporeans. Helping our needier Singaporeans by diverting some resources away may mean that we run a little bit slower as a nation as a whole, but if we believe this is equal and just, this is what we must do. If we do not, and believe that our nation is best served by letting our fastest runners run as fast as they can, not stopping for any reason, then what can we do for those of us that stumble and fall?

And finally – "happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation". Mr Viswa has already touched on this in detail, and how happiness, as measured by GDP per capita, may not be the most accurate measure. But without a doubt, it remains the most practical, and the way most nations measure their prosperity and progress. We must not abandon it. Yet, dignity, quality of life, and having a meaningful life are all undoubtedly also important, if unmeasurable indicators of well-being. That they are unmeasurable does not mean they should not be pursued, and each Singaporean should be encouraged to find his own meaning of happiness. It is only if Singaporeans truly believe the happiness for our nation is a happiness worth pursuing, that prosperity and progress can come.

Our National Pledge, though simple, is thus arguably also extremely complex. This is the beauty of it. We can all hold our hands to our hearts and say it with conviction, even if we agree to disagree what we each believe to be democracy, and what equality and justice mean to us. In order to mature as a polity, I hope Singaporeans can be aware that the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge can have many significantly different meanings that can lead to significantly different political beliefs, that will underpin vastly different national policies. These differences need to be vigorously debated and discussed, because regardless of our political convictions, it is still our National Pledge. There thus needs to be space and opportunity for Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, to discuss and understand these political concepts, in order for us to mature as a politically aware electorate, less susceptible to demagogy and more able to make informed political choices.

However, at the end of it all, when all the dust has settled and when all the debates have been concluded, when partisan lines have been drawn, elections called, elections won and elections lost, we must return to the start of the Pledge – the first line, the most uncontroversial line, and arguably the most important line – we, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

The Minister for Education, Second Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this motion.

I was glad that this motion had been moved by the Nominated Member. It is an appropriate occasion on this 50th anniversary of our self-government. It is a suitable occasion to remind us all about the aspirations and tenets, the goals and ideals in our Pledge upon which we have built this nation.

I was especially cheered to hear how the Nominated Member, his wife and daughter and even his business partner felt the surge of emotions during this National Day Parade, that they felt connected to this home we call Singapore. These positive stories, such as the one told by the Nominated Member, make up for all the hours and hard work that our organisers and participants put in for each National Day Parade.

Sir, I listened intently to his speech, eager to hear more, and there are many aspects that I could easily agree with – that we need to improve our National Education and ensure that all citizens from young understand our Pledge beyond the words, a commitment to NS through duty, honour and country, to do more to lead our citizens, care for them, especially the poor and the disadvantaged, create a Singapore identity which binds all people of different races and religions, provide more avenues for public feedback, in crafting our policies and taking greater effort to explain these policies. We can always improve on these aspects and should never be satisfied with the status quo . And I agree with Members who have said that these aspects should always be work in progress. These are things that we continually strive for – a point which was also made by Mr Low Thia Khiang.

But like my parliamentary colleagues before me – Mr Sam Tan, Mr Michael Palmer, Mr Zainudin Nordin – I did struggle with some arguments in his speech. So I was glad that Mr Zainudin Nordin proposed an amendment which more accurately reflects Singapore's journey. Minister Mentor Lee has added another amendment, because he was one of the originators of this Pledge, and I fully support the amendments.

I would also like to share my perspectives on the Nominated Member's key assertions and pose some questions. I do agree that our Pledge is a vital and powerful tool. Many Members in this House have, in their own ways, shared how the words expressed to each of us, whether in different parties, Nominated Members, that it is a vital and powerful tool that teaches national values to our children and unites us as one people. We treasure this Pledge, simply and elegantly crafted, because it embodies common virtuous ideals and aspirations that serve as guide posts, as moral bearings, upon which we have built this nation and progressed. But the power and resonance come only when actions match these words. Because a set of words, no matter how beautifully crafted, or conceived ideals, no matter how noble, provide no certainty that that nation will survive or prosper. In other words, ideals are necessary but insufficient conditions for progress.

Other countries too have national anthems and pledges, some so gloriously and exquisitely composed that they can make grown men weep. If I may, I would like the Clerk of Parliament to distribute to hon. Members some examples which I will touch on. [ Copies of national anthems and pledges of other countries distributed to hon. Members ].

These national anthems and pledges have indeed, in moments of despair, caused men to weep, when dire circumstances contrast hopelessly with all they aspire to in their pledges. My first example is from Rwanda – it is a far away place, but it is beautifully written. If I may, let me read it:

"My Rwanda, land that gave me birth,
Fearlessly, tirelessly, I boast of you!
When I recall your achievements to this very day,
I praise the pioneers who have brought in our unshakeable Republic.
Brothers all, sons of this Rwanda of ours,
Come, rise up all of you,
Let us cherish her in peace and in truth,
In freedom and in harmony!

Let the victory drums beat throughout all Rwanda!
The Republic has swept away feudal bondage.
Colonialism has faded away like a worn-out shoe.
Democracy, take root!
Through you we have chosen our own rulers.
People of Rwanda, old and young, citizens all,
Let us cherish her in peace and in truth,
In freedom and in harmony!

Home-born Rwandans all, beat the victory drums!
Democracy has triumphed in our land.
All of us together we have striven for it arduously.
Together we have decreed it – Tutsi, Twa, Hutu, with other racial elements,
This hard-won Independence of ours,
Let us all join to build it up!
Let us cherish it in peace and in truth,
In freedom and in harmony!"

And the rest, Members can read for themselves.

It is beautifully crafted. Of course, this is a translation. I remember I accompanied the President on a trip to South Africa. We did not visit Rwanda but we visited South Africa, Namibia, Botswana. Every time we went there, the people sang not with their voices but with their bodies and their souls. So I can well imagine how passionate this was sung.

But the perceived ideals within expressed so eloquently and passionately could not prevent a civil war between the Hutus and the Tutsis which started in 1994 where, many Members know, almost 800,000 people were reportedly massacred. And this was Rwanda's former national anthem. In 2002, they changed it.

Let us go to France – a land of liberty, equality and fraternity. In Article 1 of their Constitution, it reads:

"France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis. Statutes shall promote equal access by women and men to elective offices and posts as well as to professional and social positions."

It is quite French in its articulation and composition, very prescriptive, rigorous. Like our Pledge, the tenets have been clearly articulated and enshrined in the Constitution and implemented rigorously because, in France, they are not allowed to state their race in any official document.

The Nominated Member asked if this was a better way. Because in Singapore – he is right – race is recorded in our NRIC, and self-help groups are organised along racial lines. His argument is that if we do not draw attention to differences, perhaps they might disappear.

In October 2005, a series of riots, believed to be incited by racial tensions, started in poor housing projects in various parts of France, and many Members will remember that period. A state of emergency had to be declared and extended for months. We can have constitutional tenets, but these do not prevent racial and social discrimination against people, as we have discovered in France. According to the BBC, those who lived there said that when they go for a job, as soon as they give their name as Mamado – I presume that is a common French Muslim name – and say that they live in a particular precinct, they are immediately told that the vacancy has been taken. One non-profit organisation associated with some parties sent identical CVs to French companies with European and African or Muslim sounding names attached, and they found that these CVs with such names were systematically discarded. It is in the constitution – they are not allowed to say what race they are. But the reality on the ground is very different from what the hopes are in the constitution.

One last example, closer home, Thailand. This is an English translation of a part of their national anthem:

"Thailand unites flesh and blood of Thais.

Nation of the people; belonging to the Thais in every respect.

Long maintained [has been] the independence

Because the Thais seek, and love, unity.

Thais are peace-loving."

We hear more of the turmoil and the deep political divisions between the yellow shirts and the red shirts in recent times. My grassroots member said that when he went to Thailand, he was worried, because his front was white and his back was red. Those demonstrations ruined the image of peace-loving Thais.

We treasure our National Pledge, but it can only resonate when the people and the Government have adhered to its goals and ideals. Our National Pledge will ring hollow if Singaporeans could not see and believe that we practise on a daily basis what we pledge. A set of ideals by themselves are not sufficient to ensure stability, security and progress for this nation. Singaporeans do, by their commitment, their daily attitudes, actions and key choices they make, and this is why the Prime Minister spoke about this at length in the recent National Day Rally.

In the past 50 years, Singaporeans have chosen and supported the PAP Government that has, in turn, strengthened vital institutions of state – in Parliament, the civil service, education, Home Team, defence and judiciary. We set high standards for key appointees. And through the President and the Public Service Commission, we ensure that good and able people are appointed, who can discharge their duties impartially and uphold the key elements of our Pledge – justice, equality, meritocracy, regardless of race, language or religion. Sound policies of the elected Government and a hardworking population provide stability and economic growth that allowed our people to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress.

The Nominated Member talks about substance and form. Substance comes from these key institutions which are the building blocks which enabled our progress. A nation's success depends ultimately on the quality of people who helm these key institutions and who determine that the lives of the citizens will be improved. The Pledge takes its substance and form from the realities that people experience each day.

For example, if what our citizens experience daily is very different from their ideals we pledge, we will all become cynical. But when ideals and reality match, citizens will gladly and resolutely reaffirm the Pledge and thousands in many corners of Singapore did, including the Nominated Member, at 8.22 pm on the recent National Day.

The PAP Government has had adhered to the tenets and aspirations as elected guardians from stewards of Singapore in the past 50 years. So far from compromising these ideals, as suggested by the Nominated Member, in the pursuit of economic growth, we have been defenders of these ideals in building a nation.

Indeed, the founding fathers of PAP, as recounted by Minister Mentor Lee just now, set out these ideals to ask for the mandate to govern. The people chose them on this basis and both fates became inextricably interwoven.

How do we ensure that we continue striving towards these goals and ideals? What path do they lead us to in the future?

Mr Viswa's prescription for Singapore's future sounds like this: Multiple parties; more newspapers that can print what they like so that people will think they are independent and check the Government; re-politicise our schools and universities – so in other words, let them have public rallies whenever they want on whatever topics they like; increase welfarism – first start with PA recipients, but surely you cannot stop there; when political leaders are impugned and maligned, relax, take it in your stride, do not defend yourselves. Similarly for Government policies. Be thick-skinned. Have faith in people. Because if you do not defend yourself when wronged, people would think it is because the accusations are true or policies wrong! But why would you not defend your integrity or policies if they are right?

His prescriptions have elements taken from other democratic models – predominantly those in the West, as his colleague the Nominated Member Calvin Cheng has said. And we have forms of it here too in Asia – in Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand. But before we adopt them, we need to ask critically, have these countries done better than us? Why are these countries struggling with problems which have hindered progress?

I respect the fact that the Nominated Member has stated his views clearly. And there are indeed others like him who believe that this is the way forward for Singapore, if only we had faith in this model, it will lead us upward. In fact, the Nominated Member goes further and claims that we have short-changed ourselves, or at least sold out this better future they envisioned, benefits of the true democracy for economic gains. But now that we have arrived economically, let us work at becoming a real democracy, they exhort us.

I find it difficult to square his claims and prescriptions to the reality we see each day in Singapore and the countries around the world. As the core mover or seconder of the motion Mr Michael Palmer wryly noted, Nominated Member Viswa has been free to move a motion, say what he believes even while saying freedom of speech is limited. Indeed, he has been able to do so only because we have evolved and modified our parliamentary system to introduce the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme so as to enable a wider representation of independent views in Parliament.

Indeed, in a few months' time, when our new fibre optic networks are up, the Nominated Member would be happy to note that Singaporeans will be able to post whatever they are afraid to post in super quick time – gigabyte per second speed.

What justification does the Nominated Member offer for his prescriptions for our better future? He simply calls them "conventional practices of democracy". But is it so blindly self-evident that they will work magic for us? If multiple parties and newspapers ensure stability, then how do we explain the problems of India, Philippines, Taiwan or Thailand who have abundance of them, I mean parties, newspapers and problems? They have not moved faster, often have been paralysed by the politics and factionalism of coalition or competing parties. We have progressed because we did not seek to be like others, but chose our own paths. Why is the Nominated Member so sure that if we adopted these practices and conventions, that we will continue to progress?

Let me be unequivocal about the Government's signals here. We cannot afford to stand still, rooted complacently but precariously in status quo . And we must move with the times, we must respond to changing circumstances, needs and challenges. But each time we make a move, we must not do so unthinkingly, but consider carefully each step forward, carving our own path towards a better society and a more vigorous economy. Singapore and Singaporeans cannot afford to ape any model but must choose or create a solution which is best suited for our nation. Hence, the changes we are making to the election system, as recently announced by the Prime Minister, which will provide the best of both worlds to Singaporeans. A competent Government that will take care of the needs of this country and constituencies, and a wider representation from disparate groups in this House.

The same approach in choosing what is best for us has served us well in many fields, including healthcare, CPF, education and housing. What persuades us to deviate from this path that has produced good for Singaporeans?

We cannot ignore our vulnerability as a small city state. The Nominated Member speaks of economic and socio-political progress as if they were always trade-offs – one requiring a sacrifice of the other. This divide is artificial as surely both must be judged by the ultimate test of whether it has led to the betterment of society and its citizens. They are in fact not mutually exclusive domains but linked. Let me give Members an example. If we did not have reserves which have been prudently built up in past decades of economic growth, the global financial crisis would have tripped us up. We would not have the means to provide the Resilience Package to keep businesses afloat and stave off retrenchments, to provide and maintain social good. So there were no demonstrations, no fiery speeches by unions or concerned students on campuses when workers were asked to take pay cuts or enforced leave to save jobs. Newspapers took a responsible line, they did not play up, they did not seek stories to aggravate negative sentiments. So let me ask the Nominated Member this. Would he consider these placid outcomes a sign of a dysfunctional or weak democracy even though it was good for all of us? Or are we a strong and functioning democracy?

Because of our vulnerabilities, we constantly scan the environment for uncharted threats. This is why we need and are willing to remunerate fairly for high quality people in positions of Government office and public service who can plan ahead and avoid mishaps. And indeed, we have avoided many pitfalls because we usually plan on the basis of 15 to 20 years. When we meet fellow Ministers from other governments, they laugh at us. Because very few governments plan on the basis of 10 years, let alone 15 or 20. Their usual cycle is one election cycle because, usually by then, the system resets. So this is our cardinal national strength.

We aim to become a jewel in Asia, an exciting city with a standard of living that will be the envy of many. We will provide a safe home in an active, beautiful and clean environment. We want to be a gracious and caring people. We will ensure that all our citizens can have a good education, affordable healthcare and enough for their retirement. Simply said, clearly spoke, and these are "higher order goals", to use the Nominated Member's phrase. But we do not pretend or tell Singaporeans that it will be easy to achieve these. We must do the hard work of arguing through issues, working out policies, taking tough decisions and carrying the people with us as we make the policies work and deliver results. Only then can we remain competitive and have the means to improve the lives of our citizens.

This Government has consistently presented to Singaporeans a frank accounting of our vulnerabilities and the stark reality, as we see it. We provide a clear vision of our future and what we must do to attract the best people into Government, the policies and even uncomfortable decisions that we have to make if we want to progress.

We have been transparent. The Nominated Member asks if we have been accountable. Every five years or so, Singaporeans decide if we have kept our promises and vote, and that is the greatest accountability in our system. If the PAP Government is corrupt or incompetent, I can assure the Nominated Member that re-politicisation of Singaporeans will spontaneously occur very quickly and we will be booted out. Indeed, any citizen, including the Nominated Member himself, if convinced that this Government is failing Singaporeans, is free to organise a group and form a political party, to offer Singaporeans a better alternative to the PAP.

This is how our system works. This is how it is suppose to work. Because, finally, the test of which way the country should go is through the ballot – what policies, which party would the electorate support. That way, all who claim to have a better team and plan to lead Singapore are accountable to the people. We are thankful and humbled that Singaporeans have voted us in 12 successive general elections since 1959.

We did not get re-elected in successive elections by ignoring the views of Singaporeans or by conducting unfair and undemocratic elections. Singaporeans, including the older "Merdeka generation", would not have voted the PAP Government in if we had not taken care of them. But many have seen their jobs and wages improve, their homes increase in value, their children and grandchildren going to better schools and universities here and abroad. They have witnessed the renewal and upgrading of their estates and improvements to health and other social services. And I think these are the tangible outcomes that the Nominated Member says, citizens can "live, breathe and feel" and decide for themselves if the Pledge we say each day adds real meaning to their lives. We have been open about our policies and this House has debated many times thorny or sensitive issues related to Ministerial salaries, ethnic housing quota, foreign workers policy, Malays in SAF, Internal Security Act. And the Nominated Member is free to raise questions or put up more motions if he feels that a debate is needed, and we welcome it.

How do we maintain this commitment to our ideals in the Pledge which is what the motion asks. For the PAP Government, it means scouring the land for men and women of integrity and ability who can represent the needs of all Singaporeans to take us forward. As we have said in the past, we start preparing for the next elections the day we have won the last one. MPs and supporters serve the people continually and not only when elections are around the corner. And I am glad that Opposition parties have become more active in between election. I hope too that the Opposition parties will allow Singaporeans to examine what alternative policies and proposals they have to offer. This would be good, and this must be the level of the playing field which all political parties must prepare for if we believe that this is for the sake of Singapore and not short-change Singaporeans.

It is through this rigorous process of leadership renewal that we will continue to abide by the tenets and fulfil the aspirations which our founding fathers of Singapore and PAP crafted and implemented. We have just recently heard from one founding father who is still in this House and I can assure the Nominated Member that he has not lost the art of story telling. Indeed, the master story teller has diligently inculcated these same values that have guided this nation into the present generation of leaders, and we will do the same for the next so that Singaporeans can exercise their freedom to decide we are the best team to serve them in the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amended motion. [ Applause. ]

5.29 pm

Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this motion.

First of all, I would like to thank fellow Members, my fellow Nominated Member Mr Viswa Sadasivan for moving the motion and Mr Michael Palmer for seconding the motion. It is a very timely motion as we celebrate our 44th year of independence.

Sitting here over two days and listening to the debates and the points put forward by all Members, I feel very appreciative of the fact that we can talk about race, religion, equality, debate notions on justice in this House in a very civilised manner.

I think it shows that we have achieved something in nation building. We have moved quite far along the road towards being a strong nation.

I would like to address three points related to the nation building tenets in the National Pledge – tenets which have been eloquently elucidated by Mr Viswa and by fellow Members.

The first is with respect to the call in our Pledge to abide by the ideals of "justice and equality" as we strive to build a "democratic society". We have discussed the idea of democracy at length, so I will not attempt to define that again, but I believe the basic values of democracy are to achieve a certain level of justice for all its citizens. There is equality before the law for all citizens, equality of opportunity and equal rights. Those are some of the core values.

What I believe has happened in Singapore is that as our society matures, our citizens' understanding of what is meant by the words "justice" and "equality" has also matured and changed and their interpretations of these terms are more nuanced, with slight shades of difference depending occasionally on which end of the political spectrum they stand on. To many, "equality" and "justice" also mean the right of each citizen to have his or her voice heard in a public forum, to promote or defend his or her position, as well as the right to challenge those who contest it. This, of course, presents us with the new challenge of how to manage our nation’s growing plurality and the increasingly visible differences in opinions and ideological convictions among our citizens. That has led to the perception that there are emerging ‘fault lines’ among Singaporeans, which our Prime Minister has addressed in the National Day Rally; religion being just one of the potential flashpoints.

We are also seeing passionate debate among people who hold different social values – the so-called 'progressives', the so-called 'conservatives' on opposite ends of the spectrum. These contesting voices which are most often expressed online do not demonstrate only how net-savvy Singaporeans are. I believe they are also expression of a desire to live out democracy in action, in the belief that there is a place for all of them in our society – that our society allows room for different opinions and, in particular, for minority views to be aired, at the same time the Government is accountable to those who elected them into power. Now, because of these convictions, especially among our younger generation, I believe that that is the reason why there are also more calls for more accountability and transparency when it comes to Government decision making and policy decisions although the Government has always made clear that it is accountable and is constantly convincing everyone that it is doing the right thing by all the citizens.

So my question is why are there then still criticisms and calls from the ground for more transparency and accountability? I do not have a ready answer for this, but my observation is that there seems to be a gap in perception between both sides, and I believe we should not take this lightly. Of course, efforts have been made by the Government to reach out to more Singaporeans engaging with new media, with new technology and listening to a wide range of opinions and views; for instance, through the online portal REACH. But unfortunately, online feedback portals are still limited and they are unable to facilitate reasoned and thorough public debates on sensitive matters, and much less accomplish a mediation of difference. Just take one example of the gap in perception: yesterday’s debate on this motion when Mr Viswa commented on the "climate of fear" that still persists here which holds some citizens back from expressing their honest views to Government, although he also noted that the younger generation are less constrained in expressing themselves today. This view of the climate of fear was clearly not shared by many other Members of the House, although Mr Viswa was probably reflecting the views of other Singaporeans.

With regard to the "climate of fear", I would say that it is not so much that it is gone completely. I think there is still some sense of constraint and I think that sense of constraint has taken on a different shape as our society and our political system have evolved. There is no longer a fear of reprisals, but there are still some obstacles. This is based on some anecdotal evidence suggesting that some critical voices still are disadvantaged when it comes to putting out their views or championing what they believe in public. So that is why there is a perception that the playing field is not level. That is just one example.

But moving on, I would like to draw attention to another point which Mr Viswa also made: That we should make a distinction between being "pro-Singapore" and being "anti-government". A patriotic citizen can be moved to comment if he or she perceives an injustice or something amiss, be it at the level of policy or anything else. And also he/she will comment if he/she perceives our policy-makers to be falling short of our national ideals. This is just hypothetically speaking. I am not saying that we are. Electorates do this because they assess the very people that they have voted for. This is how they make decisions when it comes to the next election. But I would like to note that citizens who criticise do not necessarily have any intention to act against national interest, or to discredit anyone, and they should be treated no differently from other voices, as long as they act within the law. Criticism can be underpinned by a love of our nation and a desire to see a better and more just Singapore, such as a desire to see better treatment of those in society who are most powerless and most in need of protection – the underprivileged, migrant workers, workers in low-skilled jobs, and so on.

The majority of Singaporeans, who include a lot of the critical voices, appreciate and respect how far we have come in 44 years of nation building, and they understand how the Government has given Singaporeans a better life in these 44 short years. We do have certain fundamentals in place as a nation, as a society; and this is what I would like to talk about next.

One of the fundamentals is of faith and commitment to a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country. All I have said actually now begs some very, very practical questions: How well can we manage the plurality and differences in our society, now and in the future, so that we will remain "one united people"? Do we need to consider any fresh strategies in managing our diversity in a changing world? And in a world that will continue to change?

As I said, it was heartening to see that our senior Ministers – Minister Mentor and Prime Minister Lee – making public statements about the importance of religious harmony. As I have said, this showed how far we have come and how much we have matured. In the long run, we will need more than verbal pronouncements from our respected politicians. We need to institutionalise as well as internalise a reflex to be one united people, and it will not be easy to come up with just specific strategies to achieve this. We have already talked about how a lot of Singaporeans have decided to migrate and how more than 50% of young people in the survey said they would leave the country if they could.

We cannot legislate a value system to take root in people, but perhaps we can think more carefully about how to manage our differences. The immediate key questions: do we have all the requisite political and social mechanisms to manage the diversity of voices in public and private space? If not, can we evolve this mechanism, and how? Do we need to equip institutions, civil groups, even individuals with the tools to develop such a mechanism that will allow for the different views to be expressed and yet for differences to be mediated? Do we need a more sophisticated press and media? And how can we achieve that? That does not necessarily need to be achieved by having more newspapers or more newspapers with different points of view. I think it is a much more sophisticated issue than that.

At the core, I believe we need to go beyond just tolerance of each other; we need to aim for mutual respect, understanding, and accommodation of core ideological differences.

The second nation building tenet I would like to talk about is "Regardless of race, language and religion". The Prime Minister elucidated four basic rules for maintaining religious harmony in the National Day Rally. I would like to make a suggestion in relation to the fourth rule: to maintain the common space that all Singaporeans share.

The two common spaces identified by the Prime Minister were schools and workplaces. I would like to suggest that the arts and culture is also a common space for all Singaporeans. The enjoyment of many forms of art – music, painting, dance, for instance – is not tied to the knowledge of a particular language. Participants from different cultural, ethnic backgrounds often can collaborate successfully artistically or watch the same performances. With technology, non-English-language plays also come with subtitles. The problem is we actually do not take full advantage of these ethnic diversity and opportunities in our artistic work. It is still rare to see a non-Chinese at a Chinese play, for instance; a non-Malay at a Malay play, and so on. It is similar to how national television has split into language-specific channels; but this, I think, is an opportunity to develop cultural understanding.

Personally, I have benefited very much from working alongside artistes from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. I have learnt a great deal about different traditions, customs, histories, folk stories, legends and cultural icons. I feel a sense of fully experiencing Singapore's cultural diversity, which is a privilege and which, I know, has been hard won. The intermingling of our diverse cultures is also continually fascinating to many of my other colleagues in the arts.

In the 2000 Renaissance City report published by Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), the arts was recognised for its potential to foster what was then called "the Singapore heartbeat". This aim of our cultural policy seems to have fallen off the radar a little bit since. Now, I am not talking about producing propagandistic art to elucidate National Education, or going back to the "Instant Asia" cultural shows of the 1970s, even though preservation of our heritage and the traditional arts is important. I am talking about the contemporary plays, drama, dances, literary works, that are being forged by Singaporeans out of our many races and many languages – not in a deliberate or conscious manner but simply because these artistes have grown up and lived in this multi-cultural, progressive society. They express our dreams, thoughts and hopes, and the public who sees their work shares in these emotions, memories and aspirations. This builds deeper ties of understanding among the people.

The arts can be a medium for fostering a deeper cultural understanding for our people, and a conduit for the transmission of historical information and memories. Mr Zainudin has mentioned the racial riots of 1960s and how we must say "never again". In order to say "never again", we have to remember what happened. Revisiting the past, helping to develop understanding of history is something the arts can do. Yet, although we celebrate our 50th year of self-Government, we see very few either high artistic work or public cultural works that discuss this. Perhaps this indicates a lack of historical awareness among our young generation; perhaps we do not have access to all the stories and tales as elucidated by Minister Mentor just now. And perhaps we simply need to look at how we are teaching History within our education system.

Some artworks and art forms actually have their own aesthetic mechanisms that accommodate difference; for example, they allow different interpretations of the same subject, or juxtapose two contrasting points of view. With these considerations, perhaps we should be less afraid of alternative or non-mainstream views being expressed in the arts. Driving alternative points of view underground might be non-productive in the long run, could foster resentment, and sidelines some of our most creative talents who might leave our country. But more importantly, it might stop Singaporeans from truly understanding how to live with difference, how to live alongside those who hold different beliefs from themselves – it impedes our progression as "one united people". United not in terms of being homogenous, but because we understand what it takes to live among and within diversity.

More importantly, good art presents us with an experience of empathy: the ability to see through another person’s eyes or to feel for someone other than ourselves, and by so doing, we begin to arrive at an understanding of why and how people are different from us, even though our core beliefs and values can remain unchanged.

Empathy is at the core of the process of enabling mutual understanding, and perhaps this is something that our people can also learn to develop.

This brings me to my final point – the happiness quotient. We have achieved progress and prosperity, but have we achieved happiness? As has been suggested, the number of Singaporeans who are migrating or thinking of leaving suggest otherwise. We know that around 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenships each year. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong recently expressed concern over our brain drain. He asked, "how do you convince Singaporeans that their lives will get better?" We have all the economic fundamentals in place. We have a roof over our heads, we have jobs, people are enjoying a good life. Will the glowing picture of Singapore in the future painted by Prime Minister Lee in the National Day Rally make us happier? Will that be sufficient to provide a decent quality of life for all? In development economics, it is recognised that human development – the social and cultural aspects that provide fulfillment for human beings – is as important as economic progress. It is crucial for us to continue to pay attention to the human, social and cultural impact of our policies, and it is here that empathy plays a part too, so that we strive to ensure that all Singaporeans have a place in society – in fact, to ensure that all Singaporeans feel that they have a place in society, ie, to equipping us all with a sense of self-worth – as an example, the integration of lower-wage workers into the future economy.

We talk about redesigning their jobs, we talk about adding value. But we should also look at how we can boost the social value of these jobs, so that the workers feel valued, respected, have pride in their work, and their sense of self-worth is enhanced. And what about our national sense of worth with respect to our own culture? It is not enough just to build more parks, integrated resorts, and palaces of entertainment – what about cultural pride? We can import the world’s top cultural and entertainment products, but without pride and respect for our own evolving local and indigenous cultures, the buildings and parks will be empty shells for an alienated people, unable to provide Singaporeans with a sense of rootedness and cultural identity.

It is true that we cannot legislate cultural identity into being – it is something that evolves from the people. However, we can set in place the conditions for cultural identity to take root and flourish. In this respect, our cultural policy plays a significant role in building a Singapore of the future; and in considering our future development, I believe we should move beyond the assessment of arts and culture based solely on economic indicators, and pay more attention to the intangible aspects of culture, which in some ways are the nation-building aspects, and that involves the development of depth, quality and respect for our own cultural expressions, institutions, artists and artworks.

Sir, I hope that we can develop better indicators for measuring the intangible but necessary qualities of arts and culture. We could more accurately measure our cultural capital. Our cultural institutions, including smaller organisations 'on the ground' as well as individual artists, need to be properly resourced. Our artistic institutions need to be continually strengthened and staffed by visionary and innovative leadership who are unafraid to take risks, in the same way as our economic institutions are. The grooming of future leadership for our national institutions must be a priority.

I would also like to suggest that resources are put into two areas. One, a more prominent highlighting and showcase of our national treasures and artistic works, both locally and abroad, by our diplomatic missions and national institutions working jointly with the ground. This would demonstrate pride and belief in our own talent, and a real growth of talent and competencies that can be achieved and harnessed to create real 'soul food' for our people well into the future.

Second, we need to resource our artists on the ground, so that our unique cultural make-up enjoys fuller expression and we can produce top quality local art which reaches out to the people. We should value art for its intrinsic value rather than solely for their efficacy in attracting economic investments to Singapore. Only then can we start to build a sense of self-worth in our own culture and in ourselves.

We have come a long way towards building a national identity. When I was in school, I remember many debates about what is a Singaporean, what is our identity. Today, when I teach young people, they confidently and clearly identify themselves as Singaporeans. And I think that is an indication of progress. But what is next for Singapore? Another Member has mentioned self-actualisation, and I believe that is our next step in going beyond the economic needs which have been met to develop a sense of self-worth, pride and identity in our people.

With that, I support the motion.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Sir, this is perhaps the most difficult speech I have had to make because the audience is so tired!

I rise in support of this motion because I love my country. If I had known what I was getting into, maybe I would not have opted to speak.

Minister Ng is right. Unless we find resonance with the ideals in our Pledge, we would not be able to identify with and champion the very ideals it holds. So I see in this motion an opportunity to affirm what our Government has done right – to build a strong and stable Singapore. It has taken us 50 short years to transform a sleepy fishing village into a first world cosmopolitan city state – but it was 50 short years and a lot of sacrifice by many who put love for country above all. For this strong foundation, we must thank the pioneer leaders of Singapore.

I could have left Singapore and lived in the US when I married my husband, but I chose to come home. I chose to come home to grow my family. Why is that so?

We have in place an awesome infrastructure that facilitates a standard of living that is envied by many around us. In yesterday’s debates and today's debates, we are reminded of the comprehensive social policies that have been designed to meet the needs of Singaporeans. But perhaps the most important ingredient in the recipe for successful nation building is the people.

We "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion". This is perhaps the most significant tenet that we need to safeguard as we advance and mature as a nation.

My esteemed colleague has urged us to address the issue of rootedness and commitment to the nation, especially among younger Singaporeans.

This evening, I would like to speak on two key points as we debate on challenges we face in our quest to strengthen commitment to nation building. The first is on how we can encourage diversity as we strive forward as one nation. And the second, how to grow active stakeholders among all groups. That everyday life in contemporary Singapore runs so smoothly must surely be credited to the hard work of this Government and the solid foundation set by your predecessors.

The social complexities that arise from housing so many diverse groups under one roof was discussed at length by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech. It takes a confident, strong and courageous leader to highlight the sensitivities involved in managing race relations and religious harmony. So Singapore is indeed blessed to have such a leader as our Prime Minister.

Diversity is an extremely difficult state to manage, particularly so when the basic needs of the population have been met, and we now have to meet aspirations of a much higher level. We can think of it as fragmentation and thus, we can look at the uphill struggle as we strive to seal the joints. But I think to advance, we must think of this special diversity we enjoy in Singapore as an awesome strength. It is with the collective contributions from such diverse groups that makes Singapore unique, strong and stable.

So the challenge ahead is on engaging these diverse groups to showcase their unique contributions to nation building, and yet at the same time, focus their heart on one nation. How can we do this?

A one-size-fits-all message will not work – it attempts to address everyone's interest, but ends up with very few actually identifying with it. Instead, we must first recognise the different groups so that we can appreciate the concerns and constraints that may be unique to those groups. In addition to the demarcation by race and religious groupings, we must also be keenly aware of the demographic divides along age – the youth, the elderly and the big middle group. They all have important and irreplaceable roles.

Of these, I would like to highlight the concerns of our youth. We train our eyes on the youth as they are the future of Singapore. The youth of contemporary Singapore are quite different from their predecessors. They are more educated, they grew up in an era marked by peace and affluence. And as parents, we have freed them from concerns of the mundane, and encouraged them to dream. Are we able to meet their aspirations?

While there are now more platforms for them to showcase and nurture their talent and passion, we must be cognisant that we do not set goals that are achievable only by a few and, in the process, inevitably marginalise and alienate the masses.

It is undeniable that we are now more demanding of our children in the academic arena. As Singapore families capitalised on the tremendous achievements of the state in the past 50 years, we have levelled up in terms of social class standing. As a result, we now place a lot more emphasis on our children to achieve academically so that they too can enjoy upward social mobility. So much so that even participation in co-curricular activities (CCAs) in schools has taken on a keen competitive stance.

Competition is healthy up to a certain level. But if the ultimate goal of competition is actualised in limited coveted accolades, I think we might stand to lose more than we gain.

In terms of growing roots and nation building, it is hard to expect that our youth would be able to identify strongly with an entity if they perceive themselves to be on the fringe. Instead, we must actively engage them, and nurture them to be active citizens that we can rely on to lead this nation in the next lap.

I strongly believe this younger generation really want to give of themselves to the state. They just do not know how. So we must ensure that there are effective mentors who can guide them along and sufficient channels that facilitate contributions from all levels.

Moving ahead, we must be cognisant of two important factors: that in the quest to groom talent, we do not inevitably marginalise the masses, and that we must continue to broaden the platform on which young Singaporeans can raise their concerns to policy-makers.

Here, the schools have an important role to play, and the teachers are instrumental. If I may share an observation I made at my sons’ school. Fairfield has the traditional annual prize giving ceremony which honours top students who achieved academically. But one year, when Miss Elaine Lim was Principal, we were invited to a second awards ceremony, one that recognised CCA achievements. At that ceremony, students who excelled in their CCAs were given awards. Miss Elaine Lim had broadened the definition of "excellence" to include achievements at various levels. Each time she named a group, she invited the students involved to stand. By the time she was done, almost the entire student body was on their feet. And the applause was thunderous. I recall her telling her students that they must be so proud of themselves because each of those standing had contributed significantly to Fairfield’s achievements.

As we reflect on our own strong ties to our home Singapore, I suspect in every one of our life stories, there will be credit attributed to a special teacher who believed in us, taught us to dream big and gave us the courage to reach for the stars. The role of the teacher-mentor is critical in the nurture of Singapore’s youth.

I commend the efforts of MOE in raising the status of the teaching profession. As we move forward, in addition to equipping our teachers with the best skills for imparting knowledge, we must give teachers the time and space to be effective mentors. To facilitate this, may I posit that MOE considers reducing class sizes in secondary schools. Teens, in their formative years, will surely benefit from the mentorship they will receive in an environment with smaller staff-student ratio.

As we reflect on our promise, to pledge ourselves as 'one united people', a key facilitator of this is in our social ties - to our family, to our friends and to our community.

I attended my secondary school reunion last Saturday. It has been 30 years since I left CHIJ at Victoria Street. I came from a working class background and my parents never had the privilege of tertiary education. But I went to a truly great school. And there, in my formative years, under the guidance of awesome teachers, I learned to dream – the middle class dream. Conducive school environments are so important. I felt a strong attachment to my school community. I was not the top student, but back then, we were not so fixated on grades. Instead, I found a niche for myself in sports, and enjoyed the limelight there.

I was not that good at sports either but, back then, it was not too difficult to get into the school team, and CCA was great fun. You did not have to be good to get into a CCA. You just had to like it.

For our youth today, I hope we can continue to give them the space and time to grow social ties. To engage in school-based activities where competition and scoring well are not overly emphasised.

My school mates from CHIJ – they are truly awesome women. Many of my classmates are now practising medicine or law. Amongst the group, I found top bankers, finance professionals, civil servants and even a few altruistic homemakers. There was one common trend – they seemed to be a very fertile group!

This brings me to my second and last point: the importance of family in the discourse of nationhood.

Marriage and family formation grow active stakeholders. In a letter to the Straits Times that was printed on 11th August, a Ms Cindy Tan wrote, and I quote:

"Our attitude changed this year when I saw my son, aged 2 1/2, dressed in red and white overalls for his playschool's National Day party. In the past, I had regarded Singapore as my homeland, but I did not feel a sense of belonging because of the hectic pace of life. But, as a mother, I realised how stable and secure Singapore is: no riots, no chaos, no racial discrimination, no natural disasters, no corruption."

And Ms Tan ends off with an affirmation of her strong commitment to Singapore.

Parents have long-term goals as we try to proactively prepare the way for our children. Parents value stability. We tend to be less geographically mobile and, therefore, we grow roots where we are situated. We tend to see ourselves raising our children here and growing old here.

The Prime Minister has been standing solidly behind the Singapore Family through his enhanced pro-family policies. Every time the Prime Minister mentions family, marriage and parenthood in his speeches, the family gains several notches in social prestige.

Though one might naively think that these pro-family stances have a muted effect just by observing the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), I firmly believe that the state has a critical role in upholding social ideals. That the state supports family work is a necessary condition for encouraging marriage and parenthood.

While there is still much work to be done to facilitate family formation and raise the status of marriage in the face of contesting demands on younger Singaporeans, we have certainly come a long way in terms of repositioning the family. It will take time for norms to shift, and for family work to regain a cool status.

As more women enter the labour force and dual-income families dominate household structures, work-life balance remains a critical concern. Here, I urge all employers to adopt a long-term perceptive on human resource investment.

In particular, working mothers who have arrived at a status of influence in the workplace have an important role to play. We must play our part in shifting norms at the workplace. Do not expect our younger colleagues to adhere to the traditional rigid parameters that we might have been subjected to when we were struggling with career commitments and family demands.

Instead, I urge all working mothers who have arrived at a status of influence to reflect on what we would have appreciated – the flexibility that is essential, and trust that in spite of our need to run in and out of the office, we can still deliver and make significant contributions to the organisation. We must give this flexibility and trust to our employees and supervisees.

Young parents need flexibility in work schedules as they tend to the needs of younger children. Help them raise their children well, and when the children become independent, these mothers will be free to focus primarily on work demands. And they will be loyal and reliable employees.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister and his Government for listening to the concerns raised by parents, especially those by working mothers. And I want to tell the Prime Minister that he must not give up – and to press on in his quest to get young Singaporeans married and have kids.

As a mother, I am truly appreciative of Singapore – this is my home, where I raise my children in a safe, stable and peaceful environment. We will do our part as we pledge our allegiance to the nation building tenets enshrined in the National Pledge.

6.06 pm

Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me a chance to say a few words. Fortunately, I am not the last speaker, and I will give my comments in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my views on the motion by the Nominated Member of Parliament. In 1964, we had very serious racial riots in Singapore. We must always remember this painful experience. Today, we want to ensure that the younger generation as well as the older generation accept the values of the Pledge. This is done in our schools, where students recite the Pledge every day. At the National Day Parade this year, at 8.22 pm, people all over Singapore as well as those on the floating platform repeated the Pledge in unison, and this was to allow the older, middle-aged and the younger generation to remember the objectives of our country. I was fortunate to be present that night, and I believe it was the first time after leaving Pre-University in 1972 that I had the chance to recite the Pledge again. Like the Nominated Member, Mr Viswa, I was very moved and proud to be a Singaporean.

Since 1965, the Government has used the fundamental principles set out in the Pledge to implement various policies to promote national development and uphold social cohesion. In order to realise the spirit of the Pledge, we need all Singaporeans to stand united and to strive hard as one people. This is not something that only concerns the Government. It is something that concerns all of us – every Singaporean.

Within the Cabinet, and in Parliament, the Government has put in place an effective system to ensure that there are multi-racial representatives. It has, through multiple channels, gathered meaningful feedback from the people. It has explained the policies to the people and implemented meritocracy to allow equal opportunities for people at all levels. So, today, in Parliament, including Nominated Members of Parliament like myself, who come from various racial backgrounds and religious persuasions, all of us can give our views freely. It is not sufficient to depend solely on the Government to uphold the spirit of the Pledge. While we hope the Government would continue to understand Singaporeans’ needs and concerns in order to implement even more effective policies, we also need all community groups, all civic organisations to work together in support of various policies so that these policies could reach their maximum effect.

In the past, the various community groups in the grassroots organisations, cultural and religious groupings, have all done their part to uphold racial harmony and social stability of Singapore. Since Singapore achieved nationhood, we have indeed overcome many crises, including the current financial crisis, through this important bonding. The social groups and the community organisations are the bridge between the Government and the people, and they play a central role in bringing about social cohesion and racial harmony. Through the useful channel of civic organisations, the Government can achieve a better understanding of the sentiments of the people, explore constructive solutions and consider making suitable changes to Government policies when necessary.

We look forward to strengthened ties between the Government and civic organisations, and hope that the Government would enhance its support and assistance to these civic organisations, enabling them to play an even more effective role. In terms of media reporting, I also hope that the different television channels or language dailies could report on the activities of other community groups. For example, I hope the Straits Times could include more reports of the activities of the Chinese community groups. Similarly, Zaobao could also report on the activities of other racial groups.

The mutual cooperation amongst different racial groups is a most effective platform. As an example, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry provides Mandarin language courses for Malay and Indian citizens, to improve their employability. We have joined hands with MENDAKI to provide career fairs for Malay-Muslim Singaporeans, and mobilised our corporate members to provide 2,300 job openings for fellow Malay citizens. Last year, we organised a business mission to Zhejiang to explore the China market together with members of the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We have also maintained close networking ties with new immigrants to Singapore. All these activities have achieved good results. So I hope that the civic organisations of various groups could jointly organise more of such activities to articulate the spirit of the Pledge. Rather than engaging in rhetoric, we must take more practical action. As the Chinese saying goes, if all the people are united, we can move mountains.

Hence, I would like to encourage more people to make full use of these civic organisations to build rapport with the Government and contribute towards Singapore’s racial harmony and social development. Unified strength knows no bounds!

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amended motion.

*Cols. 1257-1260.