PRESIDENT'S SPEECH Debate on the Address

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

5.07 p.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): r Speaker, Sir, the new targets so concisely enunciated by the President will undoubtedly exert much impact on the Ministry of Culture. Nevertheless, the basic objectives and policies of the Ministry will not be radically altered.

It is still the cornerstone of our policy to preserve the values of our various cultural streams in the context of striking a balance between the need for homogeneity against the need for heterogeneity. The result of this process during the last nine years is that ours is already a cohesive society. This is not the end of the road. The need to socialise our people into modern and better ways of life still remains. It is a continuous process, particularly vis-a-vis the problems in the crucial years ahead.

In a democratic society like ours, it has not been and will not be our intention to attempt a cultural dictatorship, which means imposing on the people criteria of what the ruling elite considers to be the norms. Instead, culture should evolve from the ground. It is worth while to remember that certain countries in which culture became part of the state mechanism have now decided to liberalise this activity which properly should be a non-state area of human endeavour. For this reason the Ministry of Culture is only in a position to provide the catalyst for, and not dictate a set of arbitrary pattern on the people. For the same reason, our cultural policy is not characterised by bans on low-brow literature or entertainment; ours is a creative way of cultural nation-building, since the solution lies not in negatively banning this or that, but in positively providing channels for creative activity so that the general public can develop critical awareness of what is good and what is bad, and in the process spontaneously reject what has no social or other values and, worse still, that which is degrading and detrimental to human dignity.

When it comes to talking about culture, it always occurs to me that there are some Members in this House who cherish distorted ideas about culture. They seem to think that the more and the louder they condemn the so-called "yellow culture", the more cultured they become in the eyes of the public. So, not infrequently in this House the Ministry of Culture was accused of knowingly or unknowingly promoting "yellow culture". The trouble with these Members is that they do not know what "yellow culture" really means.

As far as I can understand and remember, the term "yellow culture" was coined by the Chinese Communists in the early days to describe all forms of art and cultures which did not toe the line of Communist political propaganda. If you look up any common English dictionary, you will never find the term "yellow culture" in it.

According to the Communist argument, the democratic society of the non-Communist world is a dying, decadent society and all forms of art and cultures coming from that society must necessarily be yellow culture. Only the Communist society is capable of producing healthy and good culture for the people. But there are some exceptions. The arts created or promoted by Communists or Communist sympathisers in the non-Communist world, those whom the Communists term as "democratic elements"- min shu ren sheh - can be accepted by the Communist critics as good and healthy. Thus a song sung by Paul Robeson is good and healthy, but the same song sung by, say, Sidney Poitier or Nat King Cole, may be condemned as yellow culture. (But that was years ago when Paul Robeson used to perform in Moscow and when Peking and Moscow were on good terms. Now that Peking has fallen out with Moscow, I am not sure whether he still gets the same favourable treatment.)

I remember years ago, when I was still very young, I was very fond of the Cantonese Opera and my Communist friends used to advise me not to waste my time in this form of feudalistic and decadent culture. But when the Chinese Communists took over China in 1949 and after they had produced one or two films of Cantonese Opera, with the same actors and actresses who had crossed over from Hong Kong, we were all exhorted to see these films which were praised as the best form of culture ever produced by China. Now, with the Red Guards and the cultural revolution sweeping all over China, I am told that these films have been committed to the public bonfires.

At one time, Russian dances and folk songs used to be very popular among the so-called "progressive elements" in Singapore. If you visited any of the premises of the Old Boys' Associations in those days, you would find young boys and girls sweating away rehearsing Russian or East European folk dances. Those who did not appreciate these dances were branded as "backward elements" or "reactionary forces". Now that they have broken away from the Russians, I presume they are equally busy in condemning Russian dances as revisionist and decadent.

This is how the Communists treated culture: with changing values all the time and always dictated by their current political thinking.

Ten or twelve years ago, when the Communist agitation was at its peak in Singapore, "Down with yellow culture" was one of the favourite slogans used by the Communists to rally the people against the British colonialists. Since Communism was publicly banned, very soon the term "anti-yellow campaign" became synonymous with the "Communist movement". When your friends talked about anti-yellow campaigns, you knew exactly what they meant. And very significantly, the anti-yellow campaign was initiated by a pro-Communist Women's Association which the colonial Government had to deregister later. In carrying out the anti-yellow campaign, the Communists were trying to get the people to reject all forms of culture and art from the Western world and accept the cultural values and ideology imposed by them. These were all very expertly carried out without the innocent people knowing that they were being indoctrinated for the Communist cause. Many talented artistes and writers were drawn into their camp. I know their techniques very well and if I were to tell you in detail how they sought to convert people to Communism under the disguise of the anti-yellow campaign, the short time available to me in this House would not be enough, for I was one of them and I know their methods and techniques inside out. I know all the double meanings in their phrases and terminology and all their double talk.

In fact, at one time I was helping them to direct the so-called cultural campaign. And that was long before some of our Barisan friends knew anything about Communism. I ran several publications for them, some underground and some above ground. The Communist agitation had two prongs. One was the organisation of workers and students for industrial strikes and school sit-ins. Another was the conduct of the cultural campaign where they recruited workers for their propaganda machinery.

The lesson behind all this is that we must be very careful when we pick up terms and slogans passed on to us by the Communists. Of course, I do not mean that what the Communists say is bad for us and vice versa, and therefore we must do the reverse of what they do. But we must decide for ourselves what we want for our culture and we must have our own yardstick and criteria and not the values and the likes and dislikes imposed upon us by the Communists.

We must be liberal in our outlook and we must not be afraid of accepting new ideas and new forms of art. Singapore is the cross-road of Asia and the Western world. New ideas and new trends flow freely into Singapore and pass on to other places. We cannot isolate ourselves from the changes of the world. We can be selective but we must not close our eyes to the new things in life. We can retain those with good taste and reject those which are down-right pornographic. In condemning all Western and foreign culture, the aim of the Communists was to create a cultural vacuum in the minds of the people so that they have no choice but to accept the Communist cultural values. We must rectify that.

What we want is a culture which will instil the spirit of patriotism into our people and fill their hearts with pride for our beloved country. They must not worry too much about the smallness of our country and they must be made aware of the greatness of our achievements. Culture is something vague and abstract. We cannot feel nor smell it, but it is the force that binds all the people and makes them into a nation. It is the force that makes all of us want to die for our country.

We must have what the Communists call "revolutionary optimism". It is true that our country is a small one, but as the Chinese saying goes, even though a sparrow is small it has all the five important organs. And not only do we have all the important organs but we are also going to have some muscles, too. It is true that we have no natural resources of our own. But our country is so strategically situated that we are able to make use of all the resources from the whole of Southeast Asia. It is true that we have a small population - only two million people - and not many talents can be extracted from this small population. But we will absorb all the best talents from the whole of Southeast Asia. We will not only give work permits to professional people and highly skilled workers to work for us, but we will also allow in the best artistes, musicians, painters and dancers, so that they can enrich our cultural life. They will sing for our beloved country and paint the greatness of our people. In return, we will give them a position in our society and a future for their children.

Our policy is to allow a free interplay of cultural forces and not regard culture as a mere instrument of state. It is in keeping with this principle that the Singapore Arts Council was formed to provide avenues for cultural expression as well as to lead feeling and thought into purposeful cultural pursuits. In terms of actual programmes, some of the efforts of the Arts Council during the last few months included "Singapore Night" and "Festival 1968", to name only a few. It is significant that the Arts Council, which comprises all sectors of society and shades of opinion, is no monopolist of the performing arts. Since then there have followed one hundred and one performances staged in all parts of Singapore to mark our great variety of festive and social occasions, each no less than the other characterised by the dominance of local themes. In short, ours is no longer the rootless society that we were once characterised to be by other people. To change the metaphor, a national culture in a multi-racial society like ours is no longer a theory or an ideal but an actual fact.

The President's Speech outlined three objectives - the Ministry of Culture will be involved with them - and the last more than the others bears definite relevance to the Ministry. I quote:

'Enhancement of national consciousness of the problems that will come upon us in the next few years. We must all learn to place national interests above personal or sectional interests. Internally, high morale - internationally, confidence in our continuing stability and efficiency - this combination will enable us to achieve new records in high performance.'

The quotation is also an indication of what is in store for the Ministry of Culture - an accelerated role in bringing about the change of attitudes in our people. To fulfil this role, the Broadcasting Division has been elevated to the level of a Ministry with a Permanent Secretary, and I am happy to point out that the word "Division" here does not have divisive connotations that it has in its normal context. Far from going different ways, it is that since one road is too congested, a parallel road has been constructed for easier accessibility and both roads lead to the same objective.

The targets as outlined in the President's Speech call for the establishment of new and necessarily more efficient ways of life. In this connection, the mass media at the disposal of the Ministry of Culture must be brought to bear maximum impact at the minimum cost.

As I stated earlier, the policy of my Ministry will remain basically similar, although the methods may differ by way of innovations and other devices. In the mass media aspect of our activity, it is our policy to induce the change of attitudes in our people. Many a developing country has rightly endeavoured to modernise itself on the basis of economic and social transformation but has inadvertently omitted a vital area -the minds of men. Our modernisation process should never neglect attitudinal change in our people and this is where the mass media come in to play an essential role.

In the modern world, our situation is unique. No other country has two million people, of multi ethnic stock and speaking four different languages, compressed in an area of only 225 square miles with absolutely no natural resources. No other country in such a position has been forced by geo-politics to have, in such a short time, not only vastly to expand its economy but also to defend its right to retain what it has built.

Such a country and such a society obviously need more than the individual talents, drive and will of its people. Such a society needs organisation of the highest order. Such a society needs leadership of the highest calibre. We are determined to make our social organisation as best we can. To do this, and to do it quickly, we will need to have the best mass media that we can afford.

But people and government, however dedicated and hard working, cannot think and work all the time. Thus, the Broadcasting Division, in addition to providing the link and the stimulant, will also provide the diversion and the entertainment.

Information, education and entertainment are not mutually exclusive nor antagonistic. Education can be entertaining, entertainment can be informative and information can be educational. How well these can be merged to provide the best programmes on the air depends upon the expertise, the knowledge and the dedication of those entrusted with a very important function. Our task will be to invoke the dedication, arrange for the knowledge and, within our budget, provide facilities for accumulating expertise.

Physically, the most pressing need is a radio complex. Our television building, studios and equipment are modern. But our radio staff is housed in temporary shacks built during the time of the British Military Administration. Most of our radio studio equipment is as old. We hope to replace it.

Staffing will be a problem for yet some time. Television is but a few years old here. In its creation and very rapid development, the radio staff was heavily drawn upon. Expertise was diluted in the process of increasing broadcasting staff by four times in five years or so. Aggravating the problem is the fact that the radio staff has to learn to operate a different and more difficult medium. And compounding the difficulties is the fact that when television came, Singapore had not a well developed electronic and film-making industries. Given present limitations, it is possible, by means of better staff utilisation and higher morale, to increase output and quality. This we will do.

Good entertainment films, especially in the languages and dialects of most of our people, are costly and difficult to obtain. To make them ourselves will cost us more money than we can afford. This does not mean that we will not make any films ourselves. It only means that we will have to be very prudent and careful in what we make. We may be able to supplement our own production by encouraging other local productions. We will have to screen commercially-sponsored films so long as they are of good quality and good taste.

Since assuming office, I have received many complaints about the poor presentation of Chinese films in our TV, programmes. The films we used were more than ten years old and most of them were repeated twice or even thrice. And I have received letters from viewers telling me not to project too many Cantonese films over TV, just because I am a Cantonese! All these boil down to a simple fact, and that is we do not have an independent film industry in Singapore to produce Chinese films to feed our T.V. Our only source of film supply is Hong Kong which produces more films in Cantonese than in any other dialects. What is even worse, these film companies in Hong Kong are controlled by two or three organisations which also run cinema theatres in Singapore. Naturally, they do not want T.V. to present good programmes that keep the viewers at home. They would like the viewers to be so disgusted with our programmes that the viewers would rush to patronise their cinemas! It is, therefore, their undeclared policy not to sell or hire to our Broadcasting Division any Chinese films of value. If ever they want to hire to us at all, the film must be more than ten years old. The same also applies to English and Malay films.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Even to Tamil films.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: So in this situation, it is quite difficult to break their monopoly. In my view, the film organisations are too short-sighted and narrow-minded. Over the years, cinemas have competed successfully against T.V. with their colour films, broader screens and better quality in sound and music. This our T.V. can never achieve for many years to come, and they should have no worry that T.V. will take away their audience. So we can only hope that the film organisations will develop a more enlightened outlook so that cheap and good entertainment can be made available to the common people. Otherwise, we will have to make our own films in Singapore, but the expenses will be very prohibitive.

Coming back to the question of inducing attitudinal change in our people as a catalyst in social transformation, the various sections of the Culture Division of my Ministry share amongst them the other media of mass communication. Utilised in combination rather than in isolation as self-sufficient units, the effects on nation-building can be far-reaching. Given effective use of such mass media, the targets of our Republic will and can become all the more attainable, and all that within a much shorter period of time too than would otherwise be the case.

In conclusion, the Ministry of Culture will continue to ensure that Singapore will become culturally distinctive as well as create a well-informed and enlightened public, which is a means in itself as much as it is a means to a better and more meaningful life in our multi-racial society.

5.36 p.m.

Prof. Wong Lin Ken (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, you preside over a Parliament that has seen major milestones in the political history of Singapore after every election. There have been many elections in Singapore beginning from 1948, when they were introduced to provide for the election of six Members to the Legislative Council. In 1955, general elections were held to provide for a partial transfer of power to the local people. In 1959, we had advanced sufficiently to have elections that provided for a substantial transfer of power to a wholly elected Legislative Assembly. The result of that general elections was a victory for the PAP. In September 1963, we as a party had already made Singapore history by being the only party ever to be returned to power twice. Recently, we created yet more records in being returned to power for a third term and in forming the first elected Government of a totally independent and sovereign Singapore.

However, Mr Speaker, it is the current record that I wish to dwell upon for a few minutes, and this is the unique situation, both for Singapore and, indeed, for the practice of parliamentary democracy, that we the P.A.P. occupy every single seat in this Parliament. Nowhere else in the world where parliamentary democracy is practised has such a situation arisen. That this is the case is less the result of a choice by the electorate than the failure of opposition parties to provide a credible alternative to the P.A.P. It would have been in the national interest if we had had widely contested elections in which the support of the communal, Right-wing and pro-Communist parties could have been measured in quantitative terms. Perhaps they would not have lost every single seat, but I have no doubt that they would have suffered a decisive defeat. The defeat of the communal parties would have demonstrated the futility of politics based on the narrow appeals of race and culture. The defeat of the Right-wing parties would have driven home the point that they have alienated themselves from the people of Singapore and have emasculated themselves by their own inadequacies. Finally, the defeat of the Communist front Barisan Sosialis would have revealed its degeneration as a political force due to rigid adherence to policies which have no relevance in the context of the present political situation.

However, there are some people who feel that it seems somehow not right that the P.A.P. have all 58 seats. Under the system of parliamentary democracy such as we have inherited, it is possible for a political party to contest the elections and to lose every single seat, and equally for it to win every single seat. In 1963, we saw the Singapore People's Alliance lose every single seat it contested. Now, in 1968, we see the P.A.P. win every seat.

It is not very likely that there will be another such Parliament, and the return of a political Opposition, preferably a bona fide democratic one, will be for the political welfare of Singapore. It will make Parliament a more lively and, certainly, a more abrasive place for its Members. But more important, it will ensure the institutionalisation of parliamentary democracy as a form of government. If the return of an Opposition is almost wholly or wholly a resurrection of Communist front parties, whether in the form of the Barisan Sosialis or other organisations guided by other variants of Communism, then Singapore will be moving into more difficult times. For this will be the tangible verdict of the failure of this Parliament to cope adequately and effectively with the major problems outlined in precise and concise terms by the President of Singapore in his Speech on 6th May this year.

Singapore, indeed all of Southeast Asia, is in a state of change so rapid as to awe even the historian. We live in a region where dramatic changes have been the order of the day since the last World War. There are powers which must, in the nature of things, calculate the direction which Singapore politics will take, within the context of their rivalry in Southeast Asia. Some of these not only have an interest in us but also possess both the will and the capacity to influence, in overt or, as is more likely, in subtle but tangible ways, the development of the region. What is required of this Parliament then is more than good and effective government which any electorate rightfully expects of its elected representatives. It has also to demonstrate in no uncertain manner to those at home and abroad, who wish us well or ill, that this Government and the people of Singapore have the determination and the ability to create a stable and enduring multi-racial nation in a troublous part of the Pacific Basin.

Nine years of imaginative and constructive efforts have gone into the building of our prosperous multi-racial society. But economic prosperity cannot be our only goal. Singapore has throughout its history enjoyed high levels of prosperity, despite occasional setbacks. In the past, Singapore flourished even though the various races had relatively little to do with each other and certainly did not feel as the people of one nation. Singapore will not endure solely on the foundations of multi-storeyed flats, factories, and; all the tangible evidence of a prosperous economy. A rise in the Gross National Product, so essential for our national survival and the objective of good government, is helpful for its cushioning effects in the competition for jobs between the communities, but it is not the long-term answer to bring about a cohesive society out of our diverse races. The answer lies in continued efforts to create the kind of society that will be able to cope with the stresses and strains of life in Asia. To ensure this, the basic multi-racial philosophy of our society must become the framework on which our people rationalise their daily and national existence. And so, if our multi-racial society is to endure, it cannot be only because of the words and actions of 58 P.A.P. Members of Parliament. It must be the result of the collective will of every single man and woman in Singapore who believes that multi-racialism is the only rational way of life in the kind of society we have.

We have, Mr Speaker, Sir, gone a long way to institutionalise multi-racialism as a way of life. We have rightly placed our emphasis on youth and education, based on the integration of the four language streams and the production of bilingual students. But languages are just media of communication, and by themselves do not serve to unite unless the content of education is infused with the values of our society. This involves more than just a change in the curricula to bring about a re-orientation of attitudes. Equally important, those who teach the curricula must understand and believe in the grand design.

Please permit me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to cite a personal experience to illustrate my point. My eldest boy is in the equivalent of a Primary 1 class in Washington. One day, after about six months in this school, he came home to explain to me why George Washington's birthday was being observed. Can we say for certain that our school systems are so developed that, in a similar period of time, a child in his first year of education can, with earnest enthusiasm, explain to his parents why our National Day should be celebrated? No definitive answer can be expected without a proper systematic evaluation involving the whole field of education. Perhaps in the proposed effort to improve the qualitative character of our educational system consideration can be given to the inclusion of an investigation and recommendation of what can be done to inspire a teacher to give his students more than just the format substance of their education. Perhaps; it is time that serious thought should be given to a comprehensive evaluation of almost one decade of effort that has been put in the field of education towards the objective of a multi-racial society, with the object of determining both the factors that have promoted or retarded progress, so that further development can be set into motion.

A multi-racial society can only be nurtured and sustained by a multi-racial intelligentsia, reflecting the character of the population. So it is a logical development of our educational policy that the universities and other institutions of higher learning-should become an integral and vital part of the national community. The-desirability of a Minister of Science and Technology, who is also simultaneously the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore, may disturb the intellectual equilibrium of those who hold an inflexible doctrinal view of what constitutes academic freedom and university autonomy.

Yet, if one were to undertake serious research into the subject one would discover that there has never been a relationship between the State and the university which has not undergone changes in response to environmental changes. An examination of the constitutional and conventional relations between State and universities brings forth the fact that friction between them is at a minimum where there is a common consensus of basic fundamental values and loyalties to society. Issues are defined, discussed, and disposed of from the focal point of what is best for the community as a whole.

The present position of the University of Singapore reflects in the last analysis the failure of the academic community as a whole to adapt itself to the radical changes that have come to pass in Singapore in the last decade. The appointment of a Vice-Chancellor who-is also a Senior Cabinet Minister, notwithstanding his reputation as an academic man, is an indictment. Yet, in extenuation, perhaps it must be admitted that many of the academic community are not our nationals and cannot be expected to concern themselves with our affairs. It will be a tragedy for the development of our intellectual life if there is no room in the University for foreign professors and teachers to provide the necessary stimuli. But, in the main, the direction of the University must be in the hands of nationals. It is to be hoped, and I am both hopeful and optimistic, that the present unusual appointment, the product of extraordinary circumstances, shall be a passing phase in the history of higher education in Singapore. For if such a practice were to develop into a permanent feature, it will be a reflection of the continuing failure of the University to get itself identified, and, what is even more important, accepted as part of our national life.

The imminent recognition of Nanyang University degrees reminds us of how much progress this institution has made in educational and other terms within the framework of our national community. It is to be hoped that at some point of its evolution, it will achieve the same measure of institutional recognition as the University of Singapore in the international community of learning. If our polyglot society is to achieve national cohesion, the linguistic cleavages, born out of colonial times and now in the process of being bridged in our school system, should not be allowed to persist longer than is educationally feasible in the institutions of higher learning.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the designation of the Minister for Science and Technology is the result of the necessity to emphasize the national need to develop a hitherto neglected aspect of our education rather than a reflection of a fundamental change in attitude on the part of Government towards higher education in the arts and social sciences. The urgent national need to develop a technological and scientific class indispensable to an industrialising society is beyond question and requires constant public reiteration. Yet it is well to remember that the main burden of preserving, refining, and developing the cultural life of a nation falls on the shoulders of the non-technological and non-scientific members of the intelligentsia. We have need to continue to develop the arts and social sciences, and, what is even more relevant, to nurture a self-perpetuating generation of bilingual intelligentsia capable of sustaining our society and having the broader perspective of viewing our problems on the broader base of a multi-racial community.

I would like now to touch on a specific topic of interest to all Singaporeans. This is the National Museum. Its re-organisation is long overdue. The proposal to transform it (to quote the Addendum to the Presidential Speech) into "an educational centre displaying in vivid manner the rich political, social, and economic history not only of Singapore but of the whole region of which we are the fulcrum" is, I think, an imaginative step. In developing the historical sections of the National Museum, the role of the various communities, their leaders, and Sir Stamford Raffles should not be forgotten. For the colonial past is as much a part of our national history as the eventful future will be. But what is required is more than a transformation of the National Museum in the manner proposed. A section devoted to the portrayal of the development of science and technology will contribute in a significant way towards encouraging the growth of minds more receptive to the perquisites of an industrialising society.

Next year, Mr Speaker, we will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of Singapore. Doubtless there will be many national celebrations. I would like to recommend for the consideration of this Government the erection of a monument in memory of our nameless and, often, penniless immigrant ancestors whose sweat and toil turned the swamps of Singapore into the solid foundation that has made it possible for us to build a better future for ourselves and our children. We have cenotaphs to remember our dead, named or nameless, in the two World Wars. Other countries remember their Unknown Soldiers. So why should we not set up, with public donations and governmental encouragement, some appropriate national monument for the Unknown Immigrants to remind this and future generations of our immigrant origins and the progress we have made, and will continue to make, in nationhood?

We have a passion for progress, probably the most intense and most purposeful in this part of the world. We fill up swamps to put up factories and the sea to increase the size of our country, and we knock down old buildings to make way for tall impressive residential and commercial ones. But this passion for progress should not be allowed to erase completely the past. In a country with a long colonial history and no monuments of ancient civilisation to remind us of our past in Singapore, it will serve a national purpose to preserve some old sections of our city, historical buildings, churches, mosques, and temples, as abiding reminders of the immigrant origins of our nation, and as a visual measure of the progress we have made, and will continue to make in the modernisation and consolidation of our nation. There are even substantial monetary gains to be derived in preserving something of the past. As we change the face of Singapore, as we inevitably must, we should also leave some things of an exotic character for the tourists so that they will have more to see than just how a determined and resourceful population, with application and ambition, has brought about a modern thriving Asian city-state into the world of science and technology. It is in the light of these considerations that I regard with a critical eye the efforts at urban renewal. A National Historical Commission, with the authority to identify the historical aspect of our past that is relevant to our evolution towards multi-racial nationhood, should be seriously considered as a desirable creation to advise the Government in its urban renewal programmes and its plan to re-organise the National Museum into a national educational exhibition centre. I believe we have qualified people for such a Commission, and some have organised themselves recently into a History Association of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I began on a note about the political desirability and inevitability of the return of an Opposition in this Parliament. I also stressed the desirability of a bona fide democratic Opposition. What is even more desirable and relevant is that the return of such an Opposition will take the shape of political parties that subscribe to the fundamental philosophy of multi-racialism. We have now a Parliament that reflects unanimity on this concept. We should not miss this opportunity to consolidate the institutional arrangements that make for the perpetuation of this political philosophy as the national order of life. Let me commend to my parliamentary colleagues the practical wisdom of a great poet who wrote in a language this nation has the common sense to accept as one of its official languages: "On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures." (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene III).

6.01 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Inche Sha'ari Bin Tadin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard divergent views and criticisms by hon. Members of the House for the last two days in their replies to the President's Speech at the Opening of the Parliament. Some who delivered their speeches were making their debut in Parliament. In this respect, Sir, I am one of those who are making their maiden speeches.

I am not in a position to reply to some of the references made by one or two of our hon. Members to my Ministry, as I have been appointed to my present office only a few days ago. I therefore do not intend to reply but shall leave it to my colleague, the hon. Member for Stamford, and to my Minister, who has already dealt with certain of the matters.

What I propose to speak on in the next 30 or 35 minutes is a subject on which none has touched before, although reference has been made here and there. I am referring to the third objective outlined in the President's Speech, i.e., "enhancement of national consciousness of the problems that will come upon us in the next few years." I consider this objective as important as the other two in creating a modern, democratic, multi-racial Singapore which is our national goal.

As we are all aware, in the Addendum to the President's Speech, when outlining the policies of the various Ministries as a whole, he said, in his reference to the Ministry of Culture, that T.V. and Radio would be elevated into a separate division with a separate Permanent Secretary. This step is taken in view of the greater and more effective role our T.V, and Radio has to play "to inform, entertain and educate". It will also stimulate loyalty and patriotism and the importance of increased productivity in order that the Republic will be able to pull through these difficult years. I have not the slightest doubt, in the light of the ability shown by our leadership in the past, that we shall be able to surmount every difficulty, provided every one of us - those in the Government and the people adopt the right attitude. It is to adopt this correct attitude in facing the problems ahead of us that T.V, and Radio must play its due role. Every community in this island-Republic of ours, whether it be Malay, Chinese, Indian, Eurasian, European or other communities, must be made to realise that it is part of a multi-racial Singapore and that it has a role to play in contributing towards the success of Singapore.

We cannot allow any community to lag behind in this rat-race for survival, otherwise it will have to face problems which are bound to create a lot of social unrest in the years ahead. Thus, it is very vital that no community should feel that it is being discriminated against, for it is the Government's policy to accord equal treatment to everybody. Mr Speaker, Sir, this right attitude and thinking is vital in order to achieve our national goal - that of creating a multi-racial Singapore.

I shall now dwell on the subject of national integration which I think can well be instrumental in achieving the third objective as set out in the President's Speech. I feel the people must be made to feel as one people before we can proceed. Without this solidarity through consolidation of effort and the pooling of resources, it would be impossible to achieve the other two objectives, namely, greater economic growth and higher productivity and adequate defence capability.

Sir, what do we mean when we speak of national integration? One definition is the bringing together of the disparate parts of society into a more cohesive whole.

There are several approaches to this problem and whatever the techniques that we have used in the past, we should not deviate from our bearings and objectives. We know, too, that this process of creating a multi-racial Singapore and the sense of being Singaporeans will take at least a generation before we can really see the fruits of our labour. But believe me, Sir, our integrated system both in the schools and in the Army has attracted both attention and criticism from experts all over the world. I know we have to be patient in any experiment that we have undertaken and should not expect to see the results overnight. Sir, we should give credit to those who have been responsible for the planning, for they have done a marvellous job.

Singapore has been described as the melting-pot of three great cultures -namely, Chinese, Indian and Malay -and it has attracted a lot of tourists whose desire is to see the exotic Eastern cultures in their various manifestations. Our Government's cultural policy is to create a blend of the three but with a typically Singaporean flavour, with some European pepper here and there to make it feel hot. Thus, in the process of national integration, we have to integrate our cultures so as to be able to evolve our own identity and character.

Coming back to the subject of national integration, our motto should be - Unity through Diversity. The people of Singapore, who come from various ethnic groups, find their real loyalty and sense of oneness not within the nation as yet, for Singapore is still in the process of creating a nation, but within their special small ethnic, language or religious groups. National integration will lead to a drawing together of these diverse elements into something more cohesive, with the parts linked more closely together. The trend to be foreseen is aptly described by the phrase "from many small societies to one large society."

All this while, Sir, our leaders and hon. Members have been making speeches urging the people to live as a united people and stressing the importance of unity amongst people of various races and religions, which make up our polyglot society.

We can see the difference in attire worn by girls of various races - the Malays in their sarong kebayas, the Chinese in their tantalising cheongsams and the Indians in their beautiful saris. With the latest craze for mini-skirts, our youths seem to be falling for this type of dress. However, what I am trying to suggest is that these visual contrasts between Malays, Chinese, Indians and others are only superficial differences that make up our mosaic society, made up of countless pieces, each neatly defined and separated from all the others.

Everyone in this House is familiar with language conflicts in other countries. India has over 200 languages. Even Nepal, with only 10 million people, has six substantial language groups. In Ghana, with only 7.5 million people, there are more than five major languages. Yet we in Singapore have well adapted ourselves to speaking the four official languages besides using the National Language and our respective mother tongue. Fellow-feeling is difficult to develop when language differences isolate one another. But this is not the case in Singapore where everyone, whether he is Chinese or Indian, is able to make himself understood through the use of bazaar Malay, which is the lingua franca in this part of the world.

I have said earlier that the Army is one important nationalising agent putting our young men through strenuous training in which differences of ethnic background, religion, and so on are minimised and where men are infused with a patriotic zeal for the nation. In this respect, those responsible for the training of our national servicemen and the Army should be given full commendation for the wonderful job they are doing in turning out rugged young men equipped not only with military skills for armed combat but, more important still, imbued with the spirit of patriotism and public spiritedness, self-discipline and a high standard of integrity. It will be wonderful to watch in the not too distant future, disciplined young men taking over the leadership not only in the Army but also in all spheres of activity and organisation. One day we can be assured that all the efforts put in by both the Government and us will bring heavy dividends.

The other approach is through our school system through the integrated educational policy which has indeed not only been instilling a growing sense of national identity into our children but also inculcating in them the spirit of the true Singaporean. The suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Joo Chiat last Friday that all communal schools should be abolished should be given serious thought if we are really to achieve our objective. The Government has recently announced that the integrated policy has now been extended to missionary schools, and the schools which are untouched are those which are completely privately financed and over which the Government has no say.

The third and most effective approach, I think, is by accommodating peoples of various races, status and background under the same roof, so to speak. Peoples from different walks of life, such as civil servants, businessmen, the squatter farmers who have been resettled, etc., are brought together as one community. There can be no faster way of changing the attitude and mentality of the people and, at the same time, modernising their way of life. At the moment, nearly a quarter of a million of the population are living in Housing Board flats in Queenstown and other areas, and very soon the new Toa Payoh satellite town will be ready for use. More and more people will have the opportunity of living in these flats. I think we can achieve our national integration by making the people live in this urbanised society of flats. It is through constant personal contact and inter-action that they have come to live as a people and in this respect I must give the Housing and Development Board a pat on the back for putting Singapore's reputation high on the list of countries that have solved their national housing problems. Praiseworthy comments have been made by experts from all over the world on our housing achievements and I can confidently say, Sir, that this feeling of pride should be implanted in the minds of our people, that although Singapore may be small in terms of space, it has evolved many good ideas and set examples to the rest of the world on how we tackle the many problems facing this country by careful planning, thinking and intelligent action.

We are prepared to share our expertise and know-how with any country which cares to seek our advice. We hope in the near future to export not only commodities which now are getting well known, but most probably also our human made-in-Singapore expertise to help other countries in their development programmes. In fact, we are already a donor country under the Colombo Plan by offering scholarships and training courses in the field of telecommunications, etc. Thus, by the use of human resources and with proper leadership, we have not only achieved for ourselves a high standard of living but we are also able to help others who require our services. In fact, we have already sent a team of housing experts to Christmas Island at the invitation of the Australian Government to give the benefit of our experience in low-cost housing to the people there. Endeavours like this, Sir, help to project Singapore's image abroad. I think it is very important that we inculcate the spirit of national pride in our children and our people. They must be made to realise that if they want to see this state of affairs continue, they must play their part.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now elaborate on the role of T.V, and Radio in creating a multi-racial outlook. All over the world, it has been statistically discovered that individuals and villagers who have access to the printed word or the radio medium have more modern attitudes, are much more progressive, and are in a position to play more positive roles than those who are denied access to these mass communication media. This shows how important the mass media are in changing the people's attitudes. Even in the communication system of highly developed societies, there is a complex interaction between the modern mass media system and the traditional mode of interpersonal by-word-of-mouth communication. A modern society is not an amorphous depersonalised mass society free from primary groups. It is an elaborated system of families, clubs, ethnic groups, classes, political organisations and friendship groupings.

The dissemination of any new idea or practice in such a society depends not only on the publicity it is given through the mass media, but also through conversations and discussions on topics by the people face to face. That is why the setting up of Citizens' Consultative Committees in all the constituencies has bridged the gap between the Government and the people. In this way, the Government encourages participation by an identification with the citizenry. All hon. Members appreciate the services of these people in the Citizens' Consultative Committees.

We know full well, Sir, that mass media alone can have profound effects on what people pay attention to, the information they have, their taste, and their impressions of the world. On the other hand, the mass media by themselves are less effective in changing attitudes or efforts towards action. I have noted several hon. Members making references to the need to change the attitude and thinking of the people if we hope to survive the difficult years ahead of us.

The subject of changing and influencing attitudes, as everyone knows, is rather complex. The trouble is that most people have rather weak or ill-defined attitudes. I believe that something can be done to change the attitude of our people through the use of our Radio and T.V. in their programmes. But Radio and T.V. alone cannot achieve this target in the absence of personal reinforcement. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I can remember, the Member for Katong has said that besides Radio and T.V., adult education agencies can also be brought into play to change the people's attitude.

To get people to act in ways that conform to new values requires that mass media of communication be reinforced by the personal touch. We must try to reach people from all walks of life, if possible at the grass-root level.

Our goal is to create a democratic, modern and multi-racial Singapore, and it is essential that every community in the Republic, be it Malay; Chinese, Indian, Eurasian, etc., should have the right attitude towards the problems in the crucial years ahead brought about by the accelerated British withdrawal from Singapore. The problems, as they are now, may be small but in the 1970s they may rise to such a magnitude that we will have to face very rough times. As I said earlier just now, we can attack these problems by a two-pronged approach - via Radio and T.V, and other mass media of communication' and through personal reinforcement.

Singapore being small in size, is advantageous for the practice of mass media of communication to the masses. Thus, it is important that we should make our people problem-orientated and problem-conscious. When their thinking is geared to this, then they will be able to adapt themselves to the situation when the time comes.

Sir, we are moving towards a technological society and in such a society we want our people to be not only scientific-minded but also analytical and critical in their outlook. This can only come about if they participate in group discussions on the problems facing Singapore. Thus, it is very important that our Radio and T.V. and other mass media of communication like newspapers and magazines be injected with ideas that will stimulate the thinking and instil in the people a sense of patriotism and public spiritedness and the importance of increased productivity. Small dosages of medicine, if taken every day, will have beneficial curative effects. Similarly, through the media of Radio and T.V. programmes, ideas could be infused into the dramas,, forums, guest-of-the-week programmes, and so on. It is only through constant and regular programmes of this nature that people will gradually accept new ideas. Such programmes should be aimed at equipping the people to meet the new challenges ahead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now dwell on the objectives set out in the President's Speech not yet touched on by my colleagues both on the Front benches and Back benches. I would like to quote what the President said:

'We must all learn to place national interest above personal or sectional interest.'

It seems to me, Sir, that this third objective has a special relevance to the question of changing the attitudes of the people. Unless we effectively reorientate the thinking of our people to the problems that lie ahead, we can achieve very little by way of implementing the other two objectives. In the closing paragraphs of his speech, the President said that he would expect hon. Members to speak in forthright terms to lend more importance to lead thinking and feeling in the country, and to ensure that everyone understands the challenge and gives of his best.

The Prime Minister in his speech on the opening of Parliament, in congratulating you on your re-election to the Chair, said:

'...under your guidance, this House will keep the parliamentary machine in good shape, and also sustain and cultivate the attitudes of tolerance and calculated deference to opposing views.'

For the last two days, I have heard criticisms levelled against Government policies by Backbenchers, who in fact are playing the role of the Opposition. The position of our one-party Parliament in Singapore by consent is rather unique. There are countries in Afro-Asia where the temptation is to establish single-party constitution tendencies. Some countries have evolved political parties whose major purpose appears to be to moderate communal, ethnic and other conflicts, without insisting on a full monopoly of power. Certain parties, such as the Alliance of Malaysia, the Congress Party in India, and the Party of Revolutionary Institution in Mexico, consciously subscribe to the integrated system of politics. These political Parties contain a number of diverse and often competing groups.

[Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng temporarily in the Chair]

6.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Inche Sha'ari Bin Tadin): In the Prime Minister's Speech, he expressed the hope that one day the Opposition would and must inevitably return. Before that day comes, we, the P.A.P., within ourselves in this House are already creating this "Opposition" group in the form of the Backbenchers. Although this form of Opposition, as the Prime Minister observed, is not the same real Opposition that he and his colleagues experienced in the fifties and sixties, nevertheless the new Back-benchers who represent a wide cross-section of our society will undoubtedly be able to keep the parliamentary machine going. We must let the whole world know that the one-party system that we have today in Singapore is merely an electoral accident and not because democracy is dead, as some have said. During the last general elections the Opposition parties could not win a single seat. The sweeping victory by the P.A.P, in the seven contested seats was clear testimony of the faith and confidence the people have in the present Government. We can prove to the world that the one-party Parliament in Singapore provides an absorbing study for those who are interested in doing research into the political upheaval in Singapore which, as has been said, is unique and unprecedented in world history. I observe that not many people take an interest in parliamentary proceedings. This, I again attribute to the attitude of our people who take things for granted. However, I am sure, that Members on the opposite Benches will take heed of what the President said, that they should speak their minds freely and forcefully and provide the lead in their thinking and feeling in the country.

Finally, the overwhelming support given by the people in returning all the 58 seats to the P.A.P. clearly shows that we have the support of the masses. The present leadership, with the addition of new Members, will work hard to uphold parliamentary democracy in Singapore and, at the same time, give the people security, peace and prosperity. I would like to make an appeal to the leaders of all the communities in the Republic to sink their differences and work together to make multi-racial Singapore a success.

I am sure whatever complaints the people have can always be voiced through their Members of Parliament in the various constituencies and they, in turn, can voice them in Parliament.

The Malays, in particular, also have a contribution to make towards the success of our multi-racial society and of democratic socialism in Singapore. They must not feel that they are isolated or are being excluded. They must change their attitude and reorientate their thinking to suit the changes that are taking place around them. They must not live in the world of fantasy. We want our Malay community to have every opportunity to train and equip themselves to face the challenge for an industrialised Singapore. These efforts will succeed only if the Malays have the right spirit to face the challenge to work, study and train themselves in order to face the world in the future. They should not worry over trifling matters which will bring no benefits. The Government is giving every assistance to all the Malays in the Republic as provided for in the Constitution -especially in the field of education -and they must make full use of the facilities and opportunities that are available to them to improve themselves.

The Prime Minister has said, "We are living in a society which from day to day assumes a more urban and industrialised character." In the next few years with the rapid development in urban renewal, construction of the flyovers and other building complexes, Singapore will be transformed into one of the most dynamic cities in this part of the world and will be able to maintain a high standard of living for its people. It has already become a Utopia - a land of plenty. By Asian standards, Singapore is prosperous, but this affluence does not mean that any part of the society can afford to be inefficient or adopt lackadaisical attitudes.

Sir, the lack of corruption in this Republic has made Singapore one of the few countries which have a clean government. Our people have not only come to expect efficient and intelligent officials, they have also come to understand that a democratically elected government can and will eliminate corrupt practices.

Undoubtedly, Sir, this has contributed to the image of a democratically elected government as an effective servant which, in the process, can maintain high standards of conduct, and has dismissed the attractiveness of more totalitarian approaches to discipline as the sine qua non of progress. It has meant that political opponents must be policy oriented.

The next five years will, in all probability, determine if Singapore will continue to have an Opposition or will move towards a modified one-party system.

The Malay community must remain part of the growth and development of every aspect of the social, political and economic life of Singapore. They must develop self-reliance so that one day they too can stand on their own feet and compete with the others. They must identify themselves with the symbol of progress as Singapore Malays. They must not say that religion hinders progress since Islam teaches us to be diligent, to work hard, to strive, for nothing is free. All the opportunities for improvement are before them and it is up to them to take full advantage. They must not have the false idea adopted by some of the so-called "leaders" that the Government wishes to do away with the Malay language just because the two secondary schools are going to be integrated. Even a Member of the Malaysian Parliament, Inche Khir Johari, Minister for Education, in many of his speeches recently, has indicated that he favours integration and the use of English in the teaching of Science and Mathematics in Malay-medium schools. Let us be realists. It is no use trying to hide something bad and later on it is found that it is too late to do anything. The earlier we have the change in our school system, the better it will be for the generations that are to come. That is why the Government is doing all it can to have the reorganisation of secondary schools and re-siting of the Universities to avoid duplication of work, so that maximum advantage can be derived from such changes which will in turn benefit Singapore. They must not think in terms of sectional interests, for this kind of thinking is not healthy in the context of multi-racial Singapore. They must not be introspective in their thinking, for this will only make them slide further back into the past. They must be as forward-looking as the others and they should be proud of their mini-Singapore which may be small in size but not in spirit or wealth. It is the spirit of oneness and sense of togetherness that the leaders must inculcate in the Malay community. They must also instil in them a sense of pride and unity. Let us all work together to achieve the common national goal of creating a multi-racial Singapore.

6.37 p.m.

The Minister for Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): Sir, over the last few days, Members of the House have raised a number of questions about sports, including how the National Stadium can contribute to making our society a robust one and how the stadium will not become a white elephant. They have also raised the point of insufficient attention being paid to badminton and whether we should consider introducing an air-conditioned Badminton Hall in the National Sports Stadium Complex.

To meet the economic challenges posed in the years ahead, it is necessary for our people to be physically fit and have a greater capacity for endurance. This physical ruggedness can best be achieved through competitive and community sports. Although it is a recognised fact that sporting activities help to build stamina, sports is also known to engender a strong sense of national pride. The twin objectives of a rugged society and national pride will therefore be served in our multi-society through active encouragement of sports.

6.39 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): Fortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have three advantages on our side in creating such a physically rugged society. The first is the youthfulness of our population, making them easily adaptable to respond to the challenges ahead; the second advantage is the high standard of our health services; and the third is the compact character of our island State making easy accessibility to any service or facility that is provided.

The active encouragement of sports activities planned by the Ministry of Social Affairs includes the setting up of a proper co-ordinating committee for sports. At present, there are too many co-ordinating committees with overlapping functions. Some of these committees will be abolished and the new one that will be created will include not only representatives of the Olympic Council but also representatives of the Ministry of Education, the Sports Division of the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Army, the Police Force and also the People's Association. Encouragement will also be given to individual sports organisations to reorganise themselves to get the services of dedicated officials in their committees, so that sustained efforts can be made to improve the individual games concerned.

Besides organisation, another plan is to get proper coaches for the various games played in Singapore. A beginning has been made to get expert coaches. So far, the services of four coaches have been obtained. The Bulgarian coach for football arrived in November 1967 and the Bulgarian coach for basketball arrived in April this year. The volleyball coach arrived from Japan in April 1968. The services of, Singapore's past badminton champion," Mr Wong Peng Soon, have been obtained as badminton coach. He started operations as from February this year and has gathered a group of potential first-rate players who will be put to centralised training on a systematic basis in preparation for the next Thomas Cup competition. Arrangements are also made for a Japanese swimming coach to come and train our swimmers to reach international standard. Similar approaches will be made to get coaches in athletics and hockey.

As for facilities for sports, Members are aware of the building of the National Stadium Complex at Kallang. The open stadium, which will hold 50,000, is planned to be completed by the end of 1970. As for the indoor stadium, provision has been made for such facilities as gymnastics, table tennis, basketball, volley ball, sepak takraw (or what we call sepak raga faring), and badminton. There will be separate facilities for swimming, ice-skating and tennis courts.

Although the Member for Joo Chiat has suggested the inclusion of an air-conditioned badminton hall in the National Stadium complex, it will be necessary to make a close examination of this suggestion in the light of the following factors before a decision is taken to include this facility in that complex. First, whether air-conditioning will interfere with the game; second, whether air-conditioning will put our players at a disadvantage when they have to compete under natural conditions in places such as Djakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila and Bangkok, where the halls are not air-conditioned; third, whether we are exploiting our natural advantages of better reaction to heat in comparison with those players in termperate climate when playing in the tropics. It will be necessary for all these factors to be studied before a decision is taken to build an air-conditioned badminton hall in the complex.

In regard to the question of the Member for Punggol on how the stadium can help to build a rugged society, I have already mentioned before the part that sports can play in building a robust nation. The national stadium, when completed, will be used extensively by sports organisations in Singapore as well as by students from schools, colleges, universities, etc. Although such use of these facilities will not bring in much money, it is also planned to use the national stadium for other purposes so that proceeds from such usage will help to pay for the running of the stadium. Examinations of such use are being made at present.

Besides the Sports Complex at Kallang, the Ministry has planned also to improve the facilities at Jalan Besar Stadium, Farrer Park Athletic Centre and Balestier Plain to serve as subsidiary centres for sports. However, as there is a great concentration of population in Housing and Development Board estates, the Board will be urged to provide more playing fields, swimming pools and gymnasiums, etc., in the housing estates. The provision of such facilities will not only maintain the physical fitness of our population but will also help the youths in the estates to get to know one another better through community sports and games.

To encourage sports in the manner planned, funds will have to be raised. Members are already aware that the proceeds from the Toto Pools to be started soon will be utilised to meet the cost of building the Kallang Sports Complex. To supplement the proceeds of the Toto Pools in meeting the cost of setting up new training facilities, employment of expert coaches, sending Singapore's teams to compete in overseas competitions and holding local competitions with invited overseas participation, my Ministry plans to set up a Central Fund for, sports promotion. This will enable greater public participation in the financing of sports promotion. As an inducement, it is planned that such public contributions to this Fund will be exempted from income tax.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am also taking this opportunity to explain to the House how the Social Welfare Department exercises economy in the provision of its welfare services. In line with the declared policy of the Government to get full value for every dollar spent, services provided by the Social Welfare Department will be kept under constant review to determine whether these services must necessarily be provided by the Government and, if so, how maximum economy can be achieved in the provision of welfare services.

To this end, the Department has made a start in evaluating its welfare programmes. The purpose of such evaluation is to eliminate duplication between services provided by the Government and those operating under private and voluntary auspices. All necessary steps will be taken to co-ordinate the network of welfare services and maximise the use of personnel and material resources. Where it is found necessary to improve the quality and coverage of these services, this will be done at the lowest possible cost. Increasing emphasis will also be placed on those welfare services that can contribute towards a fuller development of human resources as opposed to those other services that are merely palliatives.

The area of the Department's work which can be contracted without consequent social ill effects is the service provided in the children's centres. These centres were originally established to help tackle the post-war problems of malnutrition, illiteracy and delinquency. These problems have, over the years, been greatly ameliorated and consequently the role of the children's centres today is not as important as it used to be. With the increasing number of schools and community centres, most of them with kindergarten classes, it is apparent that the need for the Department to continue operating children's centres will gradually decrease. In fact, attendances in a few of the centres have begun to show a steady decline. It is, therefore, logical to consider closing down the 16 children's centres in stages commencing with those in the rural areas as and when their enrolment drops. For a start, it is proposed to close down the Yio Chu Kang and Boon Teck Road centres, as the former is situated in a rural area served by four People's Association kindergartens and the latter is affected by the clearance programme for Toa Payoh New Town.

In order to utilise fully the facilities in the 10 creches, a number of vacant places in these creches will be offered to children of working parents in the higher income groups. But unlike those from families with incomes below $500 per month who will continue to enjoy the heavily subsidized creche facilities, children from the higher income families will have to pay an economic admission charge. Further details of this new scheme will be announced shortly.

The Department has also sought ways and means to make its 12 Social Welfare Homes as productive and self-sufficient as possible. For example, residents of these Homes are now required to perform some of the domestic chores which were previously done by paid staff. The able-bodied beggars and destitutes will be organised into work parties to undertake work projects both in and outside the Homes. Residents will also be trained to do productive and meaningful work. One Social Welfare Home is now producing noodles for supply to the other Homes. The Homes are thereby supporting the Eat-More-Wheat Campaign and, at the same time, effecting savings in their rations bill by making their own noodles. Another Home is offering a cake-making and food-catering service for small parties and laundry work for private firms.

The residents in the Homes will be taught to produce attractive handicraft articles for sale. Revenue from such sales of work will be used for the benefit of the Homes, thereby reducing their running cost. Instructors in the various Homes have been sent on refresher courses in handicraft to enable them to introduce the latest methods in producing attractive saleable handicraft articles. More cottage industries such as orchid growing, tropical fish rearing, racket re-stringing, manufacture of racket presses and tourist souvenir articles will be introduced.

These measures will not only help to prepare the younger residents for early discharge to start projects on their own or take up paid employment outside, but will also result in substantial reduction of departmental expenditure both in terms of a quicker turnover of residents and fewer staff like welfare attendants, gardeners, etc. required.

Existing welfare services will be oriented towards the strengthening of the family as the basic unit of our society and the prevention of breakdown in family life. The preservation of strong family ties and the encouragement of each family to look after its own members is the best way of keeping the country's expenditure on welfare services within reasonable limits. Parents must be made to shoulder their parental responsibilities towards their children who, in turn, must be taught to take care of their parents in their declining years. In this way, there will be less need for social welfare services like public assistance and institutions for delinquents, destitutes and old people. The welfare resources can then be applied to services which can contribute more positively towards a better life for all.

There will, of course, be interstitial areas requiring the provision of the more traditional types of welfare services. In this task, the whole community must share the responsibility. It is most gratifying to see the extremely good work that is being done by many voluntary organisations in caring for the aged, the handicapped and the needy.

In the years ahead, my Ministry will actively encourage and help in whatever way possible the work of the voluntary organisations providing services to the handicapped, disabled and aged and in areas of activity not being provided now by the Government. Periodic visits to the various voluntary welfare organisations made by me have revealed a high standard of service in the voluntary field. It is very evident that some of the staff are absolutely dedicated to their work. To these people, there is no such thing as office hours. They work incredibly long hours and at all times of the day and night without complaint. They are always thinking of ways and means to help improve the lot of the less fortunate ones for whose welfare they are working. Such selfless devoted service they give cannot be bought with money. In fact, I am told that some of these workers return their salaries or allowances to their organisations to be used for furthering their good work.

With more public-spirited citizens of Singapore coming forward and following the example of these dedicated voluntary helpers, the problem of caring for the disabled, the handicapped and the aged in our society will be greatly reduced. There is no greater satisfaction than in helping in one way or another the less fortunate of our fellow citizens. As more voluntary helpers offer their services not only in voluntary organisations but also in the Social Welfare Homes, the objective of making these Homes self-sufficient will be more quickly achieved. This is particularly so if the voluntary helpers have special skills that can be imparted to the residents and staff of the Homes.

6.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Dr Lee Chiaw Meng): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I join the Prime Minister in thanking the President for his gracious speech which outlines our Government's policies for the crucial period ahead.

In moving the motion, the Prime Minister has correctly pointed out the principal factors that made Singapore what it is today, namely, our human resources, our strategic geographical location, our infrastructure and experience in commerce, industry and communications.

Sir, may I be permitted to refer to an article in The Mirror dated 18th March, 1968, quoting a survey carried out by Business International ---

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, I think you will have to get closer to the microphone because your voice is not coming through the ear-pieces. The Interpreters and the Reporters may be having difficulty.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Yes, Sir, as I was saying, The Mirror quotes a survey carried out by Business International on the relative attractiveness and investment environment of eight major cities in this region. Of the 22 factors considered important, only three are related to the geographical situation: the rest are related to human factors. Indeed, it must be so, otherwise our surrounding islands would become very serious competitors.

We do not have any rich natural resources other than our two million people and the knowledge and infrastructure they possess. Our Government considers it to be our paramount responsibility to accelerate the pace of development and formation of our human capital, and we will spare no effort in achieving this goal.

Hon. Members may recall that almost nine years ago when our Party first took office, we laid down our three main principles on education. One of them is to put emphasis on practical subjects like Mathematics and Science, so that our citizens are taught to use their hands and their brains. We must break the "white-collar" consciousness which must belong only to the past. The ground work has been laid successfully and it is time to reorganise our education system to keep pace with our industrialisation success. In short, we have achieved in our economic development more than what we promised and at a much faster rate than we planned.

7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. It is seven o'clock now and pursuant to the resolution made earlier today, the House will now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'clock p.m.