PRESIDENT'S SPEECH Debate on the Address (First Day)

3.17 p.m.

Dr Chiang Hai Ding (Ulu Pandan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

`That the following Address in reply to the speech of the President be agreed to : -

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.".'.

It is a great honour for me to move this motion as the 58th Member of this 58-Member House. It is my practice to address my colleague, the Honourable Member for Kampong Kapor, with due deference as "Mr. 57", for he had his victory at the 1970 by-elections declared five minutes before mine.

The President began his speech with these words: "After six years of separate independence, we have shown that Singapore is viable."

Those words constitute a simple statement of fact.

There were many who were saddened by the separation of our country from Malaysia six years ago. Our leaders and people then knew that the road ahead as an independent and sovereign Republic of Singapore would be a hard one. They must today look back with considerable satisfaction on what has been achieved. Characteristically, however, because of the sterner stuff of which they are made, our people seek still higher performance from themselves for our country.

As our President observed, we want the quality of life to go up. The quality of life for us in Singapore, like our Housing and Development Board flats which house one in three of our people, has no alternative but to go up. For it not to go up is to expose our people to poverty and degradation.

Today we are rapidly becoming a nation. Our people today are able to cohere and to respond collectively to challenges to the Republic. They have a stake here. Some 700,000 of our citizens live in 125,000 H.D.B, flats. Another 500,000 will live in the 100,000 flats to be built in the next five years, some of which will be located in Ulu Pandan. These flats are subsidised by the Government. Thus the less affluent of our people are directly benefiting from the wealth that is being generated in Singapore. The more well-to-do have homes in the many fine housing estates and blocks of luxury flats that abound in our island.

I have no doubt whatsoever that our people will defend what they have created and what they own.

I am also confident that I speak for all Members in this House that we will not be deflected from our course towards a modern, multiracial, democratic and industrialized island-nation.

Three years ago, the debate following the speech of our late President Yusof Bin Ishak was sombre. We faced many problems then, for the British Government had decided to accelerate their military withdrawal. The Member for Nee Soon on that occasion spoke about maintaining a rate of growth of Gross Domestic Product of eight per cent. There must have been many at that time, academic economists included those adherents of that dismal science - who must have thought him an incorrigible optimist. But his confidence in the will and determination of our people was well founded. If today that Honourable Member were to predict the same rate of growth of eight per cent for our economy, which I am sure he will not, he would be suspected of being a congenital pessimist.

This is the measure of our success in overcoming our economic problems.

Of course, not all of our problems are solved by a mere doubling of the rate of growth of the Gross Domestic Product. The Minister of Defence sagely observed in a recent speech that economic growth by itself does not necessarily generate happiness all round. I will only add the trite comment that the absence of such growth can be relied upon most assuredly to generate the greatest unhappiness.

In the six years since our separation from Malaysia, the average annual growth rate of our Gross Domestic Product was 12.8 per cent. Previously, in the six years before separation, the average annual growth rate was 7.6 per cent. We therefore have cause for satisfaction. But there are new problems which we had not hitherto faced as the various parts of the addendum to the President's speech remind us.

The Ministry of Science and Technology is taking steps to establish an "indigenous technological capability", and the Ministry of Education to expand the supply of technical skills. These measures to overcome the present temporary shortage of skilled labour are to be commended. In this respect, though Ulu Pandan is not an industrial constituency, we also contribute towards meeting the challenge of industrialization with our Dunearn Secondary Technical School.

I am fully in support of the declared intention of the Ministry of Labour to punish "recalcitrant employers wilfully neglecting the safety and health of workers", and to treble the quantum of workmen's compensation. We have earlier this afternoon heard how urgent the problem of workmen's safety is from the Minister of State for Labour. Workers have strong voices in this House, as we also recently heard. For example, the efforts of the Honourable Member for Kallang have led to silicosis being regarded now as an occupational disease.

I am in full agreement with Government's view that employers who have been making "exceptional profits" ought to give better bonuses in recognition of the workers' contribution to the present economic prosperity. I also believe that workers must obtain an increasing share in the wealth generated as a result of their greater efficiency and productivity. This will no doubt come after the effects of the British military run-down have been assessed.

We are really all workers, as some of my friends in the University of Singapore have at long last recognized. They have organised a trade union. It is to be hoped that they will recognize, too, the common interests of all workers, whether they work standing up or sitting down.

The President touched on a crucial problem arising out of our rapid economic growth. We are making the transition from an economy based largely on entrepot trade and services to one based on manufacturing and services. We run the risk that some of our businessmen have not yet been able to distinguish between entrepreneurial and managerial skills. It is one thing to be a successful merchant; it is quite another to be the successful manager of a large corporation - be it manufacturing, servicing, transportation and communications or, for that matter, finance and banking.

It is a very different thing to study or to teach political history or political science, and to participate in the political process itself. So it is with the study and teaching of Economics and Business Administration and the practice of the market place.

I wonder whether we should not attempt to reduce the distance between our two Universities in Singapore on the one hand, and Raffles Place on the other. The Universities can provide the theoretical conceptual framework and intellectual discipline. Raffles Place can demonstrate how important are considerations of P and L, namely, Profit and Loss, of meeting deadlines and can provide potential managers with on-the-job experience.

The Minister for Science and Technology recently called for a diminution of distrust between academics and bureaucrats. I support him and further propose greater co-operation between academics and business executives.

We need a new breed of managers, professional in their approach to the problems of a manufacturing economy and international in their outlook, because our industries are export-oriented. Our banks ought to consolidate, to co-operate and to upgrade management skills so that we can become international bankers. It is a sad fact that our 11 domestic banks have a total of only 11 branches overseas, excluding Malaysia.

Water is one problem that interests several Ministries. When Stamford Raffles came to Singapore in 1819, one of its attractions in addition to its strategic location and excellent natural harbour was the abundance of good fresh water. However, the increased demand resulting from the rapid expansion of homes for our people and the development of industries has caused a temporary shortage of supply.

When we have a seasonal surplus, the Ministry of National Development intervenes, Members of the House will be pleased to know that the Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation Scheme, which is located in Ulu Pandan, is nearing completion. When we have too little of water, as in recent months, the Public Utilities Board of the Prime Minister's Office becomes involved, and we M.P.s go around exhorting people to conserve its use. After effective anti-pollution measures, we can extract one-third of the average daily rainfall of 750 million gallons. We will then be able to meet the demand for water for many years to come. The Ministry of Health also has an interest in water, or rather in those people who, through inadvertence or inconsideration, breed mosquitoes in it.

The progress that we have achieved is the hard work of a political leadership, a civil service, men and women in the uniformed services, both labour and management in the private sector, who by and large lived through a period when Asia was convulsed by revolutionary changes. These changes sharpened their awareness of the forces of history that were at play and they responded positively to the challenges of the time.

Revolutionary changes, such as military occupation by an external power, will not be allowed to happen again.

It does not mean that there are no longer challenges to grip the imagination of our young, no problems for them to grapple with. One of Magellan's ships circumnavigated the globe in 1521. It was a singular feat by any standard. But in 1969 Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, a feat that I myself stayed up all night to watch on London Television.

Our burgeoning industries and the expressed intention of our Government to make Singapore a financial centre open vast opportunities for the diligent, the able and the enterprising. Also open are careers in the uniformed services and the teaching profession.

However, the young who have not undergone the metamorphosis brought about by revolutionary changes must consciously develop their political instincts in order to enjoy their inheritance and to build upon it. If they should become complacent and negligent, they will run into difficulties in the years ahead.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs addendum has noted some of the major recent developments. The Indian Ocean has joined the Pacific Ocean in attracting the interest of the big Powers. We in Singapore are one main connexion between these two oceans. Like the real estate in Ulu Pandan in recent years, the value of Singapore has also risen very considerably.

We are too small a country to be able to influence appreciably the attitudes and policies of the big Powers. However, we must be certain that we understand and interpret correctly their real intentions so that we can plan for the best interests of Singapore.

At the same time, we need to establish closer ties with our Southeast Asian neighbours. We need to learn what are their problems and their achievements.

The Ministry of Education in recent years organised two seminars, one on "South-east Asia Today" and the other on "Communism and Democracy". The seminars gave our Pre-University students some insight into these problems and the thinking of our leaders on them. They also served to provoke greater thought and discussion among the students themselves.

From my association with these seminars as well as meeting students in the University of Singapore and schools, I am greatly encouraged by the positive and realistic approach of most of them.

I would like to urge Government to send parties of our students to visit our neighbours in South-east Asia, beginning possibly with the close ASEAN countries. We already offer scholarships for ASEAN students to come to Singapore, but we can encourage larger numbers to come on visits.

I am sure that our young people would like to have their views heard and some of their proposals implemented. Mere articulation of ideas may be good for the ego, but ideas are of little benefit to the people at large unless they are tested and put into operation.

To me, the great challenge of this decade is for us to survive and progress as an independent and sovereign nation in the fluid situation that is being very rapidly created in South-east Asia. We will need the ingenuity of all our people, the young and the not so young, to steer safely through the rough waters ahead.

I would also suggest to Government to send abroad groups of our community leaders, particularly members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees and community centre management committees. They can see for themselves the problems and achievements of our neighbours. I am sure there will be much that they can learn to put to good use for our country.

And on that note I wish to thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of the House for the courtesy and patience you have shown.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Ang Nam Piau (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the history of mankind, there are examples of small countries which were very prosperous and strong; for instance ancient Phoenicia and medieval Venice are good examples. Even in recent times, we have examples of some small countries surrounded by stronger countries, such as Finland, which is encircled by Russia and Sweden; Switzerland, which is surrounded by France, Germany and Italy; and Israel, which is surrounded by the Arab countries. These countries are all independent and yet they can survive. Moreover, they have also developed their countries and have not become the appendices of stronger powers. The reason is that their society is not made up of loose and pleasure-seeking people. We can see from this that the success or failure of nation building depends mainly on the type of people. Success comes if the people have a strong will, a united purpose and national consciousness, and who will always think in terms of the interest of the whole country. They are united in the common purpose of forming a closely-knit society.

Since 9th August. 1965, when Singapore was forced to be independent, we, a small country, have managed to survive and progress. When we became independent, our Government immediately announced to the world that we will be an independent and neutral country, and that we will be friend with all the other countries of the world We want to make as many friends as possible and as fewer enemies as possible. With this foreign policy and posture we entered the international arena. Only with this kind of policy can we ensure our survival in this fluid region in Southeast Asia, which is the arena of Super-power politics. We have no other alternatives. We must be determined to live on. During these six years under the judicious leadership and guidance of our Government, with their timely judgment and the various measures taken for the benefit of the people, we have seen prosperity and great progress in our commerce and industry. We now have political stability, peace and social well-being. Our people are contented with their lot. But we can only maintain our prosperity, economic progress and growth provided we have the will to survive, the determination to maintain our independence and sovereignty, a united national consciousness, co-operation with one another, and if we redouble our efforts towards national regeneration. In addition to this, if we are resolute, we will achieve much, not only in the political field hut also in the spheres of defence, economy, culture, education, health, and social activities.

Sir, the policy speech made by the President on the 21st of this month paints a very bright future and shows us a guiding path to tread along.

Now, I would like to touch upon the effect which Singapore's rapid growth and development has on the people of Thomson Constituency. Our land is limited. Unless we can make full use of it many otherwise good plans may not be of any use. The Housing and Development Board has all along taken the correct measures in the acquisition and use of land. It has received the support and praise of all our people. Under the urban renewal plans in Thomson Constituency, Government has acquired 42 acres of land in the vicinity of Sin Ming Road. It intends to develop the area into an industrial estate for motor vehicles and to build a motor vehicle inspection centre. There will also be facilities for vehicle spare parts.

There is a plan to build 21 blocks of standard type factories consisting of 269 units, and another plan to build three blocks of 12 storey-flats totalling 500 units of premises, including shop premises on the ground floors. The Housing and Development Board has also a plan to acquire 200 acres of land along the 5th and 7th mile stretch of Upper Thomson Road for new industrial sites and also to develop a marketing centre. All these plans will definitely affect the livelihood of the people living there.

The people in the vicinity of Sin Ming Road have now accepted the new rates of compensation and ex gratia payments for resettlement announced by the Government. Following the transportation improvement planning and the development of Upper Thomson Road under the road expansion scheme, about 100 to 200 shop premises there will be affected. However, the Government is planning to build new shop premises and a marketing centre along the 5th mile and the 6th mile of Upper Thomson Road, so that alternative accommodation will be available. Those affected will also be given higher rates of compensation and ex gratia payments. They are also satisfied with the new types of shop premises to be allocated to them. But they have one common request to make, that is, the authorities concerned under the house ownership scheme should enable them to buy their shop premises for their own use on instalment terms, and not to allocate the premises on a rental basis. I would also request the Housing and Development Board to give sympathetic consideration to the requests of these people.

There is a question relating to the problem of hawkers, which requires a solution. At the moment the Government is trying to resite the hawkers. This move calls for our support. According to a report by the Hawkers Department, in Thomson Constituency there are 236 hawkers of whom 155 live there. The Housing and Development Board is building a market at the 5 m.s. Thomson Road, which can accommodate 238 stalls including stalls for cooked food hawkers. 1 hope that the Hawkers Department will allow all the hawkers in the Thomson area to move into this new market. I also hope that the Housing and Development Board will give sympathetic consideration to the applications of these hawkers so that they can move into this new market, thereby satisfactorily solving their problem.

Finally, on behalf of the people of Thomson Constituency, I express my support and thanks to the policy speech made by the President.

3.46 p.m.

Inche Rahmat Bin Kenap Al-Haj (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker. Sir., I rise to support the motion in the name of the Member for Ulu Pandan to express our thanks to the President for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the Second Session of Parliament on 21st July, 1971.

Two problems face all new countries regardless of whether they are in Asia, Africa or South America. The first is the problem of making newly independent countries economically viable, so that with a rising Gross National Product the people can enjoy their freedom with dignity. All indications are that we will continue to make greater economic progress. A member of the U.S. Presidential Commission on International Trade and investment Policy, who is also the Chairman of the First National City Bank of Chicago, recently, remarked "Singapore's thriving business and industry have become a model for developing nations around the world." He also predicted that the Asian Dollar market in Singapore will grow fivefold from U.S.$400 million to US$2 billion in the next two or three years.

The second problem is that of political and social stability. Without this there will be no peace, and without peace there can be no economic development.

I wish to dwell at length on the question of political and social stability in our country. Singapore is not the only multi-racial, multi-religious aid multi-cultural society amongst the new countries in the world. We have inherited this plural society from the British, and since the PAP, came to power in 1959, we have persistently carried out educational and cultural policies, which are aimed at uniting the people.

Despite the differences of race, culture, language and religion, Singaporeans have by and large accepted the realities of life. Their approach to problems arising from these differences is both tolerant and pragmatic. We have learned to live together as one people, despite our different racial origins, cultures, religions and languages.

Since 1959, the P.A.P. Government has from time to time taken firm action in putting down communalistic, chauvinistic or any kind of extremist agitation. We remember vividly the riotous days of 1964 when religion and race was exploited. This brought death and suffering to Singaporeans of all races. In May 1969, the Government, in quick anticipation, quelled what could have been a nasty inter-racial conflagration. And in May this year the Government took drastic action against journalists and newspapers to prevent what could have led to violent riots similar to those of 1964.

If we are to remain a united people, we must concentrate on the factors which bind us together and not those, which will divide us. The events in May this year showed that communalism need not raise its ugly head from among the Malay community only. Communalism and chauvinism can equally emerge from the majority community in Singapore. It was therefore necessary for Government to demonstrate that majority chauvinism also cannot be tolerated. The fact is that all groups in Singapore, whether majority or minority, should avoid excesses in the interplay of politics, whether they are agitated on the basis of religion, culture or language. Sensitive issues should never be allowed to be exploited by anyone.

The objective of nation building must never be lost sight of. This is all the more imperative because, although we have made great strides in economic development, there is still much to do to foster a political community of Singaporeans who must first be Singaporeans and next Malays. Indians, Chinese and others. Only if we are assured of this can there be political and social stability. It is true that, as Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians we differ in our traditional values and culture, but it is nevertheless important that we cultivate the common denominators which make us Singaporeans with our own political territory and object of loyalty. Although Singapore is situated in the Malay Archipelago, our ancestors came to this island as immigrants and have made it what it is today - a bustling, energetic and progressive state.

Multi-lingualism in Singapore as practised in our schools in the four languages is aimed, among other things, at giving cultural ballast and roots for our multi-racial Singaporeans. Malays, Chinese, Indians and others must continue to be culturally rooted in their own languages and literature. Young Singaporeans who emerge from our Malay, Chinese, Tamil and English schools will also know their own mother tongue besides being equipped with English, a language which will give them the extra quality of being in close contact with the scientific and technological advances in the modern world.

In the Addendum to the speech by the President, the policy of giving increased and improved language teaching in the first and second languages has been spelt out very clearly. More time will be allotted in the primary schools for the teaching of languages. This will be done in order that students will become effectively articulate in the first and second languages to prepare them for secondary education. In this connection, the training of teachers will also have to be adjusted to provide more effective teaching of bilingual students. It is also the Government's policy to expand and develop technical education and industrial training at the secondary school level until our secondary school students finish their Secondary IV. In other words, the emphasis from now on will be on the upgrading of skills through apprenticeship schemes and joint training programmes with industries.

When the British were in power ruling Singapore as a colony, it was only those who completed the English school system who were assured of a future. Now that we are independent, this can no longer be so. Any attempt to revert our education system to make English the sole medium of instruction can only be an illogical backward step at a time when Asia is forging ahead politically, economically and culturally after centuries of colonialism.

Those people who say that Malay, Chinese and Tamil school-leavers are at an economic disadvantage in terms of employment are unwittingly taking a negative attitude. On the other hand, we should take a positive and realistic stand in facing the problem of job opportunities. Surely the most effective way to improve employment opportunities for Malay, Chinese and Tamil school-leavers is to equip them with an effective working knowledge of English as a second language and a third language as well. It is already a fact in Singapore that there are school-leavers from the Malay, Chinese and Tamil stream schools who are as proficient in English as those from the English stream. What we have to do now is to increase their numbers so that they will not be at a disadvantage regarding their employment opportunities in the future.

A school system in Singapore where English is the medium of instruction will fall short of its own target. In actual practice, it is not that less economic value is placed on the Malay-medium certificate, but that some employers might have felt that the Malay-medium certificate holders have not come up to the level of English school certificate holders in their comprehension and expression of the English language. This possibly also applies to certificate holders from the Chinese and Tamil stream schools,

It is therefore obvious that the remedy lies in giving extra attention by all concerned to the teaching of English in the non-English stream schools. This should include improved teaching methods of English as a second language, more English teaching periods per week, more Malay! English, Chinese / English and Tamil/English integrated schools, and perhaps a greater consciousness all round by principals, teachers, parents and pupils alike of the need to write and speak better English. The obvious solution is for Singaporeans to be effectively bilingual or trilingual.

There is nothing basically wrong with our multi-stream schools in the four official languages. But any attempt to turn our multi-stream schools into English schools and label them "National schools" would amount to self-deceit. Worse, it is a defeatist attitude which is well expressed in the Malay proverb which says that it is pointless to bum the mosquito net when one is only irritated by a mosquito.

Integration of the races in Singapore can best come about when our children grow up imbibed with a sense of belonging, patriotism and love of Singaporean values. A psychological make-up which develops on the basis of common interests and a common destiny is what will jell a multi-lingual and multi-racial community into a united nation. The English language might be a useful vehicle for progress in the process of modernisation, but it cannot give us the cultural strength or identity, which the Malay, Chinese and Tamil languages can.

Practical politics in the multi-racial society in Singapore is such that if a school system with English as the medium of instruction is forced on the people, then the hands of chauvinists and racialists in the various linguistic groups will be strengthened. It will, in fact, amount to handing them the golden opportunity of exploiting racial and language sentiments amongst the Chinese, Malays, and Indians which can only lead to riots, violence and bloodshed, as happened in Singapore some years ago. The language and racial chauvinists will seize on this opportunity to whip up emotions and proclaim that Chinese, Malay and Tamil education is being suppressed in Singapore. The Government recently has had to take action against journalists and newspapers for precisely this reason. For the sake of Singapore's continued stability and prosperity, we simply cannot allow a situation to be created, innocently or otherwise, where the continued stability of Singapore is threatened,

4.01 p.m.

Dr Augustine H. H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add a note to the chorus of praise for the President's speech to this House.

In his speech, the President warned us against working up heat on the gut issues over language, culture and religion. In our multi-racial society we have more than our share of differences but we should never allow ourselves to be engulfed. We need to build bridges of understanding and pillars of tolerance so that all Singaporeans, no matter the race, can strive for a better future together in peace. Over the last 12 years, Government has sought to instil the necessary values and attitudes for the building of a cohesive society.

One of the key features of Government policy is bilingual education, where each child achieves proficiency in his own mother tongue and English. This is a vast and vita' improvement over the colonial-type of education which all of us in this House underwent where, if you went to an English-medium school, unless you could afford private tuition, you had no opportunity to study your mother tongue. In fact, I recall that even the use of one's own dialect was severely discouraged in school.

Our Asian languages are rooted in strong cultures, the best features of which are going to be important determinants of the development of Asian countries. Social discipline, respect for the older generation and for authority, the love and respect for learning-all these provide resilience and cohesiveness for a developing society. We need such values as antidotes to the disintegrating forces of western hippie culture. At the same time, we need mastery or English as a tool for rapid economic development since many of the technological innovations stem for English-speaking countries, in our multi-lingual society, English a1so provides a convenient bridge for communication.

To have peace and prosperity in our multi-racial society we should therefore curb our prejudices, allay our mutual suspicions, mute the voices of extremism and dam the tides of passion. There must be constant vigilance on the part of Government to prevent extremists from destroying the fabric of our society. We should stand firmly behind the actions taken by Government against those who seek to play up racial, language, cultural or religious differences for their own devious ends.

We are a small country but we are no less entitled to our independence -to the right to chart our own destiny. There are insidious external forces, which seek to manipulate public opinion so as to weaken our national will and make our Government more pliable to their wishes. The mass media are particularly susceptible to such manipulation. We should not confuse actions taken by Government to preserve the autonomy of Singapore with the denial of freedom of the press.

People, especially intellectuals of western liberal persuasion, should be more positive in their appraisal of social policies. They should bear in mind that in a developing country there is so much building to be done that free criticism that lack perspective and responsibility can be highly detrimental to the best interests of our society. We are also a small country so that individual actions can have far wider and more significant repercussions than similar actions in bigger countries. A riot, for example, at Nanyang University or the University of Singapore would be of grave national concern. In America, a huge country, with hundreds of universities and colleges, a riot at any one of them is a local problem.

I would therefore urge our intellectuals to be more realistic and to have greater perspective. They should not be so ready to hurl accusations of dictatorship and label our society a closed society. People who do, remind me forcefully of the fable of the boy who cried "wolf" when there was none, and nobody heeded him when a wolf finally came and devoured him. Our intellectuals should visit countries where democracy does not exist to see the vital differences for themselves.

As we develop, our level of literacy and intellectual sophistication will grow. People will ask more searching, more substantive questions of their leaders. We must learn to adjust to one another. Political leaders will need not only to have substance in their programmes but will be expected to have appropriate style as well. Intellectuals outside the political arena must be constructive and realistic if they wish to be taken seriously. They should remember that the problems they perceive, though real and seemingly urgent, may lose priority to bigger ones they do not see within their horizon.

To effect a proper and rational dialogue, the press must play its part responsibly. The habit of slanting reports or putting an angle to a story make sensational headlines and presumably interest more readership. By doing so, however, reporters and editors do public figures grave injustice and damage. Politicians are always subject to scrutiny and what they say is always discounted with some scepticism. The least that they deserve is accurate coverage. I, for one, do not mind any amount of criticism, provided my views are recorded accurately. I consider it highly unethical, if not mischievous and cowardly, to distort anybody's views and then to criticize, especially in pseudonymous columns. Let it be known to such people that I am always ready to debate with them publicly and fairly anywhere.

What kind of society do we want- a society where everyone, regardless of race or other distinguishing characteristics, can have equality of opportunity, a decent job, a decent home and clean surroundings, or one where people suffer discrimination, talk in hushed whispers and walk the streets in fear? From time to time the under-currents of intolerance emerge in the columns of our newspapers. Not too long ago, for example, there were a spate of letters from readers discussing the appropriate use or non-use of non-Chinese names by Chinese. Do we want a society where we measure the worth of a man by the kind of name he has, or by the way he writes his name? I do not want such a society, and, if it comes to be, I do not want my children and grandchildren to live in it.

We are a small country, Sir, but limited though we are by lack of land and other natural resources, there is no limit to the economic heights that we can attain, provided we organize ourselves properly and peacefully to acquire the necessary skills and to apply the ingenuity of our people. With economic affluence we shall have plenty of room for cultural development. There will, in other words, be plenty of room for all of us and our children and grandchildren provided we are willing to be tolerant and understanding.

With firm and fair government, we are doing well. Our economy is flourishing and will continue to flourish provided we are able to project enough confidence to the investor, whether local or foreign, so that he will build his factory to provide the jobs we need. Our standard of living will rise in two stages. In the initial stage we earn higher wages by learning more skills as technicians, engineers, managers and marketing personnel. Then, when our economy grows richer, even those with no skills can have a higher standard of living because we shall be able to afford it collectively.

The basic organisation of our economy, given the peculiar conditions we have, is necessarily based on a capitalistic, free enterprise system. Government policy, at present and in the immediate future, has to be geared towards providing the infrastructure and the inducements to stimulate economic activity. There is a danger that, in pursuing these necessary objectives, we may produce large numbers of technocrats and bureaucrats with no social compassion or sensitivity. From time to time, therefore, we need to remind ourselves of our socialistic aims of a more equal and more just society. We need to give adequate thought to the problems of the poor, the weak, the disabled and the displaced. Sometimes policy measures, though economically and socially indispensable, bear harshly on certain sectors. In this respect, I greatly welcome the Government's move to increase compensation for the resettlement of farmers and shopkeepers and others affected by urban renewal. Our national welfare can rightly be considered to have improved if, and only if, those who are made better off do so not at the expense of others, or, if they do, there is adequate and fair compensation. The poorer classes should, as a matter of firm principle, never be made to pay for economic or social development unless they themselves are clear beneficiaries in the end.

In a society where the great majority of people are poor and oppressed, there is yet hope of redress via a revolution, because intelligent, if not developed, leadership exists among them. However, in a modern, technological society, where much of the brainpower has emerged into the upper and controlling strata of society, the poor have neither political power via the voting booth, nor articulate leadership among their ranks. In a developed society, clearly the political leadership must avoid the hegemony of the middle and upper income classes if the poor people are to get a fair deal.

Let us, therefore, work for a society in Singapore where, on the one hand, people are rewarded and promoted on strict merit, and, on the other, ample opportunities are afforded to those who are hampered by poverty. In other words, let us build not merely a society based only on meritocracy, but let us have a meritocracy-plus society.

One of the key measures available to a government in a democratic country to promote greater equality is the judicious use of the tax system. I think it is time we had a comprehensive review of our system of taxation to achieve more socialism without hurting efficiency. Certain taxes are inherently regressive, that is, they bear on people who can least afford them. I am concerned about the incidence of such taxes as taxes on P.U.B, bills, for example. Although the tax is graduated with a higher tax on bigger bills, poor people with large families and therefore, using more utilities are adversely affected.

I think there should also be taxes to discourage lavish consumption. The reasons for advocating such taxes are both economic and socialistic. A widening income gap between rich and poor is inevitable in a society with rapid development, unless there is government intervention. In the first place, low-income people can be given greater earning power through education and training. We can justify the rich having more, provided most of the accretion goes into further investment to provide more jobs. If, instead, it goes into lavish consumption, then the Government should introduce taxes to take some of it away to be spent on the poor. Moreover, if lavish consumption is not controlled or discouraged, the demonstration effect may be upsetting to poorer people and may affect their motivation to work and to save adversely. The Government, therefore, should seriously consider heavy excise taxes on luxury-type cars, luxury-type flats, houses, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like next to comment on the programmes for a number of Ministries.

My first comment is in reference to the development of higher education which comes within the purview of the Ministry of Science and Technology. I am wondering if the Minister concerned has in mind an optimal size for a university. Sir, administration becomes difficult and impersonal when the student population glows too big.

Moreover, there are always dissidents in any group, but in a large congregation the absolute number of such people becomes significant and can lead to the kind of student unrest we see in western countries.

It may, therefore, be more desirable to increase the number of universities rather than have fewer large ones.

The Addendum to the Ministry of Labour lists a number of important new policies. In addition, perhaps the Minister for Labour may want to consider the status of daily-rated workers in Government departments and statutory bodies, Can anything be done to, perhaps, give them more regularity or permanency in employment? Would the Minister also look into the reorganisation of the Employment Exchange in order to provide a better picture of the unemployment situation so that better placement of people can be effected, and perhaps upgrading of local skills can be facilitated? The Minister may also want to consider opening other `employment exchanges to improve the process of placing people into desired jobs.

Sir, I now turn to the Ministry of Health, especially with respect to hawkers. The allocation of $5 million to build new hawker centres is a very welcome move. Hawking provides jobs for unskilled and uneducated people, especially widows, older people and people affected by resettlement. It is an important social welfare supplement, and hence a very important social safety valve. It is important in keeping down the cost of living. Moreover, it is potentially a good tourist attraction. There should be efforts made to help improve health and cooking standards.

The Minister may also wish to look into the matter of better collaboration with the Hawkers' Section of the Housing and Development Board. There is one particular anomaly, which adversely affects hawkers under the Housing and Development Board's jurisdiction. This relates to the obligation of the Housing and Development Board to pay property tax of 36 per cent a year, which thereby raises the fees payable by its hawkers. Those hawker centres which are managed by the Ministry of Health are exempt from property tax. I would appeal to the Minister for Health to subsidize the Housing and Development Board on the property tax on hawker centres so as to reduce the licence fees payable by these hawkers and make things more equitable.

Sir, I now wish to raise two matters relating to the Ministry of Finance. Sometime in April this year, on my return from a trade mission to Japan, I made a number of recommendations in respect of export promotion and financing. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will inform this House in due course what steps, if any, are being taken.

Sir, the major thrust of the Government industrialization programme has been towards the encouragement of foreign investment. While the emphasis is correct, if we are to acquire the technological sophistication, the managerial and marketing know-how in the shortest possible time, I think that with full employment in sight, we can turn part of our attention and effort to the active promotion of local enterprise. Perhaps the Government can help identify and preserve limited areas of economic activity which local enterprise and capital can be encouraged to go into or develop.

Sir, in the President's speech he lamented the recent financial coup achieved by a foreign company. May I ask the Minister for Finance whether, and what, measures are being considered to prevent a repetition of the incident?

4.24 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Inche A. Rahim Ishak): Mr Speaker, Sir, as 1971 comes to a close five months from today, Singapore, for the first time in its history, will no longer have the defence umbrella to which it has grown accustomed for the last 150 years. We shall, despite the Five-Power Defence arrangement, have to be more self-reliant.

As was stated in the Addendum to the Presidential Address at the opening of the Second Session of the Second Parliament on the 21st of July, Singapore's foreign policy in the years ahead will have to be more outward-looking than it has hitherto been, because, among other things, external developments will be more directly felt by us. Singapore, by virtue of its size, cannot expect to influence international events. And precisely because of our small size and our inability to influence world events, we might have become inward-looking as well as insular in our concept and practice of diplomacy.

With the rapidly changing international scene in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, we have to develop the capacity to play our role in international affairs by involving ourselves in intra-regional or sub-regional developments. We can no longer think of our own individual and national interests as the powers and super-powers around us make new moves, and take on new alignments. We are realistic enough to know that international politics on a global scale is the art of the possible. And in line with this view, we shall participate in international politics wherever and whenever it is judicious and possible to do so, bearing in mind our own interests and those of our immediate neighbours.

Regardless of the above, there is, however, one contribution Singapore can make in a positive way in international relations. This is to create a progressive, dynamic and successful society, by registering successes in our own internal development programmes and thereby influencing other states and societies by sheer force of example. At the same time, our growing prosperity and continued viability will ensure a self-confidence generated by our capacity to solve our own internal economic and social problems. With this, we hope to be a positive force in the international sphere in the hope that we would be freer to order the kind of life, which we think, is best for our people. In other words, we hope that non-interference in the affairs of other nations, which we believe in, will similarly be practised by others in their attitudes towards us.

From experience in international politics, we know that in many cases if the big powers want to solve international problems, irrespective of whether they are in the Middle East, Indochina or Africa, they can solve them. But, all too often, it appears as if the big powers sometimes have an interest in not solving them, or in delaying their solutions. In this regard, it is clear to us in Singapore that the big powers in many cases want to make use of small states as weights in the international daching. Where we are convinced that the big powers are so motivated, we shall, to the best of our ability, avoid any kind of involvement. But where we feel that such activities are detrimental to our own national interests, we shall counter any moves, which will compromise our independence and integrity.

Although we have been independent for only six years, we have learned the bitter truth that it would be disastrous for small countries to act like major powers on the world stage, particularly if they do not have the capacity to do so. Therefore, to force ourselves on to the world stage without really understanding the aims and objectives of the producers and directors of the current play being performed, would mean breaking our backs and seriously injuring ourselves. Events in the Middle East, Indochina and other parts of Asia and Africa have persistently shown that the big powers want us to declare that we are on their side in big power conflicts. This we have refrained and must refrain from doing in the future.

President Nixon's move as announced on the 16th July will, I think, lead to the establishment of relations with the People's Republic of China. This development is historically inevitable. The United States can no longer ignore the political and legal existence of China, just as China has to recognise -

4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. It is half-past four now. Debate to be resumed on what day, Dr Chiang?

Dr Chiang Hai Ding: Monday, 2nd August, Sir.