PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (Third Day)

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [14th February, 1977],

`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 First Session of this Parliament.".'. - [Dr Chiang Hai Ding].

Question again proposed.

2.37 p.m.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had originally intended to take advantage of the Standing Orders to table an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ulu Pandan in expressing our thanks to the President for his speech. Several Members have, in fact, indicated that they expected another diabolical manifestation of what other Members might describe as the negative part of my nature.

Notwithstanding the lifting of the Whip, and the assurance given by the Leader of the House, I am still inhibited by the fear that being a Member on the Government Bench, an amendment might well be regarded as a gesture of disrespect to the President. Further, having listened to the gentlemanly and eloquent delivery of the speech by the hon. Member for Ulu Pandan, I have come to the conclusion that any amendment to the Motion will certainly be repugnant. I decided, therefore, that the Motion should remain as it is, at least for the sake of etiquette, and I shall try, though not without involuntary restraint, to be less pungent in my remarks at this Sitting.

Without formally moving the amendment, I think that the Motion should more appropriately read as follows:

`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 First Session of this Parliament, but regret to note the absence of any mention on the deficiency of the Government in the understanding of the problems of the people in the process of implementing its policies'

Seriously speaking, Mr Speaker, Sir, few can dispute the high ideals expressed in the Addenda, some of which are so colourfully dressed with so many jargons, except to marvel a little in disbelief in some of the many intangibles and inadequacies so innocently confessed through the statements in both the Addenda to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture.

Sir, I recall that some years ago, the Deputy Prime Minister, in a speech that typified his in-depth knowledge in the potentials and prejudices of our people, went to great lengths to define the characteristics of what he called "Westernised Oriental Gentlemen", or WOGs as the Deputy Prime Minister endeared these people with that abbreviation. That speech was both enriching and invigorating. Indeed, it provoked serious mind-searching.

I would have been quite satisfied with my comprehension of that speech if I had stopped just there. However, in giving his observations a little further probing, I discovered that the Government is not totally free from the symptoms of such decried qualities.

Allow me to recapture just two previous instances which, I hope, will suffice to demonstrate the lack of understanding on the part of the Government in both the culture and traditions, which values the Ministries of Education and Culture so doggedly promised in the Addenda to inculcate in our young.

Some years ago, as a result of complaints of noise pollution, the Government imposed a partial ban on cracker-firing. The letting off of fire crackers was made an offence except in places designated as permitted areas, such as State-owned - I emphasise State-owned - open land and community centre compounds. Many Members are aware in my discussions with them, in the Members' Room, that I was quite vocal against this kind of a half-line action. I then held the view, and I still hold the view now, that the partial ban was doomed to failure. If the firing of crackers was regarded as obnoxious - indeed it proved to be unconducive to our well-being, apart from being an annual money-wasting folly, then the ban should have been total.

This "half-way-house" policy succeeded only to expose the Government's ignorance in our culture and its complete lack of understanding of the meaning and significance of cracker firing. It was, and still is, believed - total ban now notwithstanding, that the ear-shattering explosions promise a whole host of things, from scaring away evil spirits to bringing good luck and fortune to the family and the household, not to forget that noise-making has been part and parcel of the local mode of celebrations. In fact, Sir, in funerals we happen to make the most noise.

No one, therefore, would spend money to bring good luck to Government-owned designated places. Fortunately, these superstitious exercises remained as superstition, for otherwise, those who took advantage of that `leeway' would have succeeded in bringing good fortune to the designated places, perhaps even raised the land value which, of course, must consequently be put up for tender under the Urban Renewal Schemes.

So this `leeway' proved to be neither here nor there. Eventually, as a result of a nasty accident, a total ban was slammed. The nett result of that short-lived concession was a 100% disagreement from the populace. For those who favoured total banning, the frightening sound of crackers could still be heard; and for those who refused to warm up the designated places, they were utterly frustrated. So much for one example of Government understanding of our culture and tradition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak without inhibition now, and as the Minister for Health is not here, it is not my intention to dispute the success of family planning in Singapore. On the contrary, I am confident that we will achieve our target even more effectively, now that the programme has been reinforced, I hope, with new vigor and approach by the present Minister for Health.

There was a time, Members will remember, when there was great hullabaloo in this House on the subject. Hon. Members will recall the day when the House was entertained to some very amusing definitions as to what an ideal family should be. Briefly, we were told that a one-child family would be too lonely for the poor child; two would of course be most ideal; three would be a luxury; four would be unpardonably anti social, and five, God forbid, criminal.

The population problem, in Singapore's context, is a problem not unrelated to Asian values. If a Western solution is the only feasible solution to this Asian problem, so be it. It has got to be done, and so it must be done. I do not think that our people would quarrel with the concept, or even with the incentives or disincentives. But the explanation, propaganda, publicity and exhortations must necessarily be Asian. There are equally convincing axioms in Asian teachings and philosophies to get our people around to adopt family planning without resorting to threats and name-calling. Here again is what I suspect to be another WOG thinking.

Recent examples of WOGs at work in Government policies are abundant, but it may be a relief for our Ministers in the Front Bench to note that they are not alone in the pursuit of this title. In fact, only yesterday, they were mirrored in the appeal by one such latest exponent. This time, however, the title award must go to none other than the hon. Member for Telok Blangah, who so seriously advocated, of course, with detectable traces here and there of imperfect imitation of the Dale Carnegie style, for the implementation of Daylight Saving Time.

Sir, I am no geographer, neither am I a pilot. But I do know that Singapore is approximately situated at Lat. 1 degree 21 minutes from the equator, and if it pleases the hon. Member for Telok Blangah. I might add that we are north of the equator, where the sun rises every morning at about 6 am, and sets every evening around 6.45 to 7.00 p.m. Daylight saving certainly is useful to countries further to the north of the equator, such as the United Kingdom. (The hon. Member for Telok Blangah might even tell us that he knows exactly the latitude of London.) I was a poor geography student and I did not quite get myself round to the coordinates of longitudes and latitudes. Sir, the episode does not end here. A colleague in this House, who happens to be on the other side of the House, suggested to me out of kindness that an alternative might well be to advance the working hours by one hour. Sir, in fact, last evening, we were trying to extend the time up to 6 o'clock and I was thinking that we ought to be home for dinner at not to forget, that would be after two hours of recreation. Sir, that was a suggestion with the hope that it would not upset everybody or confusing the geographers or the pilots.

I received the suggestion with some reservation, as I am conscious of my official position in the Ministry of Labour, under which portfolio the question of working hours sometimes constitutes a rather unpleasant subject in negotiations. I will therefore leave it to this kind Gentleman on the other side of the House to muster sufficient courage to appease the hon. Member for Telok Blangah with that proposal. But to be fair to that Member, Sir, I did caution him that in the event he decides to risk his reputation in offering this counter proposal seriously, his arguments had better be of such high standard so that he may not, at the end of the exchange of the conversation, emerge as being one who is bemoaned of lacking in eloquence and found wanting in wisdom.

Sir, I must apologise to the House for wasting your time by dwelling too lengthily and ironically on the question of saving time by wasting your time. Allow me now to acquaint you with a game which I shall call `cancelling-out' for the time being until we find a better name. The players in this game involve two parties, namely, the Ministry of Education and of course, its worthy opponent - the Ministry of Culture. [Laughter] Let us not laugh and dismiss this game too lightly, because in the end, we, the spectators, will turn out to be the real losers.

Briefly, the game is very simple. The principle is: Whatever you can do, I can cancel. Accordingly, whatever the Ministry of Education does, the Ministry of Culture promptly cancels out with an equally, and sometimes more effective counter-action. This process is then repeated with the procedure reversed.

Let me first weigh the stake which we stand to lose so that we can watch the game with more vested interests. If this rather stupid game does not stop, I fear that the more successful the Ministries of Education and Culture in their efforts to -

The Minister for Health (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I just wish to question the Member for Kampong Chai Chee. He was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. We would like to know which side he is speaking for and whether he was cancelling out the Ministry of Education,

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, I left the Ministry of Culture about five years ago. When I left the Ministry, it was in a happier state, Sir, I am quite confident in saying that at that time the cancelling-out exercise was never mooted and it was a very much happier Ministry. After I left, I cannot vouch whether this Ministry is indeed the same as before. Apparently it is not, Sin, because now the cancelling-out exercise is so blatant and I shall relate more later, I had expected the hon. Minister for Health to take me on family planning. I was caught.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, now that I am here I will be very happy to listen to the Member for Kampong Chai Chee on his remarks on family planning. I can enlighten him. I can also send him to my Family Planning Population Board for advice, if necessary.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I am sorry. Sir, the hon. Minister missed the boat, as I' have mentioned it earlier. Lest he gets anxious, those remarks were complimentary. I think I should know better, Sir, if you know what I mean.

Allow me to go on, Sir. As I was saying, if this rather stupid game does not stop, I fear that the more successful the Ministries of Education and Culture in their efforts to "imbibe the tried and tested Asian cultural and moral values", the more they are successful, the more resentment we will have to face. There will be more antiestablishment sentiments, not so much due to the lack of understanding of our national problems on the part of the people, but due to our own default in not understanding them.

Really, Sir, the questions that we should ask ourselves are: Just what are these values and traditions that are so vital to our survival as a nation? And how are we going to achieve these great objectives set out for us?

No attempt has been made in the Addenda to list out what those values, culture and traditions are. Even if the Ministries did try, there must be so many contradictions rendering the exercise a wholly frustrating one. This might well be a case of the 10, in this game two blind men trying to decide what an elephant looked like.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, their handicap left us with nothing but disorientated compasses with which we are to take part in this cultural treasure-hunt. The most profitable approach in this confusion, I presume, is by taking stock of what has been going on and take a count on the scoreboards of these two players.

Perhaps we should begin with a conclusion already at hand. This approach certainly appears odd, rather unprofessional, even unenlightened and unorthodox to begin studying a problem. The conclusion is: discourage all traditional operas, or wayangs as they are known, at least make it difficult for their stagings, because this will be the best way to `encourage' one aspect of cultural heritage which our people are endowed with - by killing it.

The Ministry of Culture, of course, pledged:

`to organise a wide range of activities to promote a better appreciation of our cultural heritage. This will provide our young with the necessary cultural ballast against the erosion of traditional norms and values.'

Just what are these norms and how wide is this wide range of activities? Music, or Art for Everyone, lyrics competitions? How are these activities able to provide the cultural ballast?

An answer, if possible, would be welcome. If not, then may I venture to provide one: All these utterances have been repeated year after year in this House. The result: rampant drug abuse, still no cultural ballast in sight.

To define the meaning of "traditional", the Ministry preceded by stating that:

`It is Government policy to develop Singapore's rich cultural heritage derived from the Malay, Chinese, Indian and western civilisations'

So, Western civilisation enjoys the confidence of the Ministry of Culture and becomes acceptable as part of our tradition. Interestingly, the Ministry of Education has different ideas. It stated in its Addendum:

'...they will be taught not to adopt the life styles and values of the West that are alien and pernicious to Singapore society.'

I hope that this is genuinely the case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, because if indeed one hand knows exactly what the other hand does, then this mutually cancelling-out exercise must give rise to doubts as to the seriousness and sincerity of the Government in our cultural policy.

Let us now take a look at a few more scores in this game that has been going on for too long a time. The schools encourage our young to be thrifty and this is challenged by the television which advises them to buy, or pester their parents to buy what they or their parents do not need. The school says you must save money and open a POSB account, and the same TV teases you and the parents by suggesting why wait for such a long time to get so little money, buy Toto and your problems will be solved.

The school reminds our children that there is no substitute for hard work, do not try to get rich quick. But the TV says, "Decidedly wrong! The Big Sweep is the alternative". In fact, the advertisements for Toto and the Big Sweep sounded so convincing that few people regard it foolish not to throw away a good portion of their salary so as not to be left out as non-starters.

The Ministry of Education regards Western life styles and values as alien and pernicious to Singapore. The TV, however, offers effective anti-thesis to this proposition, one of which is through the sometimes less than tasteful advertisement for new jeans. They say new generation jeans but they do not tell you the period between two generations. Is it six months or one year? So you buy new jeans.

Again, the Ministry of Education takes great pains in including in its curricula subjects such as music appreciation, even resuscitate Civics under the cover of Education for Living, and finally the annual gigantic Youth Festival. But the TV holds steadfast to their ground. TV programmes have been equally successful in forcing down our throat poorly produced so called local cultural shows, stuffed with crazy, frequently `electrifying' dances. Electrifying indeed they are - if only we can find out why those healthy and able-bodied young men and women struggle in agony resembling electric shocks or anything but what the Education Ministry thinks of cultural dances.

Sir, we now come to the interesting part. Refusing to be sidelined in this cancelling-out ingenuity, the Ministry of Education also shoots into its own goal. To encourage thrift, for example again, they change text books even more frequently than they change their Ministers.

In its zeal to recover its tarnished image, the Ministry of Education boldly stated in its Addendum:

`The education system has been revised to improve its effectiveness. Consequently the enormous wastage II underline) in terms of pupils not benefiting from the system and having to leave school prematurely will be drastically reduced'

Is this an ideal, or is it not, as it sounded in the addendum, a statement amounting to an indictment of all the previous efforts of the so many Ministers for Education? Enormous wastage will be drastically reduced. That means in the past there must have been enormous wastage.

The success of our education can best be reflected in what one hon. Member described to me as the `Goondu' TV shows, at which generous prizes were given away to hide embarrassment. In this series, simple questions were asked of the participants and invariably, astounding, if not outraging answers were promptly proffered. Blessed is the poor goondu who finds the right answer to the question on how many Ministers for Education there were in the last 17 years!

The mischiefs of WOGs unfortunately, are only one of the shots in a double barrel gun. The Housing and Development Board rightfully claims the right to trigger off the second shot. This time it is not WOG, but Santa Claus is at fault. Building decent houses for the people is the responsibility of the Board and it was for this need that the Board was established in 1960. Whilst it is true that the Board has done much in what its Chief Executive is paid for, success has carried them away to the extent that they, and only they, are the saviours of Singapore. The Board is the philanthropist for whom hon. Members in this House must labour in return for its kindness!

Hon. Members are not capable to advise the Board, still less influence its policy. We have been assigned a task only to explain its actions and, worse still, to justify its misdoing. Sir, we stand on the platform. They do not. So we have to justify their misdoings. This, I am sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not a complaint only personal to myself. The hon. Member for Changi spoke on his part of the woes in this House yesterday, and I am sure other Members will also certainly have their share of woes too.

No mention is made in the Ministry of National Development Addendum under the subject on "Housing and Public Projects" as to how the HDB proposes to alleviate the plight of the one-roomers. Other housing estates may not be that bad, but if you go to Manila Street you will find that you have communal kitchens. Then you will know what it is. Many years ago, I cautioned in this House that the one-room units would degenerate into slums over a short period of time. No heed was paid to Parliamentary discussion. To the HDB, we appear to them as nothing more than a debating society.

Let me remind whoever lives under that illusion that we in this House survive because of his or their works, will certainly be very grossly mistaken. Again, Sir,I cautioned about the high plot ratio commercial development at the city centre, which inevitably must generate a high volume of traffic, particularly the Shenton Way and the Golden Shoe area. Today, we have the CBD restriction and the Area Licensing as our jackpot.

It would have been a different matter if public applicants from the traditional slum areas were to apply for HDB accommodation, but the one-roomers are, hon. Members will agree, if I were to describe this short-sighted design of first generation flats as Government Planned Modernised Slum. Has not the HDB an obligation to do something for these poor folks?

Despite repeated appeals by Members of Parliament, the HDB has been completely oblivious to the problem. From recent statements, we have been assured that action will be taken to resettle these one-roomers into larger units, but the whole process would take three to four years. Is this not an admission that the HDB has not been responding to appeals by MPs until recently?

Various proposals were offered. One involved the conversion of these one-room units into larger two-room units by combining them; another was to demolish a number of blocks to make way for green areas and playing fields - this is a deficiency in planning now requiring rectification.

It may be worthwhile for HDB to take note of Members' views, if they accept that Parliament, not their drawing office, is the supreme body in this Republic. I must state that in this matter, we shall not succumb to their whims and fancies.

There is no need for us to look far for inspirations to this conversion programme. These one-room units can easily be retained and converted for a variety of uses, to name only a few:

(1) Homes for the Aged - The design of these units is ideal for conversion into dormitories for the aged so that they can live as part of the community in a HDB estate, without having to suffer the feeling of being treated as castaways in some remote homes. In all probability, some of these units might actually be so converted, because I have great confidence, very rare confidence though, in the HDB's ability in quickly responding to the recent calls for the care of the aged made by so many Ministers. One up for the HDB on this.

(2) A less rewarding proposition for the HDB. For areas urgently in need of community centres and lacking in suitable sites a conversion may be the most expeditious solution, although the superstructure may present some technical problems but these are not insurmountable.

(3) Conversion of some of these units to provide for alternative accommodations for civic organisations affected by development schemes or urban renewal protects. One must not forget that our civic organisations, whilst handicapped by old fashioned management methods, have proved themselves to be useful and effective in serving the community in the past. I have no doubt that given help, they will continue to be so in the future. Through their mutual assistance, such as scholarship for their members' children, they have been able to partially, maybe negligibly, relieve the State of the heavy burden on education and social services. It is only too unfortunate that nobody thought it useful or necessary to make fuller studies into the more positive aspects of their works.

The Resettlement Department is the most controversial unit in this glamorous HDB outfit. This Department is even more hard-pressed to perform the dual functions of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. A not very helpful Dr Jekyll but certainly a monstrous Mr Hyde. I will tell you why.

The Dr Jekyll role is portrayed through the hypocritical claim of help given to those affected by redevelopment. The common claim is that those affected and entitled to resettlement benefits, are reminded that they enjoy concessionary rents, etc. Let me say that these concessions are no concessions at all. They are entitlements. These people are entitled to these so-called goodies because they have been uprooted from their steady livelihood, having to plunge into uncertainties in the new environment and to re-establish themselves once again. It is only over and above all these `concessions' that the HDB can then justifiably claim to offer concessions.

Mr Hyde's role is understandably less humane. Permanent residents are not entitled to rehousing nor business premises. I agree that permanent residents should not be entertained when applying for HDB accommodation under the normal public application, but in the case of resettlement, it is highly immoral that they be deprived of alternative housing or place of business. After all, the HDB requires them to quit, otherwise they are quite contented with the status quo, and pose no burden on the HDB, knowing that they do not qualify for HDB accommodation which I understand about 95 to 100 thousand of citizen families are on the waiting list.

May I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, with a grand example of how hypocritical one can be. Here, may I call to mention the recent good deeds of our MPs, so publicised in the newspapers, notably our Ministers, going round their constituencies offering gifts to the old folks so that it has been so gallantly claimed that the less fortunate people may also enjoy the forthcoming new year. This is an annual affair and I salute those who do so much and so consistently over all these years.

In resettlement action, however, being old and worse still, alone, is a sin and consequently an obstruction as far as the HDB is concerned. A single, old aged citizen, I emphasize old aged citizen, will not be able to secure an alternative accommodation on his own. He is compelled to go round the affected neighbourhood to look for another equally unfortunately, lonely, old soul so that if they both agree, they may jointly be allocated a one-room unit. But if he happens to be the only such outcast, (the term is what I suspect the HDB regards him as such. It is not my term, Sir) then he is left to fend for his twilight years in the streets.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): In the slums!

Mr Fong Sip Chee: In the slums. Would you be able to accommodate them? I know where to send animals to now - to community centres. But I do not know where to send the old people to, I know I can send animals to the Telok Blangah community centre if it has a menagerie. But old people are not animals. They are human beings. They are senior citizens and here they have to fend for themselves in the streets. Even if this poor old man or woman has a son, who unfortunately is not staying with him or with her for one reason or another, but keeps on discharging his filial responsibility of maintaining his father's or mother's livelihood, the old fellow is not allowed to bring in his son or daughter to form a family unit for rehousing, but he must necessarily seek to put up with a total stranger, if he finds one, that is.

So much for our double-standard show or care and sympathy for our senior citizens.

May I, Sir, just quote one last example? Many years ago, in reply, to a question by the hon. Member for Punggol, the former Minister for Finance said that claiming income tax relief for aged parents -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: For maintenance.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: - for maintenance of aged parents was regarded as mercenary because it is the filial responsibility of the young to look after the old. Asian society values again, Sir,I would have been quite satisfied with the former Minister for Finance.Unfortunately, our present Minister for Finance has found the formula. Asian values and filial piety can now be quantified; first, by $500 and now by $750. So this is our responsibility to look after the aged.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say how much I appreciate your patience in allowing me to take the Floor. To you, Sir, I render my respect, not so much for the authority of the Chair, to which I always submit, but for your age and wisdom in your person that commands your position.

3.19 p.m.

Mr Ivan Baptist (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, in rising to support the Motion of thanks to the President, moved by the hon. Member for Ulu Pandan, I am also expressing the sentiments of the community leaders and constituents in Potong Pasir, who so overwhelmingly voted for the People's Action Party at the recent election.

I would also like to take this opportunity to extend to you, Sir, my congratulations for being re-elected Speaker. The unanimity of the House in your re-election is a clear reflection of the excellent manner in which you have always conducted the affairs of the House.

Our meeting, Sir, in this Fourth Parliament is undoubtedly an occasion of gratitude for the total victory of the People's Action Party at the polls and of satisfaction that our policies have once again been endorsed by the electorate. Our happiness, however, has been diminished by the tragic loss of the Member for Radin Mas, who in the summer of his life, has left vacant his seat in the House.

His voice, as I remember, resounded vigorously in and out of Parliament, many a time, for the cause of his constituents and the workers of Singapore. As an hon. Member and a trade unionist, he worked unselfishly and unstintingly to improve the standard of living and quality of life of those under his charge, despite the fact that his tired and sick body could no longer take the pressures necessitated by his dedicated life. He spent the evening before he died - he passed away in the small hours of the morning - in his constituency, giving away Chinese New Year ang pows to those in less fortunate circumstances, I will miss him much, in and out of the House, as I am sure many will.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the opening of the Third Parliament in October 1972, international developments have had serious repercussions on Singapore, and today Singapore and the Southeast Asian region are facing a whole range of new problems.

In 1972, the President's Speech and Addenda indicated optimism, with expectations of continued economic growth and better lives for our citizens. We were then enjoying a mini-boom and the Ministry of Finance, indicating continued economic growth, was able to assure us that there was no need for any major increases in taxation or revenue collection. However, that prediction and euphoria did not last long. We were overtaken by circumstances beyond our control by inflation, increases in the price of oil and international economic depression, resulting in lower economic growth, the threat of unemployment and social insecurity.

In spite of the fact that the world in general has been able to cast off the shackles of stagflation and the future looks brighter than it did two years ago, new problems, that may rock the very foundations of democratic societies in this region, are foreseeable, and we have to be firm in our resolve to resist and repel attempts to undermine and destroy our independence, our way of life and our security.

Since the communist victory in Indochina, the democratic governments of neighbouring countries have been threatened overtly and covertly by external aggression and internal insurgencies, and with physical and moral support to communist terrorists within. We in Singapore have to be ever vigilant; there must be no let-up in our internal security measures. We must not be misled by the peace and tranquillity enjoyed by all in Singapore, which has only been made possible by the firm measures taken during the past years.

We are only a few miles away from the hot-bed of terrorist activities and our people must be warned and constantly reminded of the speed with which the communists can mount acts of terrorism against us as they have done in the neighbouring states of Thailand and Malaysia. We must be on our guard at all times and never be lulled into a false sense of security. Otherwise, all that we have worked for, all that our citizens have striven for, all that they have built over the last 17 years will be destroyed by a communist take-over. We have only to take note of what has happened in Cambodia after the communist take-over and the recent acts of violence on the Thai border, to realise the sort of treatment that will be meted out to our people if we are not vigilant and allow communist infiltration. I am, therefore, grateful to the prominence and emphasis given to the need of security in the Presidential Address.

Sir, in sharp contrast to the optimistic tenor of the President's Speech in 1972, we have now been warned to prepare for a slower growth rate and have been advised to adjust our spending habits accordingly both as a Government and as individuals. The Government's decision to economise in governmental expenditure became noticeable during the past year. It is a matter of regret, however, that Singaporeans have not learnt to similarly restrain their spending habits. In fact, one could say that spending habits are still indifferent and reckless, tending towards adoption of Western contemporary life styles, which do no good to our citizens and our country. Indulgence in wasteful spending can be clearly seen in the market places, shopping complexes, restaurants and so on.

Only last Sunday, one of our local newspapers exposed the gullibility of Singaporeans who, because of a desire to be up-to-date and fashion-conscious, have succumbed to advertising expertise and high-pressure salesmanship, and beguiled into purchasing locally-made jeans and jackets, which are exported, labelled with a foreign trade mark, re-exported to Singapore and sold at prices about five to six times the original cost of production in our Singapore factories.

Our own mass media, especially our television, has in no small measure contributed to this unnecessary spending and wasteful habits among our citizens. We seem to be succumbing to the phenomenon common in developing countries, where the imported product acquires snob value, mainly because it costs more and partly because people wish to ape the life in the West, in the mistaken belief that the West are the trendsetters of fashion with a sophisticated way of life.

It is evident that Singaporeans, falling prey to high-pressure salesmanship and advertising, are squandering their hard-earned money by indulging in wasteful habits. If we are not careful and our people not warned, we could be completely misled and cheated. I read recently an account of the exploits of two enterprising young businessmen who decided to take advantage of the American consumers gullibility. Realising that they could sell anything to Americans, if the goods were packaged well and attractively, they made a fortune by selling 450 gms of plain earth for $25.00. They sold them as potting soil for plants, in chic little bags. In this game of exploiting the gullibility of consumers, I must reiterate that our RTS is where the shoe pinches.

Our commercial television service appears to be guided only by the amount of revenue that advertisements bring in and is not concerned with the type of advertisements. This matter. I must add, has been mentioned in this House before and seems to have fallen on deaf ears. For example, although the Government has introduced a ban on tobacco and cigarette advertisements and discourages smoking, our television commercial service quite happily advertises cigarette lighters, which is a product ancillary to smoking. And, of course, there are other misleading advertisements, very skilfully portraying unnecessary products, such as expensive imported apparel, etc., with jingles to promote their sales.

Sir, the Addendum on the Ministry of Finance indicates that:

Singaporeans can enjoy an increasingly higher standard of living because we can pay for our needs in food, housing, education and health and for more and better goods and services

This is an encouraging assurance which will be welcomed by all. The increase in our GDP, which makes possible a higher standard of living and a better life, represents the sum total of the output of all in our Republic. The largest contributor to our GDP is the industrial sector and we should therefore not forget that the productivity of the industrial sector represents ultimately the productivity of the workers.

It should also be remembered as we enjoy the fruits of our industry, that our industrial progress, has, because of certain omissions taken an undue toll of human suffering in mangled limbs and lives. Remedial action is called for immediately.

Sir, Singapore developed an industrial economy during the past 17 years. In the process, new forms of machinery, new forms of production, new forms of construction have been introduced in our Republic. They have brought with them attendant hazards for the workers - the man who operates the machines, the man who services and repairs the ships, the man who works on high-rise buildings and so on.

For example, about 15 years ago, there were hardly any high-rise buildings. Construction was then quite simple. Wooden scaffoldings were adequate for construction work. Steel girders seldom had to be hauled up to high places. Today, we have 30- to 40-storey buildings springing up all over the Island and wooden scaffolding is quite inadequate. Metal scaffoldings are necessary as steel girders have to be hauled to very high places. The whole concept of construction has changed and brought with it dangers to the workforce. But it is most regrettable that very little has been done to retrain our workers who were used to the former methods of construction to cope with the new situation. Old habits die hard and this has resulted in a number of serious accidents and deaths. There has clearly been an omission on somebody's part to retrain our workers for the new situations.

Similarly, Mr Speaker, Sir, Government legislation has been very slow in catering for the new developments. It is not as if the Ministries concerned were unaware of the hazards facing workmen in the building trade as a result of high-rise development. They must have observed the patterns in countries with high-rise buildings before us.

Similarly, in factories the workers are faced with a whole range of threats to life and limb from industrial machines. The safety measures required in the factories can easily be adapted to our needs by observing what goes on in the factories abroad. But, insufficient has been done and our workers are paying the penalty.

One can hardly blame workers on ships to appreciate the dangers of gas in the ships' holds and of the fires that can be generated from a spark from their shoes, when the dangers have not been explained Our workers are simple-minded people who concentrate on the job and on productivity, and it is up to the employers and the Government to ensure that they are given protection from the dangers of modern industry and chemistry.

It will be recalled that with the British pullout, because it posed a major problem, it received serious attention, and among other things, training schemes were devised to retrain those who lost their jobs, to fit them for other work, But because industrialisation has gone on quietly and steadily in Singapore, the re-training of our workers, to enable them to cope with new methods of production, with new forms of machinery, has received scant attention. Safety measures have similarly not attracted sufficient scrutiny.

In 1975, the total percentage increase in the number of accidents over 1974 was an alarming 18.8%. Although for the same period the number of fatalities dropped, the position is still not under control. The 1976 statistics is still to be made available by the Ministry of Labour, but as I understand, there is still a marked increase in the total number of accidents last year.

In the United States in 1959, the long-term trend of declining accident rates was reversed with an increase in industrial activity, influx of new workers and a more rapid introduction of new processes and activities. Legislation was immediately updated and comprehensively provides for measures for the prevention of industrial accidents.

In Singapore, however, although there was generally little increase in industrial activity, in the influx of new workers, etc, the percentage of accidents, as I have said earlier, has increased tremendously.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, attitudes have yet to be changed. Employers show little interest in implementing safe working methods, self-regulatory systems, and in providing satisfactory safety apparel and a safe working environment, with machines regularly maintained and guarded. Workers also lack safety consciousness, sometimes disobey safety rules and regulations and fail to put on personal protective equipment while on the job. In addition, the enforcement machinery lacks adequate strength in numbers, discipline and dedication. Inspections at factories and pressure vessels seldom result in severe action being taken for contraventions of legislation. Similarly, seldom are effective recommendations made to alleviate common ailments such as poor house-keeping and misuse or lack of safety appliances which could quite easily result in accidents.

Sir, one of the important techniques of accident prevention is the analysis of accidents to determine their underlying causes so that positive action can be taken to prevent recurrence. The American Standards Association provides a procedure for selecting, classifying and summarising the fundamental factors in accidents. The Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour lacks vision in its statistical data and leaves little room for employers and workers to pin-point the areas that need greatest vigilance. In addition, it must to some extent handicap the Factory Inspectorate in its enforcement and accident prevention duties. Before judgment can be made about the magnitude of the occupational disability problem, aggregate data on the number of injuries and deaths must be standardised. To draw comparisons between industries and plants or even between departments in a plant or factory, such standardised data would be of tremendous positive value in preventive action. Standardised accident frequency and severity rates therefore should be a part of the responsibility of statutory Safety Committees.

Sir, registered with the Social Welfare Department are more than 10,000 handicapped or disabled persons. By modest estimates, there could be as many that are not registered. Their disablement is congenital or as a result of the toll taken by industrialisation. Of those registered, more than 4,000 are in the employable age-range. A quota scheme for the employment of disabled persons is necessary. The scheme has to be strictly enforced if it is to be successful and employers should be required to make quarterly returns indicating the percentage of disabled persons employed. Dis-incentives could perhaps be introduced to ensure compliance with the quota scheme.

Sir, those that are not employable should be given realistic public assistance, This would also include the aged. It is right not to encourage misuse of public assistance by increasing its quantum to such an extent as to make it attractive enough for citizens to cease supporting their aged or disabled. Incentives introduced to ensure such support could be introduced. But where such incentives cannot benefit those who support the aged and disabled, the quantum of public assistance must be realistic, Humane treatment by civil servants of those receiving public assistance is essential. I had occasion to take up a case of a bed-ridden paralytic Constituent who lived with his unemployed, old and sick wife. Each month, she had to travel a good five miles from Jalan Potong Pasir to collect her husband's allowance from the Social Welfare Department. This meant a one-mile trudge to the bus-stop from the kampong, an unnecessary waste of bus-fare, a long wait at the Social Welfare Department and the tiresome journey back home. All the while, her helpless husband lay on his back without her care, awaiting her return. Most certainly, the authorities concerned could quite easily have saved her the strain and cost by making available at her house the public assistance due to them. To make matters worse, when she was admitted to hospital for an operation, the cost of hospitalisation was deducted from the public assistance allowance leaving them a mere $20 to survive for the month. This inhuman practice turns assistance into cruelty. There surely must be many other such cases which merit immediate attention.

Sir, the real incentive to labour organisation is the control of the work environment, stemming from the realisation that control over the conditions of employment can be achieved only by workers who become organised and who act collectively. Hence, trade unions are the essential instrument for the achievement of collective freedom, which is itself the prerequisite for the protection and the advancement of the individual worker. Throughout their history trade unions have had to battle against powerful enemies, not the least of which has been the law. The law seems to favour employers, and as such, the advantage they take against trade unions leaves much to be desired. Employers have even lowered salary and fringe benefits to workers the moment they are organised in order to hit back at trade unions, If there is to be a continuation of co-operation among Government, unions and employers to ensure a united contribution to economic growth by the promotion of a stable and peaceful industrial relations climate, immediate steps must be taken to ensure that employers do not act arbitrarily.

Sir, job-hopping is not a symptomatic cure sought by workers. It is also not a frivolity they are fond of indulging in. Let us look at the reasons for job-hopping before we consider penalising job-hoppers by reducing their share of the NWC wage increase recommended. If the reasons for job-hopping are justified, I do not understand why these workers should be penalised.

Sir, the first reason that comes to mind for workers who job-hop in Singapore is distance from home to place of work. With the rapid building of HDB flats and many workers wanting to live in them, the tendency for them to move house is almost certain. In addition, many of our workers are young and earn small wages. They usually live with their parents. With greater number of people moving into HDB flats due to resettlement and the need for them to improve their living conditions, they will have to move away from their former abodes which in most cases are close to their working places. In addition, when they marry, they normally make their own home, which means movement of both husband and wife from their former abodes.

The next reason is almost always due to inadequate wages. One cannot penalise a worker who goes for another job that pays more. After all, he is willing to give his best and why should he not receive his worth? This situation will always exist in order that a competitive labour market can function to the benefit of both workers and employers.

Many of our workers who are not choosy and who realise that a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush, accept jobs that they were neither educated for nor trained for. After such time, when a suitable job, commensurate with his training comes along, should he not be at liberty to change jobs?

There are many other legitimate reasons for changing jobs, such as an unreasonable and tyrannical employer who makes life miserable for employees. Such circumstances do not warrant the penalty of a loss in NWC wage increase recommendations, I must therefore stress that Government should take heed not to upset the labour market by applying constraints on the individual's freedom to choose his own employment and employer. After all, does not the employer have the right to hire and fire? So why should not the worker also have the right to opt in or opt out?

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

3.47 p.m.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of the Member for Ulu Pandan.

In the President's speech, mention has been made that Singaporeans should formulate their own way of life. This is of particular interest to me. Over the last decade, we have been groping our way about for a solution. Today we can say that we have found a way out. Just like what the English proverb says: Where there is a will, there is a way. After some effort, we have found a way out to a better future. It is to learn and absorb Western science and technology in toto. By doing so, our life has bettered that some 10 years ago. For instance, 10 years ago we built many one-room units of flats to accommodate thousands of people. At that time, this sort of flats was considered good. But today these flats do not appear to be good enough. During the last general elections this type of flats had been given an airing of views, Our candidates made a promise in the general elections saying, "All. right, we will modify these one-room flats." The Government has to improve them by converting two such units into one bigger unit. Otherwise people will not want to stay in such one-room flats. On the other hand, the Government has to build four-room, five-room and even six-room flats. As the people like to live in them, the Government is even prepared to build luxurious flats and apartments as condominiums, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to satisfy their needs, This is obviously in keeping with our economic progress and the success in our family planning. While the number of members in a family has become smaller, the living area of a flat has become larger. In the newspapers and in magazines, interior decorators have designed the layout of a flat for a family of four. Besides designing separate bedrooms for the parents and the children, they have also provided a bathroom in each bedroom, or next to the hall a balcony is added. The rooms will be well ventilated and bright, and flowers and birds have been added to turn the flat into a paradise. So now the urge to work hard in order to make more money so as to raise the standard of living has become the norm as well as a factor for progress in this pragmatic society. If we had discarded the principles of "reward according to merit" and "distribution according to labour", our construction programme would not have progressed so fast. In our present more and more westernised family structure, usually only two generations live together separate from the grandparents, just as what our textbooks have now taught our pupils. We find that the children are taught that every morning when they get up they must say "good morning" to daddy and to mummy, but these textbooks do not include "good morning" to grandfather and to grandmother. To the majority of us, we have parents and children living together at the same time. The only difference is that under the western influence parents stay at one place whereas we ourselves and our children live at another place. So this has caused a twin social problem relating to two generations. On the one hand, the aged and weak parents have been forsaken by the children and some, when they are faced with difficulty in their livelihood, had to ask the Government to put them into a home for the aged so that they could pass away their twilight years under some shelter,

The other problem is the case with young couples with children. If the wife finds that she cannot get a housemaid to help in the household chores, she will resign from her employment to run the house and to teach the children. In this way, the family budget is increased while income is reduced.

Nowadays in view of the increasing number of Government flats more and more children would leave their parents to live separately when they are ready to raise their own families, This gap between the two generations resulting in the twin social problem has become acute. In view of this trend in family structure, I would like to ask the question whether Singaporeans should accept in toto western cultural values and concepts. To me, personally I think western science and technology is our life-line. We must endeavour to seek these for our own good. On the other hand, we should not allow the individualistic liberalism produced in the very rich West to form part of our culture, because it will only divide our people and weaken our thoughts and split our society so that we become poor, weak and cannot stand on our own. There is the example of Tan Wah Piow who illegally entered England. All along in his way of life and education he has been thinking that the moon in the West is very round, much rounder than the moon in the East. He does not know that the moon in the East is just as round. Thus he is imbued with a dubious concept of values, which makes him think that to be born a foreigner and to die a foreign ghost is very glorious to him. What I want to point out is that after all we are Singaporeans living in this strategic geographical area in Southeast Asia where western and eastern cultures meet, We have our own way of life. While there is certain similarity with the West, there is also some difference from the West. Even when compared with the Chinese, Indian or Indonesian ways of life, there are differences in similarities and there are also similarities in differences. But these are our characteristics. This goes to show that we are ourselves, Singaporeans, masters of ourselves. We are not the play-things of the colonialists.

Sir, once more I support the Motion of the Member for Ulu Pandan.

3.58 p.m.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ulu Pandan.

The President's speech has re-asserted the Government's position that, other than education, medical treatment and housing, nothing else will be subsidised by the Government. This position has been well understood and largely accepted by the vast majority of Singaporeans, otherwise the present Government would not have been returned to office with the highest percentage of votes cast in the last six general elections. But what many people cannot understand and have cause to grumble about is why they are sometimes made to pay over and above the economic cost of certain commodities.

Take, for example, the price of petrol. When oil prices were increased by the OPEC countries in recent years, oil companies in Singapore made two adjustments to the retail prices of petrol. The Government also at the same time increased its duty on petrol correspondingly. Was this not imposing an additional financial burden on the consumers?

Another example is the tax surcharge on the consumption of PUB utilities if the total amount exceeds $30 per month. The rates have already been revised by the PUB in line with the additional cost it must incur from increases in the price of oil. People can accept the fact that their consumption of petrol and PUB utilities cannot be subsidised, and they must be prepared to pay for' the periodical increases in the costs of these commodities. But what they find it a little difficult to swallow is having to pay additional taxes over and above the increases in economic costs that they have to pay.

My point is that in relation to the commodities such as those I referred to, Singaporeans are not only not subsidised by the Government but are also heavily penalised by the Government for their consumption or use of those commodities. Whatever may have been the reason for the Government to do this, the net effect is that all this additional tax burden is passed on by the manufacturers, businessmen and shopkeepers to the final consumers, most of whom are workers.

The President stated in his address that the PAP won in all the 69 constituencies with the highest percentage of votes cast in the six last general elections. He went on to say that this vote of confidence imposes a heavy responsibility on the Ministers to act fairly but firmly, and that the Government will exercise its authority with circumspection and moderation. This is most welcome.

As it is, life can never be too easy for the two million-odd Singaporeans because of the political and socio-economic circumstances we are in. We must sometimes have tough policies to see us through if we want to survive, prosper and progress as a nation. There are no easy solutions to the problems and challenges ahead of us. This is what Singaporeans have been told and what Singaporeans have accepted. But sometimes we are asked to swallow pills that are unnecessarily bitter; at least, that is the impression created. People do not expect the pills to be sugar-coated, but neither do they want them to be more bitter than is necessary. Take the case of the recent announcement by the Education Ministry that in 1979, students entering Pre-University classes must have attained certain standards in their first and second languages. I do not know what earthly purpose can this move serve. Is it to achieve our objective of a multi-lingual society? Or is it to raise the academic standards of undergraduates? I really do not know, But what I do know is that this is going to impose an additional and unnecessary strain on the future Pre-University students. By imposing this requirement of proficiency in two languages, how is it going to help our future Pre-University students to succeed better in their special fields of university studies?

Does the Government not realise that a simple statement like that from the Education Ministry is already causing such a widespread anxiety among parents with children aspiring for further studies in 1979 and thereafter? The parents are naturally concerned over this recent announcement as it affects their children's chances of securing a place not only in the Pre-University classes but also, eventually, in the Singapore society. Is this acting with circumspection and moderation? It may be too extreme to dismiss it as a rash and an ill-conceived action, but the element of consultation and public debate on the matter is conspicuously missing.

The greatest service that the Education authorities can do for education perhaps is not to come out every now and then with some startling new ideas which may cause more harm than good. Instead, the authorities should concentrate on testing every new scheme more carefully and thoroughly over a period of years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been several policy decisions in the past where the raison d'etre is sound. But their implementation might sometimes have caused unnecessary hardship to those affected by them. This was largely due to the over-zealousness and the lack of experience of those in charge of implementing the policy decisions. Perhaps it is not just the future policies and actions of Government that should be carried out in moderation and circumspection. The Government should also review its past policies and actions to ascertain, with the benefit of hindsight, whether some of these policies and actions can in fact be carried out with more circumspection and moderation.

Take the case of the Area Licensing Scheme. Will the scheme not achieve the same purpose and objectives if cars are allowed to enter the restricted zone at 9.45 a.m. or 10.00 a.m. instead of 10.15 a.m. as at present? Can we not achieve the same degree of success in family planning, if we do not insist that Catholic schools take in children on the basis of priority for those with one of their parents sterilized, as this is causing unhappiness and is a matter of religious conscience for 100,000-odd Catholics in Singapore?

Cannot the Government be a little more liberal in granting citizenship to the more deserving, I emphasise, more deserving, cases of blue identity card holders? Whether we like it or not, they are either the sons or daughters, fathers or mothers of our citizens, and they have nowhere else to go. We allow them to stay. We even allow them to be considered as part of the family unit when applying for HDB flats. Giving them the citizenship in many of these cases is not going to impose an additional national burden on the Republic's resources. They are, in fact, part of the national burden that we are now carrying.

There are no doubts that, in the issues such as I have mentioned, the Government can easily and profitably review its past policies and actions to take off some of the unnecessary bitterness of the pills we must take for our nation's health and for our individual health.

4.07 p.m.

Mr Ong Soo Chuan rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong. I would like to take the Suspension at 4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Ong Soo Chuan): That means I have about eight minutes to go.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech delivered on the 8th February at the Opening of the Fourth Parliament. The President has laid out the various Government policies and guidelines to be implemented in the next five years. These policies and guidelines are very pragmatic and practical. In the past we have never had policies and guidelines more realistic, more considerate to the people and more virtue-inspiring as those that have just been presented in this Fourth Parliament.

In the book of the Great Learning of ancient Chinese Scholars there is the teaching that great learning lies in understanding the virtues, loving the people and arriving at that which is perfect. It means to say that we must carry out good government, love the people like our own children, and that we must try and do our best to look after the people. This is the way of good government valid universally. As the seas and oceans are made up of water droplets, countries are made up of people, the individuals. The strength of the country lies in the security of the people. Therefore, although state policies are based on national interest as the first premise, they must also be able to take into account the immediate interest of the majority of the people. That is to say, the implementation of state policies must suit the interest of the people in such a way that the people can bear it. That means we have to study and discuss all plans and policies in depth carefully in order to understand the wishes and get the views of the people before implementing the policies, so as to ensure practicability and conformity. In this way, all beneficial policies which are implemented will be accepted by the people. If we can arrive at a state where the people regard the State with respect and importance and the State looks after the people with esteem and care, and there is harmony, unity and cooperation between the State and the people for mutual progress, then it will be the great fortune of both the people and the country.

In view of the present international situation which has great repercussions on us and with Mr Carter's assumption of office as the new American President, there is an air of uncertainty in the international scene. The Southeast Asian situation is like-wise not clear. The Middle East problem is not yet solved. The oil crisis is not over yet. The whole world situation is in a state of fluctuation. With such external factors and internal situation before us, we are faced with problems in formulating and implementing Government policies laid down in the speech presented by the President. The way ahead is difficult, The future may not turn out to be what we all expect. However, we have the will and capacity to survive and succeed. We have the experience gained from the past years of independence to help see us through. We have once more been given such a heavy mandate, and so we must do our best not to let our people down. But in circumstances beyond our control, there may be some factors present to prevent us from achieving or what we have set out to achieve. In this case it then becomes our bounden duty to explain and to analyse to the people what the causes are that prevented us from achieving our goal. Civil servants also have to take up the challenge and the responsibility to help the nation solve its problems. They also owe the people a duty to explain what the problems and hardships are. It is only when there is such a general understanding of the situation that the people will be enabled to continue to support the Government.

From the experience gained in the last general elections, we can see that we have a higher percentage of support from the lower income groups compared to the earlier elections. This heavy mandate placed on Members of Parliament means that we must be fair and do our best to solve the problems of the people. It is only then that we will not let down the voters who have put us in power. The PAP has always been pragmatic. We are known for not making wild promises. In spite of free things or giveaways promised by the opposition, our voters have the guts and the resolve to discard these wild and empty promises of free things but opted for self-reliance. They have instead voted us in, It is from the people in the lower income group in the less developed parts of Singapore who have given us more votes than ever before. Without their support, we would not have been able to get 72.4%, the highest percentage of the total number of votes ever cast. Since they have put such great trust on us we must also take special care of them, such as building and metalling more roads, installing more street lights and creating more employment opportunities for them. This is the bounden duty of the Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the Suspension now and will take the Chair again at 5.00 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.15 p.m. until 5.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.00 p.m.