PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Debate resumed. 2.50 p.m.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion by the hon. Member for Mountbatten to thank the President for his speech on behalf of the Government.

In Singapore, we have come a long way since the People's Action Party took office in 1959. Circumstances have changed, and rapidly, in many fields. Our Gross Domestic Product (at 1968 Factor Cost) has grown from a paltry $2 billion in 1959 to a robust $12 billion in 1980. Compared with the 23,000 flats built by the pre-PAP administrations, there are now 350,000 HDB flats in clean healthy environments. The slums of bygone years had given way to a throbbing modern metropolis, set amidst a beautiful garden, laced by an extensive network of roads and expressways.

Despite these dramatic changes, the central objective of the People's Action Party has remained, namely, to serve the people of Singapore to the best of our ability, to build a better tomorrow for our people today. To this end is the process of self-renewal and self-regeneration directed and we, new Members of this House, are a part of this vital on-going process. This generation of new Members, with an average age of 39 years, may just be the last generation that had any experience of the pre-PAP Singapore of the Fifties. Our generation of members may just be the last generation that had personally seen and meaningfully experienced what it was like before the PAP came into office.

We saw the crippling effects of incompetent government, of strikes, arson, vandalism and sabotage. We went to school in army trucks and assorted vehicles because public transportation had broken down. We experienced the unrest and uncertainty and the hoarding of food. We endured the agonies of long curfews and silent nights punctuated by staccato shots in the distant darkness. We saw the mass unemployment, under-employment and economic dead-ends, and we experienced the hungers of our age. Such vivid realities, imprinted on our then young adolescent, impressionable minds, made us all the more conscious of our debt to the present leaders in the People's Action Party. They have banished those days, those days that are better not experienced.

This generation of new Members of this House is also the first generation that has benefited directly from the full impact of the PAP's policies and priorities beginning in 1959. At the critical period of our lives, many of us were fortunate enough to benefit from the increased emphasis on education - the training of the mind and the awakening of creativity and resourcefulness. Many of us were encouraged to pursue higher education, made possible by the increased availability of scholarships and bursaries, to take up science, engineering and the professions - a significant departure from the previous emphasis on the arts and the humanities. As a result, we and our nation are now benefiting from the far-sightedness of our leaders some two decades ago. Our hope is that our generation and the many generations to come will be the catalysts through which the long range vision of our leaders will be fulfilled.

Mr Speaker, Sir, like others before us, we enter this House in awe and trepidation, conscious of our own ignorance and limitations, conscious of the heavy responsibilities placed upon us, and conscious of the high expectations of our constituents who have placed their trust in us and have sent us to this House to represent them.

As a new Member of this House, I would like to pay tribute to the Members who have served in the House before us. Their courage, perseverance and faithfulness to their high calling will be impressed upon us as we digest over the coming months and years the Hansards of days past. The high standard of their performance, both within and without the House, will be a constant source of inspiration and a shining light to us all.

In the coming days, we intend to learn, to learn from all our seniors, to learn from all those who have entered the hallowed portals of this House before us. We shall strive to ensure that it shall be said some five years hence, that the generation of 1980 truly has been weighed and has not been found wanting.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next five years are going to be turbulent years, uncertain years, not just for Singapore but for the rest of the world. Few are those who dare venture a prediction regarding the course of events to come; even fewer are those who will see their predictions stand the test of time.

Yet amidst this turbulence and uncertainty, there stands out one certainty: We, Singaporeans, will triumph. Our history as an independent nation, brief though it may be, has taught us that we can and have and shall overcome all odds. We have proven to the world, more importantly, we have proven to ourselves that we have the wherewithal to survive, nay to progress, under the most inauspicious, the most hostile of circumstances. That knowledge will stand us in good stead in the coming years. Yet, as we forge ahead confidently into the future, let us remind ourselves of the lessons that history seeks to teach us lest we slip down the wayward path.

The Law of the Universe has decreed that the natural order of things should be one of perpetual decay. Scientists have formulated this basic law and have called it the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Put simply, it says that under natural conditions, entropy which is a measure of the degree of randomness, confusion, chaos or disorders, is always increasing. Translated into terms meaningful to our nation, it says that if our people are slothful, then things can only get worse and not better.

The evidence is available for all of us to see. Great civilizations, empires, nations and societies have crumbled, often with lightning rapidity, as their people laze away their days and fritter away their nights. There were many great civilizations in days past in Asia. Africa, Europe and in the Americas. After a spurt of great creativity, many of the civilizations rested on their laurels, and the Second Law took its inevitable toll. Resourcefulness atrophied through the lack of use. This is true not only of the accomplished individual, but also of the accomplished nation, for the skills of a nation are but the sum total of the collective skills of its citizens. Many of these civilizations disappeared completely, except for appearances in archaeological tombs or historical tomes. Some survive to become countries of little significance, pathetic pale shadows of their past glories.

Let us, therefore, with the perception that history affords us, not slacken our pace, but rather let us gird our loins and press on upwards.

We are a small nation with few natural resources. There are many countries in the world that have natural resources that far exceed those of Singapore, both on the absolute scale as well as the per capita basis. Indeed there are few countries that are poorer than Singapore, in terms of land, mineral output or agricultural produce.

Fortunately, the same cannot be said with respect to resourcefulness. Indeed our very success thus far has been through our resourcefulness, and we are now well within the top 20% of the countries in the world as far as material wealth per capita is concerned. We have proven that the lack of natural resources is no permanent impediment to progress, if our people are prepared to draw on their resourcefulness. This is a lesson that many developing countries, thus far, have refused to learn.

We are an island Republic where the sea has played a significant role, both in our development and in our destiny. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to paraphrase an ancient saying about fish as an illustration of our resourcefulness.

"In 1968, when the British announced that they would withdraw and nearly everyone wrote us off, when even some of our staunchest friends thought that the end was imminent and inevitable"; only our leaders thought otherwise. At thai critical juncture of our history, we, as a nation, solidly behind our leaders, eschewed the gift of fish, symbolic of all instant gratification that was easy, effortless but addictive. Instead, we opted to learn the difficult art of fishing. We sought know-how and trade but not aid, and we pursued an aggressive programme of intensive industrialization. That same spirit has stood us in good stead since. When such fishing became less productive, in the seventies, we did not hesitate to go into aqua culture, the high technology of fishing. We grew our own fish and moved into the world of high finance and high technology with strong export orientated bias. Further afield in the eighties, we may yet venture into genetic engineering, to create the very fish that we need via economic restructuring, with endeavours in research and development, medical specialization, software technology and macro-system management. This spirit symbolises Singaporeans in their never-ending quest for peace, progress and prosperity, through the harnessing of our resourcefulness and ingenuity in our pursuit of excellence.

In general, natural resources are finite and will eventually be depleted no matter how large in quantity. They are also subjected to the vicious economic cycles of demand, no matter how valuable the resources. Resourcefulness, on the other hand, is limitless, totally flexible and completely adaptable. It involves the creation, assimilation, propagation and utilisation of information and knowledge, and results in the effective and optimal application of all available natural resources.

Just as petroleum is the base for the industrial and the manufacturing sectors of the world economy, resourcefulness is the base for the service and technological sectors. Where low technology is energy intensive, high technology is resourcefulness-intensive.

In the short run, those who are blessed with natural resources will be bountiful; in the long run, those who are blessed with resourcefulness will enjoy the fruits of their labour. One day, it shall be said that, Blessed are the resourceful, for they shall inherit the kingdom of man.

The Government's programme for the coming years, as outlined by our President in his Speech and the Addenda, calls for greater computerisation and automation, and improved communication and labour-management relationships. It also calls for better nurturing of our human resources in schools and higher institutions, with enhanced efforts in research and development throughout our entire society, both private and public. Underlining all these different progress fronts is the unifying theme of increased resourcefulness that is so essential for our continued success. As we progress from the labour-intensive, low productivity and low value-added industries, to the capital-intensive, knowledge-intensive, high productivity and high value-added industries, the demand on our resourcefulness will be even greater.

We shall slowly but surely move upwards from our present reward-orientated society to an achievement-orientated society, to a society where excellence is its own reward. The satisfaction that we derive from a task well done or an objective achieved will far outweigh the material rewards that accompany it. Indeed, at this moment, there are some in Singapore, a few, a pioneering few, who so serve our country in the various branches of the public sector and in the private sector. They are the vanguard of our nation in our progress upwards. They form our Eupsychian growing tip.

Even greater progress will be made as our people become more conscious of our growing unity as one people. We shall stand more united in our resolve to defend our own - our way of life, our freedom, our people, and our country. We shall increase our collective emphasis on the importance of sublimation of our short-term self-interest into the longer term common interest of the group that we find ourselves in. Group aspiration, group objective and group welfare will take precedence over those of self, be the group that of kin, company, community or country. In the achievements of the group will the individual be glorified. In its absence, personal achievement will lose its glitter and pale into insignificance.

I am confident, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the policies of our Government as outlined by our President will be fully implemented in the coming years, not just by our competent civil service but by all the people of Singapore. That will be our reaffirmation of faith in ourselves, our leaders and our nation.

I support the Motion of thanks. 3.13 p.m.

Mr C.V. Devan Nair (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister of Education is successful with his education policy, there will be no need whatsoever to resort to the horrendous possibility of genetic engineering mentioned by the hon. Member for Kim Seng. The Minister for Health, please do not think about it. Allow Singaporeans to produce our own children without intervention by genetic engineers.

As a nation, the prolonged neglect of the larger, wider and deeper aims of our education policy can and must gravely impair the quality of the lives of our people.

The purely functional and utilitarian aims of our education system are no doubt of cardinal importance. Our manpower planners require so many engineers, scientists, technicians, doctors, lawyers, economists, accountants, social scientists, skilled workers (but no genetic engineers, please), and so on. The maintenance and enrichment of our cultural and educational infrastructure will call for so many teachers, language specialists, arts graduates, philosophers (God bless them!), musicians, artists and the rest of the cultural brigade, who are also vitally important, not in terms of material production but in terms of what may be called the non-material motivated productivity of our people.

An ever-increasing GNP is nothing to snigger about. Indeed, even our philosophers will have little to snigger about if the reverse were to be the case. For it is easier to philosophise in a comfortable armchair in a well-lined parlour, well-carpeted.

The alternative is the philosophy of violent revolution, which is what persons like me started out with. For 20 or 30 years ago, we did not see much around us worth preserving. Colonialism, corruption, racialism, poverty, unemployment and squalor were clearly not worth preserving. And, as I realised later, neither was the communist united front worth preserving. A good deal of what we saw around us in the late 40s, in the 5Os and early 60s, merited destruction. And in order to create the Singapore we know today, my generation set about destroying what had to be destroyed.

But today, as a nation which has come into its own, with honest government, a stable polity, and spectacular achievements in the fields of housing, health, sanitation, education (with some qualifications), economic and industrial growth, our young people will inherit a society which is the envy of less fortunate countries - a nation and a people worth cherishing, worth preserving.

The promotion of skills and knowledge, in and by themselves, will not protect, promote or enhance this inheritance. A premise so shallow and so arbitrary will pronounce on itself its own sentence of insufficiency. But, if accepted, it will also pronounce sentence of death on the Singapore of tomorrow.

Our schools and other institutions of learning must, therefore, be seen as more than merely knowledge and skill factories, able to certify levels of knowledge and skills attained, but unable to certify or even indicate the quality and motivation of the human beings they churn out.

Knowledge, like money, is not an end in itself. Rightly regarded, money is merely a means to an end - of more and better production for instance, of self-fulfilment through social fulfilment. But certainly not an end in itself, for pomp, show, self-gratification and self-aggrandisement. In other words, knowledge, like money, is not static. It has to be dynamic in action, and directed towards enhancing the quality of life of an entire nation and people. A well educated people are at once a well motivated people.

It is this crucial aspect of education which is at long last beginning to get the attention it deserves, judging from the Addendum to the President's Address under the impress of the First Deputy Prime Minister.

In the early years of the PAP Government, top priority was understandably given to providing universal education. A whole lot of new school buildings rose all over Singapore. And to meet the universal demand, we mass-produced teachers. But worse still, in the process we also mass-produced students, including an incredibly large proportion of so-called "drop-outs". There was little talk in those early days of quality control, curriculum development, slow-starters, quick starters, non-starters, and so on.

The Ministry of Education, and I have pointed this out before, ruled through circulars - whole piles of them! The late Francis Thomas, former Principal of St Andrew's School, once told me that he expected to die from a surfeit of Education Ministry circulars. He was just one of the many good teachers whose character and talents went unutilised, if not misused or abused.

Those were hey-days for the administrators. In fact, for professionals turned administrators - a more terrifying breed! Apart from some sturdy mission schools, which quietly ignored Ministry circulars, all other schools were depersonalised. And principals, teachers and students were reduced to statistical digits, to be juggled about with by a faceless and mysterious bureaucracy which walked the corridors of power in Kay Siang Road.

One of the consequences of all this was that the teaching profession itself suffered social devaluation. The Member for Moulmein suffered social devaluation. And persons entirely devoid of any sense of vocation found themselves as teachers. (I do not include the Member for Moulmein.) I do not envy the First Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Education. They have been entrusted with the holy task of unscrambling an unholy mess. My sincere condolences.

Returning to the Addendum on Education, the promise of a new and more significant order in the education system is contained in the proposal to set up a Schools Council, and to venture into the areas of moral education and comparative religion. I hope these proposals are more than merely tentative gropings in the dark towards decentralisation, towards re-personalising our schools, actively involving our principals and teachers in the process of policy-making, and towards inspired motivation of the Singaporeans of tomorrow.

If these proposals presage an intelligent and determined effort in these directions, as I believe they do, the teachers' unions in Singapore will need to perceive their roles in an altogether new light. For nothing is more important than producing the rounded, balanced and motivated Singaporeans of tomorrow, which can only be the result of conceiving the educational process as an integral body-mind-spirit affair, involving a creative and continuous inter-action between students, teachers, the Ministry and the community at large.

A Canadian educator, presumably of British extraction, once asserted that the goals of education must be three-fold: liberation, integration and commitment. Liberation from ignorance and negativism; integration of perceptions into a nationally-valid framework of thought and ideas; and commitment to a rational and moral purpose.

Such a conception of the goals of education will call for professional skills of a very high order. Needless to say, less haphazard and more stringent criteria to govern the selection and training of teachers will have to be developed. And the teaching profession itself must be socially upgraded and revalued, not necessarily in monetary terms.

Desirable professional goals, the widening and deepening of professional values and standards, cannot be attained through decrees issued by the Ministry of Education. They will require a total commitment on the part of teachers' organisations in our Republic.

Please let me make it clear that I do not suggest that machinery for processing the claims, grievances and grouses of teachers should be dispensed with. But what I do think is crucial is the transformation of teachers' organisations in Singapore into primarily professional bodies, much more concerned than they are today, with formulating, monitoring and promoting the range of professional interests, standards and values of our educators. If they do show such a transformation, I am certain that there will be no problem of inviting them to sit on the Schools Council.

I commend this for the serious consideration of the teaching profession and of the Ministry of Education.

Much obliged, Sir. 3.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education (Dr Ow Chin Hock): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion thanking the President for his Address on 3rd February at the opening of our Fifth Parliament.

In his Address, the President mentioned that there must be a new relationship of cooperation between management and labour in order to meet our future economic difficulties. In recent months, we have often heard of talks stressing the importance of team work and team spirit. The emphasis is on the work attitude of the workers, stressing that the workers must be loyal and diligent. I personally feel that to build this new labour-management relationship, although it is important to have good labour attitude, we must also view it from another point of view. First, every member of the team must be able to share fairly the fruits of labour. The fruits are not just monetary rewards, but should also include the management's appreciation and recognition of all the participants' efforts. "Whenever there is work, I am remembered; whenever there is reward, I am forgotten". This is most demoralizing. Secondly, the management must pay more attention to the welfare of the employees. This will include not only the safety of the work site but also the provision of opportunities for training, skill upgrading and career development. Thirdly, all staff, whatever their position and rank, should be accorded proper respect for only then can job satisfaction and respect for the job become prevalent. In this respect, the quality as well as the attitude of personnel manager or person in charge of personnel matters towards the employees is of utmost importance.

Talking about labour-management relations, the Japanese example has always been quoted. There are two characteristics in the Japanese labour-management relationship. One is permanent employment and the other is the seniority system. These two have their cultural background and traditions, not just economics. Let us look at o6rselves: Do we have such a cultural tradition?

For the last 20 years, for the sake of survival, we have been striving hard to build up our national economy and promote economic development in order to meet the basic needs of our people and to raise their living standard. We have achieved much in this respect for all to see. All these great achievements have been obtained under the leadership of the PAP Government. We shall strive further in the coming years to restructure our economy, to enhance our technological and scientific levels and to raise our productivity in order to ensure our continued economic prosperity so as to maintain our people's high level of living standards.

However, in entering the 80s, we face a now situation. Let us look back on what had taken place in the past. In those years, in the process of our speedy economic development, did we as a people and as a nation lose something?

An obvious trend has been an increasing quest after material enjoyment and the manifestation of down-to-earth utilitarianism of the people. Another trend has been the mani- festation of individualism and pervading self-interest with hardly any regard or consideration for others and the community. Perhaps this is a by-product of our meritocracy system. However, the influence of Western lifestyles and fads or fancies imported through travel, studying abroad and the mass media, seems to have been the more important cause.

With this prevalence of materialism, utilitarianism and individualism, our Asian traditions and values are being challenged and eroded. Just to name a most obvious example: filial piety, for instance, has been a cardinal virtue of the Chinese people preserved over the past several thousand years, but now we have people not wanting to shoulder the responsibility of looking after their parents. Some have even chucked away their parents or grandparents in the homes for the aged, not caring a hoot for them.

The Prime Minister has made mention of this in his Chinese New Year message. He said that certain Ministers have proposed legislation to enable the parents to force children whom they have brought up to look after their parents (Sin Chew Jit Poh of 4th February, 1981). Some people think that income tax concessions should be given to encourage taxpayers to look after their parents. This is another manifestation of utilitarianism. Does it mean that without tax incentive, we do not have to look after our parents? Are we degraded to such a level that caring for the aged parents has become a burden? What a pity! Must we legislate to get our children to look after their parents? Legislation would not help to turn the tide.

We are now striving to promote mother tongue education, hoping that we could inculcate in our students good oriental traditions and ethical values through it. Each race has its own mother tongue or dialects. As the Chinese have numerous dialects, we are promoting Mandarin as the mother tongue for the Chinese in Singapore. However, from the reaction and response from members of the public and from the feedback from the teaching circles, it seems that the learning of Chinese language is because of the requirement that second language must reach a certain grade for admission into the pre-university class or university or because in the PSLE, marks for languages are given double weightage, and not for the sake of inculcating certain cultural or traditional values through that language. This is also indirectly evidenced from readers' comments to the press on Secondary 1 streaming.

Because of our demographic structure, economic and geo-political factors, the bilingual policy of our Government is correct and logical. English is the language of our Economy, Science and Technology. It is this economic value of the English language that has made most parents regard it as an important language and want their children to learn it properly so as to afford them better employment prospects. On the other hand, Chinese is looked upon as a language of culture and tradition, and up to the present moment, it has not got very much economic value. Many are doubtful that had it not been for the requirements stipulated by the Ministry of Education, how many pragmatic and utilitarian-minded parents would have encouraged their children to learn Chinese language, or for that matter, the pupils themselves would have taken on the serious study of the language of their own volition.

We must realise that in the 80s, if we lose our mother tongue language, what we will be losing is not just a language but all the culture and values that go with it, not least the self-confidence and self-respect of a people. Nation building is not the mere task of decades, but an on-going, never-ending process. Moreover, a nation cannot be built on an economic foundation alone. There are other factors that go to form a nation, such as the nurturing of national consciousness, the morale of the armed forces, social cohesiveness and traditional virtues of loyalty, filial piety, kindness and love as well as respect for the elders; all these are not to be bought with money nor obtainable with material means. I hope all Members of Parliament, all far-sighted and knowledgeable people, the newspapers and mass media and community organisations, will cooperate and help persuade and convince parents and members of the public to attach importance to mother tongue education. 3.37 p.m.

Prof. S. Jayakumar (Bedok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion moved by the Member for Mountbatten expressing the thanks of this House to the President for his Address delivered here on 3rd February, 1981.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in preparing for this debate I had to remind myself as to what a Presidential Address represents. What does it seek to convey? I have answered that question by regarding the Presidential Address as the presentation of the basic philosophy, the basic approach of the Government and the basic outline of legislative program me for the coming years. But this is not in a strict sense an entirely new Government, for the People's Action Party has been in charge of governing Singapore's affairs since self-government.

With the help of the Librarian, a check of the Hansard shows that, in fact, there were eight Addresses to the Parliament of independent Singapore by the President and by the then Head of State, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. These sight Presidential Addresses, Mr Speaker, Sir, taken collectively represent the stage by stage progression of the policies of our Government in advancing the basic fundamental goal of our society.

This led me to ask myself another question, i.e. what is the fundamental goal of our society? In which document can we find the basic goal of our society set out? Do we have any documents akin or nearly equivalent to, say, the American Declaration of Independence? The answer to that, I told myself, lies in our basic constitutional documents: the Constitution of Singapore, the Separation Agreement and the Proclamation of Singapore dated 9th August, 1965. The Separation Agreement is probably a unique agreement in the history of Singapore in that it was signed by the Prime Minister and nine of his Cabinet colleagues. Sir, it may not be out of place for me to quote from the Proclamation of Singapore dated 9th August, 1965, in which the Prime Minister proclaimed, and I quote:

'. . . on behalf of the people and the Government of Singapore that as from today the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.'

In my humble view, it is necessary to bear this in mind, for it can be said that all policies of subsequent Parliaments and of the different ministries must be viewed as preserving and always enhancing this fundamental goal containing these elements of a sovereign democratic independent notion, founded on the elements of liberty and justice, seeking to promote the welfare and happiness of our people in a more just and equal society.

It is with this broad frame of reference, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I have read and considered the Address by our President and the Addendu m to the Address. I will briefly touch on the Addenda relating to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and then proceed to touch at somewhat greater length on one aspect of the Address proper.

In the Addendum relating to the Ministry of Education, we are informed of the plan to set up a Schools Council. We have been informed that there is a need to improve the channel of communication between the headquarters and the school principals. We are told that the policy-thinking in the Ministry is not thoroughly understood by the principals and teachers in the schools. The idea of a Schools Council may, therefore, be appropriate and is commendable, and I hope that this brings about the objective of a better understanding of the educational policies of the Government by those in charge of our schools.

Having said that, I am prompted to observe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the problem of communicating with the principals in the schools may be one problem, but it may not be the only problem. An equally important problem is that of communication with parents of our school children. We have already heard in this House of the pressures, anxieties and worries of parents over the implications of new educational policies of the Government.

Can the Schools Council play a role here? For instance, in schools where there are responsible parent-teacher associations, should not representatives of these associations be invited to sit as observers in the Schools Council, or even as participants? In this way, another objective of reaching out to the parents of our children may be accomplished at the same time. I hope that the Ministry of Education will give due consideration to this after the Schools Council has been launched and the Ministry has an opportunity to appraise its role and effectiveness.

Turning to the Addendum relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs, this Addendum refers, inter alia, to the question of combating drug abuse which is, as we all know, a serious matter. No sympathy can be shown to the drug trafficker. For the drug addict, our objective is to rehabilitate him. I am glad to note from the Addendum that according to the Ministry the drug abuse situation is under control and that the Ministry will use this opportunity to rehabilitate more drug addicts.

On this question of rehabilitation of drug addicts, I wish to inform the House that I have come across cases of drug addicts who have been released, after they have kicked the habit, from detention in rehabilitation centres and several of them have experienced considerable difficulty in resuming their employment because potential employers or their former employers will not take them in or in the case of seamen because they are not re-registered as seamen. This prompts me to observe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the objective of rehabilitation is not achieved only because the addict has kicked the habit and can be released from the centre. He must be made to get back into the mainstream of our society and be a useful citizen with the rest of us. He must be given a second chance to contribute, otherwise there is a high probability of his resuming the drug habit. My comment here may not, of course, be directly within the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs, but I do hope that the departments concerned will not fail to take this into account and try to persuade employers, both in the private and public sectors to change their attitudes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, turning to the third point that I have in mind, the Address by the President emphasized the need for thorough, critical and open debate. Acceptance by, and co-operation with, a knowledgeable people of the policies of the Government is said to be the objective of the Government. In this regard, Members were asked to help by speaking out their views, to criticize Government policies, to make them more responsive to the needs of the people. I warmly applaud this. I think it is a significant call. It illustrates that the Government is not taking a self-satisfied, complacent or smug approach even though it has been returned to power in all constituencies. The President's speech in this regard clearly illustrates that the Government is aware of the trust placed in it by the people and the heavy responsibilities which consequently rest upon Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would submit that it is not only the content or the substance of policies which should be commented on in this House. The implementation of policies and decisions should also be equally scrutinized and debated. The way in which decisions of the Government, policies and legislation are implemented, the way in which they are conveyed and explained to our people, can be as important as the substance of the decisions and policies. Indeed, the most sound policy and the most sensible law can be undermined by poor implementation.

It is on this point that I wish to develop further comments. Like my other 17 colleagues who are new Members of Parlia- ment, I have been a Member of Parliament close to two months. This is indeed a short period. It may not be sufficiently long to enable one to undertake a comprehensive or detailed analysis and appraisal of the Government. Nonetheless, the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Tanglin, has asked the 18 new Members of Parliament to let our conscience be our guide. And so I have asked myself: what important impressions have I gathered during this limited period, and what has pricked my conscience on the basis of this limited experience? One of the important impressions I have concerns the method of the implementation of decisions. This prompts me to respectfully suggest to the Ministries, Government departments and statutory boards to be mindful of the way in which policies and decisions are explained and communicated.

I have in mind both types of decisions, those which are policies enunciated by the Cabinet or promulgated in the form of law as well as specific decisions taken with regard to a request, application or appeal by an individual.

Let me take the question of policies first. Wherever possible, I would suggest that we try to give an adequate period of notice before new important policies are introduced. Policies may be sound and sensible but the methods of implementation can produce unhappiness and negative reactions. We should, wherever possible, give advance notice of the introduction of new policies so that our people can adjust. Of course, I am aware that in some cases and in certain areas, because of urgency this may not be possible. However, a longer period of notice will not only enable people to adjust but the Government as well as individual departments can assess the reactions of the people, to attend to unforeseen snags, to clarify doubts and to give reassurances.

A greater period of notice will also allow the Ministry to explain its policies and to promote discussions in different forums. I would like to commend the Ministry of Education for the public explanations it brought about over television on the PSLE system. Leaving aside whether one agrees or disagrees with the explanations, there is no doubt that this is a step in the right direction. We should go further and attempt to have such discussions before, and not after, the fact.

Let me now turn to decisions taken on specific cases. My appeal here, Mr Speaker, Sir, is for negative decisions to be communicated wherever possible in a way in which the citizen or individual will understand the criteria and the reasons. In particular, I would appeal to the departments to avoid sending replies which are outstanding for their brevity, curt or merely inform the applicant that it is regretted that his application or appeal is rejected without saying anything else. Of course, I am excluding those cases where considerations of security or public order or of privilege may not allow disclosure of reasons. Where the interest of an individual is perceived by him to be very important to him or his family and provided no conceivable threat to the public interest as a whole arises, my appeal is for Government departments to be more open in giving reasons or criteria for their decisions. It may be that from the point of view of the civil servant, the less it is said the more expedient it may be. But from my limited experience such replies produce bewilderment, frustration and unhappiness on the part of the people.

First of all, if no reasons are given, the individual will not know whether he failed in his application or appeal because he did not have the requisite qualifications or whether there were other better applicants.

Secondly, if no reasons are given, it may cause the citizen to feel that the decision indeed was taken without any reasons.

Thirdly, and worse still, it may generate an apprehension that the decisions are taken arbitrarily.

Fourthly, when no reasons are given, it leads to a situation where applicants keep on repeatedly applying, hoping for "pot-luck" in a Russian-roulette fashion, hoping that on their fifth, eighth or tenth application they will succeed. Clearly this is undesirable.

Finally, where their applications have been through an MP, the problems are compounded. Even the MP does not know the reasons, since in most cases all he gets is a copy of the reply sent to the citizen. It is very difficult for him to advise the citizen. His credibility is affected. Indeed, the credibility of the Government may be affected in the long run.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I owe an explanation for having dwelt on this point at length. There are two reasons why I attach importance to this. First, I would anticipate that in the years ahead, there will be increasing regulatory law in different facets of our society - commerce, banking, finance, immigration, employment, and so on. We only have to look at the different Addenda to find examples of the proposed new legislation. This is inevitable if in our society we want to bring about discipline, have control over vital sectors of our economy and other aspects of our society. On the other hand, this will lead to even greater discretionary powers being conferred on public servants as a result of enabling legislation or enabling subsidiary legislation. The second reason why I attach importance is that our voters are becoming more educated, and with greater education, our people in the years ahead will become more conscious and assertive of their rights.

In view of these two factors, it is my respectful suggestion that the way in which policies and decisions are implemented and explained, the way in which discretionary powers are exercised will become increasingly important for Government and the relationship between the Government and the people.

In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked myself whether my views mean that I am advocating the Government to go soft. The answer is "no." The Government can be firm and still fair. If tough policies and tough decisions have to be taken, then they must be taken. The Government has taken an approach all these years where the fundamental bedrock of all policies and decisions is the national interest of the country. We have never hesitated to take policies or decisions where our national interest requires them. I am not suggesting that we depart and, indeed, we should not depart from that approach. However, the Government can take these policies and decisions and exercise its full authority but with fairness and circumspection. If we do this, we can be more assured that the substance as well as the implementation of Government policies will have even greater support of the people in future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Motion. 4.00 p.m.

The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr A. Rahim Ishak): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today on the Motion to express our thanks to the President of our Republic for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament.

Sir, I limit myself to the subject of foreign affairs.

Had it not been for the single-minded determination and firm adherence of a majority of members of the Non-aligned Movement to call a spade a spade, Vietnam's armed intervention and continued military occupation of Kampuchea would have been treated in New Delhi at the recent Non-aligned Foreign Ministers' Conference in the same way it was handled at the Non-aligned Summit in Havana in 1979. As at the United Nations General Assembly in 1979 and 1980, ASEAN members and others were never at any time woolly-headed over this issue. Vietnam had blatantly violated a major principle enshrined in both the UN charter and the Non-aligned Movement by her interference and intervention in the affairs of an independent sovereign nation. To Singapore and other countries in ASEAN, the issue was one of a fundamental principle which had been transgressed. Any attempt by others who were prepared to accept Vietnam's military occupation of Kampuchea as a fait accompli either because they consider it was Vietnam's right to sub-regional hegemonism among the former Indo-chinese states or because they accepted what Vietnam described as an irreversible situation in Kampuchea would have played into the hands of aggressors who believed their actions would go unchallenged because of their superior military strength.

To us in Southeast Asia it is strange that Vietnam, despite an ailing economy and presently the threat of famine because of widespread food shortages, continues its policy of militarisation. One reason why Vietnam is taking this dangerous path is because of the financial and military aid coming from the Soviet Union. The communique issued at the Non-aligned Foreign Ministers' Conference in New Delhi which calls for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Kampuchea will not for the time being be heeded by Vietnam. The consensus on Kampuchea arrived at the Non-aligned Movement Conference will not substantively change the situation in Kampuchea. Vietnam can be expected to ignore the call for her to withdraw her armed forces. Indeed, even before the conference was over, the Soviet Union announced that she would extend aid and assistance amounting to more than US$70 million to Kampuchea. This and the continued financial grants to Vietnam were obviously aimed at encouraging Vietnamese obstinacy and intransigence.

In the Addendum to the Presidential Address at the opening of the First Session it is stated that "so long as we concentrate on fundamental principles to meet realities, however unpleasant, Singapore will ride through what looks like the most turbulent post-war decade." In the context of the conflict in Kampuchea, Singapore's clear-cut stand vis-a-vis Vietnam's occupation of Kampuchea has paid dividends. Singapore has never equivocated nor has it been deterred by the obduracy of those who ignore international opinion after having committed intervention by armed aggression into smaller or bigger and weaker states. It is because we believe that the passage of time should in no way diminish the need for the international community to seek political solutions in international conflicts, such as the one in Kampuchea, that we have been able to win over the non-aligned members of the Movement to call for the withdrawal of foreign troops in Kampuchea. Singapore laid bare fundamental divisions which appeared at the commencement of the Non-aligned Movement Conference when it asked whether Cuba could honestly claim to be non-aligned. Singapore and the other ASEAN countries were in the vanguard leading a clear majority in New Delhi to reassert a more neutral definition of non-alignment.

We have succeeded in the mission we had set out to achieve in New Delhi because we were clear about our objectives. We reject Vietnam's aggression against an independent and sovereign state as much as we object to Vietnam's attempt at imposing sub-regional hegemony. Both are dangerous precedents for peace and stability in Southeast Asia. For the time being, of course, Vietnam will continue to ignore the consensus adopted at the Non-aligned Movement Conference. We have, however, to continue reasserting the principle that invasion by an outside power is an illegal and unacceptable way to change a government, however bad that government may be. We shall do this in other international forums in the months and years ahead until Vietnam realises that a way out for her is to heed the United Nations General Assembly resolution passed at the 35th session. Vietnam has repeatedly claimed that the problem in Kampuchea must be settled by Kampucheans themselves. By this, of course, Vietnam maintains that the regime it has installed in Phnom Penh under Mr Heng Samrin by force of arms should be the sole arbiter of all problems in Kampuchea.

Mr Speaker, Sir, permit me to digress a little on a subject which is related to the one I referred to. In the recent general elections, out of the more than 100 candidates who contested in them, only one, as far as I am aware, thought that Singapore should not interfere in the internal affairs of Kampuchea, i.e. the Kampuchea now ruled and propped up by the regime headed by Mr Heng Samrin who was installed with the help of 200,000 bayonets of the Vietnamese armed forces. The candidate is from the United People's Front. His name is Mr Harbans Singh. Sir, I am not suggesting that the UPF was roundly trounced because of this single reference to Kampuchea. I know there are many other reasons for them to have lost so badly. But I have often wondered whether some of the things uttered by this person were done in jest or were said in seriousness. On Nomination day, 13th December last year, I heard a report in the media that when asked how he would topple the government party by putting up only 14 candidates, Mr Harbans Singh replied that this was only the beginning. Sir, there is nothing wrong with that. It only shows that this man possessed hope and confidence, even if somewhat misdirected. [Laughter]

When asked where his 14 branches were, because he had put up 14 candidates, he replied that some of them were in coffee shops, some of them were along the streets, some of them were along five-foot ways and some were under the trees. I thought at least if he had said some of his branches were on the trees, he would have been nearer his target. [Laughter] However, Sir, let me continue with my speech.

Today, a change is beginning to take place in the Kampuchean situation which has already sent shivers down the backs of the authorities in Hanoi. A radical change will emerge as nationalist forces in Kampuchea rally round non-communist leaders, including Mr Son Sann, Prince Norodom Sihanouk and others including those possibly led by the Khmer Rouge to broaden the national united front to resist Vietnamese occupation of their country. It has taken more than two years for these nationalists and patriotic personalities to realise the need to sink differences to bring about a change in Kampuchea. This will be the response to the call for Kampucheans to solve Kampuchean problems. Kampucheans inside and outside of Kampuchea will begin to determine their own destiny. The emergence of a non-communist government in Kampuchea will pave the way for greater support from non-communist countries around the world for a neutral Kampuchea. Singapore has already made its stand clear that she does not wish to see the return of a government led by the Khmer Rouge forces. The vast majority in the international community would also want a political solution to the Kampuchean problem which will bring about a government in Phnom Penh which is neither hostile to Vietnam nor controlled by China.

It will take a couple of years for the nationalist forces in a coalition led by the non-communist leaders, including Prince Sihanouk and Mr Son Sann, to establish themselves as a credible force. Support for their movement, I believe, will grow. The people of Kampuchea now under Vietnamese domination will show support for them by refusing to cooperate with the Heng Samrin authorities and the Vietnamese armed forces all over the country. Resistance to the invaders and their puppets will increase. At some point the Vietnamese will seek a political solution. When this scenario has emerged, there will be greater hope for a settlement.

The most positive achievement of the meeting in New Delhi is that for the first time the Non-aligned Movement has recognised the existence of the Kampuchean problem which arose from Vietnam's aggression and occupation of that country. Hitherto, Vietnam had insisted that there was no Kampuchean problem and that the presence of 200,000 Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea was the internal affair of Kampuchea, as Mr Harbans Singh believed.

The call in the Non-aligned Movement Communique for Vietnam to withdraw its forces from Kampuchea clearly exposes the myth that Vietnam had sent in troops into Kampuchea at the invitation of the Heng Samrin regime. Hitherto Vietnam has attributed international condemnation of its action to Western imperialists and hegemonists. Vietnam will from today find it difficult to refer to a majority in the Non-aligned Movement as agents of the Western imperialists and hegemonists.

Therefore, Sir, it would be wise for Vietnam to take heed of world opinion which has called for an international conference. ASEAN has neither a quarrel nor any problem with Vietnam. ASEAN has merely rejected Vietnam's violation of a fundamental principle in international law. As and when Vietnam rectifies its errors, ASEAN will be the first to cooperate with all the states in Indo-china in launching an era of peace and stability for which our continued development and their reconstruction cannot do without.

As we closely monitor developments in the Kampuchean situation, let us not lose sight of the international scenario in the context of super-power rivalry. The Non-aligned Movement was conceived as a reaction to the emergence of bi-polarism as represented by the United States of America and the Soviet Union. The Non-aligned Movement denies that the world's nations must be identified or aligned with these two giants. Members of the Non-aligned Movement accept the fact that the Movement is neither ideologically nor politically monolithic. Yet steered in the course it had charted for itself, the Non-aligned Movement can maintain substantial unity of purpose and solidarity in political action. Singapore had sufficient faith not to believe that the Movement need be lost to one or the other superpower. That is why we regretted Burma's withdrawal from the Movement at the Havana summit meeting. It is this faith that led to the victories at the 34th and 35th United Nations' sessions. We believe that the natural ally of the Non-aligned Movement is the spirit of independence and nationalism which motivates it. Vietnam which fought for its independence so valiantly for 30 years against the Japanese, French and Americans will have to concede sooner or later that the nationalism of the Kampuchean people is equal in ardour and courage to its own.

Vietnam's mistake is that after her glorious victory over the USA in 1975 she believed that certain difficulties in her relations with China and the situation in Kampuchea gave her the right to transgress international boundaries and violate the sacred independence of sovereign states and that with the support of the Soviet Union she would get away with impunity, her violation of traditional norms and universally accepted laws affecting nations. However, as realists let us also not forget that although we have succeeded in convincing the majority in the international community, these successes should not be exaggerated. The Vietnamese are tough nuts to crack. They will not easily give in. For this reason we must be prepared for a long and sustained struggle. We must be as patient and tough as our adversaries if we are to continue to score moral victories to reach a political settlement in Kampuchea and from there on ensure peace and stability in Southeast Asia. If Vietnam does not want to be increasingly isolated in the international community, she should quickly heed the views of the majority in the world for her to withdraw from Kampuchea and allow the people of Kampuchea themselves to determine their future.

Mr Speaker, I support the Motion to thank the President for his speech in opening the Fifth Parliament. 4.18 p.m.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has, at the opening of the Fifth Parliament on the third day of this month, explicitly set the goals of the Government in the next five years. However, to achieve these objectives, the effort of the Government alone is certainly not enough. Our people have to be mobilised to make their share of contributions. The joint effort of the Government and the people is the key to success. Although our people have shown full confidence in the PAP government, as testified by their choice of a continuing leadership of the nation in the recent general elections, we must on no account lose sight of their will and aspirations. The simple political philosophy that the wealth gained through the concerted effort of all Singaporeans must be justly distributed still holds. Thus our job as Parliamentarians, as Backbenchers, in particular, is to ensure that Government policies are formulated in the best interest of the nation and that their implementation does not unduly upset the life of our people or cause inconvenience to them unnecessarily.

The President has rightly pointed out that Parliament should reflect the views, the hopes, the doubts and the fears of the people. With no opposition being elected to this Chamber, the task of Backbenchers is even more difficult in their dual-role function to make the Parliament truly reflective of the will and aspirations of our people. Hence, the injection of new blood to the House will, to a great extent, enrich the substance of debates, as evidenced in the Sitting yesterday and earlier this afternoon. Although many of our new colleagues are professionals, they are by no means insensitive to the feelings on the ground. However, the achievement of a rapport with the people cannot be attained overnight but is the result of a painstaking process of understanding the problems and needs of the people through the weekly meet-the-people sessions, the meetings with community leaders and the constant constituency tours. In short, a more matured Parliament is to be envisaged.

The Addenda to the President's Speech released over the past 10 days have set out the detailed objectives and strategies of each ministry in the next few years. After going through the Addenda at length, I notice that the Addendum pertaining to the Ministry of Education forms about one-third of the whole paper. This is an indication of the importance of education to the nation as a whole as well as the intricate job entrusted to the Education Ministry. Incidentally, allow me to comment sincerely that we Singaporeans are indeed fortunate to have a most knowledgeable and wise man, none other than the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister, to take charge of education. We know that his advice is even sought by the Sri Lankan Government and other governments in order for them to get rich. However, as a humble man, the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister had indicated in this Chamber that he would welcome suggestions and constructive criticisms as to how the education policy could best be implemented. Hence I would like to make some observations on education.

First, I shall touch on the issue of streaming. I would like to refer Members to the Addendum which rightly admitted that "the exercise aroused widespread public controversy". Although streaming in secondary schools is dealt with at great length in the Addendum, it is surprising to note that no mention has been made to streaming in primary schools. I share the views of the Hon. Member for Yio Chu Kang who spoke yesterday that the future of a child should not be decided at a tender age; as early as nine. From what I can gather, most parents are, in fact, worried and feel strongly that slow learners may lose out in the streaming exercise, in particular for those streamed to do the monolingual course. Another problem that has arisen is that many schools do not conduct the monolingual course owing to its small enrolment and the lack of competent teachers. Pupils in this category, in many cases, have to travel long distances to schools. Either out of frustration or owing to financial constraints, the parents of these pupils who are largely in the lower income group as pointed out by the hon. Member for Yio Chu Kang yesterday, may simply choose the easy way out by stopping the education of their children. Although I have no statistics to show how many such pupils have left school, I am sure there must be some. If the situation is not rectified, the number of children leaving schools will probably increase in the near future. These pupils, in the words of the Addendum "left school virtually illiterate". In the past, the illiterate had left school at the age of 13 or 14; whereas now the age has indirectly been advanced to nine or 10.

Similarly, no mention is made in the Addendum on ways to boost the morale of the teachers. It is universally accepted that even if you have the best education policy in the world, without the full co-operation of teachers who are the primary catalysts of any educational system, since they are in the forefront in close contact with the pupils, no policies can be successfully implemented. No teacher will work wholeheartedly if he is in low spirits. I am told that owing to the acute shortage of language teachers, many teachers have to do extra work. The Chinese-educated teachers are the worst lot. Many of them have to undergo training after training and sit for examination after examination. In the end they are completely demoralised. The hon. Member for Kampong Ubi has touched on the question of the promotion exercise in the teaching profession. I share his sentiments. But I would like to add that this promotion exercise is one which most teachers are looking forward to, and this is long overdue. More than four years have elapsed since the last exercise in 1976. I do not understand why the Ministry of Education should hold up the promotion exercise. If this exercise is not to be scrapped, then surely the promotion exercise must continue to exist. If it exists, when will it be revived?

Next, I would like to touch on the school appraisal system in practice now. While I appreciate the effort of the Ministry of Education to give more autonomy to school principals, I am sceptical of the effectiveness of the self-appraisal system. As principals are not trained nor specialised in all subjects, the accuracy of the appraisal on all teachers, therefore, leaves much to be desired. Certainly an English-educated principal will find it beyond his ability to assess the performance of a Chinese language teacher or other language teachers.

I do not know how far this is true, but I am told that the magnificent three-year rolling plan and detailed annual work plan of schools are mainly drawn up to please certain people in the Ministry headquarters. In practice, the schools go on as usual. The large amount of paper work required by the Ministry headquarters has merely increased the workload of the school and involved the people which in effect is a "Much ado about nothing".

According to the Addendum, the rate of annual external appraisal by the Ministry is 56 primary and 28 secondary schools. Assuming we have 343 primary and 135 secondary schools, the recurrent appraisal rate for each school is 6.1 years for the primary and 4.8 years for the secondary schools. Since self-appraisal is far from perfect and external appraisal has to take such a long time, I am in great doubt about what would happen to schools in between two external appraisals. Since the specialist inspectorate was scrapped, teachers have nowhere to seek. specialist advice. This is more so in the Art subjects. I am told that many teachers who have no training in Art or have very little knowledge of Art are assigned to teach An. I do not blame the teachers, but the standard of an or, for that matter, any other specialised subjects will definitely be lowered. I am also told that since there is no Art coordinator in the Ministry headquarters, outstanding works have not been collected from schools for participation in international art competitions. I remember the Hon. Prime Minister once lamented on the lack of a sense of art appreciation amongst Singaporeans. With this state of affairs in our schools, I am afraid that what we are able to produce is a bunch of economic creatures. I am given to understand that the external appraisal system which the Ministry is so proud of has been discarded in many states in Australia.

The ultimate aim of education is, I feel, to develop a child into an all-rounded person. He is not to be trained only to acquire the skill to earn a living or to make money alone; but to be taught other aspects of life. The success of education should, therefore, be gauged on the number of good citizens produced who will mould the pattern of our society in future, and not on the absolute number of children who pass examinations. Sir, I still have many things to say on education. But as many other hon. Members, especially the newcomers, are expected to speak, I would not like to take too much time. I will end my speech by saying this: the success of our education system should be the combination of professionalism and good administration, and this can only be achieved when the dedication of our teachers is motivated. Not until then, can we say that our education policy has been a success.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the hon. Member for Mountbatten in thanking the President.

4.34 p.m.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion moved by the Member for Mountbatten to thank the President for the Speech he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament.

The President has stated clearly the three major tasks confronting us in the 1980s. I have a few comments to offer on some policies intended to enable us to overcome the problems we face.

With the bleak economic outlook for 1981, the call for closer cooperation between management and labour is indeed timely. It is crucial for our continued survival and it must be urgently heeded by both unions and management. Labour and management must cooperate to bring about higher productivity. They must work together to cut out waste and inefficiency.

In the Addendum on the Ministry of Labour, it is indicated that steps will be taken to foster greater cooperation between unions, workers and management. The industrial relations situation will be closely monitored and there will be preventive mediation to ensure that grievances do not develop into industrial conflicts. Some existing labour laws will also be reviewed and necessary amendments made to ensure that they are relevant to the needs of the Eighties. However, it must be recognised that for labour and management cooperation to be truly successful, management must show proper respect for the workers and must value the contributions they make. Workers must be treated as human beings and not as mere production digits. To get the best out of workers, management in every company must be able to motivate them, recognise their ability, improve their career prospects by providing them with the necessary skills, training and retraining and convince them that they have a good future in the company. We cannot assume that the existence of Quality Control circles or other forms of management/workers cooperation like Productivity Committee, Workers Council and so on will immediately bring about the necessary level of cooperation between workers and management. Some of these committees have succeeded but there are also those which have not. And invariably for those which have failed, the main reason is that managements in such companies have not accepted and recognised that the workers have an important role to play in the progress and development of their companies. The failures of workers/management cooperation in such companies have left some of the workers thoroughly disillusioned with the concept of workers/management cooperation. It is therefore necessary that steps be taken to remedy this situation so that workers feel that they have a part to play and a contribution to make in all areas of labour/management cooperation. While it is true that there are some managements which are enlightened and have fully accepted the concept that workers and management can cooperate and work together as a team with a common interest and destiny to see that the company will prosper, there are also managements who are stubbornly clinging to the thinking that workers cannot make any worthwhile contribution to the progress and prosperity of the company and that they are merely production digits.

For workers/management cooperation to succeed top management must be totally committed to it and also see to it that all other levels of management are similarly committed to it. The Ministry of Labour must also be prepared and must be seen to take managements, who do not accord respect to workers or who fail to properly motivate them, to task. On the part of the unions, it is evident from recent experiences that they are not only prepared but also quite capable of disciplining their members who are irresponsible or who display bad work habits.

On the Central Provident Fund contributions, the contributors to the fund have been expressing their concern that their CPF savings will be eroded in time due to inflation. The schemes to enable the contributors to make use of their contribution in various ways have been long overdue. The scheme to allow members to purchase private residential property will only benefit a small category of contributors. More important is the proposal to review the Board's investment policies so that members can enjoy better returns to their savings, as well as the proposal to introduce an insurance scheme to protect the dependants of members who die or who are incapacitated from ever working again. The Ministry of Labour should monitor the development of these schemes to ensure that they are introduced as expeditiously as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the main problems faced by those who are less fortunate among us, particularly the low wage earners, is the increasing cost of living. In the Addendum on the Public Utilities Board it is indicated that water tariffs may have to be revised to discourage excessive use of this scarce resource. We would certainly have to penalise those who are wasteful and use water excessively. However, in making revisions to the water tariff, due consideration must be given to the plight of the low wage earners. Water is a basic need and provided that consumption is reasonable, they should not be burdened with the increased tariffs which should only apply at the higher level of usage so that only those who are wasteful are penalised. Further, it is also necessary to ensure that the PUB operates efficiently so that the cost of utilities can be kept as low as possible. Increasing the cost of utilities will have an inflationary impact and such increases should only be considered as a last resort.

Finally, in the Addendum on the Ministry of Social Affairs it is heartening to note that the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) will assist more Muslim youths to pursue higher education in the universities and in technical institutions. However, in addition to providing bursaries to Muslim youths to enable them to pursue higher education, MUIS should also consider giving other forms of assistance, for example, they should consider introducing an education loan scheme which could be used by the needy students. This will enable the pool of Muslim youths receiving financial assistance from MUIS to further their education, to be enlarged. 4.42 p.m.

Dr Wan Soon Bee (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion moved by the Member for Mountbatten to express our thanks to the President for the Speech he delivered on behalf of the Government.

I am sure you heard the President request in the course of his speech that Parliament must mirror the views, the hopes and doubts and fears of Singaporeans. The more thoroughly Government policies are understood, the better the chances of successful implementation. Acceptance by, and cooperation with, a knowledgeable people of the policies of Government, is the way to success. This is the objective of the Government. Members will best help in achieving this objective by speaking out their views.

In helping to achieve this objective, I wish to bring up three burning questions of the day.

The first is bilingualism. I am more than convinced that bilingualism is an absolute necessity in our multi-racial society. Of prime importance to us is, of course, the English language, the medium of our vital commercial, financial and industrial lives. Equally important is the mother tongue or a second language that nurtures us with the rich cultural heritage of our forefathers.

The latest statistics show that we have made considerable progress in bilingualism. This effort should not be relaxed, if anything, it should be intensified.

The second burning question of the day is streaming that has aroused much interest, controversy and anxiety of parents and the public. The object of streaming pupils according to ability is to enable them to be taught at the most suitable pace. This objective is most commendable. However, I agree with the Member for Yio Chu Kang who mentioned yesterday that streaming of pupils in Primary 3 may be premature. With regard to the Primary 6 streaming, I find the process may be fraught with dangers. The PSLE consists of four subjects, namely, first language, second language, science and mathematics. Double weightage is given to both the languages, thus making science and mathematics rather irrelevant. As a result, those pupils who may be potential technicians, engineers or even scientists will have the misfortune to be streamed into the 5-year normal course and even within the express course, they may be streamed into schools with lesser facilities and be among pupils who are weak in science and mathematics. This, I am afraid, may demoralize some, while others may not find the opportunities to develop their full potential. Therefore, I suggest that more thought should be given to the criteria used in streaming.

My third point is on moral education. With due respect to Dr R. Balhatchet, whose moral education program me is being experimented at Bukit Merah School, I feel that this subject should not be taught through the medium of a set of rules but rather in the form of short stories and filmlets with moral values. This method will make moral eduction more interesting and allow the children to absorb moral values unconsciously. 4.47 p.m.

Mr M.K.A. Jabbar (Radin Mas): ( In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am proud to speak in my mother tongue for the first time in this House.

I support the Motion moved by the Member for Mountbatten. Our Republic is the best example of a multi-racial country and it has attained fame as one. Singapore is being governed without any fear or favour. Hence, though we do not have any natural resources, we are not bothered about poverty. We do not have any troubles from enemies either. The way our country is ruled, to strive with pride, reminds me of a verse in the famous Thirukkural. It says, "Caution, education and courage are the three essentials for rulers".

Mr Speaker, Sir, while endeavouring to speak in this Chamber within the limits of Standing Orders, I may make some minor procedural mistakes here and there. But I assure you that I will make every effort to correct myself.

While we are debating on this motion, I wish to bring certain points to the attention of this august Chamber. We can encourage foreigners to buy commercial land in our Republic, according to our policy, and let them benefit by it. But if we allow foreigners to buy residential property, then in due course they will be controlling all the residential properties and our people may have to pay very much more. I, therefore, hope the Ministry of National Development will review this matter.

As far as I know, the NTUC encourages, through its affiliates, the collection of contributions towards the Singapore Labour Foundation. But nothing is collected from non-unionised workers. Since the non-unionised workers are also benefiting from the fund, the Ministry of Labour should see that the employers come forward to collect money from them and pay towards the fund either directly or through the unions. Otherwise, the members of unions affiliated to the NTUC, who have the national interest at heart, will be discouraged. I hope the Ministry of Labour will take note of this and review the matter.

The lifts in some of the old HDB blocks in my constituency do not function properly. The residents had complained to the former MP before and they also complain to me now when I make home visits. But once after the lifts are repaired following upon a complaint by the MP, they will get out of order again in a day or two. The Ministry of National Development should seek a permanent solution to this problem.

A person who buys a HDB flat enjoys the privilege for some time. He can then re-sell the flat at a profit to another person who needs the flat urgently. The buyer who had registered for a flat three years earlier when the price was low now has to pay more for the flat. Perhaps the Ministry of National Development can find a more reasonable solution to this problem. This is my humble appeal.

A child can be treated by a private doctor for $6 to $8 at a private hospital or clinic. But the fee charged at the Government Emergency Unit is $10. The Government should take into consideration the plight of the poor and reduce the fees so that everyone can benefit.

The Singapore Broadcasting Corporation produces and broadcasts programmes that are modern and equal to foreign ones. This is praiseworthy. But in the Tamil news bulletin at times there is no relationship between the film shown and the news that is being read. There is no connection at all between what is read and the pictures shown. The Minister concerned should see that such confusion is avoided.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I conclude my speech by wishing all the best to our Republic, and I also wish to thank the President for his speech. 4.52 p.m.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion to 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.

May I submit my observations on the various policy statements made by the Ministers in the Addendum to the President's speech. As a Singaporean, I feel a glow of pride when the President said in his speech that:

'Singapore has grown from a fishing village into a modern metropolis because Singaporeans believe in hard work, thrift, honesty and self-reliance. So long as we continue to practise these virtues, the future holds no fear for us.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans take great pride in Singapore's achievements. As parents, they are deeply concerned about the future of our country, in particular the future of their children. This is normal. It is a human tendency for parents to ensure that their children get better things than they had when they were at their children's age. Our Government has, for the last 22 years, with the support of the people ensured that the parents' wishes come true as far as it is practicable and in the interest of the nation. Nowadays, if you ask any parents with school-going age children what they think of our education system, the answer, more often than not, would be "There are too many changes! It is so confusing, we do not know what to expect." I can understand their feelings because there have been changes which have been confusing and more can be done to ensure that it is less confusing. When the parents go to the teachers to seek clarification, the teacher or the Vice-Principal or even the Principal could not be of very much help, not because they do not want to help but because they themselves have been subjected to the many changes and, worse, in many cases they are not informed of these changes either. They must have felt like the "meat in a sandwich" with the parents on one side and the Ministry on the other. This is particularly true with the PSLE results where I notice efforts have been made by the Ministry to clarify the situation but not before the confusion has started.

I have always held the teaching profession in high regard, because teachers are a special breed of people who have a great role to play in the moulding of the minds of our young. Therefore, when teachers, dedicated teachers, of 20 or more years of service suddenly decide to resign, I am concerned, deeply concerned. And the parents share this concern too. Why do the teachers call it a day? The Ministry must take a long and hard look into the reasons and remedy the situation quickly in order that our education system will not be affected. Has the Ministry officials seen the condition of the staff common-rooms of some of our schools? It is certainly not a comforting sight. How then can we motivate the teachers if the basic hygiene factors are inadequate? I agree with Herzberg when he said that if people are comfortable they tend to work harder and give of their best. Therefore, in the building of new schools, this hygiene factor, among others, for the teaching profession must be kept in mind.

Furthermore, I have read reports and heard complaints about Ministry officials being high-handed, especially to the teachers and even the principals. There is a more appropriate time for me to catalogue the many colourful incidents to prove my point. It can be done later during the Budget session, if necessary. Therefore, I am cheered to note that the Ministry, in its Addendum, will be forming a Schools Council in order to promote a two-way communication. It is, however, not clear whether the primary school Principals will be included because they have different situations and face different problems from the secondary schools and junior colleges. Those principals selected to sit on the Schools Council have an unenviable task. They have the responsibility to speak out with all sincerity and conviction, without fear or favour, for the good of our nation as all PAP MPs have done in Parliament and will continue to do so. The Ministry officials, on the other hand, should not use this Schools Council as a rubber stamping device to push through the changes that they feel the schools should have. It would be a sheer waste of everyone's time if the implementation smells of a cosmetic flavour. It has been said that, if you tell someone about a policy to be implemented, you are recognizing his presence, but if you consult him, you are appreciating his intelligence. In this case, the Ministry must pick the brains of these Principals who have got years of teaching experience to our nation's advantage and for the security of our children's future.

I am not saying, however, that all teachers are good. I am sure Members of this House could easily pick out the various teachers whom they have come across in the years of their school career whom they cannot forget but want to. On the other hand, I am sure, there are many more teachers whom they will always remember with fond memories.

It appears that much of this confusion regarding our education system can be attributed to the brilliant young men and women who have descended on the Ministry of Education to put matters right. They have been known to be called systems engineers. I have met some of them and I am impressed with their brilliant academic minds, but they tend to forget that human feelings are not like binary digits which can be whisked around in their computers or decision boxes pushed along their systems flowcharts. In short, these high-fliers should learn how to land once in a while and talk to down-to-earth people like the teachers and parents, because this will do them, as well as the system they want to implement, a world of good. This sensitivity to people's feelings, be it the teachers or the parents, must be acquired by these young systems engineers and acquired fast. It will yield greater satisfaction knowing that you have overcome the greatest barrier the human mind could create - resistance to change.

With our First Deputy Prime Minister, one of Singapore's finest minds on the job, I cannot forecast anything else but success. Maybe it has to appear to get worse before it gets better. If this is the case, the wait, the anxiety and the confusion would be worthwhile and if carefully explained, Singaporeans, renowned for their pragmatism, will understand and support it.

Sir, our public health service, is without a doubt, the finest in this region. But this will not be so for too long if all our fine and experienced doctors and related staff start to leave the public sector and go into private practice. Like Aladdin's lamp, the replacement of new doctors for old is not a sound proposition. We must try our best to retain them. I realise that the Government cannot match the rewards of the private sector but although "money is something, it is not everything." Other incentives, including the pride to serve the country and career development plan, as the Member for Ayer Rajah expounded yesterday, should be offered.

Another disturbing policy is when certain classes of civil servants with many years of loyal and dedicated service are given less favourable medical benefit in terms of hospitalisation. The policy which caused ward-downgrading for them leaves bitter taste in their mouth, especially after so many years of loyal service. When they need it most, the Government appears to have taken away the benefit which they have been enjoying. It is no wonder that civil servants belonging to this particular category, usually non-graduates, who have given many years of loyal service decide to part company with the civil service.

Much has been said and threatening things have been planned to be carried out by the Ministry of Labour to curb job-hopping. I fully support that the bad attitude of job-hopping should be checked effectively and checked quickly. But in the final analysis when we found, based on CPF records, that only 6,600 workers were job- hoppers out of a working population of 1.1 million, it seems that we have tried to kill a fly with a sledge-hammer. Effective but most inefficient. On the other hand, a person who changes job three times in a period of one year may not be a job-hopper. He may be a "post-vaulter". He may be extremely ambitious for all we know or the management of that company which he starts to work for may not be able to give him what he really wanted - a challenge. Therefore, in my opinion, the bigger share of the blame for job-hopping in most cases should fall on the shoulders of management because management should not labour and labour should be well managed.

In the Addendum on the Ministry of Labour, I am pleased to note that the Ministry is creating more part-time employment opportunities for housewives to alleviate the labour shortage. This is a good objective. It is not uncommon to find young skilled women give up their jobs when they get married and start having children. When their children have grown, they may find more time for themselves and may decide to start working again but on a part-time basis because they still wish to care for their families. The spare time that they have may prove to be boring for them, and this is counter- productive in terms of skill lost at the mahjong table.

Statutory boards have been created by Parliament so that they can better serve the public, but there are indications to show that they have forgotten their primary objectives and instead tend to compete with one another as to which statutory board can make more money, unfortunately, out of members of the public. I firmly believe in profit-centre management but we might be pushing too far if each statutory board or government-owned company wishes to show in their published accounts that they have made more money than the rest because the money ultimately comes from us, the members of the public. This is manifested also by the luxurious tall buildings that each statutory board tries to build or have built.

An hon. Member: With swimming pools!

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: Swimming pools too. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the proposal that our senior citizens should be given special privileges because without their hardwork, conviction and sacrifice made many years ago, we. might not be here debating this point. Most probably, we might have been a people without a country on slow, leaking boats to nowhere. Therefore, I am most disappointed to hear that the Singapore Bus Service is not too keen to grant concessionary rates for bus travel during off-peak periods for our senior citizens, simply because it cuts into their profits. To my mind, concessionary rates should be given to all our senior citizens not only for bus travel but also for admission to all parks, the zoo, and even cinemas. I have got no vested interest in this proposal, Mr Speaker, because it will take quite a little while before I can enjoy this benefit.

The Singapore Broadcasting Corporation is improving steadily. I notice that the Singapore Flag with its full meaning is telecast at the beginning and at the end of each day. This is good because many Singaporeans may have forgotten the significance of our national flag.

I understand the policy of promoting more Mandarin and less dialects for the Chinese Singaporeans. However, our senior citizens are mainly dialect-speaking and they enjoy very much the current once-a-week dialect-speaking soap opera on TV. We must not take this simple enjoyment off them. In fact, if this is to be done, then no cinemas in Singapore should be allowed to screen any dialect films.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now wish to touch on the Ministry of National Development. It seems that there is a total lack of forward planning in our road system. The PWD either enjoys seeing traffic jams or are staffed by people who have land transportation other than the traditional means, I heard whispers that it is not PWD's fault. They have tried to improve our road system by recommending early the building of by-passes, overhead bridges and expressways, but these proposals apparently have been turned down by the Ministry of Finance. Maybe we should learn from the Finance officers how they travel. The opening of expressways now-adays gives an indication that much fire-fighting has been done because it tends to push the traffic jams from one end to the other but not solving it.

In addition, the supervision in the building of roads is poor, if not non-existent. It is not uncommon to see a newly opened road becoming bumpity-bump after only several months. These roads have then to be resurfaced.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): No quality control!

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: And people wonder why contractors are getting richer and the motoring public are getting poorer. The middleman may turn out to be the Ministry of National Development and, of course, the Ministry of Communications. In this respect, at least, we can learn from Britain where their superb highways are a pleasure to drive on.

Bad workmanship and poor supervision are not only evident in our roads. They are also evident in our HDB flats. While I shall be the first to congratulate the HDB for the low-cost housing success, I am afraid I may not be the first and certainly not the last to complain of poor supervision in the building of HDB flats. I am not talking in this instance of finishes which are already poor. What I am referring to is serious water-seepage in the flats after two or more years. Nobody likes his home to be flooded whenever it rains. The HDB apparently gives you a roof over your head but they seem to have forgotten to put up proper walls, I hope the Ministry would take positive and effective steps, no matter how expensive they may be, to put the matter right once and for all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would not be appropriate if I end without touching on PUB charges. PUB charges are steadily rising. I am sure there are good reasons why this is so. But at the moment they are keeping it a secret. I have shown my concern about rising PUB charges in the last Parliament. It is more disturbing when PUB publishes statements of accounts showing a profit and yet the charges seem to be rising. Singaporeans are pragmatic and thinking people and they would accept an explanation, if properly given. I suggest more effort be given to explain the situation, and I am sure Singaporeans would be sympathetic if the reasons are justifiable. 5.11 p.m.

Dr Tay Eng Soon (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion moved by the Member for Mountbatten expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of this Fifth Parliament.

In his Address, the President crystallized for us the main issues which will confront our nation in the 1980's. The clarity and cogency with which issues are stated have become the hallmark of our Government which believes in stating the plain facts to the people. A distinct quality of our Government over the years has been its ability to explain basic issues clearly and convincingly to our people and to evoke their response in support of these policies. How else could one explain the successes that have been achieved, often against severe odds in fields as diverse as tripartism in industrial relations and our bilingual policy? In the years ahead, we will have to find solutions to the problems outlined by the President in a period when the world economic situation will face severe recession. This will test our Government as well as our people. Thanks to the efforts of a wise Government which has laid a strong foundation, we should be able to face the vicissitudes of the 80s with confidence and resolve.

The President has given Members of Parliament an injunction to mirror the hopes and aspirations as well as the doubts and anxieties of our people. We are to subject all bills and legislation to the strictest scrutiny and to ensure that nothing should be passed without thorough, critical, and open debate. This injunction means that Members of Parliament will be involved in communicating Government thinking and policy to the people, as well as the feelings and problems of the people to the Government. In this respect, the proposal made by the Member for Mountbatten to form MP groups to be centred around each Ministry has distinct merit and should be explored further.

May I now turn, Sir, to several issues which have been raised in the Addendum to the President's Address and by hon. Members during this debate. I want to thank the Member for Mountbatten for persuading us convincingly that the view that men are mere digits of production alongside machines is out of date and must be replaced by one in which workers must be treated as human beings who are capable of giving of their best under enlightened leadership. He spoke of how QC circles could become the means whereby workers and management could work as a team for the common goal of raising productivity. I would actually go further by asserting that you cannot go very far up the technological ladder without making changes in your management philosophy and style. This principle seems to be true, whether you are managing precision tool makers, software designers, or research and development engineers. For example, in the field of R & D, in which I have some experience, the manager must be able to create close team work and rapport among his R & D workers, if any result is to be achieved. Very little would be achieved if you put an autocratic taskmaster in charge of an R & D team, no matter how brilliant he is. The team will simply break up and its members hop off elsewhere. What seems to be evident from experience and research findings is that for a given organization or task there is a type of management which is best suited to it.

As we are set on the road to upgrading our industrial economy and to acquiring more skills and knowledge-based industries, it will pay us to explore carefully how we can develop the skills of our managers, not just in the technical aspect but, more importantly, in the human relations and behavioural aspects. Much is now known about behaviour and motivation. I strongly suggest that we should bring the expertise on motivational training into Singapore as one measure linked to our economic restructuring exercise.

Job-hopping has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and they have correctly pointed out that job satisfaction or the lack of it is one of its causes. As our population becomes better educated, the need for job satisfaction will become as important as, if not more than, pay. It is worth noting that despite the wide publicity given to job-hopping, there are actually firms in Singapore with a very good record of low staff turnover despite a tight labour market. What is even more fascinating is that similar firms down the road, so to speak, may have a high staff turnover despite being similar in pay and physical working conditions and employing the same Singaporean workers.

A closer examination reveals that the key difference is the quality of supervisors and managers and top management philosophy. In one firm the management is enlightened and is able to create a climate of security, participation and teamwork. In the other, the management is aloof and autocratic. Clearly, we need to know much more about job-hopping by carrying in-depth case studies of firms. We may well discover that there is a vital link between worker loyalty and dedication and management philosophy and attitude. I recommend that such studies should be carefully carried out. On the other hand, I do not recommend pointing our fingers at job-hopping workers and preaching to them. These actions are, at best, futile. I would also caution against implementing the Anti-Job-Hopping Incentive Fund Scheme. I think it will be ineffective because we will not be tackling the root causes. The scheme reminds me of anti-absenteeism incentive schemes, which are being used elsewhere. In both, we will be paying a ransom to a person to prevent him from doing something undesirable. Where will it end?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say something now about speculation, which seems to have hit our private property market. The present state of frenzied buying and speculation reminds me of the heady months when our stock market went wild in 1972 and 1973. But the difference is that while some people lost their shirts in the stock market in 1972 and 1973, the speculation in the property market and the way prices are being pushed up artificially has, I believe, serious implications.

First, the prices have reached such heights that many Singaporeans see no hope of acquiring their own home, particularly if they are outside the HUDC bracket. Even with the imminent release of CPF funds for private property purchase, the prospect of buying a house is rapidly diminishing for many. What proves to be particularly galling to Singaporeans is that many of the speculators and purchasers seem to be foreigners with ready cash. Surely we have enough speculators of our own without needing the additional services of foreign ones.

Secondly, granted that real cost has gone up, how much more has speculation, both in the private and commercial construction projects, caused prices to be further jacked up? This over-heating of our construction industry is no good at all for our public housing project. I understand that last year HDB missed their target of 25,000 flats by 5,000 units because there were not enough contractors willing or able to tender for HDB projects. Presumably many contractors found the inflated private projects much more lucrative.

I submit, Sir, that we cannot allow speculation in the private housing market to hamper our public housing projects. I would humbly urge the Minister for National Development to look into how speculation by both locals and foreigners can be effectively curbed. The last thing we want is the property situation in Hong Kong which has become a damper on their economic progress.

I turn now, Sir, to speak on moral education and our liberal abortion policy. As we all know, the Ministry of Education is trying very hard to introduce an effective moral education course into the school curriculum. Its adviser, Dr Balhatchet, has rightly pointed out that moral education cannot just be taught as a classroom subject without reference to the school environment and, indeed, to society itself. In principle, I believe he is right although it is encouraging that many of us managed to grow up as morally upright citizens despite the existence of immorality and imperfection around us.

However, I would like this House to consider the long-term pernicious effects of our liberal abortion policy on morality. Whatever the arguments about whether the aborted foetus is a living human being or not, although I personally believe that the creature scraped out of its mother's womb is as human as you or I, the danger of freely available abortion is that it encourages an irresponsible, careless and immoral attitude towards a God-given act of procreation. It leads to the deplorable attitude that sex is for fun and if a wife or girl friend becomes pregnant, just send her for a quick abortion to rub off the mistake. I believe that abortion has become so permissive that it is now one of the major methods of birth control. Do we want to encourage this irresponsible and immoral attitude, which is the antithesis of what we are trying to teach our children? Morality apart, performing abortion is not a particularly rewarding or satisfying job for our doctors and nurses who, I am sure, would rather tend to the sick. Imagine also the costly manpower and facilities tied down for abortion when they could be better employed in more worthwhile medical vocations. If other forms of contraceptives were not available, a case might be made out for abortions. But contraception is both effective and at low cost today. I strongly urge the Abortion Act be re-examined with the purpose of making abortion less liberal.

Finally, Sir, I would like to speak on the subject of voluntary social work. The Ministry of Social Affairs is to be commended on its aims of enhancing and improving the various social services. I must confess, however, that references in the Addenda to programmes to strengthen the family units and rehabilitative programmes are rather vague. I look forward in the coming sessions of this Parliament to hear more details of these schemes.

My attention, however, was drawn to the intention of the Ministry to give more encouragement to voluntary organizations. For a country of our size, we can be justly proud of the many active voluntary organizations existing in our midst. To me, apart from the much good work they do, they symbolise the kind of voluntary community caring that we all want to encourage. In my contact with a few of them, I have noted that they are operating on a tight budget, which is hard hit by rising costs. What is disturbing as a trend is that such organizations will have to spend more and more of their time on fund-raising instead of their main purpose of providing social services. I would urge the Ministry of Social Affairs to study this problem and to consider if some kind of annual grant-in-aid scheme could be started to help worthy cases.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Urge the Ministry of Finance!

Dr Tay Eng Soon: I agree with the Acting Minister for Social Affairs, but I think the study must originate in the Ministry of Social Affairs before it can be submitted to the Ministry of Finance.

I realise that "subsidy" is sometimes a dirty word, but it may well be worth considering how much more the Government will have to spend to operate the services if the voluntary organizations cease to function through lack of funds.