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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question list March, 1985,

'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".' - [Dr Tan Cheng Bock]

Question again proposed.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying yesterday before I was crudely interrupted, the Howe Yoon Chong Report has not been sufficiently appreciated. The concerns expressed in this Report about the old are very real. Unfortunately, all the attention seems to have been placed upon one issue, and that is, the CPF withdrawal at age 55 years.

Sir, the CPF issue has several dimensions. Firstly, the people are understandably concerned about any proposed postponement of the age of withdrawal beyond 55 years. We must understand that many workers earn only a few hundred dollars a month. So their savings are negligible, or none at all. So a sum of $10,000 or $20,000 at age 55 is like a bonanza. It is like winning a lottery prize. I know some of my own voters who are aged about 50 or so who are already borrowing against the prospective withdrawal. Others have plans to go travelling. Yet others have investment ideas. We should be careful not to shatter their illusions.

Having said this, Sir, I believe the Government has a legitimate concern that there will be many people who are going to retire at age 55 who will not have enough CPF to last until they die. This was a point hidden in the Howe Yoon Chong Report, a point which I highlighted, a point which was not sufficiently debated. We have got to ask ourselves this question: if many people who are going to retire at age 55 will not have enough money to last until they die, what are the alternatives? So far, I have not heard any alternative plans put forward by any Member of the Opposition. All they have done is to create fear about the CPF withdrawal.

The Member for Buona Vista yesterday talked about jobs, re-employment for those aged 55 and above, and it is something that merits serious consideration by the Government. What about the question of children? Are the children of these people going to be filial? Will they support their aged parents? Have we done enough in the education system? Have we reinforced the values of filial piety so that these aged people will be adequately taken care of? What about old-age homes? Would we have enough of these homes if many of these aged people are pushed out of their homes by unfilial children? And if they happen to own a flat, could we not allow them to sell back to the Housing and Development Board even while they stay in those flats and yet have a means of income? This was an excellent suggestion made by the Howe Yoon Chong Report, and I hope the Government is giving serious consideration to this. Have we done a survey of the savings of people who will retire at age 55?

Sir, these are very real questions, very real concerns, very real issues. They take time to determine. I would not grudge the Government the two years that it says it needs in order to make a careful decision about the CPF issue. I think it is wrong on the part of the Opposition to raise fears in the hearts of people about this matter. The Government is not flippant. The Government is not greedy about the people's money.

The politics of mischief will only breed further mischief. It is mischievous to suggest, as the Member for Potong Pasir did yesterday, that the CPF has no funds to repay. Sir, I said this before in this House and it bears repetition. We live in a country where Government has been very careful in its spending of funds. We have allocated more to development than to recurrent expenditure, and that whatever funds are invested are invested wisely so that it will give us a rate of return in the future. One does not need to be an economist to realize that the large and growing foreign exchange reserves that we have are something to be envied by many countries. These represent the real backing of the CPF. The infrastructure that we have built up represents the backing for the CPF. Perhaps the Government may find it fit one day to reveal what GSIC has been doing, so as to allay the fears that have been generated by irresponsible politicians.

Sir, should there be a world depression, we would need to use these reserves to tide us over the two, three or five years that we may have to go through. It is just ridiculous to think that we can tide over a world recession by rearing chickens and by planting a few tapioca trees. If the Member for Potong Pasir has access to an economist with any credibility, he would have been told in no uncertain terms that planting tapioca in the context of modern Singapore would only feed a few people, given the large numbers of people that we have in relation to the little amount of land that is available.

Beware of the politics of fear and of mischief. It is so easy to be on this side of the House to poke fun at the Government and to criticize policies. It is so much harder to come up with constructive proposals, even harder to implement these proposals. Nobody has given credit to people who spent long hours agonizing over possible alternatives for Singapore,

I feel the need to speak out, Sir, because in the climate of Singapore following the general election, people may be getting the wrong ideas about what to expect from the Government, wrong ideas about what can be done about our economy, about the future progress of our country, because of misrepresentation and because of distortion of facts by the Opposition.

Let me now get to another matter. I am glad that the Government has recognized that there is something beyond purely material pursuits. But, Sir, what lies beyond material pursuits, material satisfaction, is not culture. It is something called spiritual. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." This is a quotation from the Bible. We need to have people conscious of the pursuit of spiritual goals. But, Sir, that is none of the business of the Government. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Again, a quotation from the Bible. But having said this, Government can make it conducive for people to practise their religions, to pursue their spiritual objectives. It can make available land and buildings. It can have more flexible building codes to allow change of use of offices and factory spaces as churches.

Sir, we have over-emphasized material rewards, and I believe by so doing we have unleashed selfishness, intense competition and elbowing, greed, and as a result many people, even though they have done well materially, have become unhappy. As the Member for Changkat said so eloquently yesterday, we need to deemphasize material rewards. We need instead, Sir, to motivate people, to call them towards dedication, towards selfless giving, towards the caring for our fellow citizens, towards concerted community efforts.

In this regard, those of us who have been long enough in politics will realize that there seems to be a distinct difference between the quality of the older generation community leaders and the younger. I say this with tremendous sadness. The older community leaders, although they have much less education, have humbler economic means, but yet their generosity has been out of proportion to their means when it comes to contributing towards National Day activities or community projects. It is not so with the younger community leaders. They are better educated, they earn much more money, but then their expectations are also higher, their plans are more grandiose for a higher and ever higher standard of living. They plan to travel. They plan university education for their children. They plan to upgrade their flats. As a result, we would be doing very well to get a $10 or $20 contribution from them for National Day activities. I think the older MPs know exactly what I mean.

We need to change such attitudes. We need to tell the people: yes, we need to work hard, that Singapore as a whole needs to work hard because we have no natural resources. We need to compete with the outside world, yes, but then there is a time and place for competition. There is a time and place for cooperation. There is a time and place for giving, selfless giving. We are going to get what we preach, Sir. So if we preach these values, we are going to reap some of the rewards.

In both the Presidential Address and the Addendum put up by the First Deputy Prime Minister, part of the vision is that Singapore would be what is called "a fun place to live in." I detect the hand of the young Minister of State for Defence and of Trade and Industry because, just at the time when he got into politics, he broached this idea that the young want a Singapore that is fun to live in. But then the young man from Defence is a clean-cut young man of impeccable upbringing. So I would assume that the kind of fun he imagined is good, clean fun. [Interruption] If I am wrong, I will be very sad. But let us not be beguiled, let us not be pressured by people who are looking for the wrong kinds of fun, unclean kinds of fun. I do not know whether it is the Information Minister or the Community Minister now, but let whoever is responsible for censorship continue to maintain the strict rules of censorship. We can have good, clean fun, and yet have good rules of censorship.

Further, Sir, we should not relax on social discipline, and I was glad yesterday as I listened to the MP for Potong Pasir that he supports the idea of a disciplined society. Unfortunately, he is not a man of his word. I am told, Sir, that there is a certain political party that is holding illegal Meet-the-People sessions in the void decks of Chong Boon, in open defiance of the law, by people who are self-proclaimed alternatives to the present Government. If there is any association with the Member for Potong Pasir, let him speedily renounce this before this House and repent of his sin.

The Member for Potong Pasir made reference to the MRT yesterday. He decried the fact that because the MRT has been largely awarded to foreign contractors, the so-called multiplier effect upon the domestic economy has been minimal. This may be true to some extent, but I would like to pose a question to him; he is not here today. What alternative is there? Do we have the technology in Singapore to build the MRT? Are we going to do it with pick and shovel, boring those tunnels deep down into the earth, and take 30 years to accomplish the MRT? Or are we going to take advantage of modern technology that is available, contractors abroad who have the experience and who are willing to tender at very low prices to our benefit, and have the MRT starting by the year 1988?

The man does not appreciate the efforts that have been put in - the efforts to get the best deal for Singapore, the best technology for Singapore, to build the MRT in the quickest possible time in the most efficient way. Would the Member for Potong Pasir like to have the roads logged up with traffic, while mountains of earth are being moved gradually, over 30 years? I think the man needs to have his head examined. Certain things are having multiplier effects up there, which should not be there.

But, surprisingly, he did have one good point. He mentioned that there are a lot of speculators in Singapore who make lots of money, speculating on land, on real estate, instead of channelling their money or their investments into more productive types, like growing mushrooms. I think it is a good point. And I think it is a consequence of a number of factors. Firstly, it is a consequence of our rapid growth. In a situation of rapid growth, many opportunities spring up for speculation. Furthermore, it is a consequence of the fact that we have no capital gains tax. So people can safely speculate, make their gains without having to worry about taxation. Now, Sir, the answer is not to put on a capital gains tax if we want a free and open market economy. But rather, I believe, the answer is to lower corporate taxes gradually over a course of time to make it more worthwhile for people to invest in more productive types of investment. The Member for Potong Pasir not only must make good suggestions but he must follow through with concrete proposals.

Sir, if I may come to the points raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah. First, let me congratulate him because in his own special, personal, inimitable way, he has set the appropriate tone for this debate. I have only one quarrel with him. Let me despatch that and get on to the good points. I did not like his analogy or his metaphor of a kidney transplant. I am not a doctor Sir, but I have always read that there is a high proportion of rejection when kidneys are transplanted. So if the younger MPs are likened to kidney transplants, God help them! Sir, I would choose a better metaphor. I would regard them as promising buds grafted onto the Tree of Experience of the senior Ministers. That way they will grow into beautiful branches and be fruitful in due course.

Now, on to his good points. Firstly, he noted the need for feedback mechanisms, but more importantly, that those who have access to these mechanisms make good use of them. Sir, when I was young, my mother used to clean my ears. I would advise the Ministers to get their ears cleaned. The Member for Ayer Rajah also said that it was a fast pace of change that brought some of the problems upon the Government. I believe this is true, and yesterday the Member for Changkat brought this up rather forcefully, that with rapid economic growth will come rapid changes in lifestyles, and we are going to pay the price for it unless we produce healthy antidotes. And here is where the spiritual rather than the cultural dimension comes in.

Thirdly, the Member for Ayer Rajah emphasized the need for better communication. I said this yesterday also and something which we must pay attention to. The Government has got a lot of good intentions, a lot of good proposals, but unfortunately, in the haste of implementation, not enough is done to prepare the ground to receive these excellent ideas. I believe that if we can go through the motions, the pain of listening, of explaining, we can get wide acceptance. Because, Sir, I believe that if the Prime Minister and his colleagues could take a generation of Singaporeans that existed in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and if you read the newspapers of those days, you know what Singaporeans were like in those days - rioters, leftists, disparates, prone to riots, prone to communal tension and violence, largely uneducated, low standard of living, and yet they could weld and mould a modern Singapore out of these people. I believe we have better material today, better education, more sophistication, and people, many of them have gone through the hard times. The history can be read. Many have seen the National Exhibition. So I believe that we have got good pluses to build upon, and I think the President was right - we should safeguard what has been achieved and we should build upon what has been achieved. But communication is necessary, and yesterday the Member for Paya Lebar brought up the very important point that the person, the individual, is important. If you regard him as a digit, he is going to respond as a digit. If you regard him as a person, someone worthwhile, someone built in the image and likeness of God, then you will be able to motivate him to produce his best.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, you have two more minutes to go.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, in the vision for Singapore, many good things have been laid out. But there is one thing that I particularly like, and that is, the concern for the poor and for the aged. As long as this Government continues to have this concern for the poor and the aged, it will have my support. And finally, Sir, we need to be a unified nation. It is one thing to have a General Election where people can say anything they like, but the Elections are over. We have got five years to govern Singapore. Let the people rally behind the Government in unity for the sake of our nation. 11.26 a.m.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the motion on the Address of Thanks to the President's Address moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah.

Unfortunately, the Member for Potong Pasir is not here this morning because there are a couple of points which he raised which I thought should not be passed over. He questioned the sincerity of the Government. I think the sincerity of the Government can be seen very clearly for the last 25 years in what we have achieved for the people.

Perhaps the Member for Potong Pasir has forgotten that not too long ago, on 13 December, at a rally in Potong Pasir, he called our dedicated community workers (Residents' Committee) "rubbish collectors". Yet, yesterday he was asking to be their Adviser. Is that sincerity? Does he really and sincerely want to be the Adviser to the people whom he had called "rubbish collectors"? Another point he brought up was the Germans: even after two world wars, they are still planting vegetables in their flats. A geography student told me -

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Not in flats.

Mr Wong Kan Song: You were not here. A geography student told me that the Germans are a farming community, even though they have industrialized. They are a farming community, and farming is one of their ways to supplement their income. Let us find out from those who know about the practices of other countries, before we are misled,

Mr Speaker, Sir, our President made references to the main duties of the Government. They are, firstly, to safeguard what we have achieved, and secondly, to improve upon what has been achieved so that we can have a better society. Let me ask my fellow Singaporeans to just think about three simple questions, when considering these main tasks of the Government. Where have we been? Where are we now? And, where do we want to go from here? For those of us who are old enough to personally experience what life in Singapore was like more than 25 years ago, or who are students of history, they will know that Singapore was a very different society from what it is today. We had 140 years of colonial rule. We were not our own masters; life was very different, Even after the PAP came to power in 1959, and for 10 years after that, life was still very different.

Although I cannot clearly visualize the student unrest of the 1950s, I remember the incident. I cannot clearly visualize it. But I know the racial riots of the 1960s. I know the unemployment problems of the 1960s. I therefore know what communal strife and racial disharmony can bring for us. I also know the indignity of unemployment. But gradually, from the 1970s, life for Singaporeans became better. My fellow younger Singaporeans may or may not understand this. But I think it would be helpful for them to know where we were before and how we managed to get here today. There is a common saying that history repeats itself and there are many examples to prove this idiom right. The founding and decline of dynasties in China is a clear testimony to this. In every dynasty there is a golden age and this is followed by complacency and corruption, then comes disharmony, disruption, and eventually leading to the dislodgement of the empire of the day.

But history need not repeat itself if we are able to draw some lessons from it. And that is why it is important to study history. But I regret to say that because of our emphasis on technical and science education, in today's school curriculum there is not enough emphasis given to the study of history.

The National Exhibition held last year was one of the ways that we can infuse into our young with some historical perspective. But, sad to say, some quarters of our population and the Opposition Members included thought that it was a waste of public funds. Perhaps the message of the National Exhibition was too subtle for the people to understand, or perhaps the message was lost in the colourful and impressive displays of the Exhibition.

We have achieved in 25 years what others took many decades to achieve. A student of Japanese history will be able to tell you that the modernization of Japan did not begin until after the Meiji Restoration in 1867, and it took the Japanese 100 years before they were able to gain a place in the international economy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope my fellow Singaporeans will have a sense of the past so that they can have a better appreciation of the present. And it is with this historical perspective that they will be able to set a direction for the future. Then history need not repeat itself.

Sir, for some strange reason, some people feel that a political party cannot be associated with a trade union movement. That is really poppycock. Do they not know that even in Western democracies political parties are associated with the trade union movement? Take the United Kingdom, for example, which a Member of Parliament so often cites as a model for us to emulate. The British Labour Party is very closely associated with the Trades Union Congress.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Member is alluding to me, he should get his facts correct. What I said, and I have said all the time, is that it is wrong for the trade union to be at the beck and call of the Government, not that it should not be associated with a political party.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I will come to that point later. The Labour Party draws its funds from the Trades Union Congress. In the United States, the AFLCIO, which stands for the American Federation of Labour Congress of Industrial Organizations, is also closely related to the Democratic Party. When the Labour Party is in power as a government, is it not also closely associated with the Trades Union Congress? So what is wrong, may I ask, for the PAP to be closely associated with the NTUC and form a symbiotic relationship?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Having a Minister as Secretary-General!

Mr Wong Kan Song: I am flummoxed by this attitude. What does a strong trade union movement really mean?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Please tell us.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I am going to. Be patient. To me, a strong trade union movement is one that is able to galvanize the workers for the good of the country. Its objectives are no different from the government or the employers. I will tell the Member again. The objectives are to improve the standard of living of the workers. Secondly, to educate the workers so that they are able to undertake jobs with higher skills and take on new challenges. Thirdly, to make our companies internationally competitive. These are very simple truths. Sir, you can ask any pre-university student and he will be able to tell you this. But, of course, this does not seem to be what the Member for Anson thinks it should be. I am really curious to know what he means by a strong trade union movement.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will tell you.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to relate my personal experience of another form of a strong trade union movement. In September 1977, I arrived in London and, having settled down in the hostel, I took a walk around town. I saw a long queue of people waiting just outside a baker's shop and I thought that this was not unfamiliar. We also have long queues of people waiting outside Yaohan's bakery. But of course this was not similar. they were queuing for a limited supply of bread because the bakers were on a go-slow.

During my two-year stay in London I experienced many more strikes. The ambulance drivers went on strike and the aged and the sick could not be brought to the hospitals. The hospital attendants went on strike and the patients were inconvenienced. The train drivers and the tube (their MRT) drivers went on strike and the commuters were inconvenienced. Economic activity was disrupted. The school canteen workers went on strike and the children went without food. The coal-miners went on strike and the people had a cold winter.

I asked my British friend what he thought about all these strikes. He said, "Well, we have so many of them anyway. We've got used to them and we are helpless to change it." Indeed their threshold of tolerance of inconvenience had gone up. Union leaders can call a strike without seeking the approval of the majority of the members through a secret ballot. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher changed this only recently with a lot of hue and cry from the trade unions.

Just look at the coalminers' strike that has just ended after 356 days with an impact of S$125 billion on the economy. S$125 billion means that it takes Singaporeans three years to earn that kind of money. The country as a whole has paid dearly, not just economically but also in terms of social strife. Why was the strike called? Allow me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to quote from an article by the International Herald Tribune published in the Straits Times of 11th December 1984:

'One issue raised, among others, is a dispute about whether state welfare payments should be kept up to spare the families of striking miners from hardship, which shows just how far the welfare state has developed. At the bottom, however lies the issue of what sort of economy the people in Britain want.

This is not a dispute about miners' wages. It is about whether Britain remains a market economy.

The government intends to close down unprofitable pits progressively, suppressing some 20,000 jobs out of nearly 200,000. It offers separation grants, and it claims that all separations can be achieved by the normal departure of the elderly or by retirement.

But the trade union leaders insist that no mine should be closed on economic grounds: So long as there is coal to be extracted, it should be hacked out, at whatever cost; where fathers worked, sons should be allowed, to continue as a matter of course.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, is this the kind of strong trade union movement that we want to see in Singapore? Let us not forget that we have had many years of industrial peace. We have not had a strike since 1977. And having just been a representative of an employer only five days ago, let me tell you, Sir, that our workers and the employers want to keep it that way. This is the result of the unison of objectives among the employers, workers and the management. Singapore's economic performance and its ability to attract investors are predicated upon political stability and continuity, an educated and trained workforce and not least of all industrial peace. We must not see the return of the days in the '60s and the '70s when union and management took a confrontational and adversarial approach to their relations. To do so, of course, would fulfil the saying that history repeats itself.

Let us not be lulled into the belief that the problems of the '60s and the '70s will not return. In this regard, may I congratulate the Minister for Labour for recognizing this in the Addendum when he said:

'We must preserve our excellent industrial relations climate. The Ministry will build up a team of professional labour officers to work towards this goal through the promotion of more harmonious labourmanagement relations.'

The Addendum went on to say:

'The National Productivity Board will promote positive work attitudes - pride in work, a sense of responsibility, self-improvement and teamwork.'

These are indeed important if we want to achieve competitiveness in the international market. For without these prerequisites, we will not be able to achieve even a small targeted growth of 5-7% per annum and, mind you, this is not an easy task.

It reminds me of what a Japanese expert on productivity once said. He said that improving productivity is like digging gold. In the initial phase, all you need is your bare hands and you will be able to extract all the gold that you need from the surface of the earth. But once that phase is over, you need some tools in order to dig into the earth to get the gold. After that, you need mechanized tools to go deeper to get the gold. But the results would not be the same. It means that you require more effort and more resources to get a marginal improvement in the yield, as the gold that was at the surface has already been extracted.

So it is easy to achieve improvements in productivity initially by applying some simple tools and methods. But over a period of time, you would require more resources and more effort to get a marginal improvement in productivity. But that is not to say that we should not try. For if we want to achieve the vision of the 1990s, we must change our attitude to work. We must do our work right the first time as errors are costly. It means it is costly. We must apply total quality control in whatever we do. And I suggest the public sector set the pace for the private sector to follow.

I am glad to note also in the Addendum from the Minister for Trade and Industry that we shall offer assistance schemes and tax incentives to private companies and public institutions to promote R&D. Allow me to comment that assistance schemes and tax incentives are necessary but insufficient to promote R&D. Ultimately, it is still the people that count. Do we right now have a ready pool of people to undertake this task? My impression is that we do not have. The answer is that our reward system does not allow for this. Our reward system recognizes that managers be paid more than the individual contributor or engineer. So engineers and scientists do not remain long in their job to build up their expertise, and so they aspire to managerial positions. This being the case, the pool of expertise is always in a state of flux. May I suggest that our educational institutions inculcate into our young a spirit of innovation and curiosity so that they will find jobs in R&D satisfying and rewarding, interesting enough to want to remain as individual contributors. Of course, we should also modify the reward system so that they will remain as individual contributors.

Where do we go from here? We want a better society. We want a better quality of life. I think these are clearly laid out in the Addenda as well as in the President's speech, and I believe the objectives are realistic and achievable. They are set out by our political leaders, but what do our people want? To my fellow citizens: let me urge you to tell us what you want. We have invited you to participate in this goal-setting for the future. It is your right - "right" seems to be a word very commonly quoted. But let us not forget too that right is concomitant with responsibility. The maturity of a society comes about only when people are able to exercise their right with responsibility.

The next five years are crucial for us. The people and the Government have to reach a new consensus. We are like a crew participating in a dragon boat race. We need a coxswain, we need a drummer, we need crewmen. You have elected your coxswain and, I believe, your community leaders are your drummer. You are the crewmen. We have.an agreed set of objectives. We want to win the boat race. So we must pull together in the same direction, with the same vigour, with the same rhythm, so that we can achieve our goal. Mr Speaker, Sir, if any member of the crew does not pull his weight or pulls in the wrong direction, then, of course, our progress will be slower or we may run into difficulties. So let us spend the next five years thinking about what we want, what sort of society we want for ourselves and for our children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. 11.49 a.m.

Mr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah to thank the President for his Address.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the social landscape of Singapore has changed dramatically in the last 15 years. Singapore society has, in fact, matured. The saying goes that it is no more fixated in its childhood stage. It is maturing and growing in its young adulthood stage. This is obviously not a Freudian interpretation, but I think it is a logical process of growth. In view of this, there is a necessity for Government to communicate with Singaporeans in an adult to adult level. And through such communication, Government will be able to listen, perhaps hear, what the common man has to say about the issues that lie ahead of them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has, in fact, rightly charted the various issues the Government will be tackling in the next 5-10 years. Amongst the social and economic issues which we will be facing, I would like to single out a few pertinent points that I think Government intervention is necessary, without which there may be some unintended complications or implications for the future fabric of our society. Before I dwell on this, I would like to point out that before I became a parliamentarian, and now in Parliament, I hear the Opposition Members bringing up a lot of rhetoric, viewpoints, which appear to be euphemistic but nothing seems to be concrete that has been offered for the people. I believe that the people are the best judge for themselves in relation to the performance that have been made by these Members in the last three days.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I and my colleagues have identified a number of concrete areas where Government should pay particular attention. I would like myself to raise a number of issues which the Government will have to pay particular attention because they affect the common Singaporean. The first issue that I would like to broach is the need for a more responsive housing bureaucracy. I can see that the Minister for National Development is going to perceive what I am going to say, but I reassure the Minister that the Housing Board has a good track record; it has been able to provide housing for most Singaporeans and we should give credit where it is due and not make unfounded allegations against the programmes that have been built over the last 15-20 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, 81% of our population are living in public housing estates. Therefore, policies which affect public housing estates should be more carefully deliberated by the housing bureaucracy before their implementation. Where possible, time should be set aside to gather opinions from the consumers of the housing programmes, so that any policy changes which affect the well-being could be reflected, and such reflections can be incorporated into the policies. By doing so, the housing bureaucracy could become more responsive, and perhaps a healthier partnership could be developed between the housing bureaucracy and the consumers of housing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, currently the public housing estate management offices are overloaded. Last year alone the housing management offices attended to about 2.5 million enquiries from residents. It is an enormous task. It is flooded with various types of enquiries affecting residents. Therefore, a large bureaucracy as such may not be able to provide a personal service that may be necessary. In the ultimate consequence, constant pressures are put on the Area Offices of having to cope with the various grievances faced by residents. These pressures are likely to increase and become more acute in the next 5-10 years ahead. As we all know, most of our housing estates are already aging and, when estates age, like people, they produce all sorts of symptoms, and when they arise the estate management offices will be further overloaded with problems faced by residents. I also sympathize with the staff working in the estate management offices because they have to meet the needs of more than 450,000 households. Mind you, it is not an easy task to deal with residents who make varying demands on the bureaucracy.

Somehow I feel that it is time for the housing bureaucracy to consider establishing a Consumer Relations Unit at the estate level so that such unit will be able to receive and obtain feedbacks, viewpoints and grievances from residents in order that their needs could be attended to as efficiently as possible. Through such a unit, mis-perceptions between the bureaucracy and the residents could be minimized. And when better rapport is developed, the housing bureaucracy could be seen in better light. It also will prevent unnecessary bureaucratic "merry-go-rounds" which many of the residents do bring up from time to time. I feel that, if they are shuffled from one end to the other over the years, it will have a cumulative negative effect on the total perception of the services provided by this bureaucracy to the people. This unit can also play a very important role, particularly in newer housing estates when residents are settling in. The unit can usher the residents into the new environment, meet with their new problems. What I am given to understand is that when new estates are built, the existing nearby area estate management offices tend to take on the responsibility. These estate management offices are more often than not overloaded with their own task of meeting the needs of existing residents. And, as you all know, when new residents move into new estates they have a lot of problems with regard to their flats. Much of this running around from one place to the other could be sorted out, and perhaps through this process a better rapport could be developed. The residents will then see that the bureaucracy is more humane, more able to look into their problems and deal with them in the most efficient manner. It can also help to build up a better rapport amongst new residents. It provides the initial foundation for growth of relationship and through this process, when RCs are ushered into these new towns, it can have a better take-off because the foundations for relationship have already been initiated.

The next area which has been much talked about is the area on education, the unintended consequences of streaming and the education for disabled children. Since the introduction of the new education policy, we have developed a neat educational system. Though the educational system is neat in theory, but somehow the aspect of streaming has not been well received by the people. People are unhappy about the way in which the children are being streamed. What is worse is that many of the parents are also sceptical about the intentions of the streaming process. Somehow somewhere we have failed to communicate to them that streaming could, in the long-term interest of the children, help the academically-slow children to manage with the educational process.

However, I am not sure that the implications of streaming have been effectively studied. What I would like to raise is: do we know what are the psychological and social implications of streaming on the children? Has the Ministry done a longitudinal study in relation to the children who have been streamed? How many of them are affected, having been streamed? I think one way is to study these children on a longitudinal process so that we can, in fact, identify some of the ramifications of this whole process of streaming. Through that, we would be able to see the various problems that may be associated or not associated with streaming. I feel that the Ministry may be interested to look at this whole thing, so that it will be able to have a better insight into the effects of streaming on the children who have been streamed.

The question we should ask ourselves is that, no doubt streaming is intended to help the academically-slow children, are there sufficient resources being decanted to help them achieve the potential? Is sufficient remedial education being channelled to these children? Many of them may be weak in various subjects and has adequate support been provided for these children? Many of these children who fail in school come from homes that do not give them necessary support. If they had a poor headstart in their own homes because of poor social conditions of the home, how could they really benefit from the very competitive environment which is prevalent in the school system?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that there may be a need to review and build the foundations in the primary education level because by the time the children go into secondary schools we may find it difficult to salvage or to make further improvements, because basically a child's foundation is built at his primary level. His learning habits and his motivation could be built up there, and I feel that the Ministry of Education should review and see how resources could be deployed to build a better foundation at the primary school level.

There is also a necessity to review preschool education system because very little reviews, studies and analyses have been done on our pre-school education system. It may be timely at this stage of our growth to examine this area of pre-school education to see how pre-school education can synchronize itself with the primary school level of education. This has been a much neglected area. I feel that such pre-school education has been provided by different organizations with different curricula, with different emphases, and many of these children having been churned through them never enjoyed their childhood. They have pre-maturely become adults by the time they get to the primary school level. So [,feel that the Ministry should try and examine this whole process in order that our educational system could be further strengthened.

I would also like, Mr Speaker, Sir, to talk on my pet area, which is education for disabled children. It has been the declared policy of the Government to provide education for all children and to develop their potential to the fullest. Somehow the same benefits that are accorded to normal children are yet to be accorded to disabled children. We may then ask: Are these not our children? Should they not deserve adequate support from the Government in order to help them achieve their potential? More often than not, in the education of these children, we always look at the cost-benefit ratio and I feel that in the cost-benefit ratio application, if stretched on a long-term basis, one should be able to see that there are sufficient returns for educating these children who are physically handicapped. But they can be helped to become people who can contribute in the best way they can to our society, and I hope that with the emphasis on training. and developing skills of workers the area of training and skill development of disabled children should not be forgotten.

I feel that more support could be given to voluntary organizations and social organizations that have over the years undertaken this task of providing education for the disabled children. I feel that more adequate facilities and better teacher ratio could enable them to perform their task as effectively as they can.

So much for education, Mr Speaker, Sir. I will now move to low-income families. I believe that many of the Members have discussed this area thoroughly. They have presented various viewpoints in terms of how Government intends to take various actions to improve the lives of the 15-20% of the low-income families. I propose not to dwell on this area further, but what I would like to point out is that with the impending intention to raise road tax, diesel tax and various other proposals which are in the pipeline, one may have to stretch the limits of these families. If we do so, we may create further problems in the ability of these families to cope with their needs. I feel that all these increases which have been talked about may generate inflation in our local setting and ultimately it will hit the pockets of the common men, particularly families with low income.

But what I want to stress is that many of the families in the low-income group have to get out to work. They are always faced with a no-win situation. If both parents do not work, they are unable to sustain and obtain the necessary income to maintain themselves. If they do work, they work in production-related work, odd jobs, hawker centres, restaurants and service industries. This means that they are required to be away from the home. The Member for Ulu Pandan says that it is necessary to encourage parents to stay at home for the first two to three years, but for these parents they have very little choice. I feel that in the provision for day-care one should look at whether day-care services will become affordable and accessible to these parents. Day-care, which is a lesser evil, provides for the climate, the environment, to help the children of low-income families to be more effective persons and to prevent further undesirable effects that hey may encounter on being left unsupervised.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem is quite real, and I myself and other colleagues of mine who have been working in this area would like to register that when such services are afforded or planned they must be made available or accessible to such families. Otherwise, there will be great social costs that we have to bear in later years.

The fourth issue that I would like to broach and discuss about are the needs and challenges facing youth. Mr Speaker, Sir, youth policies and programmes, as they have been implemented, are rather segmented. Many ministries deal with youth problems and youth needs in a small way. They are not comprehensive enough. They do not provide a holistic approach to the whole problem of the needs of the young persons in our society. I feel that it is time we re-looked and reexamined the problem and come up with a fairly comprehensive policy related to the needs of young persons. This is in view of the impending challenges and the stresses and strains on the life-orientation of young persons imposed by external cultural influences. In order to strengthen the fibres of a young person, we must critically look at the question of how we can develop a comprehensive policy to cater to the needs of young persons in our community.

Why I am stressing this is that, as you all know, teenage abortions have increased. Let me quote you some figures on this. In 1972, there were about 103 teenage abortions. After 10 years, the figure has gone up to 1,235, and this seems to be more glaring if you look at abortions as a whole. Since 1973, after the implementation of the Abortion Act, there has been a dramatic increase in abortions. The figure in 1973 was 5,252 and, of late, in 1983, it has jumped up nearly four-fold since then. The figure is 19,100. There is also a gradual increase in marriage breakdowns amongst young adults. Are these then not symptoms of some underlying problems faced by our young persons? I think we have not seriously dwelt into the various reasons as to why such problems have surfaced, and the surfacing of problems which have become acute over the years requires us to look at how we can help to prepare our young persons to live a more enriched family life, a more enriched and a meaningful person who is able to contribute to his community and to his nation.

The fifth area that I would like to broach on is to bring our attention to the needs of the aged. Much has been said by my colleague from Ang Mo Kio and others who have raised a number of issues pertaining to this area, but I shall confine myself to some areas which have not been touched on. It is true that we should keep our old people healthy and to encourage them to participate in various social activities and to help them to retire and live gracefully. Though this is essential, we can mobilize various social organizations in the community to participate in these programmes. I feel that most of the social and community organizations are unable to initiate programmes without the adequate infrastructural support by the Government.

I know of many voluntary organizations which are interested in initiating programmes for the aged, whether they be able-bodied or aged sick. Somehow the availability of facilities and so-called "economic rental" is not at all accorded on the basis of economic rental to these organizations. And without initial inputs in terms of resources for renovation of such facilities and also without reasonable rentals for such organizations, it will be a deterrence for these organizations to take the initiative to promote programmes in the neighbourhood. I feel that the Government, through the Ministry of Community Development, could review its support system for various social and community organizations to pioneer new areas and new programmes for the aged in the community.

Finally, in relation to the aged itself, with the 7.7% of our population who are above 60 years, there will be a sizeable proportion of the old who will be afflicted by illness and disease. At least about 2-3% of this aging population will become the aged sick, will become disabled. And when families of old people are afflicted by these atrocities, they will face a lot of problems in their capacity to provide care and attention for these old persons who are aged sick. I feel that there is a necessity to review why there is this rampant increase in the provision of services by the private sector which, no doubt, is a response to a need. But I feel that the mushrooming of all these private homes must be monitored carefully, and Government should take an active interest in ensuring that they maintain some minimum standards, or give the necessary support to such institutions so that they can continue to provide acceptable standards of care to the old or to the families requiring such support. Ultimately, I think, with families becoming more nucleated and, hopefully, that the problems will not be aggravated further for their inability to cater and look after the needs of their aged sick, I feel that this whole area has to be examined in the context of this changing profile, and Government should, in fact, take a closer look at what needs to be done in relation to the support and the care programmes for the aged sick.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the ultimate analysis that one has to consider is the allocation of resources to those sectors which have the most need. Provision of resources to one sector will be a trade-off against another. But in this process of trying to allocate resources, I feel strongly that the Government should begin to look at allocating resources in areas where it would reduce the stresses and strains of people with the ultimate aim that many of those who need the support can be helped to achieve self-help.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. 12.21 p.m.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah in thanking the President for his speech in opening Parliament on 25th February.

Mr Speaker, you had a little difficulty recognizing some of the new Members of this House when you convened Parliament on 25th February. The significant changes in the membership of this House as well as in Cabinet is reflective of the changes of time.

Our older generation leaders began their leadership by fighting for self-government. Through the early years, they had to deal with threats to the survival of the nation, the threats of communism and communalism. There was the tension of merger and the trauma of separation; the anxiety of building up our own independent defence force; the problems of elevating the lower standards of living, the lower standards of housing, education, health, environment; generally, to satisfy the basic needs of the people. In brief, that was the political atmosphere of those times. As we know today, each and every one of these problems was met and solutions were found. Ironically, it is the very success of the old guard that creates the challenge for the new. Indeed, it is not an easy act to follow but then one should perhaps bear in mind that the new leaders need not necessarily attempt the same act.

Sir, the political atmosphere is different today. We are living in times of internal stability. There is a much higher all-round increase in the standard of living, much of what were once regarded as luxuries are necessities now. In all aspects of life, there is the luxury of choice. The population has become more literate, more knowledgeable, and generally better educated. Improved means of international communication and global activities have increased foreign influence in Singapore, both good and bad. The country has been building itself vigorously in a fairly long and sustained period of tranquillity. In brief, this is the political atmosphere today.

Affluence has come to town, and affluence, Sir, has a way of surreptitiously softening the resolve of a people. This danger must be avoided. Sir, I agree with the hon. Member for Whampoa that the new leaders must not over-react to the results of the last General Election. After all, we won 77 of the 79 seats. This is a clear and overwhelming victory by any standards. However, the new leaders must continue to strive, to motivate, and gain the confidence of the people in the same way the old leaders did in the past. They must find ways to encourage the people to think of issues of national interest, rather than of personal or parochial interest. Sir, I believe this is one of the important tasks in the coming years.

The hon. Member for Anson in his speech last Friday gave me the impression that he wants to fight battles already fought and won. There are new challenges ahead, serious challenges, and may be it is this that he does not seem to perceive: an attitude which reminds me of the illusions of Don Quixote.

Yesterday in this House when the hon. Member for Potong Pasir declared his commitment to be a loyal Opposition, to be constructive in criticism and to play his role in nation building, I was almost swayed into believing that he sounded sincere. But, alas, the speech that followed was a sheer let-down. The Member for Whampoa and the Member for Kuo Chuan had commented on his speech in some detail. I just want to say, Sir, that he might have got away with half-truths in the last General Election. But let me assure him (but he is not here today, and I hope his fellow Opposition Member will tell him) that he is not going to get away with half-truths in this House. Sir, if his performance yesterday is, as I fear it is going to be, the forerunner of things to come from him, then this House can be sure not to expect any loyal Opposition from the Member for Potong Pasir.

His Excellency the President, in his opening Address, sets out six goals to be achieved in the next five years. I applaud these objectives and the programmes set out in the Addenda of the various Ministries towards the fulfilment of these objectives.

I note, however, that His Excellency placed as his primary goal the aim of reaching an accord with the people on the character of our society - that the people is to have a bigger say in major decisions of the Government. As I understand the term, "accord" means "agreement". If this is to mean that, so far as major decisions touching on the character of our society are concerned, no policy will be implemented without the concurrence of the public, then I beg to differ. Sir, encouraging open-mindedness in our society is one thing, but to rule by popular request is another. The time is surely ripe for a free flow of information and opinion. The time is ripe for us to have free discussions, consultations, criticisms, and suggestions, but it must be understood that the task of governing must be performed by the Government.

Recently, the First Deputy Prime Minister urged the grassroots leaders to have a greater dialogue with the people. This is not to say that there was no dialogue in the past. The stress on a dialogue with the people is a call to the people for an increased expression of public opinion. It is also a call for more bridges to be built to join the Government and the people. This must, by necessity, be two-way bridges. Otherwise, the dialogue may turn into a monologue.

Sir, with the same aim as the First Deputy Prime Minister, my community leaders and I are seeking out every available channel to reach my constituents in Telok Blangah. It seems to me that in increasing dialogue with the people, we should utilize the machinery of the civil service to encourage members of the civil service to work without fear of criticism because an increase in the expression of public opinion will invariably bring about criticism. That, of course, is not a call to the civil service to ignore public opinion. On the contrary, they must pay heed to public reaction and react and strive, where possible, to meet them. This, it is hoped, will avoid the stunting of creativity in the civil service. After all, creativity and innovations are among the avowed aims of the Ministry of Community Development.

Sir, it may also be in order to impress upon the country the virtues of a sense of professionalism in work, whatever work it may be. If service is to be the hallmark of our country and if the country's sole resource is its citizens, then we cannot have a nation who have no pride in their work and every piece of job treated as a chore. I believe, Sir, that it is the Government's duty to push for a higher standard of professionalism in every line of work. In achieving this particular objective, once again, the members of the civil service should form the vanguard.

I support the motion, Sir. 12.32 p.m.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the two Opposition Members, on Friday and yesterday, I now understand what Oscar Wilde meant when he said that "a politician is someone who approaches every subject with an open mouth."

Sir, the Member for Anson on Friday talked about violation of fundamental rights. Sure they have fundamental rights in the United Kingdom. I do not want to go into a serious discourse except to remind the Member for Anson that the coal-miners' strike in the United Kingdom cost the United Kingdom government $5.2 billion. I think this is a luxury that we in Singapore cannot afford.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir yesterday tried to convince this House that he is a loyal Opposition Member, by which I infer that the Member for Anson is not. He is sincere and responsible. He will be constructive and that he wants to contribute to nation building. Sir, I am afraid his performance yesterday did not match his words. In his 45-minute speech, or spill, whichever way you might take it, he took every opportunity to discredit this Government and its achievements. Is this constructive criticism? Talk about credibility, he distorts a Blue Paper on the aged as Government policy and goes on to insinuate that this Government has no money to pay CPF holders. On the other hand, he went on to offer two solutions to our possible national problems. If a recession or a catastrophe is to hit us, then we can go back to rear chickens and plant vegetables. Mind you, Sir, he is very serious about this. In West Germany, he says people grow corn. Does he know the size of West Germany? Just for his information, Singapore has 600 sq km, West Germany 250,000 sq km. Maybe he should take another drive in Germany.

In his solution to traffic congestion, he says the problem can be easily solved by introducing fast lanes; again, a German influence, maybe the autobahns. Does he really know how many people are killed on the highways? Does he want Singaporeans to be killed on our expressways? Surely, Sir, this cannot be contributions towards nation building.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his Address sets out the broad parameters and goals upon which Singaporeans can work together to design and plan our future. The major parameters are set out and these goals set out the framework within which our people can forge a New Society, a society which will be qualitatively different from what we are today. This new society is often labelled as the post-industrial Information Society in which I believe people and knowledge will be the key resources.

The final shape, nature and structure ofthis new society are still emerging and very unclear. Employment and occupational patterns will be different, with tremendous impact on our social relationships, values and attitudes.

Sir, the thrust towards this Information Society will impose great strains and stresses arising out of the inevitable uncertainty. It is in this regard, Sir, that there would be a great need for extensive communication and dialogue between the Government and those governed. I am afraid Government Ministers must seek views, get feedback, review them and then explain. There has to be regular, both formal and informal, dialogue sessions among Ministers, MPs, including Opposition MPs, professional and business groups, community leaders and other interested groups. National policies will have to be disseminated properly and should not be left to the rumour mills.

Sir, the policy objectives of this Government are laudable and nobody in his right sense, maybe except one or two, can quarrel with them. But what I am concerned with is in the implementation. The question is: has the Government paid enough attention to the sensitivities of the people when implementing certain policies, specially those perceived to be tough policies? I am not convinced that the Government has exhausted all available options when embarking on certain tough policies. For example, Sir, when allocating scarce resources, I am afraid this Government has relied too heavily on the pricing mechanism, or just turning to fiscal measures. There may be other alternatives. One other alternative is to make people queue. But is there no other middle way? Maybe the Government should explain and explore whether there are middle ways.

The Government to its credit has embarked upon many imaginative solutions to various problems. Take the transport problem, for example. It is not just building more roads and expressways or increasing the number of taxis or buses, decentralizing the central business district, spreading out the industrial areas to various parts of our Republic, locating certain clean industries amidst our housing estates, and the area licensing scheme. All these have helped to alleviate the traffic congestion, not just having fast lanes. My question is: have we done enough? How about staggering commercial vehicles, trailers and other earth-moving vehicles?

Next, Sir, are tough policies really the best policies? Our education policy of streaming at an early age, has it not taken away the hopes of many? I believe streaming is a right policy. But has it been implemented well? However, I am pleased to note in the Addendum to the Presidential Address by the Minister for Education which says:

'Streaming procedures will be further improved to allow greater flexibility.'

Sir, I believe the key to the exercise is flexibility. I am afraid there is over-dependence on computers in the Ministry of Education.

Sir, the main thrust of Government policies are all well and in the right direction. But I would urge that more care and consideration be given when implementing these policies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address has highlighted the plight of the 10-15% lower income group who are unable to buy HDB flats. The Government must be congratulated for giving this priority consideration on our national agenda.

Next, I turn to the Addendum on the Ministry of Community Development. It is stated that the Government will work with families, community, voluntary and charitable organizations and provide opportunities for the disabled, disadvantaged and the aged. Sir, to-date, the Government's track record on help and assistance to the disadvantaged and the aged is not one of the best. I think there is a fundamental misconception of the proper role of the Government with respect to the less fortunate members of our society. Government appears to take the view that the main assistance should come from voluntary and charitable organizations. Government tends to play a secondary role, and I think this is morally wrong. I am not asking for welfare hand-outs like in Great Britain but for a certain amount of concern and compassion. I feel more should be done to help those who have been left behind in our march towards progress and prosperity. And, Sir, we can afford to be a little bit more magnanimous.

When I had a look at the Ministry of Social Affairs Annual Report, I noticed that the assistance given to the financially distressed and the aged is not something we want to be proud of. The $3.2 million paid out in public assistance in 1983 is negligible compared to the billions that make up Government expenditure. Sir, surely we can do better than $3.2 million, and we need to do more.

As for the aged, the same Report shows that the number of residents in private and other voluntary homes has increased while the number in Government homes has decreased. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that this is one area where privatization will not find strong support and many takers. I fully agree that we should not encourage the crutch mentality. But will the Government take more positive steps to help public assistance recipients and other needy persons so that they can become more self-supporting?

Sir, I also note in the 1983 Ministry of Social Affairs Report that only $2,400 in loans were disbursed to two families. Surely such assistance can be increased, maybe a hundred-fold.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister in his Addendum to the Presidential Address stated among other issues:

'Singaporeans will participate in and actively run their own community services. They will manage their own towns.'

This, I believe, is a major step for Singapore. I believe, Sir, Singaporeans are now capable and willing to take on some social responsibilities which impinge on their daily lives. Moreover, the move to experiment with some form of limited government would widen the degree of political and social participation among our fellow citizens. In fact, Sir, I honestly believe that if more Singaporeans are involved in the decision-making process on policies which impinge upon their daily lives, the quality, relevance and acceptability of such decisions must definitely improve.

Sir, the Housing and Development Board has done an excellent job in building homes for our people. Unfortunately the HDB's achievements for some reason or other have been taken for granted. Today HDB, I am afraid, gets more brickbats than bouquets. Most foreign visitors, particularly dignitaries, wished they had an effective organization like the HDB in their own country. By any standards, the achievements of HDB are something all Singaporeans can be very proud of.

Having said this, I believe the time has now come for the HDB to concentrate and confine on the building aspects of the housing programme, and gradually detach itself from the Estate Management functions. Right now, Maxwell Road sets the cue and tone for all estate management, and I feel that this sometimes shackled local initiative and creativity. The formation of limited town councils has my full support, and I think it is timely for the Government to undertake a detailed study of this subject.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to offer two suggestions to the Government. Firstly, the Government should set up a multi-disciplinary Task Force, similar to the one on tourism, to look into the plight of the 10-15% of our population who appear to be imprisoned in a poverty trap. This task force should look into all aspects of the problem and make necessary recommendations to the Government, with home-ownership being one of the objectives. The second suggestion which I would like to make to the Front Bench is that the Presidential Address which effectively sums up our national agenda for the next decade should now be simplified and disseminated to all Singaporeans, together with an action plan for implementation.

12.48 p.m.

Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider the speech which the President made on behalf of the Government sometime last week to be very significant on a number of counts.

Firstly, I think it allows us to have a good grasp of what this new and young Government's priorities are. At the same time, as has been pointed out earlier, it has given us a fairly vivid description of what we can expect over the next decade or so. But what I feel to be most important of all is that, through the Presidential Address, we were given an insight into the collective thinking of the younger leaders, their philosophy and their approaches to resolve what would appear to be intractable problems which we are likely to encounter. And it is on this philosophy that I would like to deal with in my speech this afternoon. Before I do so, I would like to outline what I perceive to be the back-drop for the plan of action which Singaporeans can expect to be implemented over the next decade.

Having perused the Addenda to the Presidential Speech, one cannot but try to extract the essence of the various programmes which Ministries have put up. This essence, I feel, can be captured in two objectives; namely, first, the creation of more wealth and a better society for all Singaporeans; and secondly, the distribution of wealth amongst Singaporeans or, in more common terms, how and on whom to spend the money we shall earn. These objectives are really not new and, moreover, they look deceptively simple to achieve, so much so that I gather that the Member for Anson, who is not here now, was under the illusion that they could be achieved just simply through the stroke of a pen. In other words, the Member for Anson thinks that by changing the legislation, by amending the Constitution, by providing more rights which apparently we have been deprived of, we will all be well provided for. These objectives are not new, for the simple reason that these are the same challenges that we encountered when we first attained self-government in 1959, and subsequently when we achieved nationhood in 1965; and I will venture to say that these objectives will be with us in 1999 and even up to the 21st century.

There is a reason for this constancy of purpose. It is not that we lack imagination or we do not have good and able men with vision. The reason for this constancy of purpose is really because ours is a political system where our future, our prosperity, our progress, are determined by the people and for the people. That being so, there is no reason whatsoever why these two objectives should vary over time.

Now, it is a well-known fact that over the past 25 years our success has been the result of hard-headed decisions, a realistic and pragmatic approach to resolving difficult problems, an impeccably, honest administrative service, and of course an able leadership which was able to jell a group of disparate people into one cohesive unit with a common sense of purpose. In the process of developing over the past 25 years, one thing stands out very clearly, and that is the guiding principle that has formed the framework for our policies. This guiding principle has been, and will continue to be, how to motivate and help Singaporeans from all walks of life, regardless of race, religion or culture to work together as a people, participating in and contributing towards our progress, and in creating a secure, prosperous and vibrant nation, where each and every Singaporean can find fulfilment in life. I would like to really stress that it is each and every Singaporean that will find fulfilment and not just a sector or a group.

While the guiding principle has served us well over the past 2 1/2 decades and, I venture to add, will continue to serve us well for the next 2 1/2 decades, we must take cognizance of the fact that over time circumstances will change. We have a different mix of people with different and improved capabilities. Our population has not remained stagnant, we have improved not just in quantity but in quality. Priorities and expectations of our people have also varied; lifestyles have become different; and the of demographic pattern has also changed. In short, while the guiding principle remains, but because of differing circumstances, our approach to resolving problems must also change. In this regard I am particularly gratified to see in the First Deputy Prime Minister's note to the Addendum that cognizance has been given to these changes. But equally gratifying is the fact that he and his colleagues have not taken the softer option despite what has been termed as the recent set-back in December and traded off a proven approach towards prosperity for softer options in order to attain immediate gains and popularity.

I must at this juncture say that we ought to be thankful to him and his colleagues for not succumbing to what could easily have been a very attractive alternative, namely, to trade off a proven approach, a hard-headed approach, and often even an unpopular approach, for a more popular one, because if he had done so, I would not be standing here today in support of the motion.

I mentioned earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, that one of the reasons why the Presidential Address and the Addenda is significant is that it provides us with an insight into the way our new leaders think and act. And I would like to quote one policy statement which I feel stands out very starkly in the Presidential Address, encapsulating the essence of how our new Cabinet think, their philosophy and their priorities:

'My Government will pay particular attention to those who find it difficult to keep up with the pace of change - the 15 to 20% in the lower income group and the aged . . .'.

This statement stands out starkly because it is a categorical statement that will shape all our policies over the next five years and possibly even longer. And for that reason I would like to take a little time to dwell on it. Undoubtedly this policy statement will have a very important bearing not just on policies alone, but also on the way and the manner in which details of policies will be worked out. To illustrate this point, I would like to use an example as to how we can expect the new Government to attain the two objectives I outlined earlier, namely, the creation of wealth and the distribution of wealth. Since it appears that it is fashionable to use transportation modes as examples, I recall last Friday it was a bus, with some interjection on MRT, yesterday I believe it was the taxi, I shall do likewise. But I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, my mode of transport is slightly more modest, it is a bicycle. I would like to illustrate by means of a bicycle, if I may, how Singaporeans can expect to create wealth and how we, as a government, as a Parliament, and as a people, ought to distribute this wealth. My bicycle unfortunately is out of the ordinary because it has to be large enough to accommodate ---

Mr Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 p.m. We shall go bicycling later on. This Sitting is suspended until 2.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.