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

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim, you can carry on cycling.

Mr Lim Chee Onn: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am pleased to report back to the House that the bicycle, having been repaired over lunch, is back on the road, in good order. As I was saying before we broke up, Mr Speaker, Sir, the bicycle, I was referring to really is a figure of speech, as you quite well realize. It has to be large enough to accommodate all Singaporeans of all hues and capabilities, of different ages and inclinations, and obviously, each with an independent set of pedals.

Why do I choose this rather unglamorous form of transportation when my colleagues before me were dwelling on MRT and other similarly exotic vehicular traffic. The reason is very simple, Sir. There is one unalterable physical fact about cycling, as all of us well know: one has to keep on the move, keep on pedalling to remain on the seat. To stop means to fall off. This is not unlike the way Singapore has grown over the past 21/2 decades. We had to strive continuously to achieve political, economic and social growth and were never at any one time able to relent despite the fact that on many occasions the odds were so overwhelming that men with weaker physical and intellectual abilities would have given up. But fortunately for us, the younger Singaporeans, our leaders did not give up. They kept on pedalling.

True, the bicycle was travelling at different speeds at different times. Sometimes we encountered obstacles and had a bumpy ride. We slowed down when we had to move uphill. On the very rare occasion, we free-pedalled a little as we went downhill but often times there was always a danger of a fall as we negotiated curves and hairpins. Despite all the traumatic experiences we had encountered over the past 25 years, we have arrived at the present stage of our progress and must continue to pedal on.

One thing that has remained unchanged, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the physical principle which will apply as long as the law of gravity exists, and that is, we have to keep on going to avoid failing off. To achieve that means that we have to put in the effort continuously, putting in more effort when the going gets tough just as we did when we encountered hard times and steep inclines in 1973 and 1978. But one factor is unaltered; we cannot afford to stop, for to do so means falling off and, in our case, it will not be unlike Humpty Dumpty. Once we fall, Singapore will never be the same again.

Let me digress a little, if I may, Mr Speaker, Sir, to regale you with two important features of this rather large and unique bicycle. Firstly, I would like to stress that despite the size of this mam- moth contraption only one person can steer this bicycle. To encourage otherwise will only end up in the bicycle becoming a twisted hulk of metal. It begs the question then: who should steer? I think the obvious answer would be the striker. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, I run the risk of getting my metaphors mixed. I suspect what we end up with will be a footballer-cum-bicyclist. But what is important is that this striker who is steering the bicycle must rely on inputs from all his colleagues, from Cabinet and Parliament, our various grassroots organizations, our community leaders, and most important of all, the people who are right behind the striker, pedalling away, putting their best foot forward.

What is worthwhile repeating really is that the person who is doing the steering must have enough gauges and meters to know what is going on at the back of him -whether the people are exhausted, what sort of refreshments the cyclists require, what are their needs to keep on going. Not only must he have this feedback but what is equally important is that having got the feedback he must take heed. He neglects it at his own peril and endangers the whole nation by so doing. Because by neglecting the feedback he may end up steering but getting nowhere. Since we have referred to the striker, one probably wonders where is the place for the goalkeeper. I suspect he will be right at the end, bringing up the rear. In case the bicycle wobbles while negotiating a bend, he will be in a good position to put on the brakes or perhaps even crack the whip.

The second feature of this bicycle is that everyone on board is carried along on one condition - provided he is giving of his best. What is equally important, as mentioned in the Presidential Speech, is that everyone has a place on this bicycle. No one should be left behind or discarded as the bicycle progresses. In this regard, again I am thankful and gratified that the Presidential Speech clearly stated that each citizen will be urged "to develop his potential to the fullest, and to achieve his rewards in accordance with the worth of his contribution to our economy or society." The question that is being begged to be answered really is: how best to help each individual to develop his potential to the fullest? Or look at in another way: how much resources should be deployed to help those who are less talented, less well-endowed, less able and consequently require more care and more attention? Alternatively, should more resources be used to develop the better-endowed and the more talented? I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between. We cannot have the cake and eat it too. There must be a trade-off.

I would like to dwell a little on this question because, to me, it is the under-pinning philosophy of the whole Government's agenda, Should we trade-off faster progress for a slightly slower one in order that more people can benefit from our prosperity? If that is so, then the Government has to make a conscious effort in bringing this about.

Having perused the Addenda, while I detect some implied thinking along this line, I was unable to discern any clear indication regarding Government's position on this rather crucial policy decision. I realize that reference has been made, albeit in a general way both in the Addenda as well as in the Presidential Speech about helping the lower-income group, the aged, the less fortunate, the less able and so on and so forth. These broad objectives are laudable and are at the same time in line with our overall aim of improving the quality of life for all Singaporeans, as I have stressed earlier on.

But let me hasten to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that all of us here, and I suspect every Singaporean too, realize that we do have limited resources but, at the same time, we also do have Singaporeans who need that linle extra help or push to realize their full potential. Given the best of will, they cannot make it on their own. Therein lies the dilemma. The nub of the matter really lies in the way in which we, the Government, and we, the people, wish to cut our cake. Who should have the larger share? I am posing this question because we are debating the Government's agenda for the next 10 years. We are also in the midst of a rather critical situation in view of the economic difficulties we are likely to encounter over the next year. So the policy as to how we ought to cut the cake will impact not just those who are likely to benefit but all Singaporeans. I would perhaps like to, if I may, quote a few figures to help bring the problem into perspective and hopefully enable the Government and ourselves to have a better grasp of the dilemma that we are facing. I have gone through the Report, the Census of Population, 1980, which is perhaps rather ancient being about four years old, but I think the patterns and the trends are still applicable. In this particular Report, Release No. 7 which gives the income profile of the population, the 1980 Census showed that about 70% of employees earned less than the mean income. I do not intend to go through the details, but roughly, a summary of Table 11, on page 46 of this Report, indicates that for employees with no qualification, their mean monthly income in 1980 was $352 and 69% of this category of people were earning below the mean income. Those with primary qualification, numbering some half a million, their mean monthly income was $425, with 74% of the employees earning below the mean income. For those with secondary and upper secondary education, the mean monthly income amounted to about $785, with 68% earning below this figure. For those with tertiary education, the mean monthly income was $2,401, with 54% earning below the mean income. For the whole group of employees, numbering some 900,000 of them, the mean monthly income, I would like to reiterate that this was in 1980, was $585, with 70% of the employees earning below the mean income.

In short, some two-thirds of employees in 1980 earned below the mean income. However, to make policy decisions based purely on such figures would not only be irrational but would be totally wrong. Let me explain. Fortunately for us, household incomes have substantially increased over the past three to four years because of the full employment situation which we enjoyed over the period 1979-1983. Hence the standard of living rose over this period despite what could be deemed to be relatively low individual incomes. Indeed, the 1980 Census Survey confirmed this, and I would like to quote:

"The second and subsequent working members of the household provided modest but important supplementary income to the household."

So despite the fact that superficially the bulk of, or to be precise, some two-thirds of the employees earned below the mean income, Singaporeans were able to afford a fairly comfortable way of life for the simple reason that we were able, despite the many setbacks and an unfavourable, global economic situation, to maintain full employment, thereby providing ample employment opportunities for Singaporeans from all walks of life. As such, I would not be too perturbed if someone stood up and said, "Look, $585 is way below subsistence level, if ever that was."

But what is perturbing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that with the likely downturn in economic growth over the next year, I am afraid that more workers will be retrenched, job opportunities will decrease and, as a result, household incomes fall. The net effect will not only be the reduction in individual incomes, but also in household incomes. And this latter effect, the drop in household incomes, will have fairly grave consequences.

The point I am making, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Government and we in Parliament ought to bear this in mind when formulating policies, particularly those which have a financial impact on the average household.

In this regard, I am really pleased to note that this fact has not been overlooked. The Addenda indicated very clearly that the Government in its farsightedness has decided that lower income families will require assistance to own their own homes, just as one example. This is a laudable and a necessary policy. Since most of my colleagues have already touched on how Government can help the lower income families to own their own homes, I would not reiterate any of these suggestions, but perhaps to round up by saying that, whatever schemes the HDB or the Ministry of National Development or the Ministry of Finance may come up with, they should take cognizance of the fact that in a prolonged recession, particularly if it is going to result in massive retrenchments, not just in numbers but also in frequency, lower income employees invariably by the very nature of their jobs that they are engaged in, will be affected disproportionately. As such, when drawing up details of any scheme to assist home ownership, they must take into account that these families will need that extra help.

Let me add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these same low income groups will also require assistance in other areas as a result of the reduction in household incomes. Since education is uppermost in most of our minds, it will be a useful example to examine children's education in primary and secondary schools in this respect. I do not have any ready figures. But I strongly suspect that the majority of children who have been streamed into the monolingual or extended stream in primary schools, and the normal stream in the secondary schools, are from lower income families. I am sure the Ministry of Education will be able to confirm whether this is so. But the crucial point is whether Government ought to channel more resources to help these students, namely, those in the extended or the monolingual streams, or the normal secondary stream, with the sole objective of enabling them to realize their full potential. It is well and good to stream them into schools where they are able to learn at their own pace. To succeed more resources could well be required to help them along.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if our declared policy is to help those who need help to help themselves, then I feel that it behoves us to consider seriously to deploy even more resources to help the children from the lower income families in order that they could break out of the poverty trap and move up the economic ladder. In case some of my colleagues think that I am going soft, I am making this plea really in the hope that the declared aim of the Government in helping each and every Singaporean realize his full potential can really be met, and is not just a slogan. I will be the first to declare that meritocracy has served us well. Equal opportunities have enabled those who are talented and well- endowed to rise socially, regardless of their race, creed, culture or their stations in life, or background.

Indeed, I have often compared the upward mobility of our society to that of a concertina. In short, our society, as a result of free and easy mobility, has expanded like a concertina. It is really up to those who have made it to the top to help the others struggling at the bottom of the heap.

At the same time, I think Government equally has the responsibility to make it a conscious policy to help those at the bottom not by hand-outs, as may be advocated from time to time by one or two MPs, but really by giving them the extra assistance in order that they can succeed in pulling themselves up by their own boot-straps. What they need is that little extra help. And this help which must be forthcoming from the Government is not only morally right, but I feel very strongly that it is also a pre-condition for continued social harmony and national cohesiveness. Because if we promote a society, where the concertina is overstretched, with the result that those at the top of the heap pay scant regard to those at the boftom, there can only be but one result - civil strife, chaos, and all the attendant disastrous consequences. Indeed, when we speak of total defence, something which we have been trying to promote, everyone must have a stake which is worthwhile defending, and if the bulk of our population does not have any stake, then I am afraid the concept of total defence will never succeed. Hence, it is really in the interest of national survival that we make every effort to assist those at the bottom of the heap.

In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, Government has stated quite categorically, as I said at the outset, that it will create an environment where each and every Singaporean will give of his best. I think no one will quarrel with that. Moreover, their respective talents will be developed to the fullest. This broad policy deserves our full support. What I am suggesting, Sir, is that Government, when translating this overall policy into programmes at the ministerial level, should take extra care to ensure that the talents of the less well-endowed and the skills of the less able are given every opportunity to be developed to the fullest, like those of their more talented and better endowed fellow citizens. And this, I must stress, will require a conscious decision in policy formulation on how much of our limited resources are to be used and for what purpose.

I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is really no one clear-cut answer to this difficult decision. But one thing is clear. We ought to bring our minds to bear on this matter and convince Singaporeans that whatever decision we arrive at, it has been made in the best interest of Singaporeans at large in the longer run. The guiding framework I touched on earlier will continue to be what is most good for the maximum number of people.

I have, however, one caveat to this approach of helping the people at the bottom of the heap. Having been told of the Government's intention to pay particular attention to the lower income group, the aged and the disadvantaged, Singaporeans will invariably put under the microscope all policies particularly those relating to fees, rates, fares and I suspect it will include the impending increase in taxi fares, and compare such fare adjustments, fee increases, against the declared policy. This is inevitable. And as a Government we have and must have the courage to stand up to it. What we must prevent at all costs is to lose our credibility, and that is, to preach one thing and do another. Yet at the same time, let me hasten to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not swing the other way and create what has been called the "crutch mentality" in any strata of our society, nor by our policies ought we to encourage dependency and slothfulness. What is called for is a judicious balance to be struck and, at the same time, whenever increases of fares, rates and fees are inevitable, great pains ought to be taken to explain why such increases are necessary rather than just making changes by merely promulgating legislation, just by the stroke of a pen.

The litmus test really is that the "national bicycle", if I may term it, must be kept going with everyone pedalling to the best of his ability, realizing of course that some will need more help than others. And those who need more help ought to receive more help, not because we believe in hand-outs but because this is to enable them to give of their best. In this way, everyone can and shall enjoy a better quality of life in accordance with his contributions.

I note that one of the declared objectives contained in the Presidential speech is that Singapore ought to be a fun place to live in. I would like to expand on that by stating in no uncertain terms that unless life in Singapore can be fun for everyone, no one will be in a position to enjoy any at all. It is with this reminder that I support the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah. 3.06 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, politics is about giving hope to the people. The people supported us and voted for us because they have placed their hope in us. If we fail to give them hope, they will abandon us. We may have the best intentions in the world and we may have the most visible achievements to show, but if the people's perception is that they cannot get a fair deal from us and that there is no hope of improving their livelihood under our rule, then they will abandon us. This, I suspect, must be what was in the minds of some of the 33% of voters when they went to the polling stations on 22nd December and voted against us.

"Perception" here is the most important word. It is no use comparing us with the people in Calcutta or Bangkok. The common people cannot see beyond his immediate horizon. He can only compare himself with those who live around the corner, in condominiums and in executive flats, those who enjoy a four-figure or five-figure income. If he thinks that there is gross unfairness in the distribution of the nation's wealth and the only way he can make us understand his despair and frustration is simply to cast a vote against us, then he will do it.

An ancient Chinese philosopher was quite right when he pointed out that a country never suffered from poverty. It only suffered from the ill effects of the inequality in the distribution of its wealth. ( ) In other words, if everyone is poor, then no one can complain. The pavement sleeper in Calcutta has nothing to complain because everyone sleeps in the pavement like him, and he cannot see anything else. Similarly, if everyone eats tapioca, no one will complain because, if that is all we have, then we will have it. However, if some eat tapioca and some eat chicken, for instance, then we will have trouble because the tapioca eaters will complain. If everyone has an equal stake in the system, then this system is worth fighting for, worth dying for. Only then is there a meaning when we ask the people to strive for the best and to work their best. ( ) This is not a system that we want to preserve or perpetuate.

We have just celebrated the 25th year of the rule of our Party. It is therefore a good time for us to sit down and take stock and to ask ourselves what we have done for the common man, the small man, or ( ), for whom we have set our task to serve when we first joined the PAP. It is true that we have created a few millionaires, and a few among us here too, not surprisingly. It is true that we have given everyone better schools, better houses and better standard of living. But has the livelihood of those in the 15-20% lower income group whom the President has specifically mentioned improved very much? Not much I would say. Over the last 25 years, the allowances of Members of Parliament have increased six times, from $500 to the present $3,000-plus. The pay of Ministers has increased 10 times. It used to be $2,000. I was told now it is $20,000. I have lost touch. I have not been here for several years. That is 10 times. But the pay of the average man, the small man, in the lower income group has only increased two times or at the most three times, if he works hard enough at overtime. His pay would be increased from, say, $200 a month to the present, say, $500 a month. But during the same period, our cost of living has risen five or six times. A plate of char kway teow which cost 30 cents in those days can now be had only at $2 if we want an egg. A cup of coffee which cost 10 cents is now 50 cents without milk.

If we measure our achievements by these criteria, then we can be perceived as having failed miserably. I am not directing this criticism solely at the present younger leadership for whom I have great respect and admiration. I am directing it at ourselves collectively for allowing it to happen and we were blind to all the signals sent back to us by the people in their agony and frustration. The Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir would be flattering themselves if they for one moment believe that they have brought about this turn in their political fortunes by their own effort. It is we who, through our own lopsided policies, have put them there. It is now up to the new leadership to remedy that situation and win back the supporters. To these supporters we must show concrete proof of our sincerity. It is no use telling them the nice things that are going to happen to them in the year 1999. It is no use telling them the fun things. Fun? What fun? It is no use telling them the fun things that are going to happen to them in 1999 when they cannot get themselves above the line of subsistence living now in 1985!

It is true that the people in the lower income group had their pay increased on several occasions in the past years. But unfortunately every time they had an increase, whether it be the NWC recommendations or the 13-month salary, there was always a corresponding increase in the CPF contributions, which then left them not very far from where they were before. In fact, a man who now earns $500 a month takes home less than he did before. In the past, if he earned $500 a month, then after deduction of the CPF contribution at 5%, he would take home $475. Now, he is lucky if he can take home $375.

Our intentions, of course, were good. We were concerned that they were unable to manage their own money. We were worried that if we stuffed too much money into their hands they would squander it away, adding fuel to inflation which would leave them worse off than before. So it is better that part of the increase should be taken away and kept in their CPF until the time when they are old enough to handle it. But this, I think, is too caring and too paternalistic in a matter which everyone considers to be his own business and nobody else's.

The same mentality prevailed when it came to tackling the problem of the old aged people. A commission was set up and the result was only too well-known. Its sweeping conclusion was that the people could not be trusted with their own money, even though they had lived for more than half a century. So it had to be retained until they get even older. Again, too caring and too paternalistic. Too much interference in areas where the common people consider them too personal and private to be regulated by the Government.

The same thing happened in the case of women graduates. If you are a woman graduate and if you are not married by the age the Government thinks you should, the whole Government machinery would descend on you and devise ways and means to get you married off, and preferably producing good, brilliant babies. We tend to see too far ahead, look too deeply into problems and get worried too early. In a way, this is good and, with such people in charge, nothing much can go wrong. But what fun is there? It is also in keeping with the good old Chinese philosophy which says, "A leader should show concern and start thinking long before his people get into trouble. He should enjoy only after his people have enjoyed." ( ). This is all very honourable and admirable and deserves our praise. But the ordinary man cannot see so far ahead. He cannot understand why certain things have to happen to him, so he gets very angry because of them. On the other hand, in places where the Government should show more care and sympathy, they are found lacking. If you are sick and if you do not have a credit balance in your Medisave account, it is too bad. If you have the misfortune to run a shop in an HDB estate, and if the HDB wants to increase your rent by 200% or 300% and if you cannot afford it, well, it is too bad. You have to move out and make way for those who are more efficient. And what happens to you is none of the Government's business. As a result of this high rental policy, many shops in the HDB estates cannot survive on legitimate business alone. [Laughter] It is an open secret. I know why Members are laughing because it is an open secret that many had to resort to doing other less legitimate business, such as running illegal 4-D operations to keep going.

After an absence of more than six years from the politics of Singapore, I am naturally pleased to be back. However, I find that it is a very different Singapore that I have come back to. People are forever ready to charge you a fee for anything and for everything. The greatest shock came the other day when I found that I had to pay 50 cents to set foot on Chinatown. Can you believe it? I know you will say that nothing is for free in this world, and I subscribe to that philosophy. But in Chinatown where I used to roam freely as a boy! It is a bit much, isn't it, to have to pay 50 cents for a nostalgic stroll in Chinatown during Chinese New Year. I have a feeling that the day may not be far away when we have to pay for the sea breeze in the Esplanade and for a swim in Changi Beach. No wonder they "Pay And Pay." You know what that means.

In recent months, the newspapers are so full of reports about companies going bankrupt and workers being retrenched that I do not have to be an economist to tell you that things are getting very bad in our economy. High overhead cost, high labour cost and high value of the Singapore Dollar have hit our businessmen very hard, especially the small businessmen.

I think the Government ought to do something to get them out of this very difficult time. I think one thing the Government can easily do in this respect without losing any revenue, and that is important, is to abolish the Skills Development Fund levy. The levy in its present form is unfair to the small employers and give tremendous advantage to the multinationals. A look at the SDF's latest annual report tells us that of the 50,405 small companies which employ less than 10 employees each, only 1.5% of them have applied and got grants from the SDF for their employees; whereas of the 217 large companies which employ more than 500 employees each, every one has applied and every one has been successful in getting grants for its employees.

Some people say that the SDF levy is, in fact, an indirect tax on the workers in the lower income group, and I am inclined to agree with them. The reason is simple. If the hard-pressed small employer does not have to pay 4% of the payroll of his small low income employees into the SDF, he will have that much more money to pay to his workers. But because he has to pay to the SDF, he has less to reward them. So at the end of the year he has to make the adjustments and pay less bonus to his workers. In the end, it is the poor workers who have lost out.

It is interesting to find that even the trade unionists among here have spoken out against the SDF. Why should trade unionists speak out against it when workers are not required to contribute to it? They have lost nothing. Why? And the SDF is ostensibly meant to upgrade the skill of the workers and prepare them for better and higher paid jobs. Why, may I ask, should the trade unionists raise the matter? I think in a way the unionists have sensed, although no one has told them, that the levy has indirectly hurt the workers in the same way as it has the small employers. I know it is not the habit of this Government to abolish any levy or tax once it has got them going. It would be like to force the biblical camel through the needle hole; if I had quoted the bible correctly. I beg your pardon. The authority is not here.

An hon. Member: Eye of the needle.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Yes, eye of the needle; the needle hole! It does not matter. It is an Asian way of expressing it well, ( ). But it is useful to point out that the SDF has already amassed a huge amount of money. Even if the levy is to be suspended for a year or two, there is no danger that the training programmes under the SDF would be jeopardized. Up to March last year, the SDF has accumulated an amount of $432 million. But in the same period it has only paid out slightly more than $40 million as grants. So at this rate, if the grants do not increase substantially over the years, the fund can easily last for more than 10 years. But in any case, the argument is quite strong for the Fund to be abolished for the time being and reintroduced when the economy is in better shape.

The Prime Minister has advised the younger generation against tossing overboard fixed, settled values which are part of our culture, part of our ethos." This advice should be well heeded. I cannot agree with him more. We have been helpless in seeing these good old values being eroded, compromised and dismantled for too long. But somehow I have the feeling that his officials and we ourselves have been unknowingly and unwittingly a party to this dismantling and demolishing of our traditional cultural values.

I need only bring out two examples - the simplification of the Chinese characters and the cultural or high-brow programmes in SBC's Channel 12. First, the Chinese characters which we call han zhi. The Chinese characters have served not only the Chinese people but also the Japanese people, the Korean people and even the Vietnamese people for more than 2,000 years. It is still the most widely used and the oldest writing scripts in the world. It must have its inherent values, otherwise it could not have lasted so many thousand years and not being discarded. The Chinese are an intelligent people. The Japanese are also an intelligent people. After so many hundred years of searching and experimenting, they have yet to find another script which can satisfactorily replace these characters. It is part of the Asian culture. It is a legacy to all the east Asian people. With a legacy like this, one should value it and should not allow it to be tampered with or modified lightly. Yet the characters have suffered more damage in the last 20 years under the hands of the so-called "language reformers" than in the last 2,000 years under the hands of tyrannical emperors and warlords.

The "reformers" ie, the language experts say that it takes too many strokes to form a Chinese character and that it is difficult to teach the young children to read and write them. I say, balderdash. The English language is just as difficult to write. It is also difficult to pronounce. It is also difficult to spell, but no one has suggested that the English words should be simplified. Take the English word "beautiful", for instance, and the Chinese character mei ( ). They both convey the same meaning. The English word "beautiful" takes nine letters to form and so it can be said to have nine writing strokes. The Chinese character "mei" also takes nine strokes to form. While the strokes in "mei" are dashes and dots written in different directions, the strokes in "beautiful" consist of different letters or alphabets, as you call them. It takes nine strokes to form the word "beautiful" and it also takes nine strokes to form the character "mei".

No one in his right mind has suggested, or will ever suggest, dropping a few English letters here and there from the word "beautiful" in order to make it more easily taught and understood. The Americans have tried it, and we have words like "color", "favor", and so on and so forth, but we are not following that system here. So why should the Chinese characters be chopped and changed and castrated? As a result of that, there has been more confusion. Instead of simplifying it, they make it more complicated. And as a result of that, the word "hair", for instance, in Chinese "fa" ( ) and the word for "development" - "fa" ( ) are now indistinguishable. The word for "history", for instance, "li" ( ) and the Chinese character for "calendar" ( ) are also indistinguishable, and many other words have been made indistinguishable. As a result of that, our own children can now only read what has been fed to them and cannot gain access to the vast knowledge stored in the hundreds of thousands of books which were written in the non-simplified form.

The tragedy now is that the simplification process is done only half way and has ground to a halt, and it has been left hanging ever since, in mid-air. The Chinese in the mainland must have now awakened to the damage that has been done to this very valuable writing script, and they have virtually called a halt to it. For many years now, no one has ever talked about the subject. No one has ever issued any new simplified characters. Nothing has been done. It is just left like that. No objectives, nothing. Can you believe it? I suppose this will also leave us dangling for quite some time too.

Let me now come to the other subject, hanyu pinyin. At the outset, I must say that as a form of spelling for Mandarin, it has my wholehearted support. For the first time, since the 1915 May 4th Movement, the Chinese found a tool which would efficiently and accurately transcribe the sound of Mandarin on paper. Nevertheless, it is only a tool for transcription of Mandarin sounds. It cannot and will not replace the Chinese characters. But because it can translate the sounds accurately, I am sure it will help to speed up the teaching and learning of Mandarin. My advice to the new MPs who are now struggling to improve their Mandarin is this: they should take up the learning of hanyu pinyin seriously. I am sure they can master it in one or two weeks, and after that the mystery of the ancient oriental world will be gradually opened to them.

However, we must not allow the enthusiasm for spreading the use of hanyu pinyin to overtake us and make us do something foolish, which is what is happening now. I am told that we are now in the process of transforming all the names of our children into hanyu pinyin, so that in one stroke we separate them from their ancestral names. One fine day when we wake up, we may not know how to write their names correctly. This, again, is a move which will lead us into many imponderables. The way we spell our names carries with it a piece of our own history. Whether we spell it in the Cantonese way, the Hokkien way, the Teochew way, or the Hainanese way, it tells the story of how our forefathers had gone to the various parts of Southeast Asia to seek their fortunes and then converged in Singapore and made Singapore what it is today.

From the way a Chinese spells his name, you can easily tell where his father or he came from. If it is "Koh Lam Son" straightaway I know that he is a Hokkien and he comes from Singapore, because nowhere else would a Chinese with the same surname spell it that way. In Hong Kong, he would spell it as "Hui", and those in Peking or Taiwan would spell it as "Shui". So it is all different. In London, in the bigger metropolitan area, I used to meet Chinese from all parts of the world, and I often wonder how is it that I could very easily tell and identify where he came from, which part of China and which part of Southeast Asia.

An Englishman once asked me how I could tell the difference between a man from China and a man from Singapore. Frankly, I did not know it myself. I told him that it was instinct. It could be the smell or something. Then one day when I faced several people from different places with different names but with the same Chinese characters, I found the answer. If a man, say, Koh, comes from Indonesia, then he would be obliged now to spell it as "Hoswala". And if he comes from the Philippines, it would be spelt as ". . . palingco", with "co" at the end, and so on and so forth. It all makes sense. And all this comes back to me.

The way we spell our names separates us from the rest of the Chinese world. Do we want to remain distinct, or do we want to submerge into the ocean of obscurity? Is it not better for us to remain a separate entity, no matter how small that entity is? Or does Mr Tang See Chim want to link up with Deng Hsiao Peng and become the long lost relative and change his name to Deng Xi Chen? For instance, the Member for Potong Pasir, if I can have a very quick intelligent guess, from the way he spells his name, Chiam See Tong, maybe he is a Hainanese. Am I right?

An hon. Member: Teochew.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I could be wrong but I beg forgiveness. Although there are only three syllables in a Chinese name, but from the way they spell it, the way they use it, you can not only identify where he comes from but you can also tell where his forefathers came from, which village his father came from, and which generation ---

Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a point of clarification? Would the Member for Queenstown explain his own name "Jek" which is typically not Cantonese, and I do know that he is a Cantonese? I think it should be "Yek".

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: A very good question. This gives me a very good opportunity to explain why it is spelt "Jek" and not "Yek".

Maj Fong Sip Chee: Has it got anything to do with Jekyll?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: No. It has a history of blood and tears. My forefathers or my father must have gone to Indonesia as a coolie. In those days the Dutch were in control. "J" is spelt for "Y". That is why this name was given to my father and to me.

Maj Fong Sip Chee: Will the Member for Queenstown declare that his affinity is more close to the village in China which is pronounced as "Y", or to Indonesia, or to what is Singapore now?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I really do not know because I have nobody there in that village. But it tells a history of blood and tears, of how the overseas Chinese had gone overseas to make their fortune and be bullied.

Then there is this mad scramble to change the traditional place names into hanyu pinyin. I thought once upon a time we had decided as a matter of principle not to change any place names, whether these names bear colonial colours or traditional history because these names carry with them a piece of our nation's background and history. And yet we see this attempt to change them all, sometimes with very laughable outcome. Tekkah market, for instance, has become Zhujiao ( ) market. Well, whether it is "Zhujiao" a place where it is under the bamboo tree, or whether it is Zhujiao ( ) - a pig's trotter, also pronounced as Zhujiao. Whether it is this or that, nobody knows, so that if you tell a taxi driver to take you to Tekkah market, to Zhujiao, he might think that you want to have a bowl of pig's trotters or something else. I do not know what. Then we have this place called Seletar. This was a Malay name, and the Chinese cannot pronounce Seletar properly, so they have to render it into Chinese characters and call it " ". And then our city planners, they have very wise idea, change this " " into a Hanyu Pinyin, Now it becomes Shilida. They have completely forgotten what it is all about, and I wonder why they have not bothered to change Mangka Kah into Wen Yao Jiao ( ). Maybe it is not very pronounceable because in Chinese " " means "a mosquito biting your leg". Are we going to have a place named like that?

I now come to this other point about the programmes in Channel 12 by the SBC. They have made a very admirable effort. They have done very good work and they have given very good, enjoyable programmes. We have Tchaikovsky ballets and Verdi operas and we have Beethoven symphonies. We have everything which we can call "culture" - good culture, good civilization. But what I want to quarrel with them is their mentality in classifying the programmes which they call "culture and good-taste programmes". Whatever that is, Western culture, according to them, is good and is suitable to be used in Channel 12. Whatever is not, it would not use. So we have these operas, whether it is sung in Italian, or German, or French, they would telecast because this is "culture". But an opera that is sung in Cantonese, or in the Peking dialect, is not culture; so it is not telecast, not used there. This is the mentality behind it.

We have the vast, the very rich Asian culture right under our nose, and yet they ignore them. Some of them, can only be shown, a very, very small part of them, shown only on occasions like Chinese New Year and so on. But I think it is this sort of thing that makes Singapore what it is, it gives us the values, the culture. It is no use giving them a good culture if they cannot understand all these operas sung in Italian. And the other operas in Italian, in German, and in French. I enjoy it, I like it. But what about all the old folks? The operas in Cantonese and in other dialects have hundreds of years of history, and they impart to us their values in a story. It is not just an opera. It gives you all the history of China, the literature, the poems of the Tang period, the Sung period. All these are being reflected in these operas; how to teach our children to be filial to their parents and be loyal to their friends. All these values are there in the Chinese operas, but they say this is not culture, and therefore it is not worth showing in the Culture Channel.

But it is still not too late to try and win back the support and confidence of the common man. We must not antagonize and alienate them. We must treat them as our friends. They may not have good paper qualifications but they have feelings. Even in China (it was once said in this House) they believe more in chopping heads than in counting heads. There is this old saying which likens the rulers of the country to a "boat", and the people to "water". Water can carry a boat but it can also sink the boat - " " Respect them and attend to their needs at all times, and the people will carry you very far. Otherwise, you will be sunk by them. 3.52 p.m.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Tanah Merah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah in thanking the President for his Address outlining the goals and objectives which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the Sixth Parliament.

The President in his Address to the nation has clearly stated the goals and the objectives of the Government for the next five years and through the 1990s. He has clearly emphasized that it is the Government's first duty to safeguard what Singaporeans have achieved and, secondly, to improve upon what has been achieved by building a better society.

While gearing our country to achieve higher goals to put us in the rank of the developed nations, we must pay particular attention to the 15-20% of our population who are in the lower income group. We must seek ways and means to help them keep up with the rapid changes in our country. The six objectives for the next five years, as spelt out, give us a clear sense of direction to move towards a higher level in order to put us in the league of developed nations. The tasks are heavy but challenging. But it has been in us, as Singaporeans, to face all the challenges together to build a better nation for our children - the future generation. We must involve the population, both the young and the old, to determine our future. Though each individual is given the opportunities to achieve his or her maximum potential, we must be able to cooperate and work together to achieve the best team spirit. Greater participation of all our people will certainly bring greater benefits to our nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come a long way since the hard and uncertain times of the 1950s. We have achieved our basic needs and we now put more emphasis on a better provision of service, such as health and education, and also to give greater attention to the satisfaction that could be derived from leisure and the environment. We have also made advances in the technological field and one of the rapid changes is in the field of communication. This has greatly enhanced our awareness of how other people live and has brought with it an uneasy concern about many people elsewhere who live below acceptable standard of living. We should consider ourselves fortunate to be what we are today. We must therefore work hard, intelligently, and prepare ourselves to protect and preserve our heritage. Sir, I share the views put forth by the Member for Changkat about the social changes that we may face in the future. Our society is changing as much as the economic and environmental aspects of our country. We move around more and spend less time in getting to know people. Our relationships with our friends and acquaintances are getting more superficial. We change jobs more often and technology makes our skills more quickly out of date. The family is less tightly knit and we have less contact time with our kin. And as you know, more mothers are going out to work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of my colleagues here have brought up or suggested to the Government to pay particular attention to the 15-20% group of people in the lower income bracket. I share their views in suggesting to the Government to help them in monetary form, as some have suggested. I am pleased to note that the Government is giving special consideration to this, but what I would like to suggest is that we must not think of giving them help in the form of, say, monetary incentives only. What we should do is we should try and upgrade their skills through education. We could make arrangements for these people to attend academic classes to improve their numeracy and literacy skills. A good example that we have is the BEST classes. I think, if we can make arrangements for some of these people to take time-off, if possible, from work and put them through vocational training, they might have the chance to go up in their vocations. We could make use of the various vocational institutes that we have throughout the island. With their improved skills, they can go higher in their vocations and be better paid. I use an analogy on why we should help them by upgrading their skills. It is better that we give a man a fishing line and teach him how to fish rather than give him a fish to eat for the day. With his skill on the fishing line, he will not go hungry if he is willing to work.

Amidst the changing scene, how can we preserve our heritage and achieve a better quality of life for our people? This is the declared aim of the Government. To me, the answer lies entirely in the field of education. Many criticisms have been directed at the Ministry of Education. I think it is easier to criticize than to bring out suggestions to improve the process of educating our young. As for me, being involved in the education service for the past 18 years, I could say that it is a very difficult task to educate the young. At this juncture, I would like to put on record my admiration to the professionals and administrators in the Ministry of Education for the hard work put in all these years, despite the difficult task and criticisms thrown at them.

I am also glad to note that the new Minister for Education in the first Schools' Council meeting this year gave us assurances that the system will be further improved.

According to the Addendum on the Ministry of Education:

'Our education policy will be directed towards establishing a flexible education system which will bring out the best in every child and develop in each pupil sound moral values and a strong foundation in the basic skills necessary to earn a living in Singapore's modern economy.'

Educating a child involves more than just giving him the basic knowledge to enable him to get a job later on. It is not a matter of passing examinations with flying colours. I think we must look into the non-tangible aspects of education, for example, moral education and nation building. And the school is the best place to imbibe in our children the concept of loyalty and patriotism to the country. Whether our education system has achieved its objective in giving good education to our children can be seen only if there are positive answers to the questions that our Prime Minister asked Dr Goh Keng Swee, the former Education Minister, in his letter to him in the 1978 Ministry of Education Report. Sir, let me quote from this Report:

'However, the litmus test of a good education is whether it nurtures citizens who can live, work, contend and cooperate in a civilised way. Is he loyal and patriotic? Is he, when the need arises, a good soldier, ready to defend his country, and so protect his wife and children, and his fellow citizens? Is he filial, respectful to elders, law-abiding, humane, and responsible? Does he take care of his wife and children, and his parents? Is he a good neighbour and a trustworthy friend? Is he tolerant of Singaporeans of different races and religions? Is he clean, neat, punctual, and well-mannered?'

Sir, if the answer to each of the above questions is positive, we can say that we have been successful in educating our young.

Our children in schools are given equal opportunities to get a good education. However, I would like to suggest to the Ministry of Education to pay more attention to making our pupils more aware of each other in our schools. An understanding and awareness of each other's language, culture and religion will cermainly bind them closer and make them feel more as Singaporeans. I should think from 1987 onwards when all schools would be doing English as the first language and the mother tongue as the second language, we should be able to see pupils of all races in all schools in Singapore. Through their daily interaction with one another, we can forge them together and build a united country. We can also make use of the mass media to create this awareness of the various cultures in Singapore. An example is the quarterly magazine, The Singapore Heritage, which I have a copy here, Sir. It is from the Information Division of the Ministry of Communications and Information. It is a good example of how we can make people aware of the various aspects of all the cultures that could be found in Singapore.

Another important point is that parents and society must play an active part in the education of a child because the child is at home most of the time. He spends about five hours in school a day. But I am sad to say that sometimes what we have taught the child in school on the right values were undone when he is away from school. Here, the society must play a complementary role in imparting the correct social values to our young. An example of this is gambling. In schools, we tell the children that gambling is wrong. But, Sir, you will agree with me that when they leave school and they go to the HDB void decks on Saturdays and Sundays in the afternoons, sometimes they could see gambling in the open. So we must ensure that our children are being shown the correct social behaviour and inculcated with the correct values to help them develop as rounded Singaporeans of the future. Once again, I would like to stress that parents must play a very active role. They must not "wash their hands" of their responsibilities in the education of their children.

Another area that I wish to point out is that the Ministry of Education should give opportunities for our children to pursue their studies even after completing their secondary education. An example is that of our Secondary 4 Normal pupils. Last year, about 14,000 of them sat for the GCE Normal examinations. One-third of them are now in Secondary 5 Normal. Out of the other two-thirds, only 2,000 are doing vocational training. Most of them have to look for jobs. If they look for a job without the necessary vocational skills, definitely they would not get a high pay. Perhaps the VITB should offer more places for these children from this year onwards so that after they finish their secondary education, they can go on to do technical or vocational skills training and thereafter go into the employment market and get better pay.

Our young must also be encouraged to pursue part-time studies to upgrade themselves. Many people have to go to work after their secondary education for one reason or another. It is only fair that we give them the encouragement and opportunities because they are motivated and they want to improve themselves academically. So we should allow these people to pursue part-time studies either at the National University of Singapore, the NTI or other recognized tertiary institutions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is through education that our people can move up the economic and social ladder. If the opportunities are given to all Singaporeans, we hope to see more citizens especially those in the lower income group break out of this poverty cycle so that they will be in a better situation to face the challenges of the fast changing technological world.

In conclusion, Sir, let me stress again that we must pay particular attention to the social and moral aspects of bringing up a new generation of Singaporeans. While we will try to bring out the greatest potential in our children so that they perform well in their studies, we must also ensure that they will grow up as good and useful citizens. 4.13 p.m.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah thanking the President for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament.

The Government's plan in the next five years marks the beginning of a new chapter in the history of our development. It reflects a nation that has come of age. With the passage of time, the level of social, economic and political perceptions of Singaporeans have changed and have matured and gained sophistication. The majority of Singaporeans have achieved their basic needs. They are now ready to achieve higher goals. They want a greater say in the events and policies that affect and reshape their lives, This level of maturity necessitates a change in the style of the Government. The Government's move to be more open and to seek greater consultation with the people is indeed most timely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the path towards achieving our vision of a City of Excellence by 1999 requires both hardware and software growth, if I may borrow a computer jargon. We all know that there can be no software without hardware. The two must grow together. By hardware, I mean real economic growth, the creation of wealth. The hon. Members in the House have touched at length on the software aspects of growth. Allow me, Sir, to swing the pendulum the other way. I shall touch on the hardware aspects of growth.

The underlying assumption of an improvement in our quality of life is sustained real economic growth, albeit at a gradually reducing rate as our economic cake expands. It is only through real economic growth that we could be assured of a continuing unemployment situation and a job for everyone. It is through the practice of prudent economic policies and measures that we could continue to have low inflation, productivity improvements and a balance of payment surplus. It is through real economic growth that we could bring about tangible and intangible improvements in the software aspects of life.

It is indeed laudable if we could achieve the target of a 5-7% per annum GDP growth and a productivity improvement of 3-5% in the next five years given the turbulence and complexity of the world economy today. With less and less manpower entering the workforce, our growth will have to come increasingly from productivity contribution. To achieve our growth targets, we have no choice but to continue to adopt the following measures: - (a) Diversify our economic base; (b) Restructure our industries to produce higher value-added goods and services; (c) Encourage automation and computerization; (d) Implement various productivity measures; (e) Step up training and retraining of workers: (f) Promote work discipline and team-work; and (g) Encourage more female Singaporeans to join the workforce. Ours is a small island-state with no natural resources. We were vulnerable before. We are still vulnerable today. We have no choice but to continue with economic restructuring if we are to remain competitive in the world market. We must not be complacent. Economic growth is an effort which involves everyone.

Coupled with the need for growth and economic diversification and restructuring is our philosophy of a free market mechanism. For well over 150 years, we learn to adapt ourselves to changing circumstances, firstly, as a trading port and subsequently as a major manufacturing, communications and services centre. The philosophy underlying our success remains unchanged all these years: we must excel in business. Whether in trade or in industry, we have found that a free enterprise system gives us that degree of flexibility Which has ensured our success and our prosperity through our ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. This free enterprise system must continue if we are to realise our goal of a developed city.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to touch on the role of Government in business and economic development. We all know that in the 1960s, Government's participation in the economy was confined mainly to the provision and improvement of infrastructure, such as roads, industrial estates, telecommunications, port facilities and public utilities. Gradually in the late '60s and '70s, Government began to participate directly in industrial, commercial and financial activities. Through equity participation, the Government is now involved in numerous economic activities, such as banking, insurance, transportation, telecommunications, manufacturing, trading, shipbuilding and repairing, printing and others. The main reason for the State taking on an entrepreneurial role was because entrepreneurs were slow to respond to Government's stimuli to participate in new ventures where the risks were high and a large capital was required.

Government's omnipresence in business, however, has its drawbacks. It pre-empts the private sector from taking a more active role in our economic development. It deprives them of valuable opportunities to develop or expand a whole range of supportive services. It creates an impression in the private sector mind that the Government is a potential competitor to his business. This is unhealthy and could negate the efforts of the EDB. Let me relate a personal experience I encountered some time ago. I met a businessman who is a professional engineer and through his years of research and experiment has developed a product which I told him could qualify for Product Development Assistance. I asked him to see the EDB. His reply was, "No." He said the Government would steal away his idea. That would be the end of his business. This is the sort of impression created in the minds of some private sector businessmen about Government's involvement in business. I may be exaggerating but the Government must change this impression and change it fast.

We are now entering a new economic era where most of our economic sectors have matured. It is perhaps timely now for Government to review its total involvement in business and to withdraw from those areas where it is no longer needed, and to let the private sector take the lead and play a more active role in our economic development. This will create opportunities for potential local entrepreneurs wanting to venture into business. We cannot continue to depend substantially on foreign investment for our growth. We have to rely more and more on our own resources. We have to develop a core of able local entrepreneurs who will help to create the necessary wealth. I propose that the Government looks into ways and means to encourage more people to come forward to become entrepreneurs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his Opening Address has said:

'A better life for all requires the creation of wealth. Governments do not create wealth. They can only create the pre-conditions for fruitful efforts.'

Sir, I think the President has hit the nail on the head. The creation of wealth should be left to the private sector. The Government's role in business and economic development should be to continue to provide the overall economic direction, devise guidelines and incentives to further broaden our economic base and upgrade our economic activities, and provide the necessary infrastructure to support our economic programmes.

In line with the proposed change towards a more open style of government, there should also be greater consultation between the Government and the private sector on business and economic matters. Sir, my experience tells me that the Government has some of the best economists we can find in Singapore. It has a formidable team of economic planners. They have done a great job in the past. They will continue to do a good job if they keep their "eyes" and "ears" closer to the ground. I hope the Government will take the feedback from the private sector on the present business climate seriously, certainly much more seriously than it took the feedback from the public on certain social and educational policies last year.

There has been a suggestion by the private sector for the formation of a National Economic Council which brings together the Government, Employers and the Union to deliberate on major economic strategies and policies. I think this proposal merits consideration by the Government. The Council could also take over the role of the National Wages Council. There are a host of economic measures and instruments, not just wages alone, which influence our economic development. The Council will enable the Government to feel the pulse of the economy and the business climate better. It provides a useful feedback to the Government when drawing up economic plans and policies to direct the economy in the future.

Sir, the role of the Government in economic development and business could be summarised in the soccer field. In the past, the Government had taken on the centre-forward and goalkeeper roles. It even occupied certain strategic positions in mid-field. The other positions were taken up by the private sector players. This was inevitable for we had to quickly form a team when we were admitted into the Division 3 Business League. We had to engage a first-class foreign coach - Dr Winsemius. Fortunately, the team of Government and private sector players played well and is now promoted to Division 2. There are now enough private sector players waiting in the sideline. They have acquired the individual skills but they lack the exposure and experience because they were not given a chance to play. The Government players should now withdraw from the field and allow the private sector players form the team. We may no longer need the services of a first-class foreign coach. Our ex-government and ex-private sector players, together with perhaps the services of one or two foreign specialized coaches, could form the coaching team. From now on, the Government should play the weatherman's role and the referee's and linesmen's roles to ensure fair play, the ground conditions proper, the lightings conducive, the lines clearly drawn and the goal-posts intact. Only by allowing the private sector players to play together as a team could they mature to compete internationally and be promoted to Division 1 in the years to come. 4.27 p.m.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, finally I have managed to catch your eye. But I can see that you are very tired. I need about 25 minutes to do the job. So would you like to call it a day?

Mr Speaker: It is up to the Leader of the House.