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

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [1st 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. 11.29 am

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Hu Tsu Tau): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to some comments made by hon. Members of this House regarding the state of the Singapore economy, in particular, the statement by the Member for Alexandra in which he said that the Minister of State for Trade and Industry and I have taken perhaps an overly optimistic view, or armchair view, of the state of economy that we might have glossed over the real situation which, in his words, "is pretty bad".

Now, I would like to clarify that when I and the Minister of State talked about the Singapore economy, we were talking about the economy as a whole, and not about any particular sector. I accept that in certain sectors, particularly the trade sector which is of primary interest to the Member for Alexandra, things are in fact fairly depressed. However, one must take these things in perspective when one looks at statistics, lest we talk ourselves into a blue funk.

The economy as a whole is not doing badly. Certain sectors indeed are depressed. Overall, I would like to re-emphasize that the economy is not doing as well as last year but it still remains fundamentally sound. Perhaps we should examine some of the statistics in order that they can be looked at in perspective. Indeed it is true that last year we had redundancies of 4,694. In absolute terms, this does look like a pretty bad figure. But what does it actually mean? It represents less than 0.4% of the total employable population in Singapore. I know this statistic is not particularly helpful to those who have lost their jobs, particularly around Chinese New Year. Nevertheless, it is a fact that it is a small proportion of the total minimum employable level of around 2.7% in Singapore which is, in fact, the figure of 33,000. In the larger economies, full employment, in fact, means around 6% of irreducible minimum of employed.

However, for the 4,000-odd people who have lost their jobs, indeed it is a problem as far as they are individually concerned. But let us not forget that we do indeed have a full employment economy in Singapore. These individuals ought to have found jobs within a reasonable period of time, provided they are not overly choosy. I also recognize, of course, that there are those who, because of age or because of lack of special skills, will find it takes longer to get replacement jobs. Indeed, it is this sector which the Government will do all it can to help.

It is also said that in 1984, 429 companies failed, went bankrupt, or were wound up. This indeed could be looked at as a rather startling figure. But is it? Let us examine some figures in our neighbouring countries. In Hong Kong, last year 1,746 companies closed down for one reason or another. Their population is twice ours and so is their economy. So indeed they may be said to have done worse than we have. But, of course, one could argue that they were faced with political problems or that they might have more problems than we have.

Let us look at Japan. Last year, 19,000 Japanese companies failed for one reason or another. In proportion to the size of the population, this would be about similar to the 400-odd in Singapore.

In the United States, there were 12,776 failures. It is really a small number for the size of their economy. But again I would caution in looking at statistics. These figures are not really meaningful without knowing the size of the companies which have failed. So again I would urge caution.

Again, in looking at statistics, one perhaps should look at the whole picture rather than part of it. In the case of Singapore, it is true that 429 companies failed. But it is also true that 4,600 new companies were formed. Again, I would caution. It does not mean that 4,600 new company formations is necessarily a very good thing because many of these companies may have been registered for $2 and may not be in operation for some time. Nevertheless, I merely quote this because statistics, looked in isolation, could convey indeed very wrong conclusions. In fact, a cynic has said that if one looks at statistics, there are things such as statistics and statistics and damn lies.

Sir, I will reiterate again. Business confidence is a very fragile commodity. Therefore, we should not talk ourselves into a gloom and doom syndrome. Having said that, perhaps I should now divert to a look at the components of our economy, sector by sector, to see where the problem lies, and what can be done to alleviate those sectors which are depressed. Conveniently, the Singapore economy can be divided into five main sectors, each of which accounts for roughly 20% of our GDP. These are manufacturing, transport and communications, financial and business services, trade, construction, and others.

Manufacturing. Overall, the manufacturing sector did not do too badly in 1984 but the outlook for 1985 is somewhat lower. In 1984, overall growth was about 9%. However, within this macro figure, there are certain sectors which are clearly depressed, the shipping sector, shipyards, timber companies, plywood factories, offshore oil and so on. On the other hand, the electronic and electrical component sector was very buoyant. And because of their buoyancy, many companies around the first, second to third quarters, in order to fulfil large orders from the United States, took on very large numbers of new workers. It was clear even then that such new additions to their employment could not be sustained, and indeed it turned out to be the case. Some of these companies now have to lay off some staff due to a levelling off of orders from the United States. Overall, we think next year the manufacturing sector ought to at least perform in the mid-range of our forecast, around 5% or perhaps 6% growth.

The next sector is transport and communications. This sector did very well last year and I think we can expect it to continue to do reasonably well this year. Growth for last year was 10%. There was great demand for air and sea services, telecoms and telex services. We think this sector will continue to do quite well and therefore in the upper quartile of our forecast.

The third sector is financial and business services. This sector did reasonably well last year where the growth was 11%. However, a lot of this growth took place in the offshore banking sector whereas the domestic banking sector slowed down somewhat due to reduced lendings into the depressed property market and into the trade and services area. Overall, it ought to do reasonably well next year, perhaps even in the upper range of our forecast.

The next sector is construction and others. Construction accounts for about 60% of this sector. Others represent farming and the fisheries industry. Construction was very strong last year although down from the previous year. Growth was in the region of 15%. It is slowing down this year because of the decline in private sector construction. However, it still remains buoyant because of continued expectation of public sector construction and the MRT. Overall, again it ought to perform in the upper range of our forecast.

Finally, I come to trade which is probably the most depressed area and which explains why the Member for Alexandra is concerned. Indeed, this sector is probably the worst performing sector. There are a variety of reasons behind this. First, the tourist sector within trade. I think everybody knows that growth in tourism has turned down, partly because hotel prices had priced itself out about a year or two ago and the tourists then went to Hong Kong because of our very high charges in hotel rates. The normal market mechanism due to the increase in the supply of hotels has in fact caused a substantial reduction in hotel charges and the outlook from the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board's figures look fairly encouraging. And we think there should be a reasonable upturn this year leading to somewhat better occupancy rates in the hotel industry but still remaining depressed because of large over supply.

The property development area, we have said, although is under trade, is indirectly affected, of course.

In the private trade business, the reduction in business is well known. I think it is partly due to a downturn of our trade with our neighbours who have, in fact, also suffered from a decline in world trade plus the decline in commodity prices, particularly Indonesia and also to a certain extent Malaysia. These are the factors affecting many of our small traders and they are the ones who I think are indeed suffering.

Again, the other sector where there is obvious depression is the retail sector in shops which do retail trade. It was again evident about two years ago during the peak of the expansion of this sector where there was a proliferation of HDB shopping centres and private sector shopping centres. The growth in this sector could not be sustained. In fact, I remember walking through some of these shopping centres about a year or two ago and seeing these hundreds of shops all selling virtually the same things, clocks, watches, jeans, what have you. I think it was clear that this growth could not be sustained and some of these rather unfortunate companies which had set up business hoping to cash in on the tourist boom would have to retreat, and indeed it has. Again, although one could say this is normal economic development, it is very painful for those personally involved. This is recognized by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and we are not armchair scientists in this area.

Sir, indeed we do recognize that there are soft spots in the economy and a lot of them due to circumstances either within their control or outside their control are going through difficult times. The Ministry is aware of this and we have examined this and indeed proposals are in hand to provide them with some form of relief. I would not go into these in detail because the Minister for Finance will be touching on some aspects of it in his Budget speech this afternoon. I would only recommend to the Member for Alexandra some patience since we only have about three-odd hours to wait. 11.42 am

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Ho Kah Leong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to direct my remarks at the Member for Queenstown who made a speech on 5th March concerning simplified Chinese characters and Hanyu Pinyin. I was surprised that the Member raised this question now because the decision on the adoption of simplified Chinese characters and Hanyu Pinyin was taken not after he left Singapore to serve as an ambassador abroad but before he left when he was still a member of the Cabinet.

Let me briefly explain. Chinese is a pictographic language. For several thousand years, it has gone through various stage of changes, from Jiaguwen, (Shell-Bone Script) Zhongdingwen (Bronze inscription script), Zhuanshu (Seal Script) and Lishu (Han Dynasty official script) to the present Kaishu (Regular script) Xingshu (Running - Hand script) and Caoshu (Cursive Hand script). The simplified forms of Chinese writing or characters can be said as a natural evolution to keep up with the time.

In China, in January 1956, a plan was announced to adopt the simplified Chinese writing in order to wipe out illiteracy. Whereas in Singapore in July 1969 we started to adopt the simplified Chinese character writing. In 1977, we fully implemented the use of the simplified form. Since we are a small country and do not have the necessary talents or the resources, we did not lead the way in language reform but adopted the type of simplified characters which are more or less the same as those used in China.

Sir, we have adopted simplified Chinese mainly on educational grounds. We implemented its use in schools because primary school pupils have to learn both English and the mother tongue from a very early age. So this measure was taken to lighten their burden, and I believe it met the requirements of the situation. To illustrate my point, let me give some examples. The full form Yi ( ) consists of 13 strokes whereas the simplified form ( ) consists only of three strokes. The full form of the word ching (a) consists of 15 strokes, whereas the simplified form ( ) consists only of seven strokes. The word feng consists of 18 strokes in the normal form ( ) whereas the simplified form ( ) consists only of four strokes. Therefore, the simplified writing has helped the pupils to learn Chinese with ease. The member claimed that the simplified form could not bring one to the olden classical literature. I wonder whether he has been to the book shops in Bras Basah Complex where he could find books printed in both forms, from Taiwan and also mainland China. Books from mainland China, including the classics are published in the simplified form of Chinese characters. In actual fact, Sir, among the 2,000-odd simplified Chinese characters, only about 500-odd differ very greatly from the original form.

Let me now throw some light on Hanyu Pinyin, which is a system that provides the phonetic way to help one to pronounce the Chinese characters correctly. In February, 1958, China announced the Hanyu Pinyin system. At that time we were faced with the choice of either using Hanyu Pinyin or the Mandarin Phonetic Symbols. In my generation the system used was a set of phonetic symbols (be, pe, me, fe, ....) to indicate different sounds to help in pronouncing the characters. These are only symbols, phonetics. The learning of Chinese characters which are ideograms has to be done from memory which is already taxing to the pupils. To learn the pronunciation of the characters they have to memorise another set of symbols. This is definite an added burden to them. Whereas Hanyu Pinyin consists of romanized phonetic characters which the pupils are familiar with. Therefore, after deliberation of the two systems, in November 1973 the Ministry of Education announced the use of Hanyu Pinyin which would help the pupils to learn character pronunciation better. As it might confuse the pupils in their learning of English, only from Primary 4 onwards were they required to learn the new Hanyu Pinyin system. Nowadays, both the teachers and pupils from Primary 4 upwards are quite familiar with this system. I have noticed that the present students pronounce Mandarin much better than my generation. It is due to the use of Hanyu Pinyin.

On names in Hanyu Pinyin, Sir, I want to emphasise that we have not tried to change students' names by adopting Hanyu Pinyin. As a Chinese, one should have a name which is written in the Chinese characters. We have no right whatsoever to change the name of a Chinese written in the Chinese characters. What we are doing is just try to help pronounce the name by using Hanyu Pinyin instead of in dialect transliteration. For instance, the word Wang in Wang Bang Wen (Ong Pang Boon), the surname of the Member for Telok Ayer, is pronounced Ong or Wong or Heng or Wee, according to different dialects. In Hanyu Pinyin, it is Wang. There are other pronunciations to indicate the same character. Therefore, Hanyu Pinyin is to standardize all the different pronunciations in order to make it easier. To my knowledge, the Registry of Births and Deaths has not compelled Chinese parents to register new births in Hanyu Pinyin. But in our schools, in order to avoid the children being called by different pronunciations when they attend different classes, we have decided to standardize the pronunciation by using Hanyu Pinyin. For the purposes of examinations and other important occasions, we have always allowed the students to write besides their Chinese characters their statutory names as well as in Hanyu Pinyin most clan associations, I believe have their own genealogical records to trace one's forefathers or family tree. So if one were to find one's family root, one can approach one's own clan association. The talk that Hanyu Pinyin will bury or cut off one's memory of one's roots or forefathers is therefore unfounded.

As regards Hanyu Pinyin replacing old Chinese street names, we make use of Hanyu Pinyin only in respect of new towns and related names such as Hougang and Yishun replacing Au Kang and Nee Soon which were originally transliterated in dialect. When names are not of dialect origin, they are left intact, such as Tampines, Pasir Ris, and so on.

As regards the Member's criticism about "Seletar" being changed to Shilida, I think it is due to misinformation. I consulted the HDB and I was told that HDB at the moment does not have a plan to develop Seletar Housing Estate. Even if the estate were to be developed in the future, it will still be called "Seletar" as before, because "Seletar" is not a dialect-transliterated name.

Sir, I should stress that Hanyu Pinyin is only a very useful instrument to help us pronounce Chinese characters. Although in China, specialist reformers are studying and trying to use phonetic language to replace Chinese characters en bloc, we in Singapore do not intend to replace Chinese characters with Hanyu Pinyin or other phonetic language as yet. At present, Hanyu Pinyin and the simplified form have become part of our life. In schools, Hanyu Pinyin and the simplified form are used in order to help our pupils to learn and master Mandarin more effectively. They have been in use in schools for more than 10 years. They are also being widely used in Singapore, such as in our Chinese newspapers, and our publishers are also publishing Chinese books in the simplified form. So if we now want to abolish the use of simplified Chinese and go back to the usage of the old complicated forms of Chinese writing, I think it is a retrogressive step and will create more confusion. So, I think we must accept the situation although it is a little inconvenient to us, the older generation. I hope all can sacrifice our smaller selves in the interest of the larger self, the society at large.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): Point of clarification. (In Mandarin) The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education has made a long speech on the use of hanyu pinyin and the simplified forms of Chinese. But he has not told us in what direction are we heading, in using simplified Chinese. I did not suggest that we go backwards. So let us know whether we are going forward, or staying put, or going back. In what direction are we going? Therefore, I hope those knowledgeable" Ju Gon" ( ) here would tell me. "Ju Gon" here in the Chinese term, I use refers to something noble and not the term "ju gon" used in combination with the word "ju" ( ) boar.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jek, your point of clarification is so long. So I think there is no need for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to answer. Yes, Mr Leong.

11.52 am

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of this Parliament.

Sir, you might be relieved to know that I will not bring into my speech imageries of modes of transportation which have been brought into this House in the last four days. We have been brought on bus rides, mountain climbing, football in our business suits, ride a bicycle in tandem, or attending to children who are crying. I would like to raise a few issues with regard to the young.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the President's Address, listed as the first objective of the Government is to "reach an accord on the character of the society people desire, and involve the young in working towards its achievement." I agree that it is important to get the young involved. Today, about 35% of our people are below 19 years old. 40% of them are in the age group between 20-39 years old. I believe people in this age group of 20-39 will play an important role in building the new society that we wish to create. By the year 1999 they will be in the prime of their lives - in their mid-30s to their early 5Os. It is mainly on the shoulders of this group of people that the responsibility of achieving the new goals will fall.

Do we know enough about this group of people? What are their aspirations? How do they spend their time? What are their motivations? What kind of society do they themselves want? I think there is a definite need to understand this group of people better. They must first believe in the goals that our new leaders have set out for them. Therefore, I think there is a need to draw them out. There is a need to reach out to them. There is a need to get them involved in discussions and to speak their minds, just as the Leader of the House has asked us to speak our minds. I believe the new leaders themselves will think of mechanisms and channels to reach out to them.

May I offer a few simple suggestions? Yesterday, the First Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that in future he would conduct discussions. May I suggest that the young should also be asked to participate in such discussions. We could have forums and dialogues with the young, such as those that have been held with community leaders in the past. The new leaders could also go to the University and talk to the students there. They could conduct talks at the community centres. Another way is through television. We have seen in the past four days the power of television. The new Members, after making their maiden speeches, eagerly awaited the evenings to see their star performances on television. I believe television will become a very important means of communication. It will be useful if the new leaders could in future organize TV talks to explain policies to the people, especially to the young.

Related to the issue of the young, I would like to raise another matter which I think should deserve a little more attention. This is on the matter of entrepreneurship in Singapore. I believe there is the growth of a new entrepreneurship in Singapore. Various people have lamented in the past about the lack of entrepreneur- ship in Singapore. I have always been a little surprised by such statements. I believe that we do have an enterprising or pioneering spirit in us.

Our forefathers were Asian immigrants who enjoyed a reputation of hardy pioneers and entrepreneurs. We often hear how our grandparents, parents, or forefathers, left for distant shores with only the shirts on their backs but armed with a pioneering spirit, drive and determination, how they struggled to eke out a living in such foreign lands. Those with foresight and enterprise amassed fortunes and built vast business empires. Others succeeded in their own way and they sunk roots in Singapore. These are our early pioneers. They are the ones who provided the locomotive which drove the engine of our past economic growth.

Today, a new generation has grown up. They are schooled in the latest techniques and concepts. They are now poised to contribute not only professionally but also entrepreneurially to the growth of Singapore. These are our young men who in the past 10-15 years have joined the multi-national companies, learned new skills and have reached the top or senior positions in various companies in Singapore. In looking for greater challenges, an increasing number will be swelling the ranks of our entrepreneurs who are striking out on their own to make a mark for themselves.

I believe these entrepreneurs deserve closer attention. Firstly, they reflect the dynamism and the impact of the younger generation on our economy. With their professional, managerial and technical skills, they will bring a new breadth and depth of experience into our local industries. They are young, vibrant and creative. They can match our nation's drive towards the vision that we all strive for.

Secondly, the new entrepreneurs deserve our attention because they will be taking a lead in pioneering the move towards newer and higher technologies. They are those who have branched out into new areas and new technological sectors, such as computers, software engineering, electronics and semi-conductors.

Let me cite two examples of what I consider as the new breed of entrepreneurs, The first is a company which makes micro-computers set up by three graduates and a first-year student from the Ngee Ann Polytechnic. They developed a micro-computer which is quite innovative and competitively priced. They have received some publicity last year in a local exhibition. They are making inroads into the computer market in Singapore and now they are trying to sell overseas.

The second example is an industrial precision engineering company. This company was formed a few years ago by five colleagues who had been working together in one of our EDB training schools. They saw a market for industrial precision engineering components. They got together to supply big MNCs in Singapore which need such components. They have gone through a cycle of business growth and reversal. Now they are back on their feet again, making inroads into sales in Singapore and the region.

Sir, these are the new breed of entrepreneurs who I believe deserve greater attention. But they face several difficulties. They have to keep -track of fast changing technologies and have to keep abreast with the latest advances in new concepts and ideas. They also have other difficulties. Singapore is a small market. They have to look offshore for greater business which in most cases are quite competitive. As they are quite new and unknown, it is difficult for them to sell their products. Therefore, the question is: what can Government do to help encourage and promote these entrepreneurs?

I propose that the new entrepreneurs be encouraged to form a club or an association. Such a club or association will enable them to share experience, give mutual encouragement and to provide an avenue for useful contacts. The Government can also give formal recognition to them by inviting members of the club to attend major policy discussions, especially in areas which they are involved.

These new entrepreneurs have to keep lean and trim. They have to keep their overheads down. Therefore, should the Government heed the call in the last few days to review the payroll tax or the SDF levy, it would be a boost to them. In the Addendum to the Ministry of Trade and Industry, it is stated that the Ministry "will continue to offer tax and other incentives to encourage industries to move into new technologies." I hope that the Ministry, in drawing up the new incentives, will also have these new entrepreneurs in mind.

In addition, the Government can help in other ways to foster the growth of such entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore. It can be done in the schools, in our polytechnics, and in our institutions of higher learning. I particularly enjoyed attending the open houses organized by the Ngee Ann Polytechnic where very often exhibits put up by students are quite novel and interesting. Perhaps there should also be emphasis on such exhibitions in the schools, and especially at the junior colleges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasize that, like the early pioneers, the entrepreneurs have to work hard. Although they can be given some form of encouragement by the Government, like a young sapling, to grow strong they must grow on their own will. Ultimately, the success will depend very heavily on the entrepreneurs themselves. They must have the guts to strike out on their own. They must have the fighting spirit. They have to be motivated by their own strong desire to succeed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I come to one last point which is also related to the young, and this is on education. Not on streaming. I would like to make a point on higher education. Mr Speaker, Sir, I tend to feel that our University is too examination-oriented. There is this atmosphere in the University where the issue of paramount importance is to sit for examinations. I believe the University is a place where the students are supposed to assimilate new ideas, to open their minds to new thoughts. Somehow I get a feeling that all the students think about is to go to the library and study there. We saw a recent report about students queueing up to get a place in the library. Some Hon. Members from the University may know that there is such a thing as "red-spot books". The moment a lecturer mentions a title and the author in the classroom; after the lecture, you will see a stampede of students rushing for this "red-spot" book. Why they put a red spot on it is because they limit a student to borrow the book for only two hours. I believe we should inject more fun into our University, by bringing in perhaps people who could contribute to new ideas, like foreign students, or bringing in industries to see how the teaching curricula can relate to our future industrial growth to make our University more vibrant.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, you have got 19 minutes to wind up.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to our First Deputy Prime Minister and the other Ministers in yesterday's debate, I find my role somewhat redundant. However, I cannot forgo this honour to speak. In summing up the five days' debate, I asked myself whether I have managed to stir up the imagination of my parliamentary colleagues to speak up frankly and honestly. Judging from the sentiments expressed in this House, I am inclined to believe that I have succeeded to a large extent, though a few have not been truthful and honest. If I have led the Minister of State for Health up the garden path, I can assure him that this was furthest from my mind. I hope Members in this House will not be dampened by the Senior Minister's performance two days ago. This is part of politics. We get wounded in this House, but the Frontbench must not be defensive nor should we Backbenchers be irresponsible.

Many of the old MPs must agree that this has been a very interesting debate. And this debate is historical because for the first time Singaporeans are watching our performance in this House, and also for the first time we have two Opposition Members elected at a general election in this House after 16 years. Thirdly, for the first time, Parliament meets in the morning. Many issues were raised.

An hon. Member: And woman MPs.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Yes, I forgot that for the first time women MPs are also in this House. My apologies to my woman colleagues.

Many issues, Mr Speaker, Sir, were raised by Government Backbenchers and by the two Opposition Members. Some of the issues raised by the Opposition and Government Backbenchers sparked off strong rebuttals by the Prime Minister and by the Ministers. Not only did the Opposition Members receive a walloping but my Backbench colleagues were not spared. We were shown the cut and thrust of debate by two giants in our political arena - the Prime Minister and the Senior Minister - and they and the Ministers had to rebut false allegations and insinuations and clarified points made by Opposition Members and even some Backbenchers.

However, some home-viewers think that we have been too hard on the Opposition Members. But, as expressed by the Minister for Home Affairs in yesterday's sitting, and it is worth repeating, that to let untruths go unchallenged without rebuttal, without explanation, is tantamount to agreeing to what has been said.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Any responsible government should not allow this to happen, or the people of Singapore will be moved to believe that all these untruths after being repeated a couple of times, are truths; for example, that the HDB makes money from selling flats and that the Government cannot pay back the CPF in cash. I hope the hon. Member for Anson will move away from his obsession on human rights and fundamental freedom which is already entrenched in our Constitution, and to tackle the Government on specific issues. With regard to the Member for Potong Pasir, I can only sympathize with him. He is going to have three busy months ahead of him to come out with a plan to build cheap houses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the topic that caught the attention of many MPs is, without doubt, the 15-20% lower income group, and this is understandable because we really want to do something for them. But let me caution the new leaders not to promise too much too fast, as no amount of assistance rendered can improve their lot if the will is not there. And this point was brought up by the Member for Bukit Merah. We must motivate this group to understand, to know that there is hope, and assistance is available if they are willing to sincerely want to improve themselves.

There was no lack of ideas from the PAP Backbenchers on how to help them. Some think that education is the answer, others think that education and home-ownership is the answer. Many have put up suggestions ranging from interest-free loans to total waiver of the 20% deposit that the poor of Singapore need to pay if they want to buy HDB flats. However, all agreed that there should be no hand-outs. We are also reminded that while we want to champion the plight of the poor, we must not go overboard in trying to over-provide for them. We might end up creating unrealistic demands, unrealistic expectations that we cannot fulfil, and this will spell disaster for all. It is easy to make promises but we must have the means and also the ability to carry out these promises. I think all these talk and promises will go to nought if there is no wealth, as pointed out by the Member for Teck Ghee. Because with wealth, there will be jobs for all, and this we must ensure if this place is to remain healthy for investors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you were a foreigner listening to these debates, you might have thought that the Government has created two monsters - the HDB and the CPF. And it is ironical that these two, once raved about, are now subjected to constant attacks by the Opposition, by the Back-benchers and by many Singaporeans. Some Backbenchers want to clip the wings of the HDB, calling them to just build flats and leave the administration and the maintenance to others, like town councils. If I were the HDB, I would want to surrender this because maintenance and administration, are the most difficult as seen in private housing and condominiums for example. These are the most problematic issues. However, if MPs are keen and residents are also keen, do not be discouraged by what I said. There are other good points in having town councils.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many PAP MPs spoke on the CPF, on the Skills Development Fund and on the payroll tax. They link these to the high overheads that our businessmen have to face. They argue that Singapore business has this added disadvantage in labour costs over our neighbouring countries. They are not arguing that the Government should do away with SDF or the payroll tax. All that they want the Government to do is to help them during this period, and they are asking that the Government temporarily lift the SDF and the payroll tax. I hope this will be the rabbit that the Minister for Finance is going to draw out from his bag.

The question of future CPF usage and management was taken up by the First Deputy Prime Minister. I shall not go into this except to say that the second account, which is the money to be left for old age, seems to have all but disappeared. It has been reduced to a very insignificant sum. I hope we will look into this.

The First Deputy Prime Minister also lamented the lack of response to his call to throw out ideas on how Singapore should be like in the 1990s. There was not much discussion on this, even in this House. And Singaporeans are not generally excited or thrilled by this, as expressed by the Member for Changkat. I think she should not worry too much when ideas are not forthcoming just yet, because it is a longterm objective and people are more concerned with what is happening today. Moreover, people's emotions, their feeIings and their pockets are not hurt like the CPF issue. It is something that the people know that the Government can do and expect us to do it well.

It would be a gross omission on my part if I do not comment on the Prime Minister's message to our young. Some of our young complained that the Prime Minister is lecturing to them too much. They want me to pass this message to him, that he need not worry so much about them, that they can take care of themselves when the time comes, and that they are thankful for what he has done for Singapore. However, the young must realize that the Prime Minister's worries go beyond just providing them with material needs. The young, being primarily English educated, tend to look to the West for guidance on how life should be and how society should be run. But is this correct? I agree with our Prime Minister. We must be careful of this. We should not accept nor should we regard Western norms as a standard by which our society should be built, or should be run. We are the products of three great civilizations. We should set our own standards based on our culture, on our tradition, our way of life, and based on the principles of democracy, sincerity, honesty and integrity. We should be proud of what we are as a people. We should be proud of what we have achieved, and we should not be apologetic about the way modern Singapore has evolved under the able leadership of our Prime Minister and the old guards.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past five days, there has been a lot of talk, there has been a lot of accusations, insinuations, truths, half-truths, whole-truths spoken in this House. Now that the debate is over and the sound and fury has subsided, we must ask ourselves one question: is your conscience clear?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your patience and your guidance in this debate. [Applause]

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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."