AGENDA FOR ACTION (Goals and Challenges)

The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

'That this House adopts the Goals and Challenges contained in the Agenda for Action and presented to Parliament as a Green Paper (Paper Misc. 2 of 1988) as the basis for nation building and Government policy.'

We are coming to the close of one chapter in our political history and laying the groundwork for a new one. It is for this reason that I am seeking the House's endorsement of the Goals and Challenges as we see them.

Sometime after the next General Election, Cabinet will consist entirely of new guard leaders, Ministers who were inducted by the Old Guards into the governing party since 1972. Senior Minister, Mr S. Rajaratnam, had said publicly that he would not be contesting the next General Election. He could be wrong, however, when he said that that would be his last birthday celebration in Kampong Glam as an MP. He has just turned 73. The Prime Minister is phasing himself out of Cabinet. Mr E.W. Barker, the third Old Guard in the Cabinet, is easy either way. Parliament too is dominated by a new generation of MPs. More new faces will appear after the next General Election.

Our political leadership is in transition. We will be without the old pilots within a couple of years. We could wait until then to forge a new consensus with the people. Or we could do it during the transitional stage. We could wait until we are in charge before letting Singaporeans know what our vision is, what our goals are and how we see the challenges. Or we could let them know now so that Singaporeans could decide whether to embark on the plane with us.

We believe it would be unfair to Singaporeans not to let them know early what we stand for and where we intend to lead them. We believe it would not be in Singapore's interests to keep them in the dark. For example, before investors decide to put their money here, they want to know what Singapore will be like after Lee Kuan Yew. If they are uncertain what our policies will be, they will hold back. If they are uncertain as to whether the new guard leaders can implement these policies, they will not come.

That was why we decided as early as December 1984 to let Singaporeans know our Vision of Singapore. Then they would know the destination in which we intend to lead them to. That was why we followed up with the National Agenda discussion. The aim was to reach an accord with the people on the type of society they want.

This Green Paper, the Agenda for Action, is the quintessence of the year-long discussions with Singaporeans from all walks of life. It captures in a few pages, not just the goals of the younger leaders, but also the hopes and fears of all Singaporeans. It is a consensus document. It is presented under my name but it is the collective effort of the new guard leaders. The National Agenda Committee, chaired by BG Lee Hsien Loong, must take the main credit for it.

Apart from the transition in political leadership, we are facing another turning point. Singapore has enjoyed steady economic growth since Independence; growth exceeding 10% per annum from 1966 to 1973 and high single-digit growth from 1974 to 1984. But we are nearing the upper limit of our resources - land, human resources, water supply. So high economic growth in the future would be more difficult to come by.

There is also a danger that our society may lose some of its dynamism as it matures. Such loss of dynamism has taken place in many countries. In Europe, for example, they have coined a word for it to describe this process of getting old - when the arteries and tissues hardened and we lose our suppleness and nimbleness. They call it Euro-sclerosis. Loss of dynamism will take place in Singapore if our population does not rejuvenate itself, and this problem will be compounded should able Singaporeans emigrate.

This economic turning point, coinciding with the change in political leadership, will make our job of bettering the lives of Singaporeans much more difficult. But it will not be an impossible task provided we can release a new burst of energy, a wave of new ideas, and mobilize people to do things in new and better ways. This is what our Vision of a Nation of Excellence is all about.

Our Vision is not just for the rich and the able. It is for all Singaporeans belonging to whatever social or economic class, Singaporeans of whatever race or religion. The Vision deals with ideals. The Agenda for Action deals with the fundamentals, the basic goals and the formidable challenges. Once Parliament adopts it, we will move on to the next stage, which is to prepare the programmes. With the full weight of the Government and the people behind it and behind us, we will achieve a better life for all.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

The Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence (Services) (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this parliamentary debate and the acceptance of the Agenda for Action is the culmination of a whole year of discussion, feedback, consensus building. The Agenda for Action, this Green book, owes its existence to the thousands of people who have participated. Their views have been distilled and refined into this Green Paper, but in essence this document belongs to the people and represents the will of the people, as interpreted by the PAP Government to the best of its ability.

The National Agenda discussions have demonstrated that there is a consensus on our future. Singaporeans do understand the issues, they do have views of the future, and they are in basic agreement as to which way to go.

All the issues in the Agenda for Action are national issues. They affect every citizen, whether or not he agrees with the solutions proposed by the PAP Government, whether or not he would like the PAP Government to lead him through them. We have put sharp, difficult questions:

(1) Is there any priority more important than building a harmonious, multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore, where every citizen enjoys equal opportunities and where minority communities can feel secure that their place is guaranteed and their rights will not be trampled upon?

(2) How do we fulfil the aspirations of young Singaporeans who want a better life? How do we take care of the poor, the infirm, the people who need help to catch up? Can we do this if we neglect economic growth? Can we stop worrying about fair rewards, education, endeavour and excellence? Are we now wealthy enough, as some have pretended, that we can make free with our riches and give away our hard-earned reserves?

(3) Does it matter to us whether Singaporeans are having too few children, whether our population will grow elderly, lose vitality, become decrepit and infirm?

(4) Do we realize that Singapore is always vulnerable? And if we do, are we prepared to pay the price for security, that is, eternal vigilance?

(5) Should we not build an indissoluble consensus amongst Singaporeans, so that we will not dissipate our energies quarrelling among ourselves?

And finally, drawing all these threads together,

(6) Ought we not work together to achieve common objectives, to accomplish everything that we dream of, and to create a new Singapore for all of us?

Many Singaporeans have thought over these issues, brought their minds to bear, spoken up, and made up their minds. Their answers are clear. They have concluded that these are momentous, national priori- ties. This PAP government agrees with them.

At the same time, the discussions themselves have strengthened the consensus and have heightened Singaporeans' awareness of the issues. This is especially true of the debate on our multi-racial society, a highly sensitive issue, one of overriding importance, central to our well being as a nation together. We could not have discussed it 10 years ago like this. In many other less happy multi-racial countries, you can never talk about it at all. The subject is taboo because just to mention it would be to expose insoluble contradictions, intolerable injustices. It would generate unmanageable pressures, emotions, possibly rioting and bloodshed. That such a debate could be conducted at all in Singapore, and conducted frankly, sensitively, and sincerely, is a measure of the maturity of the population and of the progress which we have made. Had we achieved nothing else from the entire year of effort, except the discussion on the multi-racial issue, the enormous energies which have gone into the National Agenda would have been well worthwhile.

Nobody has been excluded from these discussions - grassroots leaders, professionals, academics, trade unionists, neighbours, ordinary men and women in the street. The opposition parties too were invited to contribute. True, they have not come up with any different list of crucial issues, nor have they propounded any plausible alternatives for solving them. But that is in itself significant. Because it is a tacit admission that this Agenda has addressed the right issues and presented solutions which command the acceptance of all Singaporeans. Their silence is a most eloquent silence.

If this were no more than a wedding, I could say, "Speak now, or forever hold your peace." But this is not a wedding. It is of far greater and more momentous importance, and they cannot remain silent.

On such an important issue, no political party which wants to be taken seriously can afford to be coy and bashful. You cannot brush the Agenda for Action aside without explanation, without alternatives. You must make your stand unequivocally and explicitly. And this debate today is the occasion to do so.

Where do we go from here? Parliament is asked to accept the Agenda as the basis for national education and government policy. That is a sweeping mandate. Once that mandate is given, the task begins.

First, we will proceed to act on the issues contained in the Agenda for Action. The First Deputy Prime Minister has announced the formation of six public committees to oversee the implementation of specific programmes - committees on culture and the arts, sports and recreation, family and community life, youth, the disabled, the aged. We should not waste any time turning words into deeds.

Second, the PAP will continue to campaign for the Agenda. This is not a static document. It is an unending exercise in National Education. Every year, 40,000 new Singaporeans come of age. Every year, 40,000 need to learn the facts of life. We do not have a racial riot each year to educate them - thank God. But they must learn the painful lessons of the riots which Singapore has already been through. These events are seared in the memories of those who lived through them. They must be engraved - burnt - into the collective memory of all Singaporeans. 1969: May 13th. 1964: Prophet Mohammed's birthday. 1950: the Maria Hertogh riots.

Who was Maria Hertogh? A Dutch girl, left behind during the war by her parents with Malay foster parents. The foster parents brought her up as a Muslim. After the war, her natural parents came, found her, claimed her back. The foster parents disputed this. The case went to trial. She was given back to her natural parents. The foster parents appealled. Pending the appeal, the Christian judge sent Maria for safe keeping to a convent. The newspapers carried pictures of her in the convent. I have one. This is the Singapore Standard, 5th December 1950, from the Archives, from microfilm: "Bertha [Maria's other name] knelt before Virgin Mary statue". It says here:

'Bertha Hertogh knelt before the statue of the Virgin Mary beside her mother in the Convent of the Good Shepherd, Thomson Road, yesterday. She did this of her own free will.

Bertha's mother, Mrs Adelene Hertogh, said that when Bertha saw other girls wearing white dresses, she asked, "May I wear a white dress?" She handed her Malay clothes to a Reverend Mother.'

On another page, there is a picture, at her special request, Bertha with a nun.

Even today I would hesitate to recommend to the Straits Times, much less the Berita Harian or the vernacular Malay press, to print this 38 year-old picture. In 1950, after the English press published it, the Malay press took it up, in Jawi, and talked about jihad. Within a week, riots broke out. 18 people were killed, 173 injured.

38 years later, the Member for Potong Pasir was reported in the Straits Times to have said that the Maria Hertogh riots were not racial, but involved people fighting for "political and social rights" and a "better livelihood". That is why continual National Education is necessary! Even with continual National Education, there will still be foolish politicians who would wish to rewrite history. But at least, fewer will believe them and there will be far fewer tragic consequences.

This Agenda for Action will be the PAP's manifesto in the next General Elections. The PAP believes in riding into battle with our banners held high. We state what we believe. We declare what we intend to accomplish, and we will do it together with the people of Singapore.

But the Agenda for Action is more than an election manifesto. It states the priorities which any government of Singapore will have to address. It represents the PAP Government's programme for this term of office, for the next term of office, but more than that, provided it is the will of the people, for several more general elections after that.

Singapore is now at a turning point. The momentum of the struggle for Merdeka, independence, of the battles for survival after we achieved independence, of the initial spurt of economic growth which took us from a poor, impoverished, island to a successful graduated NIC - that wave has carried us thus far. A new generation must now decide whether to take up the challenge, whether to run another stage of the race, and if so, which way to go. This Agenda for Action is part of the answer.

The Government does not claim in this document that we have foreseen all the eventualities which may occur in the next two decades. The future is always uncertain. From time to time, urgent problems and unforeseen opportunities are bound to arise. And when they do, they are bound to demand our concentrated attention. But whatever comes about through the National Agenda discussions, I think we have achieved two things:

First, we have identified the main goals and challenges for Singapore. These goals and challenges will be important to us, whatever else may pop up.

Secondly, we have established a method of consultation and consensus building which has proven itself and which will be useful to us in tackling many future issues.

We are prepared for the future. What we need now is the act of will to make it happen. On behalf of this Government, let me invite all Singaporeans: if you agree with the ideals and the objectives in the Agenda, come forward, join us in our common mission. This is our future. Let us make it come true.

Thank you very much.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Tarmugi.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Tarmugi first, please.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I wish to seek clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, you can have the Floor after Mr Tarmugi. 12.10 pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we spent several months last year in reaching out to the population and involving them in mapping out our future. This Green Paper compresses the deliberations and outcome of that massive exercise. To me, this is not only an Agenda for Action but also of hope; a breath of fresh air.

Allow me however, Sir, to share my own observations and comments on what I think are two of the most crucial issues in connection with this Agenda. The first one concerns the section on multi-racial, multi-religious, society. I fully subscribe to the sentiments in and aims of this section. And I firmly believe that the harmony between the races and religions is indeed a cornerstone of our society. For so long now we have accepted this as the nation's creed. But so far - and perhaps because we consider it so priceless - that we have kept this attribute of our country in a showcase of sorts, avoiding to touch it or to discuss the problems that may be connected with it openly for fear of tarnishing or breaking it in the process.

Sir, it was like an encased trophy. And because of this, there may exist among some of us at least certain assumptions or perceptions about other groups or other faiths which we prefer to keep to ourselves and command our actions rather than to discuss them with others to ascertain whether they are right.

This Green Paper suggests that we take this trophy out of its protective covering for us to see, to touch, to explore if there are flaws or other valuable facets which we may have missed. I fully agree to this suggestion, for only then can we achieve full appreciation and understanding of what it means and whether we can make it better. However, I would like to emphasize that in our being frank and in our being open in our discussion of religion and race, we should do so with great care and sensitivity. Inter-racial and inter-religious harmony is so fragile, so unpredictable. The evidence around the world underscores this. It takes very little to spark off trouble because we are essentially dealing with something we are born as and cannot get out of, or something which we believe determines our eternal salvation. So our attitudes when dealing with race or religion should therefore be to seek to understand, not to prejudge; to soothe rather than to hurt. We will need to shed whatever prejudices or stereotypes we may have, because as long as we cling on to them, there can never be real openness or any solutions.

I feel it is not enough for us to merely accept multi-racialism, and multi-religionism. We must want it. We may be a little awkward in our initial attempts at handling ethnic and religious issues openly. But I believe that with the right attitudes, enough experience and commitment, we can succeed in our goals. For me, Sir, my own dream is for a Singapore with its multiplicity of races and religions without any form of chauvinism, without any form of bigotry; diverse yet one.

Let me now come to the next issue, and that is on means and ends. Sir, in the 60's and 70's when we strove to build proper homes for Singaporeans trapped in slums and squatter settlements; when we had to clear land for the needed factories and offices; when we had to start a credible defence machinery to fill the void left by the British, our needs and our goals were urgent. Our very survival was at risk. The ends justified the means we employed then, painful as they might have been to many Singaporeans. But now, Sir, these urgencies are no more and the Vision in this Green Paper is testimony of our desire and readiness to achieve beyond our basic concerns. The scenario has changed together with the attributes of our population. And so must our methods.

Sir, no one can seriously quibble about the general goals we have set for ourselves. What we will have to consider now is to see whether the means which we adopt - our policies and the way we project and implement them, our civil servants and the way they deal with the public - will enable us to achieve these ends. Some Singaporeans generally doubt that these goals can be fully achieved unless the conditions, and atmosphere, for their achievement are present. If we want to develop, and I quote from the Paper, "into a lively, vibrant nation, full of ideas and creativity" or, to quote from another section, where "we want Singaporeans to make decisions for ourselves and have a stronger sense of control over our own lives", then, Sir, an environment for these to happen must be put in place.

Someone said to me, many times Government's good intentions suffered (yes, suffered) because it tries too hard and too seriously. He was, of course, being facetious with his words. But, Sir, his message was serious, more serious now than it has ever been because of changing circumstances and because of the very characteristics we wish our society to possess in future. Now the means may be just as crucial as the ends. We should not therefore dismiss this viewpoint.

So while we accept these goals, and these are excellent goals, in my view, we should also in tandem prepare the suitable means to reach them. This is one area we will have to seriously address ourselves to.

At this point, Sir, let me stress that I am not for one moment suggesting that we go along as if we are free from the challenges, free from the constraints outlined in the Green Paper. And I certainly hope that Singaporeans share these concerns with us. But I believe, Sir, that even within these limiting boundaries we still have some considerable leeway to act in consonance with our goals. To be fair, there is already a discernible trend in this direction. I think this holds a lot of promise. We can do more, and I am confident that we can succeed. As I said earlier, Sir, this Agenda is like a breath of fresh air.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I sat there and listened to the First Deputy Prime Minister, I am still not very clear in regard to the Member for Kampong Glam, Minister for Law, and the Prime Minister himself. What is their position? Will they or will they not be standing in the next General Elections? You said as regards Mr Barker, he is "easy either way". What does that mean? He can either stand; he cannot stand. But then you said, there will be no old guards in a couple of years in the Cabinet. We are about to discuss a very important document and it says here, "We have to be open and frank about it". But you are speaking in such vague tones. You left me with a doubt as to exactly what their positions will be in the next elections. Can you please clarify before I make my speech?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do you wish to clarify now, Mr Goh?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Yes, very quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I said very clearly the Senior Minister has said that he would not be contesting the next General Elections. He said that that was his last birthday celebration in Kampong Glam. I said that he could be wrong because he could be celebrating another birthday in Kampong Glam, next year perhaps. If Chiam is unable to follow me, I will elaborate to say that the elections is not due for quite some time yet.

Now we come to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that he will be phasing himself out as Prime Minister. I said that he will be phasing himself out of the Cabinet and within a couple of years the old pilots will not be in the cockpit.

Now we come to Mr Barker. I said he is easy either way, which means that if we leave it to Mr Barker he will leave it to the party. If we decide that he should stand for election, he will be happy to carry on. If we decide that he should perhaps retire, he would also be happy to go along. I made the remark that within a couple of years there will be no Members of the old guard in Cabinet. It could be that they could still be in Parliament, but not in Cabinet.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not think this is a good start to debate on the Agenda for Action with such vagueness from the side of the Government. Anything could happen. So although the Prime Minister says that he will be stepping down but he will still be holding the reins of power. Is that not true? Or will there be an election of a President after or before the next General Elections? This is the problem with the PAP. They say that they want to be open and frank but in actual fact they are really not. So the PAP's credibility is always in question.

We have got one of the topics as population problem. I think the PAP should come out openly and admit their mistake that this population problem is created by them. They are the ones who come out strongly, "Stop at two", with all kinds of draconian administrative punishments for those who dare to have more than two children. Now they say we have a problem. I think the whole of Singapore can see that.

As regards excellence in education, the PAP have got full control, absolute control, of the education system in Singapore. It has got a central control. If there is any problems, the finger squarely points at them also. We have got 600,000 of our workers who cannot have an elementary numeracy and literacy. In fact, all the other NICs are ahead of us as far as workers' education is concerned.

I read recently that 50% of our applicants to the University each year cannot get a place in our University. Do you call that excellence in education? In most of the developed countries like Australia and New Zealand, I think the university ratio to the population is about one to every 500,000. So if we go by their standard, we should have four or five universities in Singapore, and every one who wants to get into the university should have a place. Why should you limit the intake to your needs of manpower? I think that is a bad policy. I think anyone who wants to train his mind, to cultivate his mind, whatever he is going to do afterwards, should be given a chance. Because we never know. It does not mean that if you go in and do an Engineering course, you must come out to be an engineer. He may want to do something else. So the process of going into the university is just the training of the mind. In fact, that was the British tradition. Teach people to think, teach people to create, leadership. These are the qualities that we want to go into the university for.

We come to this Maria Hertogh issue. This is a judgment value. Of course the Malays were incensed because they felt that one of their members of the community had been taken by another community. It was a Malay affair. But that was in 1950, a time after the Second World War when people were against the colonial power, when feelings were definitely wanting to have freedom, to better their lives. So any little incident could spark it off. But the true reason is that the people wanted to overthrow the colonial power. It is political and they want to have a better economic life. They want to get along. That is my analysis of the Maria Hertogh case. But if you want to say that it was based entirely, 100%, on race, it is up to you to say so. You can have your opinion on that.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I offer the Member for Potong Pasir a point of information?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please do not interrupt me.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you giving way?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not giving way.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, General Lee. Continue, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Let me have my say. You have got plenty of time. You will be given full opportunity to speak.

I did not know that the Opposition were invited to participate in the so-called National Agenda. As far as I know, I was unaware of it. But in any event, to us it was not a National Agenda. It was a PAP Agenda, the purpose of which is nothing more nothing less, just electioneering. The Agenda for Action makes nice reading. But it is not effective. It is hollow in respect of nation building. It appears to be giving a lot but it gives nothing. Its main purpose is to keep the PAP in power indefinitely. The main priority at this stage of Singapore's development is to open up our society, just like Gorbachev in Russia. He realised the need to open up Russian society. So too we in Singapore must open up our society. We cannot be forever an authoritarian state. We cannot remain a colony forever. Our people are hardworking, our people are intelligent, we are capable of attaining greater heights in our social, political, economic development. We are no longer in the 60's, 70's. We are in the 80's. Two-thirds of our voters at the last General Elections are the ones who have not voted the PAP into power in 1959. Singapore today is not the Singapore of the old guard of the PAP. This fact must be driven home to the PAP old guard leaders. I am not just talking about the change of the physical face of Singapore. I am referring to the present population of Singapore. Singaporeans today are definitely better educated, better travelled, more efficient, property owning, more knowing, more knowledgeable.

The Prime Minister: Who made that?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Prime Minister, if you want to claim the credit, fair enough. I think it is for the people to say so, Mr Prime Minister, but I give you credit for much of what you have done. But like the English tradition, leaders normally know when to step down and when they step down in the proper time, it is just like saying, this is just by way of saying, if you visit somebody it is better to leave 10 minutes earlier than to be driven out. I am not saying that you are visiting Singapore, Mr Prime Minister. But I am saying that if you leave in the proper time, when you are no longer here, your statues will be all over Singapore.

The Prime Minister: You are going to put one up?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the people of Singapore are more knowing, more knowledgeable, with high expectations and the people of Singapore are responsible. I do not think that Singaporeans today will go down to the streets and riot. They will not overturn cars, break windows, kill people, unless of course you are saying that they are mad. But Singaporeans are not mad. Singaporeans today want to get on. They want to get on to build the nation, to build the economy, to create, to innovate. They want to write freely. They want to speak out without fear. But they cannot do all these things without some apprehension. Many feel that the Government is in their way. We have a strict paternalistic Government.

The Government takes the attitude that it only knows best. Many people perceive that anyone who speaks out against the Government policies will be victimized, will be punished. They fear that they will lose their jobs or they cannot get the licences they want or carry on the business they are doing or want to do. Many in this House will think that because I am in the Opposition I am speaking all these unfavourable things of the Government. What I am saying are not my perceptions. They are the responses to the Minister for Communications and Information when he called on academics to come out into the open to take part in politics. Their responses were published in the Straits Times of 14th February 1988. I shall read some of them. A finance director in a public company, in his mid-30s, who did not want to be named, had this to say:

'I doubt that Dr Yeo's call will have much effect. By and large, we are afraid to break our rice bowls and afraid of the immediate reaction of our superiors if we speak up.

People, especially the older folk, always tell us that it is better not to say too much to the Government. [This is Asian value for you. Old people said you better do not get involved in Government affairs.]

The Government's approach seems to be that if you say something, you are out to persuade the public to your point of view. So it has a tendency to over-react and have the last say.

People generally tend to think that if the Government says you're a fool, then you're a fool.

To encourage more people to come out, there should be more such calls backed by action, or rather, lack of reaction by the Government.'

There you are! It is not the Opposition who is speaking. This is a finance director in a public company. [Mr S. Chandra Das interrupted.] I do not know. His name is not given.

Then we have a top level banker, in his early 40s, also preferred not to be named.

'I don't think the Government blacklists people, but Singaporeans still remember the turbulent past when the Government came down hard on communists and racialists.

I think people are afraid to speak out because in Singapore, if you suffer a public embarrassment, you have got no place to ... hide yourself.'

So there is some apprehension there. Then we have got an Associate Professor Yu Wei Shin, 39, of NTI's School of Mechanical and Production Engineering. She says:

'Show that people who hold different views are treated kindly and this would encourage others to speak up. Differences of thought and speech must be allowed.

Getting involved in politics? The apathy that is seen in the general membership of some professional bodies hold a direct parallel to participation in politics.'

So there is apathy, fear.

Political participation amongst the public in general has been smothered by the PAP. Almost the whole of our population has been depoliticized. School children, university students are told, "Don't take part in politics. Just study and pass your exams." So you come out with very narrow views.

Mr Chandra Das: Except you?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Otherwise I would not be here, would I? Associate Professor Yu said "apathy is seen in the general membership of some professional bodies." I would say that apathy has set in on all professional bodies after some of the Council members of the Law Society of Singapore were grilled in front of the television cameras by Members of the Select Committee who were looking into the amendments to the Legal Profession Act. The public proceedings of that Select Committee were broadcast nationwide by SBC. That was the sort of treatment meted out to members of a prestigious professional body which dared to criticize laws made by the Government.

After that kind of treatment, who dares to speak up? What about the professionals who were last year hauled in by the Government, detained under the Internal Security Act and made to confess publicly, again in front of television cameras, on their alleged Marxist conspiracy? These types of draconian action on the part of the Government against professionals are aimed at terrifying the professionals in particular and the public in general. Then we have this Minister again visiting the University as if nothing had happened and enthusiastically calling on academics to come forward and take part in politics.

I say that this Agenda for Action will not be accepted by the public, not because of its contents but because of the fact that the people of Singapore in general no longer believe in the Government. The credibility of the Government is very much in question. The Government has packaged the Agenda for Action very nicely, very attractively and, of course, the PAP will launch it as its programme in the next General Elections. But the question is: will the people be won over to it?

If the Government is sincere, it has to assure the people of Singapore that it will not tamper with the Constitution just to make sure that it stays in power. It has to assure the people of Singapore that it believes in the western style of parliamentary democracy. The best way it can do this is to incorporate in the Agenda that the Government believes that there is a place for genuine opposition in Parliament and not the NCMPs and that it will institutionalize opposition in the Singapore Parliament. When the Government does that, the people will then surely believe in the PAP. How can there be democracy in Singapore if there were no real effective Opposition in Parliament?

Mr Chua Sian Chin (MacPherson): That is your fault.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I cannot even move a motion. The Government says in the Agenda it wants "representative democracy". This is not matched by the Government's action. The Government has refused to hold two by-elections at Anson and Geylang West. In those two constituencies which became vacant more than a year ago, the residents have been deprived of their representation in Parliament. Where is your representative democracy? They were not allowed to choose a representative of their choice.

Further, with the proposed group representation constituencies, voters in the GRCs will be deprived the right to elect a representative of their own choice.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, Mr Chiam. The question of GRCs is a subject matter of a Bill which is now referred to a Select Committee. It is out of order for you to discuss this matter on this question.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right. I will take that. The question that is uppermost in our minds is: why do we need a democratic environment in Singapore? The reason is that without this prerequisite condition, Singapore can never attain the present Swiss standard of living in 1999, in particular, now that Singapore has been graduated out of the GSP in America, effective next year. We are going to be classed a developed country. So we have to compete equally with Japan, America, Germany and the other European countries. They have got a democratic system in which their citizens are able to exercise their talent to the fullest under such an environment.

It may be of interest to this House that since the Swiss standard of living was taken as a standard, the Swiss were already practising democracy in the mid-1800s. I think in 1846 there was already one canton practising the system of referendum. If there is an important Government decision, they could ask for a referendum. So they have democracy more than 100 years ago. I thought that maybe they had democracy only 15 years prior to 1984 but, in fact, they had a democratic way of life many, many decades ago. In fact, referendum is part of their system. So they have the prerequisite for conditions to really grow and attain the heights they want. I am sure the people of Singapore like to see Singapore attain the present Swiss standand of living in 1999. Why not? It is a good target. The Government should give them an opportunity to do so by practising true democracy in Singapore and not only pay lip service to it.

This morning I was reading the papers about an interview given by the Prime Minister to a German journalist. One thing struck me. A Singapore worker is very efficient. She was paid $1,000 a month (about $1,300 was given there. I remember $1,300). But the productivity, she could produce goods 10 times that amount.

An hon. Member: 100 times.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Was it 100? Anyway, it was tremendous value-added. The lesson is that if our Singaporeans were given a chance to run a Singapore concern instead of Nixdorf, a German concern, but a wholly-owned Singapore concern, think of the amount of money that we will be earning. [Laughter.] I do not think we should laugh. I think Singaporeans are capable of attaining this standard. We have got brilliant people in Singapore. Why not?

The Prime Minister: We've got Chiam See Tong!

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, that is a start. Thank you.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, speaking on the Agenda for Action, I am reminded of the Singapore situation towards the end of 1950's and the early 1960's. At that time there was a kind of an Agenda for Action entitled "The Tasks Ahead -PAP's Five-Year Plan 1959-1964". That document constituted a national development policy, well-formulated, and opening a new era and a new phase for the people of Singapore at that time. Considering that the population of Singapore at that time was rather backward, the PAP Five-Year Plan could be considered to be far ahead of its time. It was more detailed and very realistic. No other political party at that time could present a manifesto to match the PAP Five-Year Plan. The characteristics of society in the 50's and the 60's were much more different from that prevailing today. Many of the people were poor and backward. Population was about 1.5 million people, the Birth rate was high, about 65,000 per year and the economy was still based on entrepot trade. Its political situation was unstable. In short, Singapore at that time was an under-developed country that had inherited a large population, facing low employment rates, a very small percentage of home-owner, a multifarious system of education, and sluggish economic growth.

To overcome all these problems, the PAP Five-Year Plan presented a nine-point policy. This covered problems facing women, education, labour, trade unions and social security, economic policy, housing, rural development, health, the restructuring of government administration and national development which at that time was termed towards a Malayan nation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that was the PAP vision at that time. That was the PAP National Agenda at that time. That was the PAP's promise to the people of Singapore of that era.

What is the PAP Government's promise to the people of Singapore today? The promise is contained in the Agenda for Action that we are debating today. This promise far exceeds the nine-point promise of the PAP Five-Year Plan. It is more comprehensive. It is more serious and intense. It is more solid. It is not intended for only five years. It is for 20 or 30 years ahead. It is not intended for one community or race, but for all races. It does not just fulfil domestic needs, but also responds to the possibility of having to face external challenges as well. Compared with the previous PAP Five-Year Plan, this Agenda for Action has one special characteristic. The Five-Year Plan was presented in a somewhat raw state to the people. The people gave no reactions, opinions or made any modifications to it. On the other hand, this Agenda for Action has been tooled and tempered, sculpted and smelted, discussed and digested, refined and distilled, and fathomed and grasped by the people. It represents the climax of the aims aspirations and goals of the Government and the people together. It is a tower of vision supported by two grand pillars and reinforced by 10 joints of development. The grand pillars are the Goals and Challenges while the joints of development are the ten headings, from Nation Building to Limits of Growth as contained in the Agenda.

This Agenda for Action clearly is a reflection of the culture of the modern society of Singapore. It is in harmony and in accordance with the political,economic and social characteristics of modern Singapore. The drumbeat struck by the young people of today is the rhythm to which the new generation leaders would have to dance. We realize that the Singapore of the 50's and 60's is not the same as the Singapore of the 80's or 90's. But every era presents not only new problems of its age but also creates its own challenges.

In this regard, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to touch on one or two challenges mentioned in the Agenda. Ever since Singapore gained independence, we have been able to maintain our political stability. Our political patterns and rhythms have been coloured and modified by the socio-political climate of Singapore. A political scientist, in his book Governing Singapore, recently described Singapore's political stability as follows.

(In English) 'Singapore, thanks to the achievements of the PAP, has progressed far beyond that Third World environment of politics. Politics in Singapore is operated at a more rational level. In the general atmosphere of vitality, dynamism and prosperity, people are not attracted to destructive Third World politics. Race relationships remain manageable and an atmosphere of live-and-let-live prevails.'

(In Malay) How has political stability remained in Singapore all these time? It is because we practise constructive politics and not destructive politics. Politics is only a social weapon or tool. The user must be capable of using the tool and not allow as in the Malay proverb, "Senjata makan tuan", i.e. the tool turning against its master. The secret is in the wielder not using the sharpness of the political weapon to carve the body of the society to cause fatal blood-letting.

What this means is that political freedom must not be misused to undermine public peace to such an extent that it results in bloodshed. The Government firmly believes in this principle of political stability. One leader of the second generation leadership was reported to have said:

(In English) 'We have placed a lid on politics. We do not allow political freedoms to the fullest extent in two areas. One, where you can cause a communal threat, incite communalism and tear apart the society. We will never allow anybody to incite communalism. The fear of communalism will always remain in Singapore and, therefore, we can never relax on this.

Second, we will not allow the communists the freedom to destroy what we have created.'

(In Malay) Mr Deputy Speaker, with regard to the threat of communalism prevailing today, which is still under control, it has a lot to do with racial harmony. The prerequisite of racial harmony is mutual respect and tolerance between the multi-racial communities of Singapore. Mutual respect and tolerance requires that we do not raise anything that may offend the feelings of the other races. More importantly, we need to be careful and cautious so as not to ridicule the cultural traditions and religious practices of any race. If we are unable to appreciate the traditions or religious practices of the other races, we should avoid giving descriptions or interpretations that may give rise to misunderstanding or may be misconstrued by others. Such an attitude would ensure and preserve racial harmony. Racial harmony as it exists today in Singapore does not mean each community being concerned only with its own interests, with no regard for national interests. Apart from emphasizing the beauty of our cultural mosaic, we must also foster loyalty together towards the country. Where the survival of Singapore is concerned every community must be united and not divided. This was emphasized in an interview given by the Prime Minister with Raj Vasil:

(In English) 'What we can do is to create a situation in which on the fundamental issues, those vital for the survival of the community, of the nation, there are no differences or divergence of interest or opinion. Whether you are of Chinese, Indian, Malay, Eurasian or Ceylonese descent, when it comes to the survival of Singapore, we must all be one, that is, Singapore must be defended and her interests upheld for everyone's benefit. On that, there can be no disagreement'

(In Malay) I said earlier that this Agenda is the Government's promise to the people of Singapore. It is aimed, of course, at all levels of society in Singapore. I am very happy to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister saying in this Agenda that while Singapore progresses, different communities may not progress at the same rate. He added with a call to the people of Singapore to try their best to help the rather slower communities to progress so as to enable every community to fully participate in the mainstream of our national life, whether in the economy, politics or social aspects. We know that one community which is rather slow in its progress is the Malay community.

The key to accelerating the progress of this community lies in upgrading its educational status. About six years ago, in May 1982, the Government gave its blessings to the formation of Mendaki. Its blessings was given because the function and task of Mendaki is to upgrade the educational level of Muslim children. Considering that one of the goals under this Agenda, Human Resources and Education, is a challenging one, it is my hope that the Government will reinforce its support and assistance to Mendaki. In the coming decades, the issue of education among the Malays will not be free from negative social problems and, therefore, I hope Mendaki would in future be expanded in its role to cover other aspects that might hinder the progress of Malay children in education. So it is important that the Mendaki machinery be strengthened and expanded so that it would be in the position to address and fulfil the increasingly pressing needs in the education of the Malays in future.

I am expressing this hope to the First Deputy Prime Minister as the prime mover of the Agenda for Action. Whatever he has stated in this Agenda, I believe he and his colleagues would put them into action, as we say in Malay:

Kerbau di-pegang talinya.

Manusia di-pegang janjinya.

(The buffalo is held by its reins, but Man is held by his promises.)

That is all, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope the Agenda would achieve excellent results.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I now suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Agenda for Action generally reflects the wishes of our people. The Government is now determined to realize the goals enumerated in the Agenda for Action, and it calls for full support from all.

I would like to point out that in the coming two decades when the Government tries to achieve the goals of a society of distinction, it would mean that our process of nation building would be as fast as what has been done in the past and there will be even more intense competition among the professionals and the educated and the diverse personnel. There will be a greater gap between success and failure. Therefore, there will come into play the ever popular stress on utilitarianism. Under these circumstances, those who are successful, those who have advanced to the front, will become heroes and are pillars of the nation and supports of the society. Their position will be high and their income will be high too, enjoying high standard of living. On the other hand, those who are behind, those who have failed, who are disappointed, wounded, lost and feel dejected, these people living on this small and densely populated island will not be able to find a place to live in peace with stability and may not be able to bring up their children with ease, their livelihood would be very tough.

However, Sir, I support those who are successful such as the bankers, industrialists, the generals, the artists, the literati, doctors, lawyers, etc. We should encourage all such successful people so that they may remain in Singapore and enjoy better living taking Singapore as a paradise for them, to enable them to contribute further to Singapore. We should let them have added benefits and opportunity to stay high in our society. At the same time we should help and lend a hand to those who have failed, those who have forever not been able to follow up to such people. Give them some sympathy, give them some needy help in their difficulties to enable them to overcome their difficulties so that our society can become a successful society a society as one that has warmth and compassion, even viewed by the world, unlike the western selfish and mercenary variety.

Therefore, I appreciate very much what is recorded in this Green Paper on page 4, paragraph 15, which says that we should be a compassionate society as what the First Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out that Singapore should be for all Singaporeans. Only thus can Singapore be the more successful and the more prosperous and can progress further so that all of us can regard our neighbours as our brothers within the four seas so that there will be compassion and warmth among our society and the world at large. On this point, I support the motion.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the topic of our discussion "The Agenda for Action" is concerned with the critical task of nation building. As the earlier speaker pointed out, how we do this very important. Our economic progress in the last thirty years is evident, but higher living standards are only a means to an end, not the end itself. We should strive for a society of distinction where there is not only affluence but also vigour and vitality, discipline and concern for others. To attain these objectives, the following conditions must be met. Firstly, there must be economic security. In many Third World Countries, severe economic difficulties exist. There is widespread poverty as well as massive foreign debt. Their governments are corrupt and totally incapable of meeting the basic needs of the people. Their people become restless. It is, therefore, clear that a pre-requisite for a society of distinction is the provision of adequate housing and meaningful jobs for the people.

Secondly, our environmental health is still less than ideal in spite of the success in cleaning up the environment. Last year, I met a Japanese tourist at a food centre who told me that he had been deeply impressed by Singapore. However, he was disgusted by the state of our public toilets. I think the Ministry of the Environment should do more to solve the problem. Moreover, the conditions of the lifts in the HDB estates leave much to be desired. These examples reveal the shortcomings in our social development. Apart from the efforts made by the Government and the community leaders, we should educate our younger generation on the importance of good social behaviour. Earlier on, the MP for Henderson mentioned the emergence of a materialistic attitude. It is, perhaps, inevitable in the business world. In an attempt to increase productivity, some people will try to obtain maximum gains with minimum efforts. In USA, 'covert' operations have become common. The President sold arms secretly. On Wall Street, a banker sold confidential information and engaged in insider trading. Even evangelistic preachers indulged in scandalous pursuits.

Is it an ideal society that considers money more important than morality and the price of an item more relevant than its value? We may use these as lessons for us in the process of nation building.

Human relationships form the foundation of our society. In the course of rapid social changes, what will be the effect on these relationships? Will familial relationships and friendships be affected? Broken families and single-parent families have become more common. These have brought untold misery to the young. Therefore, in striving for a society of distinction, we should focus greater attention to these social trends.

If a talented person disregards social issues and has no time for those who are less fortunate, then what kind of person is he? I agree with the Member for Henderson who said we should pay more attention to the less fortunate, the handicapped, the aged sick and consider carefully whether we have given them sufficient assistance. In the last thirty years, we have concentrated on economic development and paid less attention to this matter. But I hope that from now on more effective assistance will be given to them.

A society of distinction does not mean golfing, yachting or playing various games only. We should spend our leisure hours well by cultivating a wide range of interests. In particular, we should promote the reading habit. Once again, I appeal to the authorities to open the national library and its branches on Sundays. Our people should be able to go to the libraries to read and spend their leisure hours meaningfully instead of wasting time at the shopping centres or roaming about on the streets. A healthy mind should go with a healthy body. In this regard, the promotion of sports by the government should be stepped up. More could be one. In the years to come, all of us have to work hard and together we will achieve a society of distinction by the year 1999.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to present my views and opinions on the Agenda for Action presented by the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, as a Green Paper - Agenda for Action, Goals and Challenges. It contains specific goals to be achieved by our nation and the challenges to be faced in the coming decades.

For three decades under the PAP Government, Singaporeans have enjoyed a standard of living which we can all be proud of. In fact, our achievements have greatly impressed many other countries. We should remember that all our achievements are the result of the positive attitude of both sides, ie, the Government and the people. Ever since gaining power, the Government has from the very beginning given priority to national and social development. Working in accordance with the principles of democracy, the Government has overcome challenge after challenge through comprehensive planning. Under the guidance of this astute leadership, and with perseverance and dedication, we have attained the heights of success which were at first viewed sceptically by others, both outside and in the country. Singaporeans have so far shown a rational attitude in facing important and sensitive issues affecting their lives. It was this positive attitude and this determination that enabled us to build a strong and stable nation. As such, let us all maintain this positive attitude, prepare ourselves, take the necessary steps, movein the same direction, towards further improving the nation's economic performance as well as upgrading the economy of all our people in order to guarantee a brigther future, not only for ourselves but also for our children and our future generation.

The Green Paper, the Agenda for Action, Goals and Challenges has outlined the basis for our future, The way of life we want in the 1990's. All of us surely want a nation and society of excellence by the year 1999. Thus, I would like to call on all Singaporeans from all walks of life to work together and offer full support for all the proposals presented in the Green Paper. Thesedocuments, which may appear ordinary on the surface, are actually a very important working paper because the successful implementation of these proposals will determine our way of life and standard of living in the future. With total dedication, with careful planning, and with specific programmes, I am confident our younger leaders will be able to implement successfully everything that has been outlined in the Green Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have successfully created a harmonious society. We must continue our efforts to nurture tolerance in our multi-racial society in Singapore. We must live (Malay proverb) like the bamboo clump and the river bank, i.e. in an atmosphere of mutual help. In this way we can continue moving forward and enjoying the fruits of our common efforts.

Now I would like to touch on education and manpower. Earlier it was stated by the Member for Potong Pasir that 500 or 600 thousand of our workers did not possess a PSLE. Actually these are remnants of those under the colonial government. These are old workers who had been sacrificed by history because opportunities for them to enjoy education like what our children are now enjoying did not exist then. These people are those above 40 years of age and it is not the fault of the PAP Government that they are not educated. In education age should not be an obstacle. As long as we have the will, we should continue to further one's education. We need to continue with our efforts for a better life, while not neglecting our respective responsibilities to our families, communities, cultures, languages and religions.

With regard to employment, workers should be willing to upgrade their skills. We do realize that among the older workers, it is difficult to obtain another job once they are retrenched due to economic recession or technological developments. They must have the will, the positive attitude, the desire to undergo retraining or further training provided either at their places of work or by the VITB. I would like to urge the Government to give more attention to the future of older workers whose means of income have been affected by economic recession or technological developments, which are taking place at a rather rapid pace in our country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, page 7 of the Green Paper touches on Social and Cultural Development. I fully support the idea to build a nation that is not only excellent but also where the people are Vibrant, full of enthusiasm, happy and creative. There is no doubt that culture is a factor which can help us to establish a better and more gracious society.

I would like to add that there is another aspect that require earnest, organised efforts and wide-ranging measures. I am referring to sports and recreation. The goal is to have more of our people, especialy the youths participating in this healthy activity. Sports is a means to not only physical fitness and but also towards closer ties among all levels in our multi-racial society. Indeed, it can promote closer ties among neighbouring countries in the region. If in the past we have achieved excellence through our sporting greats, such as Wong Peng Soon, Neo Chwee Kok, Tan Howe Liang, C. Kunalan, Awang Bakar, Dollah Kassim, Quah Kim Song, Peter Hill, Zainal Abidin, Patricia Chan, Junie Sng, Ang Peng Siong and many others, why can't we in the coming years produce such famous champions to be the idols for our youths to emulate. Thank you.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, let me say that it is necessary for me to rebut the equivocations the Member for Potong Pasir uttered this morning.

The Member for Potong Pasir agreed that this document is very important. But he did not touch on the contents of it and he also did not explain why it is important. Let me explain to him that this document is important because it has been compiled after one whole year's consultation between the Government and the people. Secondly, this document will become the basis of Government's policy and nation building for the coming decades. Therefore, it is obviously very important. The Member for Potong Pasir, he is not here now, when making his speech this morning, said that Singaporeans dare not express their opinions. He also quoted certain remarks of members of public quoted in the English newspapers to support his argument. I feel it is wrong to generalize on just a few examples. As a Member of the Feedback Unit Supervisory Panel dealing with public opinion or feedbacks, for one whole year I had the opportunity to have dialogues and discussions with people from all walks of life, including professionals. We have found that the people of Singapore are not like what he has said, who dare not express their views. On the contrary, they have willingly expressed their views on the National Agenda and Policies, bluntly and constructively. Maybe there are a few people who dare not openly express their views or who dare not disclose their identity, fearing there might be some undesirable consequences to blunt expression or such disclosure. Perhaps there may exist such people. Some people just dare not frankly express their opinion in public in the open without qualms.

Let me give my views on the motion before us today. In the past 25 years, our older generation, namely our parent's generation and leaders of that generation had strived very hard to make Singapore what it is today, a well founded and modern middle-class society. They have been able to achieve this admirable position for Singapore because they had far-sightedness, they had idealism for a better future and they had common objectives. They were able to work together, struggle together and they strived hard through thick and thin and overcame all difficulties and challenges unstingingly with concerted efforts and undaunting spirit so that they have achieved a Singapore of the present status. This is the success factor, due to the single-mindedness and self sacrificing joint effort of our parent's generation, all the people on the one hand and the Government on the other hand that has made the present Singapore. Should a country have no common objectives for the people, there would be internal disputes among the people and there would be internecine trouble, division in the country and social disintegration, dragging the country down, as the people are not able to be united in their common objectives and in nation building but spend their time in petty squabbles, causing their countries to be divided and ruined. That is why certain countries in the world have landed themselves in civil wars, turmoils, poverty and other troubles. Now we can enjoy what we have today, we are fortunate and should be grateful to what had taken place in the past, that is through the efforts of our parent's generation and the Government so that today we can enjoy a better standard of living. Just to say thank you is not enough. As younger generation and as a younger Singaporeans, our more important task is to try to preserve what we have inherited from the older generation and at the same time try to develop further.

Today we are at a very important juncture of history of our country, at a very important turning point. The older generation had contributed their effort in their spring time. Now most of them have retired. The older political leaders are now also preparing to transfer their political burden and duties which they had shouldered for the past three decades to the second generation leaders. To sum up, the pioneering generation have fulfilled their common objectives and vision of some three decades ago and they have fulfilled their historical part for them to play. The new tasks will inevitably be falling on the shoulders of the younger generation.

What has been created and the foundation laid by the older generation will have to be carried forward by the younger generation. To create a heritage is difficult, to preserve it is not less difficult. But if the younger Singaporeans cannot preserve what has been created and passed down to us, then we will be failing in our duty as Singapore will be degenerating. Therefore I say it is now an important turning point in our history. To preserve the heritage, the younger generation, including the people and the leaders, must have definite common goal and common idealism. At the same time, in order to realize this common goal and ideal, we should strive together with concerted efforts and there must be rapport and mutual trust between the Government and the people and a spirit of comradeship between them.

An important question is "Is there a common ideal and common goal between the younger generation and the younger leaders?" The answer is "yes", as evidenced in this piece of document which contains the common goal and common ideal that have been derived from one whole year's consultation and discussion. It is not something that has come out from nowhere or without any foundation. Our aim is to continue to build a harmonious multi-racial society. We want to achieve better economic development and progress and also we want to build a more cultured, excellent society based on the present material foundation on which we are also striving to achieve a better spiritual life. This is our ideal which is also the concrete result that we have gathered for National Agenda from the people over the past one year. Therefore, this document represents the wishes and the aspirations of our younger generation who not just aspire to inherit what is left over to them but also want to develop further and improve on what is already existing, to build a better Singapore. With common goal and ideal it is a good beginning. Following this, the greatest trial for the younger generation and leaders and the greatest test is whether the younger Singaporeans and the political leaders can jointly realize this common ideal and goal with zeal, concerted effort and undaunting spirit just as what the older generation had done before us.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I was reading the Green Paper on the Agenda for Action - Goals and Challenges - a basic theme leaps out from the pages, ie, people, people and people. This is a people-oriented document. It covers the issues facing Singapore comprehensively but the thread that ties all these issues together is the focus on the people of Singapore on the full development of their potential as individuals as well as members of a nation. That this is so is not surprising at all since the document is a summary of a nationwide discussion that has been going on at every level of the society. It represents the distillation of the thoughts of thousands of Singaporeans, ordinary Singaporeans, men and women who make Singapore what it is today.

It contains the aspirations for themselves and for Singapore. I believe all of us in this Chamber, including the Member for Potong Pasir, will find that in this document we are listening to the voices of the people of Singapore. Of the issues discussed in the Green Paper, I shall restrict my comment to only a few.

On education, I believe this Paper echoes the aspirations of every Singaporean when it states in no uncertain terms that each member of the Singapore society shall be given the maximum opportunity to achieve his or her potential and that no student shall ever be denied an education he deserves for lack of money. The Ministry of Education is already introducing innovations in our education system by the implementation of the concept of independent schools. Besides this, I believe we should pursue the improvement of our schools at every level. For instance, we have reached a point in the evolution of our education system that a double-session school system is probably no longer appropriate for the optimum development of our students. We should implement expeditiously the full session school for secondary schools as well as extending this concept to the primary schools. Sure, such a step will be very costly but I believe it will be worth it as our future generations are involved.

Recently, there also emerged public opinion calling for a review of our university admission policy. In the past, the number of university students has always been tied directly to manpower projections. This is a prudent policy. However, historical data have shown that the projections have been conservative year after year. This not only has led to a tight market for university students, graduates in general, but also in engineering and computer professionals in particular. Besides higher labour cost for these skills, this conservative forecast has resulted in aspiring students going overseas for education for those whose families can support them. How about those who are less fortunate? Hence, the recurrent calls to use CPF for education.

As a result, to fill our needs in manpower, foreign graduates are hired to fill existing vacancies. I would call on the Government to work on getting the manpower projections to be done more accurately. If we were to be more aggressive in these projections and err on the liberal side, I think we should. From past experience, the chance of large numbers of unemployed graduates is low if Singapore continues to manage its economy well and achieves good economic growth.

On the building of a technological society, the use of modern technology in our society should be continued and accelerated. Since the growth of our population is limited, economic growth that funds future developments must come from increased productivity through the use of modern technology in every sphere of our activities, computer being only one aspect of this. Communications is another. For instance, we should introduce toll-free international telephone service in Singapore to promote the service-oriented industries. New services, such as Cellular radio telephones and teleview services should also be introduced aggressively to improve our productivity.

On the subject of creativity, I believe the ability to be creative is inherent in our people. Right now, however, owing to the relentless pressure to excel in school, most children devote their energies in academic pursuit. This has resulted in the pressure-cooker syndrome in our education system. In fact, one of the reasons for some of our professionals to migrate to other countries is precisely this. So the question is: do we really want our children to grow up without the experience of joy of childhood where they only remember the rigours of school work? I believe, as we move into a more cultured society where people of all skills can make a comfortable living, the pressure to train everyone either as an engineer, a doctor or a lawyer, shall abate somewhat.

This Green Paper calls for the promotion of arts and culture. We should evolve into a society where people who enrich our cultural life can make a reasonable living, just like the SSO musicians who are now making a reasonable living. However, most of these musicians are non-Singaporeans. Perhaps an SSO scholarship scheme should be introduced for aspiring young Singapore musicians. The very fact that we have foreign musicians is a very clear indication that we did not cultivate our own talent 20 years ago. Surely, we should not be in the same position 20 years hence.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Paper forms the basis for the future development of Singapore. I support the motion.

The Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have noted that a few Members have commented on the matter of the University's admission policy, just now by the Member for Bukit Timah, this morning by the Member for Potong Pasir, and also recently by our Parliamentary Estimates Committee. I feel, Sir, that it would not be out of place for me to say a few words this afternoon to clarify the Government's stand on this very important matter, a subject which is not only important to Members of this House but also to students in our schools and to the parents.

Sir, I wish to state quite clearly and without any equivocation so that there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that it is the policy of the Government to admit to the NUS every student who can qualify for admission and can make it through university. Sir, this has always been our policy. This is our policy today and this will continue to be our policy. It only makes sense. We are a small nation a country of 2(r) million people with no natural resources. It is in our interest and in the interest of the student himself, that we should try and educate every child to the maximum of his or her ability. Every child that we can nurture and groom through university is an asset to himself, to his family and to Singapore. Therefore, Sir, it is, as I said, our Government's policy to try and ensure that as many students as possible can qualify and make it through the NUS.

But, Sir, does this mean that we should simply open the gates and allow anyone and every student to enter university? I presume this is what was suggested by the Member for Potong Pasir this morning - that we should not worry too much as to whether these students would have jobs after they graduate but that we should open the university so that they can go in, cultivate their minds, and this is the way towards a Society of Excellence.

The point, Sir, is this. If we do this, are we doing a service to these students? What will happen to them when they graduate and find that they cannot get enough jobs? Is it better to be an unemployed graduate or to be an unemployed non-University student? I think it makes no difference. When you are unemployed, you are unemployed. I do not think it is a service to allow thousands of students to go through university, spend time, spend money, make an effort and then find, when they graduate, that there is nothing for them to do. I think, Sir, that this is also one reason why students in many of the newly-developing countries have to emigrate and go abroad to find jobs because they find no room to exercise their talents in the countries where they are educated.

Therefore, Sir, every responsible country must plan its university graduates in accordance with its manpower requirements. This is not to deny any student the chance to go to university but to ensure that we will not have a situation as has happened in many other countries, where there are thousands of unemployed graduates. You have graduates working as hawkers, waiters, waitresses - jobs which manifestly do not require any university education but which, because these graduates cannot find jobs, they are forced to take on this type of employment. I do not think it makes any sense. And just because they have gone through university, I do not think they will thank us for it. We must make sure that when we admit a child to university, we must be reasonably sure (we cannot guarantee, but we must be reasonably sure) that there will be a demand for his or her services after he or she graduates.

I take the point of the Member for Bukit Timah that we should not be too conservative in our manpower projections. I think that point is well meant. We have been in a fortunate position where we have very few or no graduates unemployed. I think this is something which we should always try to preserve. Sir, we should also, Sir, recognize that our economy is developing and changing and so there will be a need for more university graduates in the coming years. And this point will be taken into account in planning our university intake.

Now, Sir, the matter of academic standards. Why is it so important? Why should we try so hard to ensure that the standards of our University are not compromised? Standards are important because they are a brand of quality. Every student who comes out from the NUS with an NUS degree shows evidence that he or she has reached a certain standard of academic performance, has gone through a certain rigorous course of instruction. This is something which we have built over the years. And the performance of our graduates, as they move out to fill jobs in the economy over the last two or three decades, has shown that employers can trust the degrees of the NUS. Not only Singaporean employers, but employers like the MNCs, are familiar with what good graduates should be, what graduatesof a quality university should have achieved. And the fact that our graduates have performed well and can fulfil the expectations which they are required to meet, I think speaks well of the high standards of the NUS. Our professionals, for example those in medicine or engineering, have no difficulty in meeting the necessary qualifications for admission to the relevant professional institutes in Australia, in England, and in other well-established countries. This is something, Sir, which we should not compromise.

Our standards in the NUS are high and deservedly so, and we should not compromise it. I do not think there is any reason why we need to apologize for keeping high standards of the NUS. We must always ensure that thestandards of the NUS are equivalent to the standards of a well-established university of quality in our major competitor countries. Only in that way, Sir, can we do a service to the thousands of students who go through the NUS. To do otherwise is to hold out false hope and, eventually, to do a disservice to them.

Now, Sir, what is the responsible way of getting more university graduates? I do not think the responsible way is simply to relax our admission policy and allow more students to go in. The responsible way is, first of all, to have better schools, to improve the standards of education in our primary schools, in our secondary schools and in our junior colleges. With better schools, we will have better quality candidates, and with better quality candidates we can admit more students into the NUS without any deterioration in academic standards. It is because we have improved our schools significantly over the last five or six years that the NUS has been able to increase its intake by 50% from 1982 to 1987, and to do this honestly, responsibly without any lowering of standards. And if we continue to improve our schools along the lines suggested by the Member for Bukit Timah, then I think we will see a steady increase in the intake of university students and these students will be admitted without any lowering of academic standards.

At the same time, Sir, we must also make sure that our economy continues to grow and to progress, so that the economy continues to expand, more job opportunities will be created, there will be more jobs, there will be better-paying jobs, jobs which can be filled by the graduates from the NUS and from the NTI.

It is these aspirations, Sir, a thriving, prosperous economy leading to plentiful job opportunities, a meaningful life for our graduates, for all our students in our schools, this is what the Agenda for Action is all about. 2.55 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, on scrutinizing the Green Paper presented by the First Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, we can make three conclusions as follows.

The first conclusion is that it is a solid document, the result of an extraordinary effort involving almost the whole community from all levels, from all categories, in setting out its future.

The second conclusion is that it offers a clear avenue towards the goals that we are aiming for, taking into consideration the challenges of the future, including the various obstructive 'humps' that we might have to overcome, in a rational manner and with a rational attitude, whether they be local or international, taking into account also the interests of our neighbours.

The third conclusion is that it gives an assurance to the international community, especially the investors, of our effort to consolidate the country's stability by giving it its particular patterns. Allow me to put across these patterns and, where necessary, to give my comments.

The first pattern is the pattern of leadership. A political leadership that ensures continuity and a smooth transfer of leadership for at least two decades from now. These two decades make up a comfortable period of time and an important time-frame for investors and a comfortable one for plans to be carried out well. We congratulate the Old Guards, those who are still in this House and those who are outside this House, for their far-sightedness and their sacrifices that have enabled our self-renewal policy to be implemented smoothly. Congratulations to them.

The second pattern is balance. A united community and efforts towards reinforcing this unity, such as the GRC proposal, the town councils, and so on. The unity of this multi-racial society very necessary and we must preserve it in order that there be no thorns in the flesh, stabbing at the heart, ie, our unity, and putting the body, ie, Singapore, into suffering and even death. I am very impressed to find in this Green Paper, under the heading, Nation Building, Topic 1 - Multi-racial, Multi-religious Society and Consensus and Participation, article 9, where it is stated that "the Government can be popular without being populist, firm but not high-handed". I agree with this view which is in line with the considerations reflected in the four articles below which should be practised by all countries, all societies, and indeed, by all individuals towards ensuring their well-being, that is, (1) a country or a person must be strong but not arrogant; (2) He or the country may be soft but don't think he/it is weak; (3) he/it is generous but not wasteful; (4) and he/it is thrifty but not stingy. This practice would in itself cover many of the aspirations of the people, something in the form of more comprehensive national development and progress, reinforcing the concept of a plural society moving towards a just and prosperous society. This is in accordance with the intent of article 5 of the same section, where the Green Paper says: "Let us do our best to help the slower communities to participate more fully in the mainstream of our national life, be it in the economic, social or political fields."

The Government's attention to this community is getting more evident. This community on its part should enhance its participation and increase its sacrifices. At the end of this speech, I would try to touch on something has been circulating within the Malay community in its efforts to join the mainstream of Singapore.

The third pattern, population distribution. Under the topic, Home Ownership, articles 17 and 18 give due attention to the success of this scheme and describe the steps taken and assistance given in order that more people of Singapore will be able to own apartments. And if it should happen, say, in the year 2000, we have 90% or 95% home ownership as described by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of National Development to Encik A. Kadir Jasin of Berita Harian Malaysia on 16th February 1988, this would mean, as the Green Paper says, "Singapore will increasingly be a middle-class society." My question, to the First Deputy Prime Minister, is: does the population distribution policy still adhere to the population profile of Singapore, that is, each constituency reflecting the ethnic proportions of the total, population, ie, having 75% Chinese and the balance made up of the minorities? Could this profile be extended as best as possible down to every block? What about flats which are purchased or sold privately and occupants of one community move out of the area to be replaced by occupants of another community, thereby turning the profile out of proportion? I think this issue needs clarification now.

The fourth pattern. This relates to the role of the trade unions. We cannot agree more with the intent of the section on Economic Growth and Progress that workers should improve themselves, which in turn places emphasis on the positive role of the trade unions, through the BEST, WISE and MOST schemes. And I am sure the Member for Potong Pasir appreciates these noble efforts. Many more of our workers are benefitting from this symbiotic relationship. This must be continued because our future lies in how best our people are able to gain education and new technology. The success and self-respect of the country and the society lies in it.

Here allow me to express my congratulations to the NTUC for the maturity of their actions recently when they expressed their protest against the United States attitude on the GSP issue. This is necessary. More necessary is that all of us, in particular our workers and our employers, are conscious of the need to work harder to enhance our productivity and ensure that our products have the competitiveness edge in the international arena, especially in the US market. US and the GSP can be likened to an umbrella. But the trouble is that now we have and weare relying upon a leaking umbrella. We hope in future that the United States will not go to the extent of being, as the Malays say "Harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi", i.e. the guardian who preys upon the very people he had been entrusted to protect.

Locally or internationally, people want not only political democracy but also economic democracy and social justice, even humanitarianism and morality. This must be emphasized. The United States must be magnanimous in its actions towards the countries that it considers its friends. It must shed its damaging capitalist cloak. It has been said that the capitalist "is like a snake, it moves singly, the most in pairs and keeps only his interest or the interest of the pair." Perhaps they should ponder over what David A. Stockman, the former whiz kid of President Reagan wrote in his book "The Triumph of Politics".

This the United States must appreciate, because it has also been said that "Communism moves in a herd and takes care of its own herd only". Now we have seen how the Communists are trying to put on new clothes through 'glasnost' (openness) and 'perestroika' (economic restructuring), which have now become the focus of world attention. They now propose to withdraw from Afghanistan, after having taken the lives of about 30,000 of its own soldiers and one million Afghan freedom fighters. This withdrawal I am sure is welcomed by the world and the United States must really take heed of this.

Meanwhile, I am sure trade unions around the world and workers as well must remain wary because the trade unions are still an arena of communist infiltration. Two decades is a long time but not to them. In this modern and sophisticated era, the urban areas are expanding and the rural areas too are getting more sophisticated. Guerilla warfare is not as easy as before. The possibility that this ism would focus more of its efforts on the urban areas is very great. And I am sure the trade unions is still an important target to it.

The fifth pattern is mentioned in the Introduction. It refers to the young people and the Government machinery. Allow me to touch on something stated in the Introduction, paragraph 2, relating to the involvement of young people, "..... the Government's intention to reach an accord on the character of the society young people desire, and involve the young in working towards its achievement". This is very appropriate because no society in the world could give its descendants or its young people a future or a world that is certain, according to our tastes or even according to their tastes. At most, this could only be a future possibility. But we could provide or prepare our young people, for their future, education in line with the needs of 10-20 years from now: strong traditional values and the consolidation of belief in these values within a plural society. I am confident they aregetting more sure and they understand better the issue of war, after having gone through national service and our policy total defence. I am also sure that our young people now have a better perception, for example, of the dangers of racialism, of religious fanaticism, of voting according to one's whims and fancies. It is our duty to give them more exposure of all these elements through education, from the schools to the university, through (PA) or People Association, social organisations and the mass media and other channels that we might consider appropriate as a public education, as mentioned earlier by the Minister for Trade and Industry. We must win the hearts of these young people in a wise and rational manner. There must be some form of attraction for them. They are a very important component.

The sixth pattern is the civil service. In paragraph 4 of the Introduction, it is emphazied, "It now needs to be implemented with the full weight of the governmental machinery" which I take to mean the civil service. This is, of course, very appropriate because the progress and the smooth administration of a country lies in the combination of three elements - a competent government full of good programmes, a population that appreciates and supports the government's action through mature organizations and a well-organized civil service that works in concert with the planning and aspirations of the government. We have inherited a good and important legacy of the colonial government in the form of the civil service. The wheels of the civil service machinery have been turning in tandem with the government. Improvements after improvements have been made and this need to be continued. They should more seen than heard, whether executing Government policies or attending to customers at the front counters or serving the general public. Like the Government leaders, they need to be efficient and firm. But like all of us, they must also be courteous, polite. This is important. Because any deficiency in this regard would usually affect the image of the Government. I welcome efforts now being made to ensure that these faults would not occur.

While we try our best to reinforce this important value on ourselves and in the civil service, I would like to appeal to the general public to be more understanding because one does not clap with one hand. Courtesy works both ways. It is a two-way street.

My final point, as I said earlier, concerns the Malay community and the ideal of a society of excellence, a nation of distinction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, finally, specifically on the Malay community. We have never had a government as good as the present. This is a reality, a fact that we should all realize. The Agenda for Action has outlined a programme for several decades ahead involving all the communities of Singapore, including the Malay community. For more than two decades, the Malay community, together with the Government, has been going through the phases of history, through thick and thin within Singapore together with the other communities. The Malay community has long abandoned a nagging and begging mentality. They now prefer action. Mendaki is an example and so is the Kemas Congress and the Danamis proposal. This positive attitude needs to be multiplied if the Malay community wants to participate in the mainstream of the Singapore society. If before, Malay Members of Parliament and local organizations called the Malays sacrificing milk and sugar in their coffee just to go to Makkah - and I am sure, God willing, if our children do take part in such a scheme, by having one foot in Makkah, the other would be prevented from going into drugs, and the problem of reducing that 64% could be addressed like other issues - then, I feel in the matter of shares and financial institutions, we require more awareness and sacrifice. Perhaps, this time it would be more than just a cup of bitter coffee, perhaps in terms of some cassette tapes or videotapes. I am not asking for the cash in their pockets. I am asking those who spend their money on cassette tapes or videotapes whether by hire or purchase, to sacrifice some of them. If usually there are 30 in a year, take away four or five for a share in our future. The same for videotapes. If 30 videotapes a year - I heard more than 30 in some cases - take away five, about $60 to be put into shares. I am not asking for cash, but this kind of money. This means we would have at least a share of $5, $10, $20, $50 or even $100. Better still, if some are so full of conscience abd realisation that they are prepared to give a day's salary, a week's salary and even one month's salary,not more than $1,000, to be put into such a scheme. If we just consider $100 per head, on average, take 100,000 of the Malay community in Singapore out of 150,000 workers, before the end of the year the Malay community would have $10 million. If it is $200, $20 million. If on average it is $300 per head, $30 million. And if this practice is continued every year for 12 years, God willing, we would be joining the mainstream of Singapore society more effectively.

The Malay community needs to think about this very seriously. If contributions are made in such a manner, it would multiply. This awareness and sacrifice of the Malay community would enable us to go more aggressively into new fields including perhaps one day into construction, medicine, or private hospital administration, which would in itself be in support of the Government policy to make Singapore a regional medical centre. Such a positive exposure I am sure would enable the non-Malay communities to better understand the aspirations and values of the Malay-Muslim community.

The year 2000 is only 12 years ahead. The Malay-Muslim community has striven in education through Mendaki, in economy and in commerce. The Malay community must further enhance their awareness and sacrifice in these areas, education and the economy. We must have the spirit and even more necessary we must have a deeper conviction to achieve this success. We cannot have, say, a spirit that is a mile wide but just an inch of conviction. I am sure the Government and the non-Malay communities would always be prepared to assist us. In fact, they have been helping us. Only the awareness and the sacrifice of the Malay community are needed now for the next 12 years.