EXEMPTED BUSINESS

With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Sir, I rise in support of the motion. Sir, this Agenda for Action sets out the goals and challenges facing us as a nation. It has been formulated after extensive debate and discussion over one year. Even the Opposition has been invited to give his views. The Member for Potong Pasir this morning said that he was not invited, but I have hear a clipping of the Sunday Times, 18th January 1987, with the headlines, "Chiam responds to call for ideas". [handed to Mr Chiam]. He has also said that the Agenda is not acceptable but not because of the contents. He did not comment on the contents itself. He said that the public did not accept the document because they questioned the sincerity of the Government. My question to the Member for Potong Pasir is whether he accepts the contents of the document. Whether his Party accepts the contents of the document. Mr Chiam, would youlike to answer?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think you go on.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Thank you. Well, in that case I will assume that he accepts the contents of the Agenda.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I did not say that.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: I assume that he accepts the contents.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: You want to respond now?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Fengshan gave me something to read. I have only completed the second paragraph and he wants me to answer him on something else. At least to be fair to me, give me time to read this first. Let me digest it, I comment on this and then we go on to something else.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think you are right. Dr Beng, you should not interrupt Mr Chiam's reading.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: My apologies, Mr Chiam. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Sir, the Agenda has been set before us and it is an extensive and a very important document. However, as the saying goes, it is easier said than done. The goals that we have set for ourselves have set the compass to correct us, to direct us. However, as in all things, there are many ways to achieve a goal. We must thus translate into practical terms the steps that we will take to achieve these goals. Sir, I would like to discuss only two topics, namely, nation building and the changing life-styles in Singapore.

Sir, of all the goals that we have set for ourselves, the most fundamental is nation building. Ours is a nation of approximately 20 years of age. In this short period we have transformed ourselves from a largely immigrant society into a cohesive society. Approximately 85% of the population are home owners. We have been able to convince our citizens of the importance of national service and total defence. Our reservists take their training seriously and mobilization exercises also very seriously, for they know that in an emergency the reservists will be the front line soldiers. However, can we claim to have arrived in nation building? The answer is that we have achieved much compared to the time of the Maria Hertogh's riots. Here again, the Member for Potong Pasir claims that the Maria Hertogh's riots are not racial. May I again, Sir, with your permission, give the Member the newspaper clippings for his perusal in the conviction and hope that I may be able to change his mind. [clippings handed to Mr Chiam See Tong].

Sir, we are a multi-racial, multi-religious society, living in a small country. To achieve harmony, we must start at the grassroots level. In our housing estate, in each block, Malays, Indians, Chinese and others, must learn to live harmoniously. We must respect one another's cultural and religious beliefs and practices. We must learn to be more considerate and tolerant in our daily living. The grassroots organizations, such as the Block Committees, Residents' Committees, Community Centre Management Committees, Citizens' Consultative Committees, have an important role to play here to provide for social inter-action. We are indeed fortunate that we have so many volunteers in our grassroots organizations. We must remind ourselves that they are volunteers. They have limited time to spare for community work. Should we not, recognizing their importance in the role of nation building, make their load lighter by at least helping them in fund raising? The Ministry of Community Development should make available some funds, for example, $5,000 per Resident Committee per year, so that the volunteers can concentrate more of their time on activities and programmes rather than on fund raising. This will not detract from the aim of making the RCs self-sufficient, as I believe that each RC serving 15 to 20 blocks of flats spends more than this in a year. As I mentioned earlier, this grant will lighten the work of the volunteers and allow the members more time to spend on other activities other than fund raising. Let us not only pay lip service to community development and welfare. Let us invest in this area in real dollar terms.

Changing life-styles. Sir, as we continually evolve into a modern city state, there are certain segments of our population who find themselves struggling to keep pace. Unless we lend them a helping hand, they will feel that what we consider as progress is actually a nightmare to them. Amongst others, I have two particular groups in mind. Firstly, the HDB shopkeepers and, secondly, those who are in the middle-age group, above 45 years old, and are unable to find suitable employment. Sir, the HDB shopkeepers are now facing tremendous competition from large supermarket chains and departmental stores. Ten years ago when they were thriving and prosperous they were amongst the most generous supporters of our grassroots activities. Here we should not look at this problem from the point of view of whose fault is it, but instead ask ourselves as to what can be done to help them modernize and stay competitive. They deserve our sympathy and help because many of them are staying above their shop units. Closing their business will also mean losing their home.

Sir, finding suitable employment for the retrenched worker in his 40's is a real problem. Many of them are unskilled and have very low educational qualifications. Previously we could help them by giving them hawker licences or taxi licences. However, even these two avenues are now closed. Even those with taxi licences are unable to find a taxi to rent and drive. Will progress mean unemployment for these persons?

Sir, in closing, I would like to call on the Government to pay special attention to the needs of those who may be unable to cope for one reason or another with the pace of change. We should strive to achieve the goals that we have set for ourselves but this should be done in a way that the majority can accept. The way to achieve these goals is as important as the goals themselves.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been given this newspaper cutting in regard to Maria Hertogh. I see nothing in there at all. It is just two human-interest stories. Nothing said about racial riots or Jihad. Where is it, can you please point out to me?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Do you want to comment on the other cutting?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, let us stick on to this first. Point out to me where it says there was racial riot and there was a call for a Jihad War.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Do you want me to read the whole article?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. Just point out the relevant parts. Don't echo your master so soon. Better look it up yourself first.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these two pictures speak for themselves.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is it?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: I did not mention anything about Jihad. Maybe the Minister for Trade and Industry would like to comment on that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Don't pass the buck, please.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: You can see from these two pictures, and these are pictures which will be made available to the Press. As to the human touch ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Stories.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Human stories which led to?

Mr Chiam See Tong: To what?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Racial riots.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, I did not say that.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: I am telling you that, that it led to racial riots.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, so as not to waste everybody's time, may I justify and provide chapter and verse for my statements. I showed the picture from the Singapore Standard, 5th December 1950. I said it led to further articles in the vernacular Malay press, referring even to Jihad. I quote here from a book, "Tangled worlds" - the story of Maria Hertogh. It was written by a Tom Eames Hughes, British official who was in charge of the Social Welfare Home which kept Maria Hertogh before she was sent to the convent. He came back 30 years later to do the research and wrote the book. That was the 5th December 1950.

"From the 4th to the 11th December, articles appeared in the Melayu Raya, a Jawi Malay newspaper, presenting the case as a religious issue between Islam and Christianity. On the 9th December, Karim Ghani, he was the agitator, an Indian Muslim - issued free copies of his newspaper, Dawn. Its main feature was a report of a meeting, said to be packed to overflowing at the Sultan Mosque the previous day, at which Karim Ghani had spoken of a Holy War, Jihad, but only as a very last resort. He was reported also as saying "the feeling today is not confined to Muslim civilians but also to members of the Police", a dark prognosis of what was to come.

There was another issue of Dawn on the morning of the day of the outbreak of the riots. It contained two open letters, one to the police, the other to the court, called provocatively "The Trinity who will sit in judgment today." The court was to hear the application of the stay of execution of Mr Justice Brown's order of the 2nd December. The letter to the police indicated a possibility of rioting on that day. That was the day the riots broke out."

You can have this copy. [Copy of document handed to Mr Chiam See Tong.]

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what has been read out to me does not indicate that it was a racial riot, more so, a religious issue. This is if you were trying to put a point across. As I gather, it is more a Muslim issue, Muslim against Christian issue. There is no mention of race at all. But the point, when I spoke at one of our forums, was that I was trying to analyse indepth, saying that the essence of the riots was not racial but that there was already a wave of anti-colonial feelings. People were already wanting a better life. They wanted political, economic and other advances. That is my analysis of the situation. Of course, whoever the writer is, he can look at it from any point of view he wants and he writes a book 30 years later. Hearsay after hearsay, he can piece them together and make out a hypothesis, a theory of what happened. He has his right to do it. So if you are saying now that what you have read out is on race, I do not see it.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was reading a translation provided by Mr Eames Huges ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Where is the racial issue?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: --- of original source material published in Jawi. We can produce it if we wished. They are on microfilm in the National Archives. Read it, and tell us if what was said had nothing to do with race, that political and social rights were at issue, and a better livelihood was why they cited "The Trinity" in judgment.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Member for Potong Pasir to clarify whether he was actually invited to make representations on the National Agenda? Does he still deny it?

Mr Chiam See Tong: What are you talking about? Are we going to another issue now?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: The other clipping. This morning you said that you were not asked to give your opinions on the National Agenda.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I would be happy to answer the Member for Fengshan. We had a dinner, I believe, that day. And either that morning or the morning before, there was a headline in the papers about the National Agenda. So I thought it would be good just to comment on that. But, as far as I know, no formal letter or nobody came and give me a telephone call or say, "Look. Would you like to give your views on the National Agenda?" So it was in my speech I said, "All right. I will contribute to the National Agenda." And that is part of my speech.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Without invitation, you want to contribute.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think everybody has a right to contribute on national issues, especially when we are Members of Parliament. So I made some of the points, and this was made in January 1987. In fact, without referring to some of these points, I repeated these points in this House again today. But I do not see it included in your Agenda for Action at all. It really makes no difference whether I contribute or not.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, does the Member accept the contents of the Agenda as being for the national good of Singapore?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have already said that I am not quarrelling against the contents. I have said it in my speech. But whether or not it will be accepted by the people is another matter. The other point I made is the credibility of the PAP. It is no point having a beautiful attractive written out piece of document but your actions do not match what you said. I have brought out several points. No. 1, population. It was your Government's fault. No. 2 ---

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we should not allow the Member for Potong Pasir to launch another speech on the same issue. I shall reply to his question on credibility later on.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, you have responded sufficiently to Dr Beng's point. Unless you have any fresh points to make, I cannot allow you to continue. Have you any fresh points?

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is because he invited me, that is why I responded.

Mr Deputy Speaker: But you have already responded.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Sir, I felt I should join in this discussion about history because the Member for Potong Pasir obviously not only does not understand history but he is also prepared to take history and turn it around. We are referring to the Maria Hertogh riots in the early 50's. His point is that it was a non-racial riot. I do not know where he was at that time. I certainly was around when it happened and I can testify on a first-hand basis that it was racial.

A neighbour of mine, a Swiss gentleman, Mr Richards, was driving a car in town on the day of the riots. A perfectly harmless person, he happened to be white. He was stopped by a group of rioters. The only reason the group of rioters attacked him and nearly killed him was because he was white. I do not think you should just take historical lessons and give them a new interpretation to suit your party's interests, because if you have no sense of history and you are prepared to take history and turn it on its head, then I do not know what credibility means. I think you should be prepared to accept evidence of history and not try to twist things to the interest of your own party line.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for this opportunity to speak. I have no intention originally of joining in the debate but since the Member for Potong Pasir's favourite catchword is credibility, maybe we should also look at his credibility.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir was quoting a particular newspaper report from Sunday Times this morning, and he gave us the impression that the response to a speech which I made in the National University of Singapore sometime back was that the people were all afraid of speaking up, and he gave us some quotations. My intention is really just to read some other quotations in the same report which the Member for Potong Pasir has very conveniently left out, and indeed, to read the quotation from one gentleman whom he has quoted but has quoted only one portion of the remarks that the gentleman has made. This gentleman referred to in the report is a top level banker in his early 40's who preferred not to be named, and these are the quotes which the Member for Potong Pasir has very conveniently left out. He says:

'The call is timely and necessary and is a sign of a new leadership showing that their style is open and receptive. More such calls will encourage more people to come out, speak up and serve.' And then he goes on:

'If you speak as an individual in a sensible manner and show them you are not trying to mobilise others, I think the leaders will be receptive.

I give them my views privately. They know my sincerity. They know I have no axe to grind. So I dare to say many things.'

Very conveniently, the Member for Potong Pasir has left that out.

Sir, I will give Members of the House some other quotations from the same report to show that the Member has completely quoted out of context the responses of a large number of people, and then I leave it to the Members of this House to judge for themselves whether the Member for Potong Pasir has been less than honest with the House and whether his credibility ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, this is a point of order. I object to him saying that I am less than honest.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: I did not say that you are less than honest. I said that I will make it possible for the House to judge whether the Member is less than honest with the House.

Sir, let me quote a number of views expressed by people in this particular report. I will just selectively pull some of them because it is a fairly long report. Twelve university lecturers, graduates, professionals and businessmen, these are the people who agreed to be interviewed. Six did not wish to be interviewed. They said they felt it was good to hear the Government urging young Singaporeans to speak their mind and give their ideas and criticize. Specifically, the National University of Singapore Society's assistant honorary secretary said:

'Personally, I think the Government is listening to people who speak up.

But it has to ensure all the way down the line that this is what it wants - for people to speak up and share their views and ideas.

It must show in action that speaking up is healthy and that feedback helps improve society, otherwise people won't speak up.'

And that is what the exercise that culminated in the Green Paper, the Agenda for Action, has all been about.

A businessman who gave his name felt that he fears of reprisals (and he quoted the word "reprisals"), the fears of reprisals for speaking up were "more in the mind than anything else." Again a direct quotation "more in the mind than anything else." Further on, he said that:

'... those with such apprehensions should come out from under the shadow and test the Government's call for themselves.'

As Chairman of the Association of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, this particular businessman said:

'He always spoke his mind in discussions with politicians and bureaucrats and had never been penalised.'

Another businessman, a company director and a banker who had discussed issues with Ministers at social functions or business meetings said:

'They found them [namely, the Government, the politicians and the bureaucrats] receptive to even highly critical viewpoints.'

Then of course they went on:

'Are there channels for expressing views in Singapore? Some of those interviewed felt there were enough formal and informal channels for this.'

The Head of the Human Resource Management Unit of the National University of Singapore's Business Administration Faculty, a lady, noted that in recent years, the Government had invited more academics and professionals to sit on various Government committees. She felt that this was a good sign that the Government wanted inputs from academics and professionals.

Another academic welcomed the setting up of a think-tank in the form of the Institute of Policy Studies as a new outlet for the expression of ideas. I just want to read from the same report, just to give Members of this House a flavour of the report itself. I have no doubt that they would have read it but I just want to illustrate that by only choosing one example and another one selectively, distorting the thrust of the views of the banker in his early 40s, the Member had not given this House a fair representation of what the report was all about.

Sir, it is not surprising at all that some people are afraid to speak up. There will always be such people. There will always be people who are afraid of the dark, people afraid of the unknown. But that does not mean that they are right in believing that mortal danger awaits them every evening when the sun goes down. It does not prove that they are right at all. It does not prove that what they fear is real. I think it is important, and this the Government has already embarked over the last few years, that the Government should continue to reach out, to meet with people, to talk with them, those who are afraid at least. Those who are afraid to express their views in public, either through the newspapers or at some forum or other, they can express their views in private. We may have to go, maybe help hold their hands, to reassure them that the dark does not always represent danger for them.

Sir, I would go so far as to say that those who are afraid of expressing their views and values, we are quite happy to leave them with their own views if they do not wish to express it. But if we are looking for leaders of Singapore, people who will lead others, then I do not think the people who are afraid of having their views examined, having their views contested, or even having their views criticized, I do not think these are the sort of people that we are looking for to provide the leadership for the future. How then can you expect future leaders of Singapore to be willing to meet with others, to carry forth government policies, to put this Agenda for Action and convert it into concrete results if they are already, to start with, afraid of expressing views, lest their views be examined and found wanting?

Sir, I said in my speech to the NUS academics that I am very aware that it is much easier, much safer, and also much more comfortable to stay on the sideline. Because if they should come in, whether it is in politics or in some public position, then their views too will be subjected to criticisms and they too may be condemned. And that was the test I asked them: were they prepared to put themselves in for the test?

Sir, I have no doubt that this Green Paper, with the challenges and goals of our Government, will find the full support of the people of Singapore, and I give my wholehearted support to the 1DPM's motion and the Agenda for Action.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Boon Teck): Sir, this document that is presented to the House today is the result of a year of discussions among the people, the grassroots leaders, professional groups and the Government. It is a milestone in our history as never before has so much consultation been going on between the Government and the people. The Goals summarized in the Green Paper are a consensus of the people. The consensus shows that Singaporeans generally agree on major issues, even the Member for Potong Pasir cannot disagree with them.

I feel that this method of discussion to arrive at consensus is a better alternative to national referendums on major issues and policies, as at a national referendum people only vote yes or no for a policy or choose one policy among a few alternatives. National referendums do not provide feedback and do not allow constructive criticisms or suggestions to be collected. I urge the First Deputy Prime Minister to continue to use this method of consultation with the people when new major policies need to be introduced in future. Allow the people to discuss and debate before the subject is brought to Parliament because the discussion process is a very important aspect in the national education of the people.

Sir, whilst it is good to have the goals which we should reach by the year 1999, I would like to know what are the immediate actions that Government will take to ensure that the entire nation could reach the goals and enjoy the benefits. I would like the 1DPM's assurance that the Society of Excellence will be for every citizen, including the poor and the lower income groups.

Take the goal of making Singapore a fully home-owning society as an example. The Government's aim to achieve a 100% home ownership is a noble goal. It will help to foster a closely knit, self-reliant community. But at present, home ownership refers to ownership of 3-rooms, 4-rooms or more, and only a small percentage of 2-room home ownership exists. Sir, we do not need to wait till the 1999 to be a compassionate society. I would urge the Government to be compassionate even now, to allow the lower income groups to upgrade themselves in gradual steps. For example, lower income groups with large families staying in 1-room rentals who wish to upgrade to 2-room rentals should be allowed to do so. Lower income groups who wish to upgrade to 2-room purchase flats should be encouraged. In this way, the lower income group will not see home ownership programme as something out of their reach.

Sir, land will be always be scarce in Singapore. Yet in recent years the HDB has been building bigger and bigger flats from 4-rooms to 5-rooms, and now talking about 6-rooms. Having a bigger flat does not necessarily equate to excellence in living. A smaller flat well designed in layout, properly decorated, will offer a better living environment. Because of the shortage of land, recent buildings of HDB apartments are built very close together. Although flats built close to each other may help to foster neighbourliness, residents are complaining of lack of privacy. Sir, in a City of Excellence, privacy will be a very important aspect of life. I therefore urge the Government to seriously review the need to build bigger and bigger flats in view of our limited land resource.

Sir, the goals of a City of Excellence and a Society of Distinction sound very exciting. But to some, it also projects a very developed but very expensive city to live in. I have some concerns. Will the living standards of a City of Excellence be so high that most of us will live in poverty because we are always kept in the mad race trying to earn more and more, just to be able to pay for the higher and higher cost of living? Will the high cost of living in a Society of Excellence make us lose much of our tourist trade?

Sir, I support the motion as the Agenda for Action is more than the programmes of the PAP. It is the nation's blueprint for the future. Once Parliament adopts this Agenda for Action, the ideas can be translated into government policies and we shall be one step nearer to the Vision of 1999.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the past year, our citizens, young and old, coming from various backgrounds have had the opportunity to participate in the National Agenda debates. These discussions were held at a pace which had enabled Singaporeans to follow and examine keenly the issues, the goals to be achieved and the challenges before our nation. Every one who wished to make a contribution was given the opportunity to do so. The discussions were open and frank.

We have now before us the Agenda for Action which the Minister for Trade and Industry has aptly described as representing the will of the people. The Agenda represents the hope and the aspirations of the people to an even better future for them, their children, and the generations to come. To me, it is a historic document, a document which Singaporeans by working together with great determination can translate into reality and can bring about a better and brighter Singapore. As we now go into the next phase of development and work out programmes and policies to achieve the goals set out in the Agenda for Action, we must continue with the same approach of consultation, education and consensus building. I am confident that our leaders will continue to do so.

However, I would like to caution here that in the past we have seen examples where policy formulation and also implementation of policies, which were no doubt in our long-term interest, were carried out at too rapid a pace and many Singaporeans were not able to keep pace. As a result, they felt that they were not adequately consulted. They had not been able to follow and understand the reasons for these policies, why they were introduced, and why they were implemented so fast. This had resulted in great unhappiness and the people became less supportive of these policies. I think there are various examples of these policies, for example, the car ownership policy, the discussion on the withdrawal age of CPF, to mention a few.

So I would like to caution that special care must therefore be taken to ensure that as we develop programmes and policies, the general population must be given a chance to follow and understand these policies and to keep pace, and be able to take and accept the changes to be introduced. Coming out with our policies and programmes must be an educational process. At the same time, we must also giver very community and all Singaporeans an ability to identify themselves with the Agenda for Action. They must be able to see the goals that have been identified, and that these are goals which are within their ability to achieve. They must also understand clearly the limits of our resources.

The Member for Kampong Ubi has already spoken about the challenges faced by Mendaki, to raise the educational levels of Muslim children. I share his concern and join him in his appeal for more Government assistance for Mendaki to help the Council achieve its objectives.

For the lower income workers, the production workers, the daily-rated workers, and so on, I think Government should work out ways to assist them to enjoy a better quality of life. One way is to help them to get the opportunity to receive training and skill upgrading. We have got the Skills Development Fund and I am happy that the Fund will now look into ways to help the lower income earners to get the necessary training, and education. But what I would like to encourage is for more employers to invest more in the education and training of their employees. Many of them, especially those in smaller firms,are currently reluctant to invest more in the training of their workers. I would like to ask Government to work out programmes and to introduce incentive schemes to get these employers to invest more, to train and educate their workers.

Another way to help the lower income group is to help their children get an opportunity to get an education to the best of their ability. In lower income families, children are at most times left to fend for themselves, especially when both parents are working. More funds should therefore be allocated to the development of child care centres, day care centres for primary as well as secondary students, where they will have the facilities to develop themselves and can also receive help and guidance in their studies.

Sir, with this contribution, I support the motion in the name of the First Deputy Prime Minister.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Agenda for Action contains the main tasks facing Singapore in the 1990s and beyond. It represents the sum total of the efforts put in by Singaporeans in dozens of forums, discussions and debates, on the goals which we as a nation wish to achieve. In short, the Green Paper, the Agenda for Action represents the wishes of the people of Singapore, and how Singaporeans would like their children, and their children's children to live and work in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when Singapore achieved her independence in 1965, our leaders, the PAP leaders, were able to rally the people of Singapore with the battle cry "Merdeka". Merdeka brought hope to Singaporeans. To the poor, Merdeka brought hopes of better jobs and a secure future. To the oppressed, Merdeka brought hopes of freedom, and the chance to run Singapore for the benefit of Singaporeans. To the rich, Merdeka brought hopes of more wealth as new business opportunities were opened up. After more than 22 years of independence, these hopes have been fulfilled.

Our wealth, as measured by the per capita GNP, has increased from $1,330 in 1960 to $14,678 in 1985. About 85% of Singaporeans live in HDB housing estates, and 80% own the homes they live in. Singaporeans have already satisfied their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing.

Social scientists will say that Singaporeans today are more interested to satisfy their esteem needs, ie, the need for recognition, for prestige, and for self-respect.

The Agenda for Action will help Singaporeans satisfy their esteem needs. Today, Singaporeans will find it difficult to rally to the battle cry "Merdeka". But Singaporeans will easily identify specific sections of the Agenda that will satisfy their respective needs. They will see that by supporting the Agenda for Action they will help build a strong, united and pro- sperous nation. They will realize that the Agenda will help their children to have a better education. Through the Agenda for Action they will understand the challenges facing Singapore and what we must do to adapt to changing circumstances.

In summary, the Green Paper, the Agenda for Action, is an action plan that will help Singaporeans lead a more gracious, fulfilling, cultured and secure future. Only the PAP Government has taken the difficult task of preparing this action plan through extensive consultations with Singaporeans from all walks of life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I give my full support to the Agenda for Action and I am confident that it will also receive the full support of all Singaporeans.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Green Paper on the Agenda for Action has shown that Vision 1999 is not a political mirage. It is a clear set of goals which will lead our people into another golden era of peace, prosperity and great living. Notwithstanding the recent economic recession, the Government has pursued these goals by engaging the people in a year-long public discussion and education. However, I believe that Vision 1999 is even now still very misty or unheard of to many Singaporeans, especially the less educated. The Feedback Unit may bear me out on this. I therefore think that publicity campaigns and public discussions must go on until all Singaporeans are aware, convinced and motivated to work towards these goals. I suggest that this Green Paper be published in the four languages and distributed nation wide. I also suggest that this important document be used in all our secondary schools and tertiary institutions as a regular subject matter for discussion and education.

Sir, during the two years of economic recession, our people were worried about retrenchment and had to contend with wage restraint and cut in CPF contributions. It was not easy then to understand and appreciate Vision 1999. Now that the recession is over, optimism and confidence have returned. But of course we must not forget the importance of good economic performance and that there will be no Vision 1999 if our economy does not perform. So the first and the most important step towards Vision 1999 is continued economic growth, continued industrial peace, increased productivity, a flexible wage restructure and our products and services must have that competitive edge in the international market.

How do we arrive at a consensus with the people? We can either hold a referendum or do what we have done through public discussions and feedback through the various channels. Hence, after a year-long discussion with the people, we are able to produce the Agenda for Action with the confidence that the people have participated in the drawing up of the Agenda for Action. As people become better educated, they do expect that this exercise of consultation and discussion with them be a permanent aspect of the style of implementation of Government policy, at least the major policy. This message to the Government is very clear and it serves well for the Government to take heed.

The Government must always plan well ahead and time must be given to the people to thrash out major issues before they become policies. The Government should avoid taking a shortcut as a wrong policy may go down very badly with the people. On the other hand, the people must not expect the Government to be perfect and infallible. The Government is after all human.

Sir, how do we bring the racial groups closer together? I believe after the national Agenda debate and the Herzog event, there is now more goodwill and more desire among the various races to want to come closer together. But old habits die hard and people are generally reluctant to start new habits. I believe that we should start new habits with the young and do it in the schools. The racial composition in every primary school must reflect that of the community. Children must be given basic lessons on all the cultures, customs and religions of the main races. In this way, they will grow up knowing what types of people their friends and neighbours are. They should also be encouraged to visit each other's homes and attend each other's festivities.

Sir, I do not believe that a Singapore culture will evolve. Singapore will always be unique in that the cultures of the people will be as diversified as the people are non homogeneous. This is neither unhealthy nor disuniting. Singaporeans should be proud and be appreciative of all the various cultures. To do this, again we must start in the schools. So in 1999 I would like to see more Singaporeans able to appreciate and to participate in the cultural activities, not only of their race but also of the other races. I would like to see Singaporeans able to explain with pride to visitors of Singapore the more popular cultural performances of all the various racial groups.

Sir, how do we become a gracious people and live in a cultured society if our people cannot shake off their anti social habits? The discourteous behaviour of Singaporeans in shops, restaurants, Government departments and other places is still very obvious. Our annual courtesy campaign has yet to show any significant results. Littering, dirtying our public toilets and urinating in lifts are still very common problems. Can we get rid of all these problems by the year 1999? People are fined today for littering and spitting because they are uncivic. Is it possible that by 1999 people will become gracious enough for us to abolish all these Acts? I do have my doubts on this. I think the solution to this problem again lies in educating the young in schools. It is through our children that we can build our hopes and our vision of a cultured society. It is through our children that we can begin to influence the ungracious habits of some of the adults.

What would I like to see in a housing estate like Telok Blangah in the year 1999? What would I like to see as a community living in excellence? First of all, I would like to see more modern amenities for the residents. There should be a modern recreational club with an Olympic-sized swimming pool, with modern facilities. There should be good quality schools, well-equipped library, well-run kindergartens and day-care centre. The CC must remain as the focus of cultural activities. High professional standards will be expected of teachers and organizers. I would like to see that the residents become closer together, knowing each other better, that there will be fewer strangers in the estate. I would like to see more people greeting each other in the streets, in the lifts, in the void decks. Community singing, folk dancing, will become a pastime. More residents will come forward to join the RCs and would want to serve the people to find satisfaction and fulfilment in community work. There will be more old people and I would like to see them enjoying good health, living independently and in dignity. Those who are sick and lonely will be well cared for by the families and the community. We may even have our own symphony orchestra and hold art exhibitions of works of our very own Telok Blangah artists. And, of course, we must have a well equipped and a well trained civil defence force.

Sir, I would like to conclude by emphasizing again that before these goals can be achieved, every Singaporean must be made aware of and must be motivated to work towards these goals.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Sir, I would like to speak in Mandarin. But before I do that, would you allow me to comment on what the Member for Potong Pasir has just said? It is better for me to say it in English for his own convenience.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Teo, make your speech either in Mandarin or in English?

Mr Teo Chong Tee: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Potong Pasir has said that he has no objection to this Green Paper. I would like to ask him whether he would use it as a manifesto for his party in the next General Elections. If he can do so, then the PAP and the SDP will be able to tell the electorate to make a choice between them on a common objective. I would like the Member for Potong Pasir to consider whether he can do this.

I support the First Deputy Prime Minister's motion that the Agenda for Action be taken as the basis for nation building and government policy hereafter. The Agenda for Action is a continuation of the PAP's election manifesto in 1984. It will ensure that we will realize the goal of turning Singapore into a Society of Excellence in 1999 and will enable our people not only to enjoy better material life but also live in a more cultured society, with cultural vigour and progressive spirit.

Since the concept of the National Agenda was officially proposed about a year ago, it has received general attention. Grassroots organizations, comprising people of all walks of life and of all races including workers, hawkers, merchants, professionals, have been holding seminars under the guidance of their MPs, discussing and analyzing the issues. Members of the public had also separately held discussions and seminars to express their views with the various Ministers during the Ministers' walk-about. Therefore, this Agenda for Action represents a guideline from the collective will of the people of our multi-racial society. This is a gentleman's way of collecting public opinion. At the same time, it also shows the Government's open mindedness and willingness to listen to the wishes of the people. This will enable every citizen to contribute to the progress of the country and feel proud for its success. It is also a correct measure adopted by the Government to achieve excellence.

The goals targeted in the Agenda for Action have been broadly graduated and comprehensively formulated. In nation building, the Agenda stresses the importance of building a multi-racial and multi-religious society. It encourages national participation and consensus and pointing out the necessary step to face the challenges ahead. It also attaches importance to community development and welfare, promotes Home-Ownership and enhances general alertness in our Total Defence.

In the field of promoting economic growth and development, it also stresses that there must be adequate rewards according to contributions, and there must be competitiveness through upgrading. Furthermore, there will be efforts towards developing human resources and education and achieving the goal of development of social contact and cultural education.

This document is indeed a well-thought plan for action. It also further demonstrates that the PAP Government hopes to get the support of all the people for its policies in order to achieve a conviction of all for the building of a better country.

The PAP Government has achieved economic progress in the past three decades and the results achieved in the fieldsof education, aviation, transportation and health, etc have been the results of the joint efforts of the people and with the Government. Together they have gone through various troubles and overcome many difficulties. The Agenda will ensure that all these hard-won fruits will not be destroyed over night.

We must let the people have the opportunity to take part in deciding their own future and the future of their next generation so that the people will the more treasure the fruit they have got, will be the more united to face any problem.

The plan to encourage the people to participate in policy decision will also enable our people and those with better education, who have their own idealism, to understand better the contributions the Government has made for the country. The peace, progress and prosperity that we enjoy today cannot be taken for granted. And the world conditions have certain influence over us, at the same it will enable the Government to understand better about the feelings of the people regarding certain Government policies. When all the aims and measures have been achieved at through consultation and consensus of the people and with their participation, they will feel it is their joint responsibility to strive hard so as to achieve the common objective.

The future challenges enumerated in the document will enable us to be more alert. Undeniably, ours is a small island country. The surrounding political atmosphere and other conditions will affect us. Therefore, in implementing its polices the Government will always have to do step by step. The people must always remember that Singapore must always be a multi-racial country, and that we alone cannot stand the impact of any conflict. We must treat problems and implement our policies with sincerity, acumen, alertness and far-sightedness. We must respect the views and opinion of every Singaporean, but to consult the opinion of the people does not mean that everybody must agree on everything. Otherwise the Government machinery will grind to a halt and the situation will become worse. The important crux about consultation with the people on policies and topics is that we try to have a general discussion and afterwards arrive at a consensus of opinion and reach a basic agreement so that measures with better advantages will be adopted and implemented.

While seeking a better material life we must also strive to develop our cultural foundation and promote spiritual life so that we may not become extravagant and unrealistic. The more successful and fortunate people should try to encourage and help the less fortunate so that we may enjoy together our prosperity and good life.

Political stability, a higher educational standard of our people and the reception of higher technology are the most important factors and conditions for attracting more investment and promoting commercial and industrial development. Therefore, we must exercise proper control over the quantum changes in our population. As long as we can properly control the population to adapt to our changing environment and needs to ensure our healthy development and maintain a good and viable social environment, we will be able to have a better life through better education.

This document will enable us to march in the right direction towards a better future in building and developing our country, so that our country will successfully attain a position of distinction and excellence and our Vision for 1999. This is provided that all our people understand the moves of our Government while the Government understand the wishes of the people at the same time.

I fully endorse the Goals set out in the Agenda for Action which maintain the importance of the continuation of racial harmony and the building of a common identity. I am also of the conviction that a capable Government that enjoys the support and confidence of the people will continue to be able to bring the country to everlasting progress and success.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Sir, I wish to confine my remarks on one aspect of the Paper only, and in doing so I wish to concentrate more on the Action rather on the Agenda.

Sir, I am very pleased to note that the Agenda recognizes the need to help the poor, the physically handicapped and the disabled. But I would like the Government to do more than that. In fact, more than just making this statement, I would urge the Government to explore more as to how to help the disadvantaged in our society than merely saying, "Let us give them all the support they need." I am referring to that section of our population who do not attend forums to speak up and who cannot write to the newspapers, those who have been lagging behind the mainstream of our economic progress all these years, because when we announced our economic growth figures, it has little or no meaning to this group of people.

We have carefully designed a system that avoided a disastrous policy of unlimited subsidies. But how have we been able to help this pocket of the less advantaged, less well-off Singaporeans? Some estimates have been given that this group of people amount to 15%-20% and it belongs to the lower income group. Most of them work as odd job workers or casual labourers. The plight of these people is illustrated by the fact that they were among the first to be retrenched during the recession and they have found it most difficult to gain re-employment when the economy recovered. Because as the Ministry of Labour's survey of June 1987 showed, seven in 10 of those who were unemployed belonged to the lower income group without Primary Six education or less. I think we should do more for this group of people.

So far the Government's approach to this problem, as stated by the First Deputy Prime Minister, is through high economic growth, universal education, skills training, smaller families, etc. I think these are right. But I believe that this macro-approach has not sufficiently reduced the problems of the lower income group. The question I would like to put to the First Deputy Prime Minister is what more can the Government do to help the less privileged in Singapore? They are caught in a vicious circle. The key question is how can we help them to break out of this vicious circle? How do we upgrade the low income earners to become higher income earners? I believe we must look more carefully at the special needs of the poor. Give them hope for their children. Do this through education. Government can provide more assistance for education at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Education must be seen as a form of investment. Providing highly subsidized education to the poorer in our midst would not be too heavy a financial burden for the Government. Education is but one of the means to assist the less privileged in Singapore. Many other forms of support and assistance should also be considered. Like the Government, I believe it is better to give the less privileged a fishing rod and teach them the skill to fish than giving away free fish. This will allow the less privileged to be more resourceful and move ahead.

The First Deputy Prime Minister has announced the formation of six advisory councils or committees for the promotion of arts, leisure and others. I would urge him to set up a 7th council, a task force to study the problems facing the poor and the less privileged. The Member for Chong Boon made a similar call in this House in March 1985. I hope this time it does not fall on deaf ears. Based on a proper and detailed study, the Government can then take appropriate measures to help the poor move up the economic ladder. I would urge the Government to act quickly and effectively so that every Singaporean can share in the Vision of 1999 and participate in the building of a Nation of Excellence.

Sir, the credibility of the first generation of our political leaders was established when they implemented their vision which is spelt out in 1959 and in the early 60's. what we achieved in the Singapore of today is testimony to the credibility of the first generation leaders. The credibility of the next generation in this Vision would be established when we systematically apply ourselves to implementing the goals that we have set for ourselves. That is how we should look at the question of credibility, a matter which the Member for Potong Pasir had earlier raised.

I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir about the credibility of the SDP. For example, I would like to ask him whether in his Party there are two standards, one for the Chairman and one for the Secretary-General, particularly with respect to the issue of multi-racialism, an issue which we consider to be fundamental to the success, the stability and the progress of Singapore. Would the Member for Potong Pasir announce unequivocally in this House whether his Party subscribes to the principles of multi-racialism and whether he has sorted out his differences with his Party Chairman.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think not only myself but everybody else who has been reading the papers as well as the Petir is getting a bit tired of this subject. I would like to tell the House that, in fact, the constitution of the SDP, although it does not specifically say that we are a multi-racial party but under the section on membership our party is open to all who are above 17 years of age except that they must not be members of another party. So in that respect, we are multi-racial because our party is open to all except for certain criteria that they must not be involved with other parties. So it is multi-racial. We do not have to go on that subject again.

As far as the Chairman of the SDP is concerned, I think myself and all the other party members have great confidence in him. He is certainly a multi-racialist or he is multi-racial to the core of his bone. [Laughter]. I do not like to end with the word "racialist". It sounds very bad. He believes in multi-racialism. That is as far as our Chairman is concerned. We have every confidence in him. He is a true Singaporean and we have no doubts about him.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir whether he would ask his Chairman to state very unequivocally the fact that he supports multi-racialism.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to be given the privilege of coming up to speak so often. I can tell you that he is very disturbed by all this newspaper adverse ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, I have allowed you to rise not to make a new speech. Just respond to his point.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, he is.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Agenda for Action by the First Deputy Prime Minister actually contains in the majority the resolutions adopted by the PAP Convention held on the 23rd last month. This is the first time that the ruling party's policies have become a motion to be discussed by Parliament, when passed, to serve as guidelines for government actions. This is also the first time that we see an obvious Merger of the Party with the Government as far as policy making is concerned. This is the inevitable result of the growing strength of the PAP. We can simply say, without PAP there would not be Singapore of today. PAP has in the past apppeared in the society in low profile. However, the policy of PAP has always determined the fate of Singapore. Our party branches in all the constituencies have gone deep into the communities, conducting various kinds of useful activities, serving the people, such as the weekly meet-the-people sessions by the MPs, kindergarten classes and the BEST and WISE courses. All these have been very popular.

Although the Agenda for Action is a document adopted by the PAP Convention, it has been derived at through one whole year's consultation with the people of all walks of life throughout the length and breadth of the country. Therefore, this document can be said to be an unprecedented document of importance as it contains the consensus of the people. It contains goals which are the aspiring ideals of the people of Singapore. The objectives and idealism contained in the document although lofty are not something that cannot be reached; provided we all work hard together, we shall be able to make Singapore in 1999, a City of Excellence and a Society of Distinction.

As pointed out in paragraph 21 of the Green Paper, economic development is the foundation for political, social and other supra-structure development. Our economy under the PAP Government has achieved remarkable results every year. In spite of the 1985 economic recession, with a series of tough policies and stringent measures of the Government and with some necessary sacrifice of our people, we have rapidly revived our economic progress. Given the continuance of all the conditions for economic growth such as judicious leadership and rational society, we should be able to achieve a 6-8% yearly economic growth and there is greater possibility for us to realize the Vision 1999.

Sir, in my view, it is easier to achieve the target of a City of Excellence but it is not so easy to realize a Society of Distinction. One is a material and tangible achievement while the other is more metaphysical involving psychological development of individuals. Everybody has his own different background, and upbringing and resultant idiosyncracy and way of behaviour. It is not easy to merge all the 2.6 million individuals together and inculcate in them the same thought and consciousness and produce the same reaction and behaviour within a brief period. Our forefathers were all immigrants who came from different countries. We all have our different traditions, cultures and customs. Although we are all citizens of independent Singapore and we have a common political identity, but as regards cultural identification we still have great differences. Of course we hope to see the emergence of a unique Singapore culture, the identity with which by all people will help their emotional unity. We cannot forcefully merge all the cultures of different communities together and produce a kind of rojak culture as Singapore culture.

The evolution of a unique Singapore culture will take time. We must allow free development and interchange of different cultures a certain period of time. In the meantime, we can only seek identity from diversities and allow the cultures of all communities to develop freely while encouraging the understanding of mutual cultures and traditions.

Culture and arts will enable our people to develop similar feelings and will enrich our social life. A Society of Excellence cannot be realized without culture and arts which reflect its standing. To the world in the field of economy Singapore may be a giant, but in culture Singapore is still a dwarf.

If we want to achieve our Vision in the coming decade, we should strive harder. We cannot deny that in recent years the Government has exerted some effort in the promotion of culture and arts, while civic organizations and clan associations have also taken part in promoting culture and arts within their provinces. But to change our cultural desert into an oasis, we have to redouble our efforts. The Green Paper in paragraph 31 urges the Government plan to provide more resources for cultural and artistic development. This is something we welcome very much.

In the realm of providing cultural and artistic infrastructure, the Government's effort is still not enough. In the field of performing arts and visual arts, there is a lack of site for exhibition or activities. Although we may more or less make use of a few places like the Victoria Concert Hall and Kallang Theatre for performing arts, but compared with those big opera houses in other parts of the world, ours appear to be sub-standard. We pale by comparison. The Government may consider building a more spacious and presentable opera house.

In the field of visual arts, the situation is even worse. For exhibition purposes, the only somewhat presentable place is the Arts Gallery in the National Museum. Sometime ago there was also the Victoria Memorial Hall having some space for exhibiting some art work. Now it is being leased out as a branch bank to generate income. Increditable, indeed! Talking about the National Museum Art Galllery, it consists of only some rooms in the left wing of the National Museum. The renovation of this part of the building had cost around a million dollar funded by the Singapore Arts Council. Now this part of the building is dilapidated, being a hundred years old. Often it is infested with termites, the roof is leaking and the ceiling is dropping down. It is understood that from October this year this art gallery will be closed for major renovations for one year. There will be a greater shortage of sites for larger scale art exhibition.

As a national art gallery, in addition to an exhibition hall there should be some storehouse for the systematic collecting and storing of art works. At the moment, the National museum Art Gallery storage is not ideal. Every year, there is only some $30,000-$40,000 allotted for purchasing art pieces. Not only world famous artistic pieces are beyond our reach, even for acquiring local pieces this meagre sum is not sufficient. Therefore, a long time the National Museum Art Gallery has to depend on donations from local and foreign artists to enrich its collections.

All those who have gone abroad would know that almost in all big cities there are Art Galleries. In some cities or even provincal towns there is more than one art gallery. Now is the time for Singapore to have a proper Art Gallery at the present stage of its development. When it is completed, It will become the focal point of our visual arts and will also serve as a centre for spiritual nourishment. It should have wide storage space and adequate exhibition halls so that it can also exhibit on permanent basis artworks, not just short-term ad hoc exihibitions. Students may turn up there to appreciate or learn the art works of famous masters. This Art Gallery will be able to greatly raise our standing on world cultural map. Some of my friends have told me that if in Singapore there is a proper National Art Gallery, then they will be willing to donate some of their treasured pieces to it. Such a National Art Gallery will likely be a centre for storage of art treasures that can be admired by all. An excellent society should be one in which everybody is cultured and it must be a society that exudes abundant cultural atmosphere. In order to reach this stage, other than the Government providing the necessary foundation and basic infrastructure and the necessary encouragement, all the people must be mobilized to engage in cultural promotion. Of course, not everybody can become an author, an artist, a painter, a dancer or a musician. But with a little training, everybody can become an appreciator of arts or take up a kind of artistic pursuit as a form of recreation for them to spend their leisure time. Human nature has the potential for seeking truth, perfection and beauty. These potentials are capable of being developed given proper initiation and guidance. By then, our people will not be ignorant any more, not even knowing who Picasso or Beethoven or Shakespeare was. An excellent or graceful society is one in which the people will have a balance of material life and spiritual life. Sheer pursuit of material enjoyment will make the people mercenary and uncaring for the others and the society devoid of human compassion. Spiritual life will enable the people to realize what is meaningful living. Indeed, full spiritual living is an internal force that will drive our people forward and upward towards excellence. And this spiritual force will enable our country to be on an invincible position forever.

Sir, I fully support the motion by the First Deputy Prime Minister on the Agenda for Action. 4.46 pm

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this document, the Agenda for Action, is a very important document because it will form the basis for future government policy. I have therefore tabled it in Parliament to enable all MPs to have a chance to debate and to endorse the Goals and Challenges, as spelt out in the document.

I am pleased to note that every Member of Parliament in this House fully endorses the Agenda for Action, including the Member for Potong Pasir. He has said openly that he agrees with the contents of the document, though he may disagree in other aspects, such as the implementation of ideas in the document. I take it that he agrees with every word as contained in the document because in his speech he has not singled out a single phrase or a single word in which he may not agree with. I therefore would expect him, if he is sincere and honest, when we come to vote on the motion that he would vote in support of the motion.

I had hoped that the Member for Potong Pasir would not have followed the steps of the former Member for Anson, and that is to come to this House and make smears against the Government, not backed by evidence. He said that the Government lacked credibility because I refused to tell him when would be the date of the next General Elections. He wanted to know and he was pressing as to when the Prime Minister would retire as Prime Minister. Of course he got no answer from me so he said we were not open enough, and that the Government lacked credibility. Now, if the Government lacks credibility, how would the Member explain that this party has won every General Election since 1959 and each time with more than 50% of the votes? How would he explain the homes which we have built for the people, the MRT, the beautiful city, and the fact that he can have a successful practice in law in Singapore? Lack of credibility? Be realistic and do not come to this House just to smear, and hoping that he can in the process gain some disaffected votes.

He said that the Government, if it believes in democracy, should hold by-elections in Anson and Geylang West. Now, where does it state in the law that a by-election has to be held at all? There are now two seats vacant and I am giving the Member for Potong Pasir advance notice that soon 79 seats will be vacant in this House. He should make good use of the time, the notice which I am giving him, to look for good candidates, if he can get them, to meet us in the General Elections in all 79 seats. He might claim that he would not be able to do so because we have de-politicized Singaporeans. Have we in any way stopped the Member for Potong Pasir should he wish to call mass rallies to politicize the people? Has he not been holding forums to meet our points? Of course, we know that his forum has not been very well attended. I believe maybe about 100-150 people attended.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why don't you attend and find out?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: We know because I send members from Marine Parade to your forums from time to time. And if we do not do so, I think your audience would have been smaller!

He made another smear against the Government - that people in Singapore fear to speak up.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I clarify?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Goh, are you giving way to him?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have not made any smear. I have made a point and I backed it up with reasons. So I do not think it is fair. Please justify what you say. Where did I smear the Government or say anything which I have not backed up with reasons?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought he was going to challenge me on a very important point. When a Member comes into this House and merrily say that the Government has no credibility to implement the Agenda for Action when that Government has won every election since 1959 and has built, by his own acknowledgement, a modern Singapore, you say that is not a smear against the Government?

Mr Chiam See Tong: But I backed it up with my reasons. You want me to repeat?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Please desist from repeating your smear.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Repeat with reasons.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Now, he took exception with the Government for the way it handled the Law Society. I think if members of the Law Society were to repeat their past actions, and that is, to stray away from its legitimate right of presenting views on Bills, the Government will again have to take them through the same course of action.

There is no restriction on anybody who wants to speak up in Singapore. Honourable people with honourable intentions and honourable views do not have to fear speaking up in public, criticizing the Government, if they think they have got a point of view. But we cannot allow anyone just to merrily throw stones at the Government. We reserve the right to reply. This point must be clear to the Member for Potong Pasir and to all Singaporeans - that the Government insists on the right of reply, whether stones are thrown at the Government by local Singaporeans or by foreigners. You have the right to speak; we have the right to reply. It is not the fear of speaking up that prevents them from speaking up. It is the fear of the way the Government will reply to them, in the process humiliating them perhaps, when we show them up to be people with no serious views, no serious arguments against our point of view, people who are unable to back up their criticism. And the same applies to our reaction to the Law Society when they took on the Government - that we were trying to stifle dissent when we moved the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act in this House. We asked for the right to reply and in the process, some of them were hurt.

When we arrested the people who were involved in the Marxist conspiracy, the interview given by one of them proved our point - that they were using the Law Society for a purpose outside the legitimate interests of the profession and the Society. I have here the transcript of the TV telecast given by Tang Fong Har. She was making the point on how they had moved into the Law Society and using the Law Society for a purpose outside the Law Society. I quote:

'And we talked practically nothing, except the 1984 General Elections. [She was referring to her conversation with one Paul Lim.] And Paul Lim is a very excitable person. He gesticulates a lot. He made many points and he was in favour, he stressed, he emphasized that it is important that perhaps there is a need for more effective opposition.'

And Paul Lim encouraged Tang Fong Har to move into the Law Society and to turn the Law Society more effectively for their purpose. To quote Tang Fong Har again:

'I could not recall whether it was at the same discussion or subsequently at another discussion, but Paul Lim specifically talked to Soh Lung and myself about our work in the Law Society.'

And later on, she went on to say that:

'It would be good to have lawyers, be discussive about things outside, issues outside the legal profession. But as far as I could recall, he did not specifically suggest any project.'

Would you expect the Government not to react to the Law Society when it transgressed its rightful path? Surely any government must be vigilant in its preservation of law and order, in ensuring that members of profession stick to their charter.

Another the event happened only last year, but the Member for Potong Pasir seems to have forgotten that had it not been for the vigilance of the Police, the Internal Security Department, there could have been some racial skirmishes.

The Internal Security Department arrested four Muslims who were out to create racial riots. I am surprised that within a matter of nine months, the Member for Parliament has forgotten this incident. And it is timely that we should remind Singaporeans from time to time that such possibility of disorder can erupt any time. Four Muslims - one, who was a Fire and Security Officer, who was dismissed from the Police Force; another, a Police Constable attached to Tanglin Police Station; the third a driver, and the fourth a student. The information for this conspiracy by the four Muslims came from members of the Malay community themselves. Have we not reached a stage where there was mutual trust and confidence, where there was accommodation between members of the Malay community and the other races, that information would not had been forthcoming. And that is the position which we want to achieve under our Agenda for Action - to create a multi-racial society whereby there is mutual trust and confidence amongst the various members of the different communities. But in our pursuit of the goals in our Agenda for Action, we have to be vigilant to ensure that no such group will on the quiet work to disrupt the harmony in our society. By all means speak up but do not burrow yourself underground, hide yourself behind legal associations, and plan to create mischief. Because if we do discover that mischief is being planned, we would have to take very stern action against them.

I made that point to counter the Member for Potong Pasir's argument that Singaporeans are rational, that they would not go on riot. I am telling the Member that had it not been for the vigilance of the ISD there could have been a racial skirmish. And maybe if conditions had not been created for the races to live in harmony, that incident could have erupted into something more serious.

The Member made another point that Singaporeans can now do many things for themselves. They can run their own companies like Nixdorf. I think he lacks a sense of reality. Nixdorf is a German company and it is successful. You have to bear in mind that it is formed by people coming from a continent comprising more than 300 million people. We only have 2(r) million Singaporeans. Do you think Singaporeans can just create a Nixdorf? We can do things ourselves? We should be grateful that we are able to attract companies like Nixdorf Singapore. Nixdorf, well known as it is, is in no way a giant as compared to IBM and Fujitsu. And you want these multi-national companies to be out of Singapore, these multi-nationals be kept away, so that Singaporeans can do things for themselves? We have to have a sense of proportion, a sense of reality. There are certain things which we can do but there are many things which we cannot do. And if we cannot run a multi-national company like Nixdorf, at least we can train ourselves to have the necessary skills to work in such companies and thereby improve ourselves.

Now may I touch on another note, that is, the population policy. I feel quite strongly that in order for us to carry out Vision, we have got to be able to mobilize our people to recognize that we do face a very serious problem, ie, if we do not reproduce ourselves, the vitality that is present in this place will be sapped away. You can still feel the vitality now, but 25 years from now if we do not succeed in increasing the population fertility rate, then this place would not be the same as it is today. Last year, we came out with this new population policy to encourage Singaporeans to have three children and more if they can afford it.

There is, however, a danger that this policy may be misunderstood by some people - that it means that instead of "Have three and more if you can afford it", it means "Have more". The danger of over-population is far more serious than the danger of under-population. It is not a policy of encouraging everybody just to have more babies, which is why we had this stop-at-two policy some years ago. We have to take into account our resources within the family, as well as the resources within the country, the capacity to support ourselves before we have more and more babies.

There is no contradiction in terms. You want to have more babies to improve your fertility rate but that should not be translated into just "having more babies. It is "Have more if you can afford it". It is important that I make this point. Otherwise, very quickly we may have to reverse the policy because everybody is having more children whether or not he can afford it.

The policy which we have announced seems to be producing some results. But at this stage I am unable to say whether it is the result of our new policy or whether it is because the policy coincides with the year of the Dragon and the year of the Rabbit. Last year, the total number of marriages increased by 17% over 1986. That is healthy. The number of births increased by 14% over 1986, from 38,380 babies to about 44,000 babies. That is positive.

You might recall seeing an article in the Straits Times of a young couple holding a large number of stuffed toys, teddy bears, and proudly proclaiming that they would not be having any babies. They are happier with teddy bears. If all Singaporeans take that attitude, we will end up with more teddy bears than people in Singapore and that would be the end of Singapore.

I do not propose to answer every point that has been brought up by Members of Parliament. Many of the points concern details which I will leave to the appropriate Minister to answer during the Budget session. I would like, however, to comment on one or two points raised by some Members. The Member for Kampong Ubi suggested that Government should show more support for Mendaki in its effort to raise the educational level of the Malay community. Yes, of course, I think we would support Mendaki as much as we can. I would suggest that Mendaki should also explore other areas like the drug problem facing the Malay community. Mendaki should try and recruit more members into its management committee so that they can focus their minds on, not just educational, drug addiction problems, but also other social problems which the Malay community may face or is facing even now.

The Member for Kolam Ayer asked what would be the policy of the Government with regard to the settlement of the various communities in housing estates. He understood that the policy was to spread the different communities over the different housing estates in Singapore so that each housing estate would be a fair representation of Singapore. In other words, in each housing estate you would find Chinese, Malays and Indians, more or less reflecting their population proportion. He supported this policy. But he has observed that because we allow owners to sell off their flats, there is a tendency for some blocks to be attracting more members from a particular community. He was, I believe, referring to the 3-room blocks of HDB flats where, because of our resale policy, more and more Malays are moving in. I detect that he was concerned that this might lead to an over-representation of a particular community within a block. And he asked what our policy on this was. I think the basic policy of wanting to have a fair mix of population in each housing estate and within each block remains. The question is how do we implement this? Over here, I would look to the Malay Members of Parliament for suggestions as to how best we could implement this policy, how to persuade the people that it is in our interest that each block of flats and each housing estate, has a fair mix of Singaporeans.

Now that Parliament has debated the Green Paper and given its unanimous approval, the next step is for us to prepare the programmes to implement our goals, our vision. I propose to adopt a sectoral approach instead of a generalised approach. In other words, focus on specific subjects and plan programmes accordingly to advance the interests within that particular sector.

I have announced earlier at the PAP Convention that we intend to form six advisory councils. The idea is to have members outside Government represented on the councils so that policies and programmes as formulated by civil servants, by the Government, can be assessed by others outside the Government. This way, programmes that we would formulate would be more national in character and we can be more sure that different points of view are debated and taken into account before we implement them.

The subject matters fall very much within one Ministry - the Ministry for Community Development. Hence, the idea of having one council headed by a different Minister. Otherwise all resources would have to come from a particular Ministry and that would be too narrow a base for us to come out with national programmes to advance our goals as spelt out in our Agenda for Action. The Culture and the Arts Council will be chaired by the Second Deputy Prime Minister; Sports and Recreation by Mr Dhanabalan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and National Development; Family and Community Life by the Minister for Community Development; Youth by BG Lee, Minister for Trade and Industry; the Advisory Council for the Disabled will be chaired by Dr Tony Tan, Minister for Education; and the Council for the Aged, the elderly, will be headed by Prof. S. Jayakumar, Minister for Home Affairs.

The Member for Kebun Baru suggested that we should have another council to focus on the needs of the lower income group. I had thought of that council before we decided on the six. The reason why I did not announce the formation of this council was that I do not want to give any false hopes or expectations to the people. The very name of a Council for the Poor, I think, will raise a lot of expectations. Unless we are clear as to what our programmes are and unless we are sure that we can come up with meaningful programmes to advance the interests of the poor in a way in which we have not done up to now, I would hesitate to form a committee. Our formula for eradicating poverty has worked. And that formula will be followed. The formula is to give every Singaporean every opportunity to advance himself through education, a job and self-reliance. That formula has allowed us to successfully increase the number of home owners in Singapore. It has allowed many of us to be here in Parliament. I know for a fact that the Member for Kebun Baru came from a rather humble background, but that formula has allowed him to go beyond that lower income group. The same formula applies to me. I used to live in a wooden house where some 20 people would queue up for one bathroom. My son now lives in a house where he has his own bathroom. So we have to look for the reasons why people still remain where they are. It does not mean that we should not pay specific attention to that group.

As I said, our approach now is to be sectoral instead of generalized. I would be happy to reflect on the Member's suggestion as to how we can structure a committee to look into the needs of the lowest income group. I would define the lowest income group as that group which is still unable to own homes. Then the picture is definite. Then we know whom we are talking about. "Poor" means different things to different people. A five-roomer occupant can claim he is poor if he is compared to a Singaporean who lives in a bungalow. We can confine our interest to one particular group, the 20% or so Singaporeans who have not yet own their own homes. How can we get them to own their own homes? How can we improve the educational level of their children? How can we convince them that the way to break out of the poverty trap is not to have more children than they can afford? It is useful for us to think through this before we set up the committee because, as I said, unless we are very clear as to what it is we are capable of achieving, we should not give false hopes to the people who may be affected.

Sir, I would like to thank all Members for their contribution to the debate on the Agenda for Action. Now that Parliament, from the speeches made by MPs, has fully endorsed the Agenda for Action, we are ready for the next step which is a Programme of Action, and you will see us coming out with such programmes and implementing them in a matter of months. [Applause].

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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.