IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL AGENDA

12.35 pm

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Green Paper on the Agenda for Action was adopted by Parliament in February this year as the guideline for Government policy that would lead Singapore into the 21st century. It was the culmination of more than one year's effort in involving large numbers of people from all walks of life in consensus building. As such, the document belongs to the whole nation. It is an agreement between the people and the Government on what our national objectives are, and how we should achieve them.

At the tabling of the Green Paper, the First Deputy Prime Minister promised to commit the full weight of the Government machinery to the implementation of the Agenda. But the events of the last few months - beginning with the re-arrest of the eight ex-detainees in April, followed by the detention of Patrick Seong, to the disclosure of the Hendrickson affair, the detention of Francis Seow, and lately, the White Paper on Devan Nair - have taken up so much of the Government's and the public's attention that they threaten to distract our efforts from putting the Agenda into action. In addition, these events have caused a lot of bewilderment, confusion and sadness to the nation. Now that these issues have been adequately dealt with, I feel it is the duty of someone from the Backbenches to call upon the Government to quickly put them behind us and to concentrate on the tasks that lie ahead.

In all of these events, it was necessary for the Government to take action. The Government did not cause these events to happen. It was only reacting to them, as they unfolded, one by one. When a group of ex-detainees issued a joint statement denying their involvement in the Marxist plot and alleging mistreatment at the hands of the Internal Security Department's officers, the Government had to investigate into their allegations. When the Hendrickson affair was discovered, the Government had to protest. When Mr Devan Nair denied his medical condition at the time of his resignation, the Government had to clarify. However, it was very difficult for the general public to absorb the huge amount of information that suddenly flooded the mass media, in the form of published statutory declarations, press conferences, news reports, columns in the Forum pages, and what have you. There was hardly any time to digest the full significance of one issue before another would emerge. And in spite of the time, energy and resources that we spent on explaining and clarifying, some people are still not convinced; others feel the Government has over-reacted. In the case of the White Paper, nobody is delighted by it. In fact, we are all saddened and embarrassed by it.

Perhaps, Sir, the most unfortunate thing that has emerged from all these events is the widespread perception, particularly among the professionals and intellectuals, and even among some grassroots, that the Government has used these events to sound a warning to its critics, or worse still, to crack down on dissent. This perception threatens to counter all the worthwhile efforts we have made towards an open-style government which is the very essence of the consultation process that gave birth to the Agenda for Action in the first place.

In retrospect, the perception has developed over a couple of years out of what seem to be conflicting signals from the Government itself. On the one hand, the open-style is evidenced in the work of the Economic Committee in 1985; the formation of the Feedback Unit, March 1985; formation of the nine Government Parliamentary Committees, February 1987; and the National Agenda forums throughout 1987. But on the other hand, there were the controversial Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, September 1986; Legal Profession (Amendment) Act, October 1986; gazetting of Time magazine, October 1986; Asian Wall Street Journal, February 1987; Asiaweek, October 1987; Far Eastern Economic Review, December 1987; and the arrest of the Marxists in May and June last year. These seem to indicate the Government has little tolerance for criticism.

The Government's actions on each of those controversial issues during 1986 and 1987 were based on reasons specific to the circumstances of each case. The issues concerned were different, separate issues, but some members of the public see a connecting line between them. They see a design, a fitting together of a pattern. They doubt the sincerity of the Government. They feel disenchanted, discouraged and some even feel intimidated. This kind of perception, if left unchecked, will eat into the confidence of the people in the younger generation leaders. To win back the critics and the skeptics, we require patience and gentleness; firmness, yes, but not what may be construed as heavy-handedness.

Meanwhile, we must turn back immediately to our task of meeting the needs and aspirations of the majority of the population. The majority of Singaporeans are more concerned over jobs, housing, and education for their children. They fully appreciate the success with which the Government has revived the economy within two years of the 1985 recession. They have taken their CPF cut in great stride and supported wage restraint. Now that the economy is doing well again, they expect a fair share of the rewards. Small and medium-sized local enterprises still look to the Government for assistance and workers, young and old, depend on the Government to provide training and retraining. Beyond these bread and butter issues, the population also aspires for more social and cultural opportunities, for more meaningful family and community life. All these needs have been given proper recognition in the Agenda for Action.

It is undeniable that such needs can only be met if the fundamentals are kept intact. Thus, it is instructive to remind the population occasionally that it should not be complacent. To my mind, the debates generated by the Herzog visit, the Commission of Inquiry into allegations of executive interference into the judiciary, the Commission of Inquiry into Mr Teh Cheang Wan, the Marxist plot and the Hendrickson affair, have reminded our people of the importance of fundamentals. But these have also cost much precious time during the last two eventful years. Now, we must press on with our work of leading the country onto a higher plane of development. We have very important legislation still to be considered. We have the work of Town Councils to be implemented and we still look forward to the recommendations of the six Advisory Councils. I would appreciate the First Deputy Prime Minister's re-assurance that he will put the full weight of the Government's machinery behind the implementation of their recommendations.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I agree fully with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Changkat. Since May last year, the Government and indeed the whole nation have been sidetracked from our main goal of building consensus to achieve our vision of a developed, vibrant and creative society. I agree with her that we should press on with our job, that we should get back on track and that we should apply the full weight of Government to implement the goals as spelt out in the Agenda for Action. We have many big decisions to take and more work to do before we can achieve a more mature and participative democracy.

Since the last general election, Members would know that we have moved quickly and decisively to build consensus amongst the people and to involve them in major decisions which the country has to take. In May 1985, we reversed the 'graduate mother' policy which has hurt the people and alienated them. In August 1986, we resolved the CPF withdrawal issue. Then in March 1987 we revised our population policy to reverse the declining fertility rate in our population. We helped more in the lower income group to own homes and we built more creches to help working mothers. In December 1984, 81% of our population owned the HDB flats they live in. In June 1988, the percentage has gone up to 86%, an increase of 5%. In December 1984, there were 50 creches; in June 1988, 146; number of places available to children has also gone up from 3,000 to nearly 9,000.

We have introduced a more participative style of government. We recognize that younger Singaporeans want to contribute their ideas and energy to nation building. And we encourage them. By involving them in major decisions, they will understand the rationale behind our policies, and they will understand national policies better. And because they are involved in these major decisions facing the country, they will be more committed to their implementation.

More than 1,000 members of the public directly participated in the deliberations of the Economic Committee and its sub-Committees.

The National Agenda discussion involved thousands of Singaporeans in identifying the goals for the nation and the challenges facing us.

The Feedback Unit, chaired by the Member for Ayer Rajah, played a particularly active role in the National Agenda discussion. The Unit also collates and analyses feedback from members of the public and send them to the Government for attention.

We established Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) in Parliament. Each GPC has between 10 to 15 resource panel members from outside Parliament. So about 100 concerned Singaporeans are involved in parliamentary debate indirectly through their GPCs.

We have recently set up Advisory Councils on specific subjects. These Councils will again involve more Singaporeans to draw up programmes for the nation. This way the programmes will not just be the product of civil servants and the Ministers, but they will be the product of Singaporeans who have something to contribute to the nation.

Town Councils, which will be established after the general election, will further involve Singaporeans in decision-making at the constituency level. They will truly make Singapore a participative democracy.

But, alas, our more open and participative style of government has been clouded by several events over the last 17 months. But remember that these events were not initiated by us. They were initiated by people opposed to the Government, opposed to what we want to do for Singapore.

Should we be more tolerant and liberal-minded and not arrest the young Singaporeans who conspired to upset our political stability in matters of national security? I believe in nipping the problem in the bud. It will be a dereliction of duty to let the conspiracy grow because then more young Singaporeans may have to be arrested. This will be painful and, therefore, we decided to move in earlier than later.

But remember that the Marxist Conspiracy, the Hendrickson Affair, the Devan Nair White Paper - all these were not initiated by us. They were responses or actions forced upon the Government.

We should not let these distractions sidetrack us from pursuing our goal of building a better Singapore, of achieving a more participative democracy. There are many big decisions to take. We want to involve Singaporeans in taking them.

We have taken a big decision on ensuring that Parliament would always remain multi-racial. We have introduced the concept of Group Representation Constituencies or voting candidates in a general election on a team basis.

This morning I tabled a White Paper on elected President. It is an important amendment to the Constitution and Singaporeans should be involved in understanding the change and debating the change before we finalize the Bill for Parliament.

We can involve Singaporeans in more participation in public debates through the GPCs. After the General Election, in the next Parliament, I intend to allow GPCs to conduct public hearings similar to the way the US Congressional Committees hold public hearings on specific subjects of importance to the country.

There are also major projects which the Government has to evaluate more thoroughly before implementing them. These require time. They require thought, careful deliberations before we decide upon them. For example, should we extend the MRT? Should we build a cultural and leisure complex for the performing arts? Should we set up a second university or allow private universities to be set up in Singapore? Should we widen the Johor Causeway or build a second link to Johor? All these are big decisions. They involve millions of dollars. Can we afford them? We can if we can ensure continued investments in Singapore. We can if we can ensure continued economic growth. But this itself hinges on political stability. I, therefore, agree with the Member for Changkat that we should not be distracted by extraneous events. We should press on with the job.

Singapore is already a middle-class society in terms of income level and home ownership. It is not yet middle-class in terms of life-style or values. The desire to have more room for dissenting views to be heard publicly is part of the yearnings of a middle-class society. So is the desire for a more open, a more liberal political climate. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are we ready for it? To be freer requires a more mature, a more responsible people. Freedom cannot be absolute. It is relative and must be matched by maturity and responsibility. Are we sure that our society is so matured that we can publicly and freely discuss all issues, including sensitive issues? I do not think we are ready yet. But we can begin to discuss these issues as part of our maturing process and we have already started discussing these issues publicly. For example, Malays in the SAF - it was a sensitive issue but we decided that it could be brought out into the open as part of the process for our society to mature. And as our society matures and becomes more integrated, we can loosen up further. To do so too early will lead to anarchy and disintegration of our society. Even then, we have always to be sensitive to the feelings of our neighbours. We do not live in isolation. And for us to discuss internal politics, our discussion may impinge on the feelings of our neighbours.

In the meantime, I prefer to involve concerned Singaporeans quietly and meaningfully in Town Councils and public committees, like the Advisory Councils and resource panels of GPCs. Through these committees, their views and ideas can be garnered and absorbed by the Government for the national good. This is the way I prefer to build consensus. My job is to forge consensus, not to encourage dissent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes to One o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.