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

12.50 pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed privileged to be given the opportunity to speak and to move the Motion of Thanks to the President.

Sir, I beg to move,

That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".

The Sixth Parliament saw a period of significant changes and emerging trends in our nation. This Seventh Parliament stands on the threshold of a society that could well be markedly different from the one that we have known. Our job, as a government, would be to consolidate those changes which seek to bring our country to a higher level of economic, social and political development and to arrest or reverse those trends with the potential for instability and possibly chaos.

The President's Address provides us with the broad direction that this Government should take. And I therefore urge my colleagues in this Chamber to consider and debate the speech carefully and seriously.

Sir, economic concerns have taken a somewhat lower profile in the speech. The emphasis has been on moulding values and institutions in preparation for a qualitative change in Singapore.

It is in the political arena that changes and happenings have been most dramatic. We introduced the GRC concept, town councils, the proposal for an Elected President and saw the change to a younger political leadership. We launched the National Agenda, set up Government Parliamentary Committees and mooted the formulation of a National Ideology. We witnessed the passing of a Minister, the disqualification of an MP, and the resignation of a President.

All these serve to heighten the political awareness of our population and will no doubt have a deep and lasting impact on our future. The success of a new political contract between government and the people concluded at the last General Election and of the new political leadership will depend on how we proceed from here, how they are accepted by the people, how practicable and effective they are.

There is no doubt, Sir, that our people have become more politically conscious and discerning. They are now more prepared than previously to articulate their views and criticisms, more eager to participate in the running of the country.

Sir, one section of the population that we have to pay particular attention to is the young among us. Those between 15 and 30 years old make up about 32% of the population. This is a significant proportion, judging by their numbers and considering the role that this group would play in shaping our future. About 8 in 10 are below 25 years of age, which means that they have grown up in a period of increasing affluence and political stability.

Speaking to many young people left me with the impression that few really appreciate the constraints, limitations and challenges that dictate our lives here. Many also feel that we have exaggerated somewhat these challenges and limitations without realizing that they have not inhibited our progress because we have so far managed them effectively and efficiently. And unfortunately too, some of the youths who do appreciate these challenges would rather leave for other freer and bigger countries than stay on to contribute.

Sir, the entire memory of local politics among youths is filled with relative political calm in a one-party dominated government which, to quote an academic friend, "benevolently regulates every niche in one's life". Compared with the liberalism seen and read about in other countries, it is therefore understandable if our youths, especially the well-educated ones, should feel constrained and restless, and their expectations of local politics different from the generations before them. This trend is already discernible and this trend is becoming stronger.

But the trend is also no less significant among the older age groups. Some perhaps have forgotten their earlier political experiences; some perhaps think that our political history and methods have no bearing on the present and on the future. Yet others want changes because of perceived personal injustice done to them.

The sum total of all this, Sir, is that more Singaporeans wish for a more participatory form of government, less regulation, more flexibility. I remember the then Member for Changkat had alluded to these growing sentiments in a similar motion at the last session of Parliament, and I am reiterating her point as I see the trend gathering momentum.

To be sure the Government has responded to these changes. The Feedback Unit was established, GPCs were formed, the Institute of Policy Studies was set up, Advisory Councils were formed.

We should therefore continue and even enhance our consultative and more open style of government. More ways should be found to accommodate dissenting views and to seek out alternative suggestions so long as they are constructive. This process, Sir, may mean slower but, I am sure, more acceptable decisions for the people. The conditions are right, the people want it.

The Government should therefore be more forthcoming with explanations on policy proposals and decisions and provide the public with more information wherever possible. Feedback should continue to be sought and acted upon. More innovative carrot-and-stick methods should be looked into. Till now we have depended heavily on monetary rewards and penalties to achieve our aims and solve our problems. To slow traffic growth, more taxes; to discourage increase in foreign maids, we up the levy and make all employers pay the security deposit cash, regardless of whether or not they abuse the system.

Sir, the danger of monetary penalties is that they can be easily overcome as we continue to prosper, without the objectives of these penalties being necessarily achieved. But worse, they may imbue in our citizens the impression that money can solve almost everything and rankle those without the means to pay.

Let me touch briefly, Sir, on the Elected President proposal. I am heartened by the President's assurance that the issue would be discussed fully before it is implemented. This is important because we should not be seen to be bulldozing the proposal, beneficial as it may be, onto a reluctant and sceptical population. My own experience in the recent General Election indicated that the method has yet to be conclusively resolved. There are people who do not agree with the proposal even among those who claim that they voted for the PAP. We may proceed to equate voting for the PAP as a package which includes assent for the proposal. But there are nevertheless voters who make a very clear distinction between support for the Party and agreeing with the proposal. This we must not dismiss altogether, otherwise they will feel cheated if we do not make this distinction too. We therefore must proceed carefully and unhastily.

The bottom line, Sir, is that the Government will have to be more responsive to the expectations and aspirations of Singaporeans. But at the same time, the Government will have to continue to remind Singaporeans of our constraints, our limitations, and the challenges that lie ahead for the nation. The latter must accept that we are unique in many respects and what works in other countries need not necessarily be workable in our context. And so long as our fragility and constraints are recognized, changes within these boundaries need not be feared and our political stability can be assured.

Let me now proceed, Sir, to the subject of the National Ideology. The proposed formulation was first introduced by the First Deputy Prime Minister in October last year. This was prompted by the need to institutionalize a system of core values to serve as our national ethic in view of the continuing drift of our people, especially the younger ones, towards more liberal western values and attitudes, and to build a more united and cohesive Singaporean society.

As with all things new, the proposed formulation of a National Ideology (NI) has its share of sceptics and its share of critics. Do we really need one? Why now? Will it not impose certain values on our citizens? These are some of the questions asked and indeed they must be answered satisfactorily.

But the most daunting task, Sir, will be the search for and choice of values that will be part of the NI. The inherent nature of the NI and the heterogeneity of our society inevitably begs the question: Whose values do we adopt? And given the distribution of communities into the majority and the minorities, the natural and expected question from the latter would be: will the majority determine and impose their will on us? The reaction is understandable.

Sir, it is one thing for people to dress in others' national constumes or to partake of other culinary traditions. But to adopt from elsewhere and call one's own something as personal, as deep and powerful as a value, is a different and more serious exercise altogether. I am therefore gladdened first, by the views of the Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs who cautioned against cultural chauvinism and then, more recently, by the Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence, who assured us that the national ideology was not a ruse for imposing Confucian values on the minority communities. Now that the game rules have been established, I hope we can get on with the search for the values which will be included in the NI.

I therefore urge everyone, and the minority communities included,to participate fully in this search for there is much that everyone can contribute. And my appeal, Sir, is for everyone to keep an open mind, sceptics and crticis alike, about the NI and give our sincere and honest input.

Indeed, the national ideology is for the future, something which we will bequeath to the generations that are to come. However, I can see an immediate benefit in the very process of the search for the set of values, for it would require the whole nation to consciously bring its mind to bear on the whole range of ideals and their sources for possible inclusion in the NI. In so doing, each of us will have to define our own concepts and ideas and compare and contrast them with those of our neighbours.

This, Sir, is an education in itself, for as we examine the validity of our own assumptions, our own premises and conclusions and judge them against those of others, we increase our awareness and understanding of the social, political and emotional environment in this country. And provided we conduct this process honestly and constructively, I am confident that we can arrive at a consensus on what the national ideology should contain. And we need not do so in a hurry, Sir, for we must be seen to be working with rather than for the people on this project. Already some have dismissed this whole process as merely going through the motion and that Government has already determined what the NI should be, all completed and stashed away somewhere merely awaiting announcement at the appropriate moment.

One final point, Sir, on this subject and that involves the term "national ideology" itself. One organization feels that the word "ideology" invites misinterpretation. It has political connotations and could create discomfort for some who may feel that they are ascribing to some political thought. And this organization suggests the word "philosophy" instead as a possible alternative. This may be a matter of semantics and does not stray from the form and purpose of the set of values that we seek to build for the nation. But if it makes for a more acceptable final product, the Government should consider looking into this suggestion.

Let me now go on to multi-racialism which, to my mind, is a cornerstone of our nation. Sir, we speak tirelessly of the need for the various communities here to live in peace and harmony with each other. But after doing so for so long, I believe we still have to continually remind ourselves of this crucial need for the country. This is because we have seen nations, previously models of multi-racialism, crack or crumble almost overnight because of breakdown in racial relations. This is because there are still chauvinists and communalists even among the educated among us. This is because should we be divided by race, the country may never ever recover from the destruction. So it is imperative that we be sensitive when it comes to discussing race or when we handle issues which impinge on race.

Sir, brought up in an atmosphere where open discussions of race were taboo, I found the recent statements on racial issues at first unsettling. It was just like standing up to walk immediately after having sat cross-legged for hours on end. Never before had issues on race been discussed that openly and often with candour.

I must confess that I had felt uneasy and even chagrined by the emerging frankness with which references to my own community were made. It appeared that we did nothing right. It seemed that we were singled out for regular unmeritorious mention. The reaction and perception of the Malay community, Sir, were not unsimilar and even many non-Malay friends asked me for the reasons for this new phenomenon. Indeed it came to a point when some members of my own community were on the verge of disowning my Malay parliamentary colleagues and me for not openly championing their interests or challenging strongly enough the perceived indignities aimed at the community.

Sir, I have used this episode and personal experience to illustrate the sensitivities and the realities of our multi-racial society. Like an eggshell, it is so easy to crack, immensely difficult to patch up. Yet, I do not propose that we stop the trend of discussing race openly and frankly provided we know and accept the limits. For keeping it a forbidden subject would mean each of us continuing to live with our own preconceptions, our own prejudices and our own stereotypes. We will continue to live in ignorance of one another, depending on hearsay, on rumours, and act as such and pass on our own values and attitudes to our children and theirs.

I do concede, Sir, that in the initial stages such openness could heighten our consciousness of race and its various issues. Many will be uncomfortable and even feel hurt. But I believe that if we proceed carefully and cautiously, all this can come to pass. The potential explosiveness of the subject will be diffused and we will emerge more at ease with our own individual differences. It may take some time and it will need a lot more effort and the right frame of mind.

While we are being increasingly open we will still have to maintain our sensitivities and indeed increase our tolerance. And for the time being at least, there will still be ethnic issues which many of us are still unprepared to deal with openly but discussed only among the informed and only behind closed doors. Openness, Sir, must be comfortable for all. It must be to seek better understanding. It must be to clarify. It must build; never, never, Sir, a licence for indiscriminate or irresponsible comment or accusation.

On the other hand, sincere and constructive comment or statement should be viewed in like manner and taken positively. I do realize that this may be easier said than done but a beginning will have to be attempted if any headway is to be achieved at all.

Sir, sensitivity does not stop at mere avoidance of unwanted utterances and unwanted acts. It also implies taking into account ethnic factors in every field of endeavour, as the President rightly pointed out in his Address. A case in point is the unequal rates of progress among the different communities here.

The need for the Malay community to keep up with the others must be the concern of the community itself. But it has to be viewed, as has been pointed out, as a national issue and problem. No society can remain unaffected for long if one of its component communities perceives itself as being far behind the others and left with only a meagre slice of the economic pie. I am therefore gratified with the President's assurance that Government will continue to assist the Malay community to further progress into the mainstream of national life. And reading between the lines, Sir, I hope I am right in concluding that this includes assistance to the proposed Mendaki II project to uplift the Malay community.

I concede there may be political costs involved. But then again, such costs can be minimized if everyone can see the issue as a national rather than a purely communal one. To be sure, the Malay community itself must play its part and is a more crucial one too. The opportunities which present themselves must be grabbed, worked at and snowballed to further upgrade the community. For no amount of assistance will help unless the community itself makes its own efforts to progress. Without this effort, it is like gorging on cake and ice-cream while running on a treadmill to reduce one's weight.

The community must therefore support the proposed institution and participate in the programmes it intends to organize, and indeed all other Government and community programmes and policies aimed at improving the community. This will indicate to the Government and to the rest of society that the community is serious and positive and committed to respond to the schemes beneficial to the community and, by extension, Sir, to the nation.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Siglap.

Sir, when the President informed this House of his Government's policies last Monday, he also focused the nation's mission for the next five years. The task ahead will be to build on, to monitor, and to protect what has been achieved. As the goals are to bring us, the people, nearer to the Society of Excellence, the goals touch on the welfare of all Singaporeans. Sir, it is therefore not just the Government's responsibility to see that these goals are achieved. The people has a greater responsibility to cooperate and work closely with the Government to see that the goals are achieved. It is not just the business of the Government but the responsibility of all Singaporeans to develop everyone's potentials and see to it that Singaporeans enjoy material satisfaction and lead a meaningful and full life. Sir, the people and the Government must share the same vision and determination if we are to ensure more good years.

In order to reach our goals, the people must fully understand all the problems and reach a consensus on them through deliberations and consultations. We must reach an understanding and consensus over major issues ahead of us, such as the National Ideology and the Elected President system. But, Sir, solving problems by consensus, although rather new to us, has been used by the Japanese in their everyday lives. It may be a bit time consuming but it has been able to produce peace and harmony and allow all parties concerned to emerge satisfied. We had some good experience of consensus building when the nation discussed the National Agenda and the flexible wage system. Both the Government and the people will still need to learn a lot more about mutual consultations and consensus building. With the higher educational and intellectual level of Singaporeans, Sir, consensus building shall not be difficult to achieve.

To ensure the general well-being of the country, Singaporeans must live in harmony. Inter-racial unity is the basis for our nation's long-term welfare and stability. But on the 6th January this year the Minister for National Development warned of the dangerous trend of a drift towards separate racial enclaves in the housing estates. The President in his opening address reiterated that this unhealthy trend towards segregation must be arrested. Sir, the way the Minister for National Development analysed and brought this matter out for discussion is commendable. It was not directed at any particular race, but at all the races as the problem concerns everyone in the country. What was stressed was the principle behind the thinking and the Minister's quick assurance that no HDB resident will be required to move from his present flat was reassuring.

Sir, basically every Singaporean subscribes to the idea that we cannot afford and should not return to the old days of separate racial enclaves as the trend now starts to show. But in buying a house, whether a new one or a resale unit, people certainly choose a housing estate for practical reasons such as convenience of location in regard to place of work, in the neighbourhood of relatives and friends and, most important of all, the price of the flat must be within the budget. Some of my Malay friends told me that while they do not quarrel with the statistics shown by the Minister, they feel that they have good reasons which the Minister did not consider. They told me that those who could afford to buy 4-room flats or 5-room flats have a wider choice of the new housing estates. But for those who cannot afford this range, they have to go for 3-room resale flats as the HDB had closed the register for new 3-room flats since 1983. And we must also not forget that the price differential between new flats and resale flats is substantial. We are comparing $80,000 or more for 4-room improved flats with about $35,000-40,000 for 3-room resale flats. Sir, as a result, the number of choice available is limited. If they have to buy 3-room resale flats, it means that their family income is not high. So when they go off to work they will need friends or relatives who are also staying nearby to help look after their children.

However, Sir, in spite of these valid reasons, if people of one race tend to concentrate on certain estates again, our national effort to get a proper racial mix in the housing estates will be frustrated. Therefore, introducing fair and clear policies to overcome this type of formation is then necessary. But the reasons for the drift towards racial enclaves need to be studied thoroughly so that we have a clearer understanding of this problem. Why, for example, Sir, do traditional areas which were formed along racial lines long ago, such as Serangoon Road and China Town, still have the psychological pull to the different races? Could urban redevelopment not help to remove such racial bias? Each year the Tourist Promotion Board lights up certain areas for different festivals. Could such demarcation have indirectly help to remind people that HDB estates in these areas have certain predominant racial groups? Should we not go by turn to light up different parts of Singapore instead?

Sir, I would like to suggest HDB spells out the desired mix of communal groups in the housing estates. In fact, getting the people to agree to an acceptable ratio in the racial balance in HDB estates and agreeing to the restrictive measures to be taken can itself be a good exercise in building consensus. But apart from ensuring a balanced mix of communal groups in HDB estates, the Government would still need to work harder towards moulding a multi-racial environment. Community centres can certainly help to break down more racial barriers by organizing additional activities in which all races could take part. Martial arts such as judo, karate, which have originated from Japan and Korea, are now practised in Singapore by all races. Yet some form of activities like Qi Gong, Wushu, Tai Chi, have been looked upon as health exercise and martial arts of the Chinese while Silat has been practised mainly by the Malays. Many different races in Singapore could practise judo and karate mainly because the instructions were given in English, thus cutting down the racial barrier. The People's Association, Sir, could train some instructors who could also teach Qi Gong, Tai Chi, or Silat, in English. Sir, another way could be through Karaoke which is now picking up very fast in community centres. But currently Mandarin songs seem to be dominating Karaoke sessions. This may be due to the easy availability of background music tapes from Taiwan. Sir, I would suggest the Ministry of Community Development or the People's Association help by commissioning more music tapes with a local flavour so that all races could join in in the Karaoke sessions. SBC recently dubbed some of the locally produced Mandarin serials in English. This allowed the other races to watch the original Mandarin serials. Maybe SBC should in a similar way dub the other Tamil or Malay serials in English so that other races could also enjoy them.

Finally, Sir, I believe the HDB will prevent the trend of separate communal enclaves from worsening through administrative restrictions. Sir, I urge the Government to handle this issue with extreme care. The Minister has assured the public that these policies will not disadvantage nor benefit any single community. Already those who are intending to sell their HDB flats are trying to do so as soon as possible in case the new restrictive measures from HDB make things difficult for them. Sir, I hope the HDB could operate any new administrative restrictions fairly so that HDB flat sellers will not be the ones who would lose out in the end.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the Motion, and in particular, to support the formulation of a national ideology and express my belief that education and the use of the mother tongue should be enhanced to help inculcate these core values in our young.

Our universal English education has served us well in producing a workforce which is better educated and relevant to the economy. However, it has also pro- duced a new generation of Singaporeans who are more and more westernized because of their constant exposure and absorption of western values. Some of these values, such as their concept of individual rights and freedom cannot, in my opinion, be the principles on which we should build our nation. Thus, if this

trend continues, we will eventually lose our own Asian heritage and may not be able to hold together as a nation even before then. The answer to this real danger which can affect our survival as a nation, let alone our continued prosperity, lies in the formulation of a national ideology, a distinct set of core values which all Singaporeans can identify with and take root in so as to keep our bearings together as we face external influences day by day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has committed to improving the education system further over the next five years. Through paying greater attention to social studies, moral education and extra-curricular programmes and by promoting the use of the mother tongue, it aims to transmit these values to our young in their formative years. I fully agree with this approach. To obtain the best possible result, we must ensure that every child develops a liking for the mother tongue and attains an adequate understanding and proficiency of the language. This would open up to the child a wealth of Asian cultural heritage and values which will give him a sense of identity and strengthen his belief in the core values which he was taught. Furthermore, the best way of inculcating a value is not just by giving lessons and talking about it. Opportunities must be created for the child to exercise it wherever possible. Experiencing it can only reinforce his conviction that it is a right value to have.

Sir, my concern is, how can we create and sustain in our pupils an active interest for the mother tongue, and in social studies and moral education? Can we encourage our pupils, when they are outside the classroom, to engage in activities related to their mother tongue and make it a social norm? For this to happen in addition to having good curricula, we must have the cooperation of parents, principals and teachers. Sir, in a survey conducted in 1987 from 34 primary schools, with 20 of these schools having consistently good PSLE results, a question was asked: whether our schools were preoccupied with teaching facts and covering syllabuses to prepare students for examinations? The answer was a resounding yes. This phenomenon reflects the desire of the parents and the schools to chase after high grades for their children because, to the parents, high grades are perceived as providing their children a sure path to a good career, and to the schools, they will earn them the recognition of a good school. I believe this finding agrees also with the results published by the Research Department from MCD on youth aspiration and their view regarding examinations and so on. Such examination-oriented approach can never truly generate interest and impart the desired values to our young. The Government and the society at large must therefore constantly explain to and remind parents and schools to resist such practices and adopt the right approach of making these values interesting and real to the pupils. Otherwise the purpose of forming a national ideology may never be realized.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Can I have a point of clarification from Dr John Chen? I was a little surprised to hear him say that the rights and freedom of the individual cannot be the cornerstone of our nation. Sir, this is entrenched in our Constitution - the rights and cornerstone of the individual under the law as it stands now. My clarification is, what does he propose to do if he knocks all this off?

Mr Speaker: Mr Ibrahim Othman.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I have an answer from Dr John Chen?

Mr Speaker: Do you wish to reply, Dr John Chen?

Dr John Chen: Sir, when I say the "individual rights", I am talking about the western concept of individual rights and their concept of freedom of speech and so on. I believe that if we were to adopt unreservedly their concept and practices, in view of the multi-racial nature of our society, I think it would create instability rather than help nation building.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are seriously discussing ---

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not think the Standing Order provides for the Member to raise points like this. If he wants to make a point, he should wait till his turn comes when he can say anything he wants.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I do not think Dr John Chen or the Leader of the House ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, I have allowed you to make your clarification. If you have something else to say, you should save it for your speech.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Siglap. I also wish to thank the President for giving us a clear direction to make Singapore a developed nation. As an independent and sovereign nation for more than 23 years, it is now important that we concentrate on moulding our various races into one people, ie, Singaporean. In this respect, Sir, I strongly support the move by the Government to have a national ideology to help build a national identity and further promote nation building.

Sir, in identifying and drawing up the list of values to be incorporated into the proposed national ideology, it is imperative for us to take cognizance of the cosmopolitan fabric of our society, which is made up of different cultures, races and religions. Accordingly, the values that are finally adopted must be universally acceptable to all Singaporeans and must never be perceived as values belonging to one particular race, religion or culture. Hence, reference to any sectarian source should be minimized to avoid sending the wrong signal to the other races. It is equally important that the values should be as simple, relevant and practical as possible - simple enough for even the illiterate and the ordinary man to understand; relevant for the people to relate to in their daily lives and practical enough for the values to be achievable.

On this basis, Sir, therefore, may I suggest that consideration be given to the following principles:

(1) Racial, religious and cultural tolerance and harmony;

(2) Upholding the family as a basic unit of society;

(3) Uphold parliamentary democracy; and

(4) Community welfare and awareness. Enough has been said about the first two. I would, however, like to elaborate on the others.

To me, Sir, parliamentary democracy should be included in the national ideology so that there should be no doubt whatsoever in anybody's mind as to the Government's commitment to the democratic way of life as currently practised by us. Moreover, since this political system has been time-tested and has served our national interests well all these years, it should be formalized and institutionalized.

Sir, I believe some Singaporeans may find it difficult to accept the value of placing the community above self. Perhaps for the initial few years, it will be more realistic to inculcate in Singaporeans the importance of always relating their individual needs to those of the community - be it in the school, working place, or the neighbourhood they live in or the nation as a whole, because whatever happens to the community will also inevitably and eventually affect their own positions.

Sir, it is also very heartening to note that the President has, on behalf of the Government, given a public commitment to help the less privileged in our community. In this respect, I would like to highlight three areas for the Government to look into. They are education, social and medical services.

I would like to see every encouragement and possible help being extended to students from the lower income group to acquire as high an education as possible because this, I believe, Sir, is the most effective way of helping their families to break out of the poverty trap. Towards this end, I hope that educational grants in the form of bursaries, remission of school and examination fees and free textbooks be made easily available to those deserving cases. Though we have this kind of scheme I suggest that we should not be too stringent about it.

This lower income group normally live in 1- or 2-room flats. They are mostly lowly educated and work in poorly-paid jobs. Many find difficulty in making ends meet. Many also have large families. Often when both parents go out to work, their children are left on their own. These children sometimes walk around aimlessly and create a lot of mischief. If they are not properly guided, they will end up just like their parents, if not, worse.

I wish to suggest that the Government set up counselling centres in HDB void decks, especially around these 1- and 2-room rental blocks. The centres could be opened throughout the day and manned by full-time counsellors paid by the Government and other social organizations. Counsellors can then reach out to these lower income families and help them sort out their problems. Their children could be given free tuition after school at these centres. Counsellors may also refer hardship cases, especially those defaulting in HDB rentals or PUB utility charges, to the appropriate department or organization for financial help. This counselling, if implemented, will be supplementary to that being provided by the RCs and other grassroots organizations.

Another area of concern is the privatization of our medical services. Needless to say, it has brought about a higher standard of medical care and service to Singaporeans but it has also meant higher costs for the people. Although the Government has publicly assured us that no Singaporean will be deprived of essential medical care on account of his financial incapacity to pay for such care, I am told that quite a number of Singaporeans, especially those from the lower income bracket who have no Medisave account, are finding it difficult to settle their hospital bills. I believe presently there is quite a backlog of such cases. At the rate the privatization of our public hospitals is going on, some people are already perceiving, although they may be wrong, that the Government is trying to totally abdicate its responsibility in the provision of medical services.

I would therefore like to recommend that the Ministry of Health together with the Ministry of Community Development set up proper mechanism to monitor such cases to ensure that no poor Singaporean is made to suffer and feel left out as the country progresses and prospers.

Sir, I am very gratified to note that the Government has also expressed its commitment to help the Malays to achieve progress. The Malays have collectively embarked on many "self-help" community improvement projects and have obtained support of the Government. Though progress has been made, much can still be done to raise their educational and socio-economic status to the level of the other races. Whatever help that has been given so far, I must stress here, is not at the expense of others.

As an example, the free education that Malays get in schools and tertiary institutions is just an additional expenditure which the Government can afford and does not deprive other students of the opportunity to attend school. Another example is funds collected through the CPF from Muslim workers for mosque building, which is not at the expense of others building their own houses of worship.

Sir, this, I believe, should be the basis for us to work upon for the continued support of the Government. One important area where the Government can give its assistance is through Mendaki, or the Council for the Educational Improvement or Upliftment of Muslim Children. Mendaki has been in existence for more than six years. Much has been achieved so far and there are plans to expand the terms of reference of the present Council so that it can look into other areas of importance, such as economic, social and cultural matters. The cost of running a large organization is very high and help from the Government in the form of a yearly grant will be much appreciated. In this respect I wish to urge the Government to continue giving Mendaki or Mendaki II, the proposed extended Council, support materially or otherwise.

The Malay problem is a national problem. So the Government, Singaporeans, community leaders and, in particular, the Malays themselves, must cooperate and work together to overcome any obstacle that may hinder their progress.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and National Development (Mr Peter Sung): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion by the Member for Siglap to thank the President for his Address to Parliament and to support the Government's goal of providing a better livelihood for all Singaporeans.

The Government is known far and wide to be effective and honest. Its policies, objectives and achievements have earned the praise of peoples from many lands. Singaporeans have benefited from a wise and dedicated Government. However, there is always room for improvement. Please allow me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to mention two stories.

The first occurred in 1963 when I was admitted to the then University of Singapore and subsequently awarded a teaching bursary. At the end of the first year of study, I qualified to read a one-subject course either in Economics or Mathematics. I chose Economics because I found it easier.

I had been teaching in Victoria School and there my colleagues who were graduates were getting salaries two or three times higher than mine. I realized that to get a higher salary I need a higher qualification. So my purpose was to get a degree; any degree would do. But the Ministry of Education did not agree with my choice. After repeated appeals, it insisted that I must read Mathematics. I had worked day and night to save money for my studies at the University. I was not taking any chances. The Ministry of Education withdrew my study leave and asked me to refund all sums paid to me under the bursary. In order to continue with my studies, I had to leave the Education Service.

That, Mr Speaker, Sir, happened in 1963, some 25 years ago.

The second case occurred in April last year. I was then serving in Manila. We received a computer and began to put some work into it. Our accounting work was taking up an inordinate amount of time. It involved a lot of data but provided very little information. So we decided to computerize. In the process, we had to change some formats. And my staff in Manila told me that changes were not possible. When I asked why, he said that the formats had been fixed by HQ, which is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In subsequent correspondence, I found HQ to be very supportive and our proposal was sent to the relevant authorities. However, there was a hitch. The documents required the amount to be typewritten not only in figures but also in words. We know that the computer receives amounts in figures, and for it to print the amount also in words requires a program that is not readily available. So we proposed an alternative, and that is for the amounts to be embossed using a cheque-writer. We believe this is equally effective in preventing defalcation. We were naturally pleased when the relevant authorities agreed with our proposal. We went on to develop the programmes. And when we were ready, we received another letter from yet another relevant authority which apologized for the delay in reply but stated that "the amount in words must be retained".

Mr Speaker, Sir, in mentioning these two cases, my purpose is not to question Government policies nor to question the efficiency of the Government departments concerned. I have earlier said that the Government has done well. My observation is that the manner in which Government departments carry out some of the objectives can cause some inconvenience from time to time.

What happens when a Government department issues a rule or regulation? In the Civil Service, the rule is often taken as sacrosanct. We must have heard many complaints even by civil servants that some other departments are inflexible. The majority of civil servants find it more convenient just to follow rules. And so rules are often followed regardless of what they cost.

In the private sector, the man-in-the-street is powerless against the heavy weight of government bureaucracy. A stroke of the pen by a bureaucrat can often cause a lot of inconvenience to the laymen and substantial financial outlay by businessmen. They often suffer in silence. Sometimes they write letters to the press; sometimes they talk about it in coffee shops; sometimes in meeting places, private gatherings, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the situation cannot be good.

I am arguing for more sensitivity by Government departments. I am not asking Government departments to change their policies or shift their objectives. What I am talking about is a little more consideration for the positions of those who are affected. If alternative routes can be used to achieve a given objective, the one selected should be the one that causes the least inconvenience, and the manner of implementation must cause the least resentment and misunderstanding by the people.

The point I am making, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that administrative overkill is not necessary.

With greater sensitivity to the needs and feelings of the people, I am confident that the programmes set out by the President in his Address to Parliament will continue to meet the rising aspirations of the people. I therefore wholeheartedly support the motion to thank the President.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Siglap.

Sir, in speaking in support of the motion, some of the hon. Members who addressed the House before me in this debate spoke on the proposed national ideology and its importance to Singapore which was one of the key items of the President's Address. I wish to focus on one particular concern that has been voiced by some Singaporeans as to the effect and content of the proposed national ideology.

There has been speculation about this Government's motives and aims in proposing the national ideology. This speculation, as expressed by some in the Forum page of the Straits Times, is that the national ideology proposal may be an attempt at political manipulation; that individual political consensus may be compromised by the imposition of general values; and that civil liberties may be downgraded.

Support for this speculation has been sought from the fact that the Government has not included fundamental rights in the proposed national ideology. Mr Speaker, Sir, these concerns arise, I believe, from misconception of what the proposed national ideology is to achieve. Sir, in order to understand the relationship between fundamental liberties and national ideology, first, the aims and proposed contents of the national ideology must be understood. And secondly, the distinction between the nature of the proposed national ideology and that of fundamental liberties must also be appreciated.

What are the aims of national ideology? Put simply, this proposal is another step in nation building. It is a proposal to inculcate in every segment of society and at every level of society a shared value system. If successful, this will foster a strong sense of identity, a Singaporean identity. In turn, this would lead to greater social cohesion. It should make our people cosmopolitan without being confused. It should make our people progressive, receptive to ideas, yet confident about their convictions.

It is reasoned that without such a shared value system, an infant nation like Singapore, will find its nationhood jeopardized. In short, the Government takes the view that for Singapore to develop as a nation and prosper and provide its citizens with a stable and secure environment in which they can achieve their highest potential, it is necessary for Singaporeans to have a shared value system. Some may question this reasoning. But it will be difficult to deny that the more cohesive a society, the stronger it will be. As a rule, social cohesion leads to greater identification with the society and the nation, in turn fostering strong nationalism. The security of a nation and the well-being of its people in turn depends on the people having such a strong sense of one-ness with the nation.

There is a second aspect to the national ideology proposal. The economic success of the East Asian nations has been attributed to their greater social cohesion. These societies progress very fast because their people move almost in unison. The greater the shared values in a society, the more successful it will be in meeting and responding to challenges. This will be an added reason for trying to foster a shared value system in Singapore. It may be said that greater social cohesion should not be at the expense of individual creativity and freedom of thought which has been the inspiration for many of the finest achievements of mankind. However, that will be a debate on the manner and extent to which social cohesion is to be fostered and developed, and not whether it should be developed and fostered at all. Creative and original thinking is not necessarily incompatible with achieving social cohesion.

Next, the question of fundamental rights. How do fundamental rights relate to the proposed national ideology? They are distinct and should be kept distinct. The term "fundamental rights" is commonly used to refer to the basic rights which an individual should have vis-a-vis his fellow citizens as well as the rights which he should have vis-a-vis the State. These are political rights which citizens of many states enjoy, to a greater or lesser extent. I will not repeat here the political debates that have focused on the relationship between society and the individual and the extent to which the individual's rights can be subjected to the interests of society. Each society decides this question in the context of its political and economic development and taking into account the security of the society. Many societies, having decided on the extent of the rights of its citizens, have enshrined these rights in their supreme laws. Likewise, in our country the basic rights are enshrined in our Constitution.

The extent of these rights is a political question and I believe that some of the concerns expressed about the proposed national ideology may perhaps be related to the feeling that these rights should be absolute and unqualified. That is however a political question which should be debated in the political arena. Those who take such a view have a right to try and convince our citizens that such rights ought to exist without any qualifications whatsoever. The Government's view is that, at the present stage of economic and political development of Singapore, the rights have to be subject to the qualifications which are also to be found in the Constitution. That is the platform on which this Government has fought and won successive elections.

The point for now is that, in our system of government, the Constitution protects rights and the Government derives its authority and legitimacy from the Constitution. The Government has a duty to ensure that the rights of its citizens as they exist in the Constitution are not infringed.

The Constitution also enshrines the concepts of Democracy, the Rule of Law, the Separation of Powers and provides the legal and moral foundation on which our society is structured. The concepts of Supremacy of the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers are an inherent part of our national ethos. Every Member of this House has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. We need this foundation to be strong - because without this foundation our society will soon dissolve into chaos - as has happened elsewhere when the rule of law has been substituted by the rule of men. That should never be allowed to happen.

However, that foundation alone may not be enough. Every society has to build on the foundation. The Constitution and any legislation can only (in a liberal society) set out the basic, irreducible rights which an individual should have. But in order to develop social cohesion, the individual's responsibilities to his family and the state will have to be emphasized. He has to be educated so that he does not think only of himself but him as part of society. That will involve the individual taking on an obligation which he does not otherwise have to. An illustration would be on religious tolerance. Under our Constitution, freedom of religion is guaranteed. Everyone is free to practise his or her own religion. That is the basic structure. You do much better if you not only have your people not interfere in each other's religious beliefs but also encourage positively an appreciation, understanding and tolerance of each other's religion. In that way, the fraternity within society is increased. Similarly, you cannot legislate or constitutionalize nationalism and the belief in a shared destiny and the other aims which the national ideology seeks to achieve. The national ideology seeks to make the individual do more than he is otherwise required to by law. The issue will be whether the Government should focus on these obligations and make an individual more responsible or should it leave the individual alone and merely protect his rights.

This Government has decided that it needs to take the more active course and emphasize on obligations of the individual because that is necessary for the very survival of the country. Where such a conclusion has been reached, the Government would be abdicating its duty if it does not take the necessary steps to encourage our people to adopt certain desirable social traits for the benefit of society as a whole, while ensuring that the basic rights are not infringed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it can therefore be seen that the two concepts are quite different. At present, the concept of rights finds an important place in our society. It is enshrined in the Constitution and is part of our national ethos. There are good reasons why the concept of obligations should also be made part of the national ethos. But it cannot be forced on the people. The people have to voluntarily accept such obligations. The task is to make possible such acceptance. Those who advocate that fundamental rights should be made part of the national ideology have, to that extent, misunderstood the difference in the two concepts and the fact that rights are already enshrined in our system. There is no question at all that rights ought to be emphasized. The only question is: should we not emphasize obligations as well as rights? The answer must be yes.

There is one further related question which I would like to address very briefly. Some see in this proposal as an attempt to create a generation of Singaporeans who would grow up in an environment which only allows and promotes the acceptance of authority and does not allow diversity of views. But a cohesive society does not necessarily mean an unthinking society. It only means a society in which there is a large measure of agreement on certain basic values and acceptance of responsibilities. Whether a society is a thinking society or an unthinking society does not depend on whether or not the people have a shared value system but rather on the quality of the people and the quality of the education they receive. The Government has stated as its primary goal the achievement of excellence for all. That can only be truly achieved where the people are full of intellectual vigour.

The future as envisioned in the Government's agenda is a free and harmonious society, secure from external and internal threat, a society where the individuals are educated to the best of their ability, a society brimming with intellectual vigour. You do not achieve such a society by turning the people into sheep. Neither can you achieve such a society if the people do not share a sense of common destiny and nationalism. The proposed national ideology, together with a strong adherence to the rule of law and the acceptance of the supremacy of the Constitution, is a key to achieving a society of excellence.

For these reasons, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, would you oblige me to ask Mr Shanmugam to clarify a point?

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, I know you are perfectly in order to seek clarifications, but I can see that ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think the Members of the House here should understand clearly what a Member says. If he says something which we do not really understand, I think we should ask him to clarify. I waited until he sat down. I did not interrupt him, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You are in order to seek clarifications. But I must warn you that you must not abuse the opportunity to embark on a long speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have never abused this House, Sir.

Mr Speaker: All right. Seek your clarification quickly.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the last speaker seems to make it a point by saying that fundamental rights - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press - these fundamental rights must be distinguished from the national ideology. It would appear to me that what he is saying is you render to Caesar what is due to Caesar and to God what is due to God. So he is separating these two concepts. One is fundamental rights in relation to an individual.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, can you get to the point and ask your question?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I want to make sure whether or not this is what he meant.

Mr Speaker: No. I think you are embarking on a speech. I must insist that you seek your clarification or resume your seat.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I want to say to the Member that when we talk of a national ideology, we cannot bring in these fundamental rights at all. He seems to think that they are distinct and separate.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I did say that the two concepts are separate. The question of national ideology seeks to impose obligations on an individual and therefore it cannot be legislated. I do not think that in a free and liberal society, people would like to live under conditions where obligations are specifically imposed. They ought to be inculcated.

But as regards rights, I would not like my rights to be subject to a question of ideology which changes from time to time. I would want my political rights to be enshrined in the supreme law which can only be changed under established principles. So rights have to be enshrined in the Constitution. Ideology is something which builds on the foundation. It is separate. The rights are enshrined in our system. The ideology is not yet enshrined. What this Government seeks to do is to enshrine the obligations but not as a matter of law.

The Member for Potong Pasir can, of course, carry on his crusade for rights. But they are already enshrined. What is the point of talking about rights which already exist? What we are looking to is the future when we talk about obligations.

Sir, I think I have clarified the point.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! 2.08 pm

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to fully support the Motion moved by the Member for Siglap to thank the President for his Address at the Opening of Parliament.

The President in his opening remarks stressed that the Government's goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans. During the past three decades, the Government and the people of Singapore have worked hard and achieved social and economic progress which is remarkable by any standard of measurement. As mentioned in the Presidential Address, I quote:

'With basic necessities taken care of, Singaporeans can now look to cultural and artistic pursuits. Then we may not only be knowledgeable and useful citizens, but also cultivated and well-balanced human beings.' This, I believe, is a major step for Singapore. I believe that Singaporeans are now ready to participate in more cultural and artistic pursuits.

I am pleased to note in the Addendum to the Presidential Address by the Minister for Community Development that the biennial Arts Festival will become an annual event in the 1990s and that the Government will build an Arts Complex, and remodel three historical buildings to house a Fine Arts Museum, a Children's Museum and a History of Singapore Museum. With such encouragement and support from the Government, Singaporeans will soon become more knowledgeable, cultivated and useful citizens.

What about the goal for Singaporeans to be well-balanced human beings? How would the Government help Singaporeans to achieve this goal? First, the problem. I believe the President in his speech made this very clear when he said:

'Traditional Asian ideas of morality, duty and society which have sustained and guided us in the past are giving way to a more Westernized, individualistic, and self-centred outlook on life.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this statement. For during my Meet-the-People sessions as a Member for Parliament, I have assisted at least three retired old men who have been forsaken by their children, some of whom are graduates and holding good jobs. What then is the solution?

The President in his Address to Parliament suggested that we should preserve the cultural heritage of each of our communities and uphold certain core values which capture the essence of being a Singaporean. The President identified four core values: (a) society above self; (b) upholding the family as the basic building block of society; (c) resolving major issues through consensus instead of contention; and (d) stressing racial and religious tolerance and harmony. The President emphasized that we should enshrine these core values in a national ideology which should be promoted and inculcated in the minds of all Singaporeans.

The national ideology was first proposed by the First Deputy Prime Minister in October last year. It was further expounded by the Minister for Trade and Industry in his speech at the Alumni International's Third Singapore Lecture early this year. Now that the President has made the national ideology as the main theme of his Address to Parliament, we can expect the Government to focus on this subject as one of its priorities for the next five years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that Singaporeans will respond favourably and contribute their suggestions to the national ideology. They may consider other core values such as filial piety, diligence, honesty, loyalty and justice which should be added on to the national ideology. What is more important, however, is the contributions to be made by various Government Ministries. Are their policies consistent with this effort to build up a national ideology? I am pleased to note in the Addendum to the Presidential Address by the Minister for Education which says:

'The inculcation of core values must begin in the home. The values can be reinforced in the primary schools by ensuring adequate proficiency in the mother-tongue, and through appropriate lessons in the Social Studies, Moral Education and Extra-curricular programmes.' This is certainly a move in the right direction to help Singaporeans develop into well-balanced human beings. May I suggest that the effort to inculcate core values should not begin and stop at the primary schools. This effort should continue all the way to the secondary schools and even to the tertiary institutes. After all, the Chinese have a saying: Shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren, ( ) which means it takes 10 years to develop a tree but it takes a hundred years to develop a man.

Next, I turn to the Addendum to the Presidential Address by the Minister for Labour which says:

'With full employment, employers must upgrade and mechanize further to improve productivity. The Government will continue to regulate recruitment of unskilled foreign workers, so that Singapore will not become over-dependent on them.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Government realize that currently there is an acute shortage of workers, especially young female unskilled or semi-skilled workers. Many companies in the manufacturing sector resort to foreign workers mainly because Singapore workers shun shift and overtime work. The Government has recently announced that in order to dampen the demand for foreign workers the Government (a) increased the foreign worker levy from $170 per month to $220 per month from 1st January 1989 and to $250 per month from 1st July 1989; and (b) reduce the ceiling on a firm's foreign worker dependency ratio from 50% to 40%.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the strong economic recovery and the tight labour market, the higher foreign worker levy will put a tremendous upward pressure on wages. Singapore workers will once again fail to see the linkage between higher productivity and higher wages. Workers will no longer find it necessary to develop good work habits like hard work, honesty and loyalty as employers are forced to increase wages mainly by the tight labour market. Bad work attitudes may once again flourish as it did in the late 70's and early 80's.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that the Government form a special task force to study the problems arising from the tight labour market and try to seek a long term solution. In fact, many of the core values that were recommended for the national ideology could be used as a basis for this long term solution. For example, if our workers can learn to place society before self, they will learn to develop more loyalty to the company that they are working for. If our workers can learn to accept hard work, honesty and justice as part of the national ideology, they will offer to form quality control circles and help their companies increase productivity and reduce the dependence on foreign workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that the Government invite employers, union representatives and workers, to give their suggestions on the core values that should form our national ideology. I am confident that many of their suggestions will also lead to improved labour-management relationships, better work attitudes, higher productivity; and more importantly, a lower dependence on foreign workers.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the Addendum to the Presidential Address by the Minister for the Environment, which says:

'With all street hawkers completely resited, the Ministry is reviewing its plans for markets and food centres. It will privatize management of these facilities gradually, and raise the standard of hygiene and cleanliness in all food outlets.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are very noble goals. However, during implementation, may I suggest that the Ministry bear in mind the core values for the national ideology as recommended by the President in his Address to Parliament. In particular, in the process of privatizing the management of markets and food centres, the Ministry of the Environment officials should bear in mind the President's recommendation to resolve major issues through consensus instead of contention.

There are today several hawker centres, especially wet markets, where many of the stalls are vacant. With the privatization of such hawker centres, Environment officials should take into consideration the welfare of existing hawkers and hold extensive discussions with them as their livelihood would be affected. Ever since the introduction of the demerit points system, hawkers have a perennial fear of Environment officials, and are afraid to hold discussions with them

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of the Environment should understand the situation and encourage its officials to carry out the privitization process with tact and with minimum conflict with the hawkers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address, I wish first to express my gratitude for being given this opportunity to participate in this debate.

The policy speech of the President has given confidence and hope to every Singaporean. We Singaporeans should count our blessings that we are full citizens in our own country deciding on our own future and destiny. We are not a subject people denied and deprived of rights and dignity under a colonial or imperial power.

Do Singaporeans want to continue to have it this way and to stay strong and united or to allow ourselves to be divided, each going our own separate ways and to find one day too late that we are no longer masters of our own destiny?

The President has stated in his Address that the "government's goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans". Indeed Singapore is the home of all Singaporeans. She belongs to all of us. Every Singaporean has a stake and whatever we do is meant for all of us.

It has been made clear that there is a place for every Singaporean regardless of his station in life, his race or religion.

As we are citizens in our own country, it is important for all of us to play our part as good and useful citizens. The national ideology to be evolved should spell out unequivocally the expectations from each and every one of us our duties and responsibilities as citizens. The National Ideology is to guide us in becoming good and responsible citizens of Singapore. We should be mindful of the good universal values that make for a strong and united nation and be prepared to fight for and protect the continued independence and sovereignty of our country.

No Singaporean should be allowed to contribute to the making of a weak Singapore that would lead to chaos and destruction. Instead we should build on the foundation that has been laid by our founding fathers who have worked so hard and have made so many sacrifices to bring this nation about. Preventive detention is necessary to nip in the bud any attempt by disloyal elements with evil designs to endanger the internal security of Singapore. Perhaps the concern among Singaporeans is how to ensure that there will be no abuse and that there are adequate checks and balances when considering people for detention.

There is the need to cultivate the bonds in our people. Singaporeans tend to see themselves not on the same side as the Government. We can learn from the NTUC. The NTUC is successful in forging a trusting relationship in Singapore of employers and trade unions working in unison against the competition from outside Singapore. It boils down to relationship; the confidence and the trust that the NTUC leadership has the interest of every member at heart. Any decision taken may at times be to reduce losses and sufferings rather than maximizing benefits for their members. I acknowledge that in the national context, it is more difficult having to deal with diverse sectors of the population wich have differing interests, needs and expectations. But nevertheless, I believe that the principles are the same and it is worthwhile for the Government to consider a similar approach in dealing with the electorate.

We want a Singapore that has the depth in relationship. It is opportune now that we have achieved bountiful economic development and material progress. We should strive at the next level to bring about the spirit of camaraderie, unity amongst all of us, and social cohesion which will be durable and lasting.

This demonstration of compassion for fellow Singaporeans and the people of the world reinforces in us a caring and sharing attitude. That for all our material success and progress, how can we say that we are fully satisfied when there are others amongst us who have fallen behind and to whom we ought to give a helping hand?

I believe we have often stressed the need to help the less fortunate, the disabled, and those who require help but are we doing enough for them or are we just being rhetoric? I think the Government can, for example, afford to be a bit more generous in dealing with people living in rented flats.

We have reached the stage that any increase in the percentage beyond 90% for HDB Home Ownership will be difficult. The remaining 10% will be those who really cannot afford to buy their own flats. For families living in 1-room rented flats, the living conditions are certainly sub-standard by today's standards. The minimum required for family accommodation would be a 2-room flat with one bed room and a hall. Children spend the most time at home. The home environment certainly affects their studies and the development of their conduct and character. These are social costs that no price mechanism and fiscal policy can measure. I would urge that every effort be made to improve the living conditions for those living in rented flats, including those aged singles. If I may add, we have seen vast improvements made to public toilets and hawker centres, but why are we being stingy in providing better living rented accommodation?

One of the problems of those living in rented flats is that because they do not have CPF savings they cannot afford to buy their own flats. The self-employed and the casual contract workers should be encouraged to make CPF contributions each month, no matter how small their contributions are. Without CPF savings, not only will they not be able to buy their homes, they will also have difficulty looking after themselves in their old age and there will be no Medisave for their medical expenses. The Ministry of Labour should attempt to spread the net wider to include this category of Singaporeans who are working but not contributing to CPF.

I am glad that the Government is seriously considering extending the retirement age to 60. Singaporeans are marrying later and having children later and therefore need to provide for the family for a longer period. Singaporeans are living longer lives. They are more productive with good education and training being invested in them. They certainly can contribute for more and longer years. Our employers must adjust their thinking to accommodate and to incorporate this development in our society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent decision to increase the levy on foreign maids is causing consternation and bafflement among our womenfolk. The problem is that the alternatives are not ready and easily available yet. In our Goverment population policy we encourage women to have more children if they can afford it. Now with the increase in levy we are making it less affordable. We want to encourage our women to continue working. We want them to bring up our children properly. We want them also to care for their aged parents. The contradiction in policy decisions make Singaporeans feel that we are either fuzzy in what we want to achieve; that there is no coordination in Government policy, or that the Government has got some of its priorities wrong. I hope the Government will present a complete and total picture as to what we really expect of our ladies in Singapore.

As a Personnel man, I see the merit in the Civil Service trying its level best to attract and retain the able officers. In terms of contribution and the value that they have added into their jobs, there is every justification to ensure the competitiveness in the remuneration and benefits of civil servants and those working in the statutory boards. Unless there is external relativity, we may run the risk of having deterioration in performance in the civil service. It is a sad fact that with the formation of town councils to manage our housing estates, there are Singaporeans who used to complain against the HDB but are beginning to appreciate the very good work done by the officers and men of the HDB. It is the continued integrity and the excellent performance of the civil service which we should all work to preserve.

The fast pace of change in our society has led to certain social ills which have become evident of late. Tempers rise very quickly and easily. People resort to violent actions at the slightest provocation. They do not seem to value their lives and, what is worse, they hurt others in the process. Should we not concern ourselves as to why all this is happening? Family life has to be preserved. Abortions should be discouraged. Frivolous forward spending and living on credit and beyond one's means in a consumer society has the tendency to lead to deceit, greed and corruption.

Our inclination to solve problems from the cost-effective point of view may have given rise to other social ill-effects. With the Community Chest's SHARE programme there is less need for school children to sell flags on flag days. But it also means less opportunity for the young to volunteer their services for a cause, a test of their honesty and to provide an understanding of the good cause that they are serving. We are no doubt living in a high-tech world. But we remain as human beings. We have feelings. Relationships are important to us. There is a spirit in us and Singaporeans would not like to be treated in any other way.

As we approach national issues on the basis of consultation and consensus-building, it is important that ultimately someone has to make the decision. We expect and want the Government to provide the leadership and this leadership should be strong and courageous. The rest of us Singaporeans as good followers rally behind and support the Government because we share the same concerns and destiny. The leadership has also to be concerned with those at the bottom of the ladder. In dealing with the less fortunate and less successful, the Government and its officers, in implementing policies, ought to make the added effort in assisting them by acting on their behalf in matters of housing, education and medical services. It can then be said that those who are genuinely in difficulty are not neglected and that the help extended is likened to that of a good brother.

Sir, I wish to associate myself with the Motion of Thanks to the Speech made by the President.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.35 pm until 3.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Siglap.

I notice from the President's Address that he touched very little on economic matters. But that does not mean that they are not important. Continuing economic growth is necessary for our progress and prosperity and it is through economic growth that wealth is created resulting in improvements in the standard of living for Singaporeans. Without wealth, our dream of a middle class society cannot be realized. It is therefore of utmost importance that, whilst we embark on this massive exercise to identify and inculcate core values among Singaporeans, we do not forget that the Singapore economy must remain healthy, and that it should continue to grow so that the economic pie is big enough to be shared by everyone. We must ensure that the fundamentals for economic growth are still there.

Sir, we have had three consecutive years of economic expansion following the recession in 1985. Singaporeans in the last three years were able to enjoy a higher standard of living. These good years do not happen by chance. While many attribute them to the buoyant world economy, I think it is the right combination of many factors - political stability, good leadership on the part of the Government, the unions, the private sector businessmen, growing markets overseas, industrial harmony, good work attitude and discipline among our workforce.

Sir, Members will remember that three years ago in this House, we discussed at length the economic policies that will take us to the status of a developed country by the turn of the century. We agreed that the private sector should be the engine of growth. We stressed the need for the Government to privatize its companies and statutory boards. We debated that we must venture abroad aggressively to sell our products and services. We emphasized the need to invest in the training of our limited manpower resources and to increase labour participation rate by encouraging more female Singaporeans to join the workforce. We implemented a flexible wage policy in order to remain competitive.

Sir, I am glad these economic policies turned out to be correct. Many Singaporeans were able to reap the benefits of economic recovery and now double digit growth. I am disappointed, however, Sir, with the sudden increase in the levy on foreign maids. (Sir, may I declare my interest here as I have a foreign maid.) This sudden increase in levy runs counter to our efforts to encourage more female Singaporeans to work, especially the housewives. Unless we have enough child care facilities, Singaporeans will have to continue to rely on foreign maids to look after their children. It takes time to build more child care centres. May I therefore suggest that the Government consider deferring the increase in the levy on foreign maids to $200 per month from July this year until such time when we have adequate child care centres.

Sir, the short to medium term economic outlook for Singapore remains bright. The Ministry of Trade and Industry is aiming for an annual GDP growth of 6% over the next five years. This is a very reasonable target. This is a growth rate which we can sustain, given our limited resources, particularly manpower. This means that growth must come increasingly from productivity gain. Given our small population, we have no choice. We have to depend more and more on productivity gain for growth. Indeed, this is a healthier approach to growth, to wealth creation, more so as we aspire to become a middle class society.

Sir, as we aim to achieve greater productivity growth, we need to consciously instil good work ethics, eg, punctuality, loyalty to company, pride in work and productivity consciousness among Singaporeans. In other words, we as Singaporeans must learn to work "smart". All too often we work very hard but not necessarily smart. These core values at the workplace are necessary as they are fundamental towards achieving a highly productive economy. I suggest that the National Ideology Committee consider adopting some of these values.

We all work very hard to have our material needs met. It is common to see Singaporeans taking on two jobs or working long hours, six-seven days a week. It is also common to see Singaporeans working in the day, and studying in the evening in order to continue to upgrade themselves. There is nothing wrong with working long hours to earn more money or obtaining more paper qualifications. But all these mean that we have less time for our family. All these mean that we have less time to relax. We have less time to enjoy the fruits of our labour. All these mean that we have less time for community work.

Sir, as our economy matures and grows more moderately in the future, as Singaporeans become more productive in their work, there will be more time for relaxation. We must learn to relax. We must learn to spend more time with our family - our loved ones, our parents and our children. We must devote more time for community work, get to know our neighbours better and offer our services to help the less fortunate in our society. We must play a greater role in nation building, in helping to create a better neighbourhood and community in which we live. To quote the words of the President in his Address, "We must learn to enjoy a more meaningful and fulfilling life."

Sir, we might not be ready to implement a 5-day working week system 10 years ago. Not even five years ago. But I think we are ready now. As we become a middle class society, more productive and efficient in our work, as we begin to work smartly, we need not have to work 5(r) or 6 or 7 days a week. Very often, Saturday morning is not always productive. The 5-day work week which is the norm in most middle class societies should be adopted. I think we are ready for it. Let us formally adopt it. Let us encourage employers who could afford it to do so. Perhaps the Government should take the lead by starting it in the civil service and I am sure many companies in the private sector will follow.

With a 5-day work week, Singaporeans will have more time for leisure. They should use the free time to foster closer family ties, look to cultural and artistic pursuits and do community work. They should make Saturday their Family day - a day where family members interact with each other to foster greater family unity. They should make Sunday a Community day - a day when Singaporeans volunteer their services to help create a better neighbourhood and help the less fortunate in our society. These activities, if successfully implemented, will serve to uphold the important core values of family unity and placing society before self, identified in the President's Address. Only then can we be useful citizens, cultivated and well-balanced human beings.

Finally, Sir, as we become a middle class society we cannot be complacent and take our success for granted. Because of our smallness, no matter what form of a society we become, we are always vulnerable to external factors. It is therefore heartening to note that the present Government will continue to build on the foundation laid by our first generation leaders. The national ideology programme cannot therefore be more timely. It will further strengthen this foundation from which based our multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society. I therefore urge all Singaporeans from all walks of life to participate in this programme so that together we shall build a Nation of Excellence.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, just one point in response to the Member for Cairnhill. He had given a quotation in Chinese, "Bai nian shu ren" ( ) "Bai nian shu ren" does not mean that it takes 100 years to cultivate a person; by which time he would have been dead. But if the reward is cultivated, it lasts more than 100 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my wholehearted support to the hon. Member for Siglap who has moved the motion to thank the President for his Address at the Opening of the First Session of the Seventh Parliament.

Singapore is a democratic country. In any democracy, the government comprises three distinct branches, namely, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. The separation of power and authority is essential for the working of a genuine democracy. However, this does not mean that the three branches of government have nothing to do with one another. On the contrary, if a country is to be governed well, the three branches must be appreciative of one another's role. They must not only understand one another, but also their work should in fact complement one another's whenever and wherever possible.

As an elected Member of Parliament, my main duty is to look after the welfare of my constituents, acting as a transmitter of grassroots thinking and to help pass laws which will improve their lot and at the same time bring greater stability, prosperity and security to all Singaporeans. However, Sir, I also find myself spending a great deal of my time interpreting, explaining and re-explaining basic Government policies, rules and regulations to my constituents. This happens because many of our front-line civil servants are not doing enough or unwilling to take the trouble to explain Government policies and rules and regulations to members of the public who approach them for assistance in the first place. As a result, the PAP Members of Parliament often find themselves doing the job of petition writers.

Sir, allow me to comment on some aspects of our Civil Service. Among other things, the Addendum on the Ministry of Finance has mentioned that public servants will be trained and upgraded in order to serve the public better. First and foremost, I would like to stress that we have a good Civil Service and we are proud of our civil servants as a whole. Singapore owes its prosperity and progress, to a great extent, to our Civil Service. It is not an overstatement to say that. Had it not been for their dedication and efficiency, Singapore would not be what it is today.

The success story of Singapore is, to a very great extent, the story of the political leadership and the Civil Service working in tandem. The contributions of the civil servants, especially the top-notch civil servants, are invaluable. However, the role played by the junior civil servants is just as important, for example, a piece of machinery, no matter how sophisticated and excellent, may break down even if only a single component in it malfunctions.

Sir, our population is becoming better educated. It is expected that they will be more aware of their rights and thus becoming more demanding. To meet their higher expectations and demands, the Civil Service must continue to upgrade and improve itself so as to better serve the general public. In a fast-changing modern technological society, nothing stands still and nobody remains unaffected by the change, least of all the Civil Service.

Sir, let me now dwell on some of the essential qualities of good civil servants. Firstly, they must be loyal to the master they serve. No government worthy of its name can afford to harbour disloyal civil servants. Only loyal civil servants would be able to implement government policies effectively and efficiently. In fact, in a meritocracy, which we are, the power of the bureaucratic sector is ever-increasing and the Government places a lot of trust on experts and expertise in planning and implementing government policies. Any Government policy, no matter how well intended, if not implemented with humaneness, tact and flexibility, will reflect badly on the image of the Government. Civil servants are public servants. Their duty is to serve the people. The public's expectation of them is that they will have to serve them to the best of their ability. Disloyal civil servants can even bring about the collapse of an elected government.

It is a well-known fact that the political party in power in a democratic state may come and go, but the civil servants remain to serve the public whichever political party is in power. Therefore, if any civil servant should disagree so strongly with some of the government policies as to feel that he is going against his conscience in implementing such policies, then it will not be worth his while remaining in the Civil Service.

The second quality that civil servants must possess is integrity. Without integrity, corruption is inevitable. No corrupt government can look after the well-being of its people. As civil servants have access to information which could affect the lives of thousands of people, any civil servant who is found to be corrupt, no matter how minor the offence may be, should be weeded out of the Civil Service and properly dealt with by law. The best way to prevent corruption is, of course, to instil pride in one's work.

A reasonable salary and good prospects for promotions for the deserving ones are, of course, important ingredients too. It is heartening to note that in the Addendum on the Ministry of Finance, it has been stated that the next step in public sector wage reform will be a revision of salary and career structures so as to keep up with the new conditions in the labour market.

On the subject of integrity, I am proud to say that our Civil Service is held in very high esteem by governments in both developing and developed countries around the globe. Even people who do not see eye to eye with us cannot but admit that we have a clean and uncorrupt Civil Service. The civil servants must uphold this pride for ever and ever.

Thirdly, Sir, civil servants are expected to be courteous and compassionate in their dealing with the public. From my personal experience, I would say that our civil servants do not lack these qualities. They are impartial and firm, but sometimes they tend to overdo it, thinking that a civil servant must never show compassion and empathy to the members of the public. They emphasize so much on efficiency that they have been branded as "devoid of emotion". As a result of this false premise, many a civil servant has been accused of being callous, brusque and even rude by the public. Others have been likened to robots, unsmiling and unfeeling when dealing with the public.

Of course, I do not expect the Civil Service to be as accommodating and flexible as the private sector. However, I do wish to see a more courteous and understanding Civil Service. Courtesy would certainly make life more pleasant for everyone; it will help us to be psychologically better adjusted with less pent-up frustration. A concerted effort must be made to internalize ways of behaviour which will make us co-exist pleasantly and harmoniously in our crowded urban environment. Courtesy together with compassion would go a long way to upgrade the quality of our lives.

Sir, I have dealt at some length on the theme of courtesy and human compassion. This is because I am somewhat disturbed by the number of people who complain to me at my regular meet-the-people sessions about callous, impatient, ill-mannered and rude civil servants. I am told that there are still some wayward civil servants, who are in direct contact with the general public, who have been reported to be arrogant and oblivious to the needs of the people. The illiterate and the less privileged people are usually the victims of such unkind encounters at government departments. These people too have feelings and emotion. As such, civil servants should respect their individuality and dignity. As for the literate who can directly communicate with civil servants in writing, they, too, have complaints against the Civil Service. They have to wait for months before they can get acknowledgement to their letters or sometimes no reply to them at all. This should not happen as it tarnishes the image of an efficient Civil Service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his Address stressed on racial and religious harmony. I would like to add the importance of class harmony. If some civil servants choose to discriminate against a certain class of Singaporeans, then the consequences could be as damaging as racial strife, if left unchecked. I would, therefore, strongly urge all civil servants, especially those who have direct dealings with the public, to be more courteous and sensitive to human feelings.

Civil servants must realize that they are part of the government - the Executive arm of the Government. Their actions will either reflect well or adversely on the image of the Government. If a few wayward ones are rude and unhelpful to the public and show no concern to their needs, the public will misconstrue that the Government is uncaring and unsympathetic. Hence, our courtesy messages will then sound hollow. Little things like courtesy, helpfulness and understanding will undoubtedly go a long way in making the public, irrespective of their class, feel wanted and at ease, even if their requests cannot be met. Sir, I am also fully aware that there are some members of the public who can be uncooperative, unreasonable, pushy, aggressive and sometimes quarrelsome when they go to see the civil servants. Even under such conditions, civil servants must not lose their cool.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of posting newly recruited civil servants in the course of their training to attend the meet-the-people sessions conducted by the PAP MPs is a step in the right direction. These sessions are fruitful as they provide an opportunity for new civil servants to hear, at first hand, the types of problems and complaints brought up by the people to their MPs. I suggest that all civil servants, especially the front-liners, should also be given the opportunity to attend the meet-the-people sessions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my conclusion, let me just highlight one Government department which has done well in their public service. The Singapore Police Force has done a commendable job in their endeavour to win the confidence of the people. Their efforts have paid dividends. More Singaporeans are cooperating with the Police to minimize crime and apprehend criminals. The police officers manning the neighbourhood police posts are shining examples of civil servants who are trained to be courteous and helpful to the public. This has encouraged the public to cooperate wholeheartedly with the Police.

I hope that more Government departments will emulate the Police Force.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Siglap.

Sir, in the opening paragraph of his Address, the President stated very clearly that the "Government's goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans." The President said:

'Every working Singaporean should have a skilled, well-paid job; every family should live in an affordable, comfortable home; and every child should be educated to the limits or his or her potential.'

Sir, the key to a better life and better-paid job is through better education. I therefore support wholeheartedly the Government's priority to further improve the education system in Singapore. As spelt out in the President's Speech, our primary schools will be upgraded. More secondary schools will be converted to single-session schools. As more students can qualify for university admission, the Government will expand the university intakes, upgrade NTI into a full university, and study the feasibility of building a new tertiary institution to complement NUS and NTI.

Sir, you will recall that sometime last year, the question of expanding the university intake was raised in this House. There was a fruitful discussion on this subject during the budget debate. Many Members of the House contributed to the debate. The Hon. Minister for Education took pains to explain the Government's thinking on this matter. At the end of the debate, the Minister promised that as more students qualify for admission to the university, more university places will be created.

Sir, I am very glad indeed that the Government has decided to go ahead to expand our tertiary institutions. This will enable more Singaporeans who are capable of pursuing university education to find a place in our local university. This is not only consistent with our policy of providing opportunity to every citizen to develop to his or her fullest potential, but it would also reduce the pressure of parents wanting to send their children overseas because of the limited number of places in the local university. Parallel to this, the Government has also decided to allow Singaporeans to use part of their CPF savings for tertiary education.

Sir, the question of using CPF for education has been debated for a long time. Those who supported the use of CPF for education argued that expenditure on education is a form of investment. It makes more sense to invest on education than to invest in gold and shares which is allowed under the present CPF rules. Those who opposed the scheme argued that the use of CPF for education would undermine the basic objective of the CPF, which is to provide for old-age security. In spite of the initial resistance and under tremendous pressure from Members of this House and from members of the public, the Government has at long last agreed to change its stand and allow the use of CPF for tertiary education.

But I would like to add a word of caution. As we liberalize the use of CPF, the basic objective of the CPF, which is to provide for old age savings, should not be undermined. There must be safeguards to ensure that there is sufficient savings for old age. I therefore welcome the decision of the Government to make it a condition that those who utilize their CPF for tertiary education must pay back to CPF the funds they used after they graduated and started working. If necessary, appropriate legislation must be introduced to empower the CPF to enforce the repayment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we aspire to become a nation of excellence, we must adopt a total approach in upgrading the educational and skills level of our population. Providing good education to the children is an essential but not a sufficient measure to achieve our goal. No doubt every opportunity must be given to our students to go for higher study. But at the same time, we must also provide opportunity to those who are already in the workforce to upgrade themselves.

As we know, many of the working people do not possess a university degree. They have missed tertiary education for one reason or another. Many of them would like to pursue part-time study while still working. They have the motivation to improve and upgrade themselves. But unfortunately, opportunity for part-time study for a higher degree is sadly lacking in Singapore. Elsewhere in the world, there are various part-time degree or diploma courses offered by tertiary institutions. In Singapore, such opportunities are generally lacking.

I am aware of the constraints faced by the local tertiary institutions. Our university has to cope with the increasing demand for university places. There are physical and manpower constraints. But I believe there is nothing that cannot be resolved. It is a matter of whether we are convinced of the need and whether we have the will to do it.

Sir, nothing remains static. Circumstance changes, priority changes and policy changes. Years ago, a proposal for a third university would be dismissed as being frivolous and unrealistic. Now it is becoming a reality. Years ago, the proposal to use CPF for education was rejected outright by the Government. Today, the Government itself has found the proposal feasible and sensible. Years ago, having three or more children was considered anti-social which went against the society's norm. Today, it is to be highly praised and commended.

I do hope that, as and when we chart our developmental plan, the Ministry of Education will re-examine the need and the possibility of extending tertiary education to the working people, through part-time diploma or degree courses, or even through the open university concept where students can study at their own pace. We can always tie up with overseas institutions which have had experience offering such courses. We need not reinvent the wheel.

Sir, over the last few years, we have introduced several programmes to improve the quality of our workforce. The Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) programme has helped the workers to acquire basic proficieny in English and Mathematics. The Workers' Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) programme provides opportunity for the workers to pursue secondary education. The Modular Skills Training (MOST) programme enables the workers to take up part-time skills training courses. Other programmes like the Core Skills for Effectiveness and Change (COSEC), Tools for Problem Solving, Computer appreciation and information technology courses, all serve to improve the efficiency and problem solving skills of our workers.

To further widen the access to learning and training, the Government has decided to implement a pilot project on television-based open learning for workers. In 1990, the National Productivity Board will start using television to broadcast programmes for workers' training. Sir, I support such an initiative. Television is a powerful communication medium. If we can succeed in using television as an effective tool for education and training, we will be able to achieve much in accelerating the pace of continuing education and post employment training in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a country without any natural resources, our progress hinges only on one key resource - people. What we must recognize is that Singapore has a small population base. We cannot attract investment and achieve economic growth simply by offering a large pool of cheap labour. To achieve economic growth, we have to attract capital-intensive and technology-intensive industries. Along with that, we must train our workers to be skilful and productive.

While we encourage our industries to automate, to mechanize, to upgrade and to reduce their reliance on unskilled labour, the rapid expansion of our economy in the last two years saw an influx of a large number of unskilled foreign workers into Singapore. Sir, easy availability of cheap foreign labour negates the Government's effort to upgrade the industries. And apart from the undesirable social consequences, the liberal import of cheap foreign labour depresses the wages of the Singaporean workers.

I am particularly concerned about the wages of the lower income workers. Sir, society is made up of people of different educational attainment, of different skills, performing different tasks, doing different jobs and shouldering different responsibilities. Not everyone can be a manager. Not everyone can be a skilled technician. There are unskilled workers, semi-skilled workers, manual workers and labourers performing jobs which are not glamourous but essential to keep the economy and the society going. As the nation progresses, they too have to have a higher level of income to cope with the rising costs and affluence.

When arguing the case for more foreign workers, the employers have often found it convenient to point their finger at the Singaporeans, blaming them for being too choosy and harbouring high expectation. But they have forgotten that these Singaporeans who are generally at the lower strata of our society also need a decent income to lead a decent living. We can get a Sri Lankan maid for $150 a month. Do we expect a Singaporean to work full-time (24 hours a day and staying in) as a maid and live on an income of $150 a month? We can get a Thai worker for $200 a month. Do we expect a Singaporean head of a family to support his family with an income of $200 a month? So if we want to help the lower income group, we must allow

the wages of these groups of people to rise too. Liberal imports of foreign workers would do no good to our effort to improve the lives of these people.

In the matured industrial societies of the West, manual workers can earn as much as university graduates and professionals. I am not suggesting that we work towards that and encourage our people to remain unskilled but expect high wages. Our guiding principle for progress must always be to reward for skills and performance. That is the way to motivate our people to upgrade and to move up. But let us not be under the illusion that all Singaporeans can become doctors, engineers and skilled technicians. There will always be those who cannot make the grade, but they deserve decent wages provided that they are prepared to work hard.

Sir, I fully support the measures taken by the Government to curb the inflow of foreign labour. The increase in foreign workers levy is only one measure and the Government has to tighten the control through other measures, like further reducing the number of foreign workers allowed in each company.

Sir, I must also highlight the fact that at a time when companies are crying for more foreign workers, many employers are still refusing to employ what they perceive as old Singaporean workers. They have refused to raise the retirement age of their employees. There are still prejudices against the older workers. And I still see advertisements in the newspapers looking for young people to do jobs which can be done by the older people. Recently, I saw an advertisement for Quality Control inspectors which specifies 40 years as the age limit. Even more ridiculous is an advertisement for the post of storeman, the one looking after the stores. One would have thought that this will be the type of job suitable for older workers or even retirees. But guess what the advertiser stipulates? Applicants must be between 20 and 25 years of age! Sir, I believe if persuasion to raise the retirement age fails, some other effective measures including legislation, if necessary, must be introduced to bring about a change in attitude and practices.

Talking about advertisements, there was this advertisement for the job of security guard which specifies that the applicant must be a Malay. So Chinese and Indians are out. Sir, perhaps it is time we outlawed advertisement and employment practice which discriminates applicants based on age, sex and race.

Sir, another way to expand our workforce is to encourage more economically inactive persons to join or rejoin the workforce. This includes housewives, many of whom have resigned from their jobs because of family duties. Last year, we witnessed a relatively large number of people re-entering the workforce. This is a good sign. We should encourage more of these people to take up art-time or full-time job. But one of the common and valid complaints is that child-care facilities in Singapore are inadequate.

While the Government discourages the employment of foreign maids, which I believe the Government has very good reasons to do so, the lack of alternative arrangements would make it difficult for the women to take up employment. Today, most of the child care centres do not accept children who are below two years of age. Infant care facilities are hardly available. The Ministry of Community Development must find ways and means to encourage and facilitate the setting up of child-care and, in particular, infant care centres. The Ministry must make this its top priority programme.

The other alternative open to the working mothers is to take child care leave for a year or two after child birth. But it is not the practice of the private sector employers to grant such a long child-care leave.

I believe we must take a multi-pronged approach to address the problem. On the one hand, the Government should facilitate the setting up of child care and infant care centres. On the other hand, employers must be encouraged to be supportive to their female employees who have to take long leave to take care of their children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come a long way from where we were 30 years ago. We have solved the basic bread and butter issues. What we are setting out to do is to address some of the important political and social issues. The President has outlined the priorities, like defining a national ideology, consolidating political stability, helping the lower income group and strengthening multi-racial and multi-religious harmony.

If all Singaporeans can put our heart and soul together in building a cohesive society and achieving what we set out to do, we shall, as the President said, "be another step closer to becoming a Nation of Excellence."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to first give my views on the national ideology. Some Singaporeans have re- acted to the idea of a national ideology in an uncertain way because they are not sure what is the problem that the national ideology would help solve. They also fear that the key ingredients of the proposed national ideology, namely, the core values, have been settled and they would find great difficulty reconciling them with their own beliefs and traditions. As to be expected, the members of the minority communities were hesitant and they fear that the national ideology would be a way to subjugate them to the values of the majority community. Or to put it in another way, the national ideology could only be realized in terms of the values of the majority community. Their first reaction was therefore to seek an assurance that their views and sensitivities would be carefully considered. At the same time, they also emphasized that the values in their beliefs and traditions are universal and appropriate for inclusion in the national ideology.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the speech made by the Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence at the Alumni International Singapore's Third Singapore Lecture on 11th January 1989 and particularly the unequivocal statements that "the national ideology is for all communities" and that "the national ideology cannot be Confucianism by another name" are very assuring. It is crucial that all Singaporeans understand clearly why we need a national ideology. To ensure this we would not only have to improve on the way public views are sought but also to continuously assure them that their views and feedback would be seriously considered. Firstly, as we seek consensus of the values to be contained in the National Ideology and subsequently as we work the values into the way of life, beliefs and culture of our various communities. We must develop and nurture an environment which can allow the people to feel comfortable and confident so that when they air critical, dissenting but constructive views, they will not feel uncomfortable. In this way, we will encourage full and frank participation in the discussion of issues which affect our development and future.

The President has identified four key values in his Address. The list has been kept to the minimum in order to focus on the key items. I agree with this approach. However, I would like to suggest that we add in one more item, that is, the concern for the less fortunate and the underprivileged in our society. While it could be said that this would be covered by the first item of placing society above self, I think that this item should be highlighted in order that it will always remain high on our list of values. The items which have been identified are indeed compatible with the cultures and religions of the various communities in Singapore.

Sir, the challenge of rapid westernization and modernization is only one reason why it is important for Singaporeans to identify core values to guide us into the future. A national ideology is also needed to help us develop a strong sense of identity and a common understanding. It can help us move towards greater unity in a more steady and confident manner. Is sharing a clear and similar set of values, however strongly held and shared, adequate for ensuring the realization of greater national unity in the future?

Sir, it would certainly help. But at the same time it is also crucial that members of the various communities and socio-economic groups genuinely feel that they have the opportunities to share Singapore's progress and prosperity and that they can participate actively in Singapore's development particularly in the political and economic areas.

Sir, with the implementation of the GRC scheme, we now ensure that there will always be minority representation in Parliament. Nevertheless, the GRC is a new experience and we have to monitor how the GRCs will develop to ensure that its objectives will be met. If necessary, modification should be made to improve the scheme. After saying all that, I do not want to be misunderstood. I think my experience in my GRC is a good one. Each member of the GRC helps and complements the other. We help to develop each other's strength and also minimize any weaknesses that we have. But nevertheless this is a new experience and we should continue to closely monitor its development.

Sir, however, in the business or commercial field, many members of the minority groups feel very insecure. They feel that they have not been able to share Singapore's prosperity. For example, there are some members of the minority groups who feel that there are many obstacles in private sector employment. We accept the principle of meritocracy. But in the private sector employment, there is the feeling that somewhere along the line there are considerations other than meritocracy. The perception of inadequate opportunities for minority group members in the private sector needs close attention. I think this is urgent since the Government has reduced public sector employment. In this connection, I would like to suggest that a high level committee be set up to study this issue and to assess the extent of the lack of opportunities for members of the minority groups to get employment in the private sector. The availability of an avenue for redress which such a committee can provide would be very assuring to the members of the minority communities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to labour issues as we move into the 1990s. I would like to just highlight two areas. First, the concern whether our wage levels will continue to be competitive compared to the wage levels of our competitors, particularly the NICs. Both management and unions, as stated in the Addendum to the President's Address on the Ministry of Labour, have now accepted the need for flexible wage systems linked to productivity and profitability. However, more employers will have to be encouraged to implement the flexible wage system.

In order to strengthen the bond between workers and their management, management should be encouraged to allocate or sell shares to their employees either individually or as a group, in the same way as share options are given to management of some companies. A mechanism such as a trust fund could be established to hold the shares given to the employees. In this way we further strengthen the bond between workers and their employers and workers would be strongly motivated to do their best to help their companies to become more competitive. Obviously, in the case of the MNCs, it would be more difficult to work such a scheme but some form of profit sharing could still be worked out by the companies indicating clear targets of performance for workers to achieve and, if they do achieve the targets, they should be given monetary and other incentives.

Sir, the other area is labour supply. Currently our labour market is very tight and we depend on foreign workers to generate higher economic growth. The proposal to raise the retirement age and to encourage part-time employment will help ease the labour supply. On part-time employment, at present the Employment Act does not distinguish part-time workers and full-time workers. Steps should be taken to clearly define part-time work. The Ministry of Labour's Addendum states that, if necessary, the Employment Act will be amended to encourage part-time work and to provide greater flexibility for employment of part-time workers.

Sir, it is important that in amending the Employment Act part-time workers are not excluded from any of the provisions of the Employment Act. Statutory benefits could be pro-rated for part-time workers and they and their employers could be allowed to work out schemes where certain benefits could be converted into monetary payment. With employers getting more part-time workers, this would release the pressure for more foreign workers. It would also enable families to increase their family income and allow more married women to enter the labour market on a part-time basis as it provides flexibility of working and yet giving them the opportunity to look after their families. However, any changes to the regulation on part-time work must ensure that abuses can be controlled.

The Ministry of Labour should also look into ways to promote "home working" in Singapore. This means that those who do not want to leave their homes can work at home. They can have working hours which are more flexible and which meet their needs, particularly for housewives, who could stay at home to work and at the same time look after their children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the President's Address it is stated that the Government would help the lower income group to upgrade their lives, especially those willing to make efforts to help themselves. I quote:

'The Government will do more to equip them with skills to earn a better living, and to help them give their children a good family upbringing, a sound education, and a fair start in life.'

Sir, I would like to suggest that the Government provide free education to children of lower income families, especially those whose take-home pay is below $600 per month, at least up to the secondary level. Further, in the pricing of services which are provided by the Government, eg, education, medical, hospital needs, home ownership and so on, the problems of this group must be taken into account. The cost of medical services and homeownership must be affordable to them. The Government must continue to do all it can to show to the lower income groups that we care for their welfare and well-being and that steps will be actively and expeditiously taken to help them improve their quality of life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to note the assurance given by the Government that it will encourage and facilitate the progress of Malay Singaporeans into the mainstream of national life and to provide special education and training opportunities for Malays.

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for the assistance given to Mendaki which is a community self-help project to help Malay/Muslim children to do well in their education. Mendaki is now in the process of restructuring itself to expand its area of self-help to include social and economic areas. I would like to ask the Government to consider further assistance to the expanded Mendaki. It is hoped that Government will provide not only financial but also manpower support. The Government has stated that helping the Malay community is justifiable so long as "it does not compromise the principle of meritocracy and so long as the members of the community support these Government policies by openly identifying themselves with them." I agree that the principle of meritocracy should never be compromised.

On the second part, I would like to say that the Malay problem should be tackled as a national problem, and if the efforts to help the Malays succeed, Singapore gains as well. At the present time, Malays have made some progress but there is unhappiness because many members of the community feel that the progress is too slow. They feel also that much more can be done by the Government to help them achieve better progress.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that if the new Government measures and policies which, when implemented, can help to overcome the problems and the constraints the community faces and make faster progress possible, then the members of the community will indeed be very happy to identify themselves openly with them. Sir, here it is important for me to stress also that members of the Malay community must recognize that if they want to achieve progress at a faster pace they must make a greater effort to improve themselves. They must be more self-reliant and be ready to make such adjustments which can enable faster progress to be achieved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to survive, Singaporeans must be prepared to take in new ideas and consider new ways to manage our affairs so that we continue to be a vibrant and successful nation. We must be prepared to accept changes, be forward-looking, flexible and adaptable and at the same time be able to keep a clear sense of identity and self confidence. We cannot afford to be a people without roots. To develop a strong sense of identity in a multi-racial and multi-religious setting is a slow, complex and sensitive process. A national ideology would help. The members of the various communities must also feel confident that there are sufficient opportunities for them to participate in the development of Singapore and to share its success and prosperity. As our people work together closely and harmoniously to secure these ideals, we help to build a strong, vibrant and happy Singapore.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Hong Hai (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Siglap.

Sir, this Government has presided over an economic miracle of sorts over the last 30 years of its rule. It has done so not only through the extraordinary leadership of the Prime Minister and successive Cabinets of talented men but also through the practice of Singapore's style of democracy. Sir, I would like today to touch on this last subject - Singapore's style of democracy - and to advocate that our system, our political ideology, be incorporated in our national ideology.

Before stating my view on our political ideology, I would like to cite the eminent philosopher, Sir Karl Popper, author of "The Open Society and Its Enemies" and a vigorous champion of democracy. Popper argued recently that democracy does not mean that people should make political decisions for themselves. I quote:

'From Plato to Karl Marx and beyond, the fundamental problem has always been: who should rule the state? Plato's answer was simple and naive: "the best" should rule. The practice in the ancient city of Athens had been precisely the opposite: the people should rule. All important political decisions were made by an assembly of all full citizens. But a popular vote may be wrong, even in the most important matters. This is one of the strongest reasons for founding the idea of democracy upon the practical principle of avoiding tyranny rather than upon a divine, or a morally legitimate, right of the people to rule.'

Sir, Singapore has been run on the premise that people should choose the party that rules, and the party then appoints the best among its ranks to run the government. If it fails in its task, it faces the wrath and the will of the electorate. But as long as it is entrusted with the task of government, it is incumbent upon government to make the political decisions, including tough and unpopular ones. Government ignores public opinion at its peril but good government must have the grit to decide against short-term popular sentiment. To its credit, our Government has often done so in taking a long-term view of policy options.

Sir, Singapore has chosen the form of democracy in which people have relinquished the right to rule themselves but have instead placed their trust on their elected representatives to make these decisions for them. This is a heavy and profound responsibility for Cabinet and Parliament. In discharging this responsibility, it is not enough that we deliver economic prosperity and social stability. We must also do so in a manner that keeps the people with us in heart and in spirit. To alienate them would be to lose their mandate for us to govern.

In this regard, Sir, may I have leave to cite a less well-known British thinker, F.J. Sheed. Sheed goes back to the social pact between a ruler and his people, one based on love and empathy, and I quote:

'The country that does not inspire love [for one's own country] is a diminished country, and, however well-organized the State, it is not stable. [A ruler's] own stability depends on his success in getting men to feel that the country is in good hands. This does not mean simply that the government is efficient; but that it is spiritually and psychologically in tune with its people.'

Sir, in the early years of this Government we were spiritually and psychologically in tune with the people. When they needed economic survival, the Government delivered. When there were new controversial policies like national service, the Government went out to sell them.

Sir, I hope I may be forgiven for pointing out that since perhaps the 1970s, we have become better at delivering economic performance than in winning hearts. Why has this been so? Sir, there are probably many reasons but I would like to suggest two. First, our presentation of ideas, particularly our use of labels, is sometimes inappropriate. Second, our policies occasionally overlook matters of taste and tradition. Let me, if I may, cite a few examples.

We have in place today a programme whereby children of exceptional academic ability are put in special schools in order that they may develop their full intellectual potential. This is sensible. Regrettably, however, the programme is called the "Gifted Education Programme". Are we saying, Sir, that the other students, the 99% or more who do not make it to the programme, are ungifted, or without gifts? Even in a meritocracy like Singapore, personal success depends on a variety of talents and gifts. Academic ability is only one of them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Hear, hear!

Dr Hong Hai: Sir, it is not difficult to find other labels and terminology that do violence to our social sensibilities. Permit me another example. Some weeks ago, our newspaper ran a competition for the best term to replace "void deck" for the ground floor of an HDB block. It was a laudable effort and long overdue. Sir, an HDB block is not an array of concrete and voids. It is home to hundreds of people. The ground floor is the venue for social and communal activity and is anything but void. Sir, these may appear to be frivolous examples but they are symptomatic of a certain attitude of mind.

Sir, still on the subject of being tuned to the hearts of the people, I would like to touch on government policy. In our zeal to pursue economic excellence, we occasionally lose sight of the ultimate goal of economic activity - the satisfaction of human wants or desires. We should satisfy these desires in an efficient way but we must take into account taste, tradition, and cultural habits.

Consider, for example, the issue of wet markets. It is well known that the wet market is an institution beloved of Singapore housewives. To go there in the morning, press the fish to test for freshness, hold up the fruits and vegetables for inspection, and bargain with their favourite butcher are rituals of near-psychic significance. I understand that we want to get rid of wet markets because they are not efficient and are subsidized. But, Sir, if we got rid of all things that were subsidized or inefficient in the narrow cost-sense, we would probably lose our museum, parks and many other social amenities.

In brief, Sir, I am arguing that the desire by the Singapore housewives for wet markets is a rational want. What housewives want is not just food, but also the convenience and the freshness of wet market produce. There may be less costly ways of retailing food. But these may not be as attractive or as satisfactory to housewives. Economic efficiency consists of satisfying rational wants in the least costly way, not of denying these wants.

Sir, I am not advocating a soft-headed approach to politics. When our Government overcame the crises of the 1960s, it was with tough and pragmatic politics. We must continue to be hard-nosed and pragmatic. But we do not have to make a virtue of appearing tough. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the American sociologist, Ezra Vogel, whose lectures at Harvard I attended some years ago, characterized our ruling elite as a "macho meritocracy". Vogel is a keen observer of Asian societies, and I thought this characterization of Singapore was quite telling.

Sir, we can be tough but we do not have to be macho; we can be firm but gentle; we must be pragmatic, but never lose our sensibilities.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, whilst I agree with the speech given by Dr Hong Hai, I have one clarification.

Mr Speaker: All right. Make your clarification.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I can understand why he says that Singapore's miracle in economic progress was due to the Prime Minister (he was here) and his successive Cabinets and Singapore-style of democracy. Can I have one clarification? Has he not missed out one very important element, and that is, the hardworking population of Singapore?

Dr Hong Hai: I thank the Member for Potong Pasir for the correction, "and the hardworking people of Singapore". Thank you.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address to Parliament, the President stated that it is the Government's intention for Singaporeans to enjoy meaningful and fulfilling lives. What is a meaningful and fulfilling life? This means different things to different people. In creating this future society, many facets of our society should be addressed and improved on. Of these, I will touch on only two which are of concern to the younger Singaporeans, namely, social support system for the children for those with a family of young children; and secondly, the ownership of a private car for the upward mobile group.

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of our young women work prior to their marriage. However, once a couple decide to start a family, the question of whether the mother should stay home invariably arises. While this is a private decision to be made by the couple, the resulting impact has national consequences.

If our mothers stay home to take care of children, they can no longer work. This would aggravate our already tight labour market resulting in an increased demand for foreign workers. Many of our younger mothers would like to work given their training, their education and their personal aspirations. Besides, the money from the second income is often important to keep up the lifestyles they are familiar with. Given the current social support system, these young mothers are faced with the trade-off between children or better fulfilment at work. Many have chosen to have a smaller family so that they can lead a more fulfilling life. The aggregate of all these individual decisions resulted in a long-term declining birth rate. Mr Speaker, Sir, despite the large number of babies born in 1988, I believe the trend has not been arrested nor reversed.

Recently I came across a book on declining birth rate titled "The Birth Dearth" by Ben Wattenberg. The author compared the birth rates of East Germany versus West Germany since the 1970s and the measures taken by their respective governments to manage them, which I think would be useful for us to take note of.

As we know, the two Germanies have the same language, same historical and cultural heritage but with different forms of government only since the end of the Second World War. Democratic and pluralistic in the case of West Germany; centralized, non-demoractic communist in thecase of East Germany. They also have very different pro-natalist policies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in terms of fertility rate, as measured by the average number of children a woman will bear in her life-time, the figures for the two Germanies were very close up to mid-1970s. In 1972, it was 1.72 for West Germany versus 1.78 for East Germany. By 1974, the figures had dropped to 1.51 and 1.54 respectively.

At about that time, recognizing the gravity of the situation, the East German government began implementing a variety of very expensive pro-natalist measures. These measures include cash incentives for child allowances, day care centres, maternity leave and housing allowances. West Germany being a pluralist society did practically nothing. And this is what happened. The fertility rate in West Germany continued to drop gradually to 1.27 by 1984 while that in the East Germany showed a turnaround in 1977, and by 1984 it had stabilized around 1.80. 1.80 is obviously still below the replacement figure of 2.1, but nonetheless very much higher than the 1.27 in West Germany.

The situation in other Eastern European countries is similar. Although much poorer than the Western European countries, these Eastern European countries spent a much greater percentage of their national budgets for family policies. One principal goal of these family policies is to increase the number of babies born. The figures show the impact. In 1960, Eastern European's number is 2.47; for Western European countries, 2.62. By 1970, both figures had dropped to 2.27 and 2.38 respectively. Following the implementation of the Eastern European pro-natalist policies, the fertility rate in Eastern European countries stablized while that in Western Europe continued to decline. By 1985, the figures are 2.16 and 1.62 respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason I quote all these figures is to show that evidence exists todate which shows that pro-natalist policies are very convincing. Of course, these pro-family policies cost money, big money. One estimate done by two demographers in their book, "The Fear of Population Decline", shows that if specific Western countries were to match the comparative level of family allowances provided for in Hungary and Bulgaria, that would involve a 120% increase in government spending on family policies in Sweden, a 100% increase in West Germany and a 70% increase in Britain.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the big difference we are talking about. But as the numbers show, these mass programmes with high expenditure do work, and there is no half-way measures in this respect. And I believe that to encourage larger families, the problems faced by our younger parents must be addressed. With the proper level of expenditure and a well-managed programme, I am sure Singaporeans will respond in like manner.

Currently, for families which can afford it, the Government's position in terms of child support seems to be for the families to get a foreign maid. However, when that led to an explosion in the number of foreign maids, the Government in trying to control the number imposed a higher foreign maid levy. And I can see the trend will continue in the future. In this respect, I echo the sentiments of the Member for Kampong Glam and the Member for Eunos GRC in saying that our Government is reacting to the problems rather than adopting a long-term comprehensive approach in getting to the root of the matter.

In fact, many of my constituents have asked me, what is the Government doing with the money collected from the maid levy. Why do the Government not use the money to reduce the dependency on foreign maid in the first place, instead of channelling it into the general revenue pool? Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that is a very good point. Since maids are mainly employed to take care of young children and old parents, I propose the set-up of a fund using the maid levy. Perhaps we can call it the Community Development Fund (CDF). This fund should have an inflow of at least $25 million a year. Sir, we know that the Minister for Finance would, in principle, oppose such a single-purpose fund. However, if we take a look at the Skills Development Fund and the good work done by the National Productivity Board managing that fund, we must agree that such funds do provide focus and will galvanize actions. The objective of the proposed fund (the CDF) would be to first reduce our mothers' dependency on foreign maids and, in general, provide a better social support system such as child care centres for working mothers. Of course, other worthwhile programmes can be implemented in due course in the future.

Before I leave this topic, I would like to propose that child support system, like child care centres, be viewed in the proper light. It seems to me that our Government would prefer not to take child care programmes on as a government responsibility, but to let the private sector provide such facilities as evident in the Addendum to the President's Address. But if you look around, you will notice that there are also other social facilities such as primary schools and pre-primary schools that we, as a people, have come to accept as the basic responsibilities of the Government. And this institution does not exist naturally but has evolved over the years to cater to changing social needs. Our society has changed. In today's society, our young mothers are crying out for better child support systems. And I believe the Government should shoulder greater responsibility in this arena.

The next concern of younger families, especially the upward mobile families, is child ownership (sorry) car ownership.

Mr Speaker: You have one minute left, Dr Wang.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: I am prompted to speak on the matter when I noticed that the near panic that gripped the car buyers towards the last few days of December 1988. The state of mind of our people is such that a mere rumour of price increase caused otherwise rational individuals to register their new cars on the last few days of 1988.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to give my analysis of the car ownership issue.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think you have to leave it for tomorrow.

The Chair has observed that Members are in the habit of reading their speeches. While it is not the intention of the Chair at this stage to impose the ruling regarding reading of speeches, I hope that hon. Members will understand the plight of the Chair in having to listen for hours and hours to the reading by Members. Members should therefore, if their skills permit, endeavour to speak and not read. If all else fails, I would suggest that Members practise the art of reading without appearing to be reading.

Members might like to take the cue from Sir Winston Churchill who stated very often that he was not the great orator that the public made him out to be. Sir Winston, if Members would like to know, had the habit of memorising his text and practising before the mirror the night before he made his great speeches.

Order. It is 4.30 pm now. Moment of Interruption.

Debate to be resumed what day?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Speaker: So be it.