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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16th January 1989],

'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.".' - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi]

Question again proposed.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about car ownership yesterday when Parliament adjourned. Before I continue, permit me to make a correction on the figure of the annual collection of fund generated by the foreign maid levies which I gave yesterday. Otherwise, I might acquire a reputation as that of the Member for Potong Pasir, ie, someone having trouble with his figures. I said that if a fund were to be set up funded by the foreign maid levies, the amount would come up to about $25 million a year. Actually, there being 40,000 maids in Singapore and at the new rate of $250 a month, that amount would actually ---

An hon. Member: $200!

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Currently, it is $200 but I understand it will be increased to $250 in July, as reported in the papers.

An hon. Member: From $180 to $200.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: $180 to $200. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do have problems with my figures. Anyway, I think the total amount would actually come up to about $100 million a year.

Coming back to the issue of car ownership, there are about 220,000-230,000 cars in Singapore currently. For a population of 2.6 million, that works out to 1 car for every 10 men, women and children in Singapore. However, I would say that a better measure of the distribution of car ownership will be to count the number of cars for working people in Singapore. Give half of our population are below the working age, the current situation is that 1 out of every 5 working people can own a car.

The Minister of Communications and Information has stated repeatedly in the past that the increase in the road space in Singapore would be able to support a 1-2% annual increase in car population. Let us assume that the Minister is very generous and allow an annual increase of 2%. That works out to about 4,000 new cars a year on the road in Singapore.

If you look at the number of new entrants into the labour market which can be determined by looking at the number of primary school students in our school system, that will be about 40,000 people coming into the labour market every year for the next 5 to 10 years. Distributing these 4,000 cars among the 40,000 people means that for the new entrants into the labour market, only 1 out of 10 will be allocated a car, no matter what system we use in the distribution of these cars.

Even if you take into consideration the fact that when the current number of working people retire when they get older and give up their cars, I believe that this number will not change. In other words, in the future, as we look down the road, only 1 out of every 10 persons who come into the labour force will be able to afford a car. Of course, some of the new working people will get to a point of owning a car earlier than others. But in a steady state, what I have said is true.

Mr Speaker, Sir, straightaway, what I am going to say next becomes self-evident. We are moving from a situation in Singapore where 1 out of every 5 working people can own a car into a situation where even a smaller proportion of people can own a car over the next 10 years.

That is to say, while the total number of cars will continue to increase, the number of people wanting to own cars will increase even further. My assumption is that the car population will increase at a steady rate of 2% a year. What happens if the road expansion slows down in future? What happens if the car population is not allowed to grow by 4,000 cars a year for the next 10 years? It is quite clear that a smaller and smaller proportion of working people in Singapore can own cars. Since the Government uses market forces to determine car ownership, the conclusion is that cars will become increasingly expensive. There is no escape from this conclusion. And who will be hit the hardest? I would say the young professionals, many of whom take car ownership as a measure of success. This is so because the second self-evident fact is that getting a tertiary degree is not going to be a passport to car ownership.

Currently, about 15% of the cohorts in our school system get into the tertiary institutions and this number is set to increase with the setting up of a second university and, possibly, a third university. 15% is already higher than the 10% proportion I mentioned earlier, as dictated by our land transportation policy, given the fact that other occupations like the hawkers, insurance agents, entertainers and other not-so-upright occupations like bookies, etc, will produce high-income individuals who can afford cars. The conclusion will be that fewer of the younger professionals in the future are likely to achieve car ownership than the current generation and the previous generation of professionals. This is already happening and will be aggravated in the future. So clearly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the expectation of our people regarding car ownership must be set right as early as possible. We must grab the bull by the horns and face the facts now. We must come to accept that achievement in life as a people to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives does not mean owning a car.

In this respect, I would say that our news media can help. Recently, I came across statistics in the newspapers, such as Snapshots in the Straits Times and the Sunday Times, showing that the car to population ratio in the US is 1:3 and in Japan 1:2, etc. This might give an impression that Singapore still has a long way to go in terms of providing a better standard of living for Singaporeans. I believe this is misleading, Mr Speaker, Sir. A better comparison will be with large cities like New York and Tokyo. I do not have the figures but I am certain that Singaporeans are already doing fairly well by comparison. For people living in these cities, having a car is in fact quite a hassle. For instance, parking in New York city for one afternoon can easily cost more than S$50. When I was in Tokyo recently, for instance, my host told me that travelling a distance that would take half an hour in Singapore, it would easily take one hour in Tokyo. And this one-hour journey can easily stretch to two hours or more under bad traffic conditions. So in Tokyo when the people plan to go to a meeting by car, ample time must be provided for travel. So it is not surprising that in Tokyo the subway is the preferred means of travel, followed by taxis.

By the way, Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that from the experience of other cities, there are natural inhibitors for the car population; they are parking problems and traffic congestion. Of course, that is a very inefficient way to go. In Singapore, indeed we have gone the other way. There are ample and cheap parking facilities in the city. The average speed on our road is about 30 km per hour, roughly double that in the other cities. So indeed we are talking about trade-offs. If our drivers feel frustrated about the high cost of new cars, I would urge them to look at the situation from a more positive angle.

We in Singapore pay for the cost of operating the car up front, in the form of capital cost. People in other cities pay for it in the incremental cost of operating the car, such as parking, time involved in parking delays and travel delays, pollution due to congestion, etc. The Government has reiterated many times that we in Singapore want to maintain the current efficiency of our road system and I support that position. Having a car may not be important but mobility will be. As our people get better educated, they will start to value their time more and more. Hence our public transportation system must evolve to such a stage that the lack of a car does not imply hardship in getting around for those who are in the car ownership bracket. The MRT would satisfy the need of the population living around the MRT stations. For other people living away from the MRT stations, our taxi system must be improved to provide an equivalent level of service as that of a private car. The availability of taxis must be improved so that waiting time can be reduced. This can be achieved via increasing the number of taxis on the road or increasing the fare of taxis to modulate demand. Radio taxi service must be expanded comprehensively so that door-to-door service can be provided.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I raised two matters of concern to Singaporeans and if these two matters are addressed properly, I believe that we will be moving closer to the society envisaged by the President in his Address.

Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to speak on a point of clarification?

Mr Speaker: Yes, but be brief, please.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, in yesterday's debate on the President's Address, I mentioned in my speech the Chinese saying: shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren (

) to mean that it takes 10 years to develop a tree but it takes a hundred years to develop a man. I stand by what I said, as I have before me a chi yuan ( ) which is a dictionary of Chinese idioms as printed by Commercial Press, first published in 1915. On page 789 of this dictionary, shu ren is defined as pei chi ren chai ( ), which means to nurture and develop a capable man. Therefore, the saying shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren, taken idiomatically, means it takes a hundred years or a long time to nurture and develop a capable man. Whereas it takes only 10 years or a much shorter time to plant a tree. The dictionary continues to elaborate quoting Guan Zi ( ) a sage who lived in the same historical period as Confucius, as follows:

yi nian zhi ji, mo ru shu gu, shi nian zhi ji, mo ru shu mu, zhong shen zhi ji, mo ru shu ren which means that if you plan for a year, you plant grain; if you plan for ten years, you plant a tree; but if you plan for a lifetime, you nurture and develop a capable man.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Changi in his speech yesterday has emphasized on the hundredfold reward in nurturing and developing a man. To do so, the Chinese saying which I use should then be changed into:

shi huo shu mu, bai huo shu ren rather than shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to emphasize that I have not quoted out of context and I stand by my interpretation of the long-term nature of nurturing and developing "man" in my speech yesterday. Shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren has often been used to express the need for a long-term programme to nurture and develop the young.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Siglap.

Sir, in countries which are developing and maturing there are a number of indicators which suggest that their society is progressing. These indicators include, Sir, people feeling happy and proud that they belong to the place; they are willing to commit themselves to various challenges; they want to protect their place at all costs; they are interested in supporting one another. In these aspects, Sir, how do Singapore measure? Singapore has achieved some of these indicators. This is because people have generally shared the benefits of accessible and affordable basic social services.

Sir, it is in this area that I would like to probe the conscience of our policymakers. A gentle reminder would be useful in terms of what they would be formulating in relation with the various policies related to social services. They should not become too profit-orientated in their policy formulation. The danger with such an emphasis is that it can become an end in itself rather than a means to achieve social and economic development. To quote Prof. Kenneth Boulding, an economist, he says:

'We are always trying to live precariously between the too little and the too much and are always in danger of falling into one or the other. This problem is just as important in economic policy as it is in social policy; it cannot be assumed that higher rates of economic growth are always better. Even here there is a problem of the optimum. A society that forces itself into too high rate of growth pay dearly for this in terms of social disorganization, misunderstanding between the generations, and the break-up of its traditional integrative system.'

Sir, it is important for us to see that basic social services such as health, housing and education remain affordable to most people in Singapore. These services have provided the foundations for our nation building and contributed to social stability in our society.

In providing affordable social services to people we can achieve a number of desirable objectives. We can develop a more cohesive society; facilitate self-help; prevent frustrations among different socio-economic groups; promote mutual support and enhance human development.

It can in the long run prevent people, particularly those in the average and low income groups, from being left out from the mainstream of our society. I feel that excessive profit-orientation in the long run without taking into consideration the ramifications of such a pursuit, can in a way leave out a large number of people from participating in our main stream. Therefore, Sir, in the implementation of our future social policies, attention must be given to the question of affordability of social services.

Sir, there are some negative consequences if basic services become non-affordable. These are more often than not accumulative and policy makers must be mindful to assess their impact over a period of time. Without such a sensitivity we may polarize various sectors of the community whose support and continued participation in the main stream of our community activities will be eroded. I would like to highlight a few of these negative consequences.

Sir, there is now a pressing sign in the number of Singaporeans migrating to various developed countries, particularly in the West and South Pacific regions, namely, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America. We say that it is no loss to Singapore. Sir, every Singaporean who migrates is a loss to Singapore. Our talent pool will be affected in the long run. Semi-professionals and professionals are some of those who have migrated. I have gathered from some of our friends who have migrated that there are varying reasons to suggest why they have gone. When asked why they have migrated, they replied that it was for the sake of their children's education. When pressed further, they said they expected more opportunities for initiatives. They feel Singapore is to some extent very stifling. Sir, for whatever reasons there may be, I think it is crucial for us to look into the underlying reasons for their migration. Perhaps through reviewing and knowing these reasons we can take some positive steps to lessen the attrition.

Sir, abrasions and conflicts between and among various social and economic groups can result. This might lead to divisions in our community. When these are attached with ethnic and religious labels by opportunists and fanatics, they could become minefields and be very explosive. We must therefore be on the guard to prevent people from playing up racial and religious sentiments which have ill effects to Singapore. We must look into ways to prevent religious groups from indulging in politics. This is crucial and I hope that we will be able to review and take this into serious consideration.

Sir, another negative consequence is that our potential for human development could be stifled. Without access to affordable health, housing and education, people may become demotivated. If they see that by working hard they can get the benefit of these services, they are likely to aspire to achieve better. All these need not be handout services. All that they are asking for is reasonable pricing of the services.

Sir, our Government in the last 30 years has made a conscious effort to provide the majority of our population with better housing, health, education and security. Such an effort has created a closer bond between our Government and the people. We have to continue to strengthen this bond, Sir. However, Sir, with the recent moves by Government institutions and statutory boards to corporatize or privatize, call what you may, Sir, I think the bottom line is whether services are going to be more expensive. Are people going to pay more? I think this is the bottom line of it. The average income families are concerned about a number of crucial issues. They are asking: Will my family be able to own bigger homes? Will health cost go up to an extent that it will strain the family's budget? Will transport become too expensive? Is education going to remain affordable to my children? Will child care services be still affordable? These are some of the queries of the average income earning families. Sir, we can and we must allay these anxieties. This is provided that those managing primary service sectors are not too profit-orientated and devise a pricing system which makes it difficult for people to get access to the basic social services.

Sir, I will deal with only three areas in which affordability is much discussed about. People are talking about these areas of concern which is worth highlighting.

Firstly, Sir, HDB housing has remained affordable to the majority of our population. However, the HDB's recent move to adjust its flat pricing system to reflect variations in design, location and finishes has generated concern among families who are living in older housing estates and those planning to upgrade their housing. They feel that future increases in prices may cause them to abandon their plans to upgrade their housing. This can negate HDB's programme to redevelop older housing estate neighbourhoods and goals towards achieving a home-owning society. Our housing policy has provided a stake for people to be committed to Singapore. It is hoped that the pricing of flats will continue to remain within the reach of our population, particularly the young married and the lower income group.

Sir, the lower income group also faces difficulty in finding ready cash to renovate their new flats. As a result they tend to go for older flats which do not entail cash outflow for renovation. If such a trend continues, ethnic enclaves are likely to become more accelerated. It is hoped that HDB could extend a renovation loan to lower income families so that they could be attracted to the new towns and thereby reduce ethnic concentration in the older housing estates. I suggest this is worthwhile reviewing and a move in this direction would be positive.

Secondly, Sir, the plan towards reorganization of the health service and more specifically the cooperatization of hospitals has generated speculation of increases in health cost. The question is the amount of increase, Sir. This is the question that people are talking about and it is worrying them. People are worried that hospital charges will be steep and this will impose further burden on the average income and lower income families. We must, Sir, make hospital charges reasonable. Otherwise, Sir, it would be a pity that we get to a situation where we have modern hospitals but those who really need to be treated for their illness are unable to use these services.

Thirdly, Sir, one cannot but agree with the Government that there must be afford- able child care services for working mothers. However, the recent increase in levy of foreign maids and the lack of child care facilities are likely to attract more women to work. This also stifles the effort in encouraging working mothers to continue working and many of them are contemplating that they would stop working because they are being affected by this new policy. The levy also counteracts the new population policy of "three or more". The negative impact of the foreign maids levy need to be assessed. The substantial increase in the levy will defnitely hurt those who are really in need of domestic help. It may not deter those who are not really in need of domestic help. There are many of those who engage foreign maids but they are not in dire need of their services. It would be appropriate therefore not to impose the second stage increase for working couples, particularly those with very young children to care for or elderly sick parents to attend to. This will be helpful to those who have more urgent need for foreign maids. I urge that some criteria be established to discriminate those who require such a support.

In conclusion, Sir, may I urge the Government to ensure that social services remain affordable to most people. By providing these services at an affordable rate we are neither creating dependency nor promoting welfare syndrome. These are much needed basic services which will provide the foundations of our future growth. The charges should remain reasonable so that people can get access to these services.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to join the Member for Siglap in thanking the President for his Speech.

In the Speech, the President reiterates that the Government is determined to create a better life for all Singaporeans and to make our people aware of what the Government will be doing for the next five years and in what direction. While we talk about a National Ideology, a middle class society, a better life and a gracious society, I believe the foundation for all these developments must start from the family, how we are going to consolidate our family unit. It is because the family unit is the nucleus of a nation; it is the cohesive unit of a society. There must, first of all, be good families with good life before we can have a good and gracious society and a strong and prosperous nation.

Let us have a look at the family life and concept of our people and review their traditional family concept vis-a-vis the new challenges brought about by our rapid economic progress - the full scale mobilization of our human resources with higher educational standard, resulting in more and more of our womenfolk being better educated and more easy to find jobs, thus enjoying better status in the society. All this will have certain effect on our family structure and concept.

On the question of the concept and problems of marriage, the younger genration has a different view of what marriage is or requires. Some of them are marrying late and some of them do not even want to get married. Another problem is the increase in divorce cases. In 1988, 4.8 couples out of 1,000 couples were divorced, an increase from 3.7 per 1,000 previously. The divorce rate has been increasing over the last few years. There have been changes to the responsibilities shouldered by members of the family. Both husband and wife are sharing in family chores. Nowadays, we see that in many families both husband and wife are working. In our oriental society, traditionally the husband would not be looking after the family but goes out to work to earn a living for the family and the wife would normally stay at home to look after the children. But this sort of arrangement has been changing over the last few years. More and women women are joining the labour force. The figure has increased from 36.4% in 1976 to 47% in 1988. The figure for married women working has also increased from 29.5% in 1981 to 36.4% in 1988.

Another problem facing the family is how to look after the older folk and younger children in the family. Now with more women getting into the workforce, this has become a new challenge. Because of this, the birth rate has also decreased. Yet another challenge faced by the family nowadays is in respect of its role in the inculcation of traditional values in the family. Now that the trend of single family unit is catching on, so when more women are joining the workforce they have less time for the family and less time to educate their children in the homes, while the grandparents are also hardly around for any help.

Now, more and more families are aspiring and trying to move into the middle-class society. They have to earn more and to improve themselves. In doing so, they help the society to improve. There is nothing wrong about it because everybody wants to have a better standard of living and more members of the family will have to come out to to work to earn more money so that they can attain their aim.

If we take a look at the other developed countries, we know that in countries like Japan, the United States and some European countries like the United Kingdom and Sweden, many families are enjoying middle class living standards because the number of women joining the workforce is in the region of 50%. In Singapore, it is important that we urge more women to join the workforce if they hope to enjoy a better standard of living and for the future of their children.

However, I would like to point out one thing. Very often, we believe that if the wife is unable to look after the young children in the family, then a very simple solution is just to stop working and stay at home. Do we realize that today there are 380,000 Singaporean men, ie, about 53% of the total number of working men, who earn only about $800 or less a month? And after deducting CPF contribution, they have a take-home pay of only about $600?

According to a survey, the basic cost of living of a family of four living in a 1-room flat is about $500 a month. If the man earns only $600 pm how can he afford to give the family a better standard of living? Although family members have a duty to consolidate the family unit and improve themselves, the Government and social institutions also have the obligation to help them. If you want their children to have better education, if you want them to excel in their studies, in order to give them a better life and for the good of the family, then the housewife has to come out to work. However, men already comprise about 50% of the workforce, not mentioning the 20,000 poorer families who are living on an income of around $600 pm and who have to carry some 80,000 dependants with them. Only 20% of the men are able to earn above $1,500 a month and, of course, their wives are more fortunnate. They can afford to stay at home to look after the children and enjoy a better standard of living. But the majority of our people are not so fortunate and are not contented with what they have. Of course, some people say that if you have harmony and contentment in the family, you do not need so much money. But these manifestations come from affluence. The conditions of a poor family cannot generate such feelings or happiness. So these are the new challenges faced by such families in Singapore and I think the Governnment should have a long term policy and strategy for this.

Last year, the Government set up six committees to study the various problems, but the most important thing is to coordinate these six committees and to draw up a comprehensive national plan and policy to help these families in this modern age. That is to say, the challenges and problems the families face today are not what these families can solve by themselves. The Government must come out with the necessary facilities to help the families so that they may, after their daily necessities are satisfied, come forward to take part in economic growth and also contribute to the National Ideology. This also calls for the women to join the workforce and to contribute to our economic growth. Of course, I am not suggesting that the people must leave all their responsibilities to the Government. What I am saying is that the Government and our individual families must have better coordination and better relationship.

Talking about consolidating the family unit, I would mention two important points, one is the basic financial strength of the family and the other its educational standard. As I have stated just now, more than 50% of our families in Singapore require the housewives to come out to work so that they can live more comfort- ably. Some of my colleagues in this House have talked about or urged the Governnment to look into the question of setting up more creches and child care centres and also to defer the increase in foreign maid levy until such time when we can provide sufficient child care facilities to look after the children. Government's foreign maid levy merely lends partial treatment to the problem, not comprehensive solution of the matter. It may address some social anomaly, but it does not help to solve the basic needs and financial problem of the family. Only because of such fundamental needs that the families had to resort to the aid of foreign maids. To substitute these foreign maids, we would have to increase the provision for alternative facilities. Although in the past 10 years the Government has contributed greatly in setting up creches and child care centres which after the Government has subsidized $100 per child. The number of child care centres has increased from 20 to more than 170 now, but this still cannot satisfy the demands of our people at present.

We have about 200,000 children in the age group of 2 to 7 years. Only 4% of them, ie, 8,000, make use of the creches and child care centres. If we include some babies from the age of two months to two years, then we are acutely short of creches and child care centres. There are also abnormal phenomena. Some of those more popular creches and child care centres have a long waiting list while others are under-utilized. The latter, I think, is a problem of training of staff because of a dearth of qualified staff. The reason why there are long queues and long waiting lists for admission to some creches is that they do not have adequate qualified people to man these chlid care centres. I believe the subsidy of $100 per child is not sufficient, other than for the 3 to 6 year olds, particularly for the babies who need more personnel to look after. I hope that the Government will consider this and increase the subsidy for such children.

Another matter which has been raised in this House many times is the care for pupils. For example, the community centres would be a useful place for looking after children, from primary 1 to 6. They can go there after school so that their parents can also go there to look them up after work. From what I know, there are many children from Primary 1 to 6 who are unable to have a proper lunch at home when both their parents are out working. They have only milk and bread for lunch. I hope something can be done for them.

There is another point. For the past 10 or more years, we have been urging the companies and employers, wherever possible, to provide child care centres or facilities in their place of work for workers' children. I would urge the Government to seriously consider legislating to stipulate that the employers, particularly those who employ large staff, should set up child care centres in their place of work so that the womenfolk could come out from home and work with peace of mind knowing that their children are being looked after. The Government should jointly with the employers and IE provide the training of qualified staff for them so that they could look after such children. As regards the necessary funds for such facilities, as the Member for Bukit Timah has pointed out just now, the levy on 40,000 foreign maids will yield a large sum. According to the present rate of $160 pm and the subsequent increase to $200 pm in July, the Government revenue in this would be close to $100 million. I believe with this revenue the Government would be able to set aside more funds as an aid for the child care centres which amount to $6 million at present.

One other point I would like to talk about now is on family education which relates to community education. I have no objection to domestic science or home economics subjects being taught in the schools for female students who must not give up their traditional duties and natural endowment of looking after their own children at home in their later married life. In view of changes in family economy and domestic affairs, we should also include teaching of family life and responsibilities at school, I believe, and I would suggest to the Ministry of Education that male students should also be taught such subjects so that both the boys and girls would acquire some basic knowledge about marriage, the family life, social responsibility, etc. so that when they grow up and get married they could contribute better to their family life and nation building. In this way, with the help of the Government and the support of the people, I am confident Singapore would be able to solve all the new problems in coming years.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday several Members spoke on the proposal to formulate a national ideology. The comments by Malay/ Muslim Members of the House reflect a disturbing uneasiness among the minority groups on this proposal. One Member stated that the minority communities were afraid the national ideology would mean imposing the values of the majority on the other communities. Another Member said that his community suspected that it was an attempt by the majority to subjugate the minorities. Personally, I feel that the two words, "impose" and "subjugate", are very strong and emotive words. And yet another Member urged that "core values must be universally accepted".

These fears reflect a lack of understanding over the objectives of the proposal to formulate a national ideology, and perhaps an anxiety over what constitutes core values. The apprehension of the minority communities is understandable. But these fears must be allayed. Yet it is because we are a multi-racial and multi-religious society that we must stress racial and religious tolerance. If we accept this as a core value in our national ideology, it means that no one group should impose its values on the others. Far from subjugating the minorities, the national ideology seeks to allow each person his place in the State.

If we are to live in peace and harmony, we must have a common set of values that bind rather than divide us, all of us. That is why it is all the more important that we seek out what core values we all share, in spite of our multi-racial and multi-religious background.

We should recognize from the very outset of this search, that no one community, nor one religion, has a monopoly over desirable values. We should recognize that desirable values are part of the culture and religion of every group. The task is to identify what is common and what is desirable in our multi-racial and multi-religious society. Indeed, it is a search for these values that we all share, values that will unite us rather than divide us.

It is also important to note that at different times there may be an emphasis on particular values. The challenge is whether we can instill a set of values that will stand the test of time - a set of values that will continue to foster national cohesion in spite of the changing environment in which we live. These are desirable values that will help to drive the society forward, and of course our society forward.

Let us look, for example, the United States in its earlier years. In its expansion from the east coast to the west, in its drive to develop and populate the vast continent, there was a need to stress a pioneering spirit, one of self-reliance, independence and enterprise, as captured in the phrase "Go West, young man!". This was a stress on individual initiative. But it did not mean that group interests did not feature in early US society. Grouping for mutual interest was also important - otherwise there would not have been any wagon trains in the push westwards.

Group interest is not a value that Americans discard How strongly they feel about that value depends on the needs of the times. I am sure all of us know the famous line of John Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." This, to me, means placing society before self; responsibility of the individual towards society rather than for the individual to ask of the state what he can get out of it.

These examples serve to illustrate that certain values take pre-eminence at different times in different societies. So, at our stage of development, recognizing our background, we must examine what values are needed. We need a set of values that will bind us together, yet allow us to exercise our individual rights, to our diverse cultural heritages, and our individual rights to use our own language, and practise our own faith.

Our common goal must be the progress of our country for the overall good. Within this context, every individual benefits to the maximum possible. Progress for all is achievable only if we know not only our individual rights but our individual responsibilities to society.

Yesterday the Member for Siglap also forcefully argued that the progress of the minorities must also be the concern of the majority. I agree with him. If we regard each person, irrespective of race, language or religion, as a Singaporean, then his welfare must be the concern of everyone.

I do remember that when Mendaki was first set up, as an initiative by the Malay-Muslim community, to improve the education of Malay-Muslims, there were funds donated by other communities as well. We share in the aspiration of the Malay-Muslims. The trade unions raised funds for Mendaki.

Equally important to note, I believe, is that there are the poor in every community. The poor among the majority community are large in numbers also. Just as the minorities expect support from the Government in order to catch up, so too do the poor among the Chinese expect support from the Government. And Government cannot give to one group of the less privileged and not to another.

So let us accept that the less well-off in our society, irrespective of race, language or religion, deserve our equal attention. I accept, however, the need to provide certain assistance to Malay-Muslims that may not be extended generally to all communities such as free schooling.

There was the sentiment expressed yesterday by one of our Malay-Muslim colleagues over the availability of job opportunities to the minorities. The Member for Boon Lay also called for the abolition of discrimination by race, age and sex in job advertisements.

I am also aware of the advertisements referred to by the Member for Boon Lay. I spent one morning in late December scanning through the classified ads in the Straits Times to see if the examples quoted by the Member for Boon Lay were the exception rather than the rule. A large number of advertisements, sadly, unwisely appear to discriminate on the basis of age and sex. Unfortunately, we do have a number of advertisements that appear to discriminate on the basis of race and religion.

All these examples could be lifted from a single day's advertisements in the Straits Times. If any of you wish to verify, you may see for yourselves. I have some examples which are taken not from one day but over two or three days. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to quote:

'Wanted Typist Cum Telex Operator, preferably Indian.'

'A well established Company in Orchard Road requires a Confidential Secretary. Preferably Indian/ Eurasian.'

'Malay Junior Secretary required for maintenance Company at Bt Panjang.' We have also:

"Secretarial cum Clerical. Requirements: Chinese female."

Another advertisement says: "Chinese female Receptionist". And one company required a "Male/female (Chinese)".

And to my surprise, an American company, which should know better, advertised for an Accounts Clerk: "Chinese only". And we have also another advertisement which says: "Chinese Female Bank Clerk". We have others: "Receptionist cum General Clerk (Malay)".

It may be because of convenience that these companies advertised for such people because perhaps in seeking for a Chinese, the company expects somebody to be able to speak not only Mandarin but some dialects to communicate with fellow workers or their clients. But I think we should specify the skills required rather than the race.

And what surprised me also was that there were some ads for general workers where the skills level would be minimal. Let me quote from two: "Urgently required Malay General Workers." Another one says: "A manufacturing firm requires: Male Chinese General Workers." For this level, I wonder whether there is a need to specify the race.

With regard to religion, although the numbers of these advertisements are small, I came across one which states: "Urgently required Salesman. Born-again Christian." Another advertisement says: Needed one Christian female helper for snackbar. So these advertisements, I feel, have an unnecessary stress on race and religion.

I was also surprised in this context of looking through the advertisements to find one advertisement from the Mendaki Computer Centre advertising for a computer lecturer and specifying that the applicant should be a Muslim Singapore citizen. I would think that one should get the best available person for the job. And if there are two candidates who are equally good, then I can understand why Mendaki should give the job to a Muslim. But otherwise the criterion should be the best candidate available.

I would prefer if employers specify the skills required rather than race or religion. This is because we must be conscious of the sensitivities that may be aroused by those who read the advertisements. Needless to say, because there are more Chinese employers, there are more advertisements for Chinese workers. But how would the minorities feel? So I fully agree with the Member for Boon Lay when he called for an abolition of discrimination of this kind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever our ethnic background, our religious faith, I think few would take issue with the need to uphold the family as a basic building block of society. This is a core value which I feel almost all of us Singaporeans share. I hope it is 100%. It is a core value that we would do well to preserve, especially in our ageing society. So far the main emphasis in the debate over the increase on the foreign maid levy has been on child care. I support the call for more child care centres to meet the differing needs of our working parents. By "differing needs" mean the different levels of affordability of those parents. Because I do not think that we should set up child care centres of one standard. We could have child care centres of differing standards to meet the different needs of working parents.

But in the area of care for the elderly, whilst this is not currently a very pressing issue, it is one that will grow in importance as the proportion of our elderly population increases. We can learn from the experiences of other countries which have had to tackle the problem earlier. In West Germany, the proportion of people aged 60 and above is already 20%, and will rise further to 30%. So how to care for the elderly is already a problem and it can strain their welfare system. Some of their sociologists have already come to the conclusion that family care is the realistic option for the vast majority of cases. And here let me quote from an article in The Mirror of 1st January 1989:

'As a result of medical progress, such care is now also needed for a longer period than in the past; this places even greater strains on the next generation of helpers. It is like an endless circle which can only continue as long as families are willing to take on these strenuous tasks of playing the good Samaritan - free of charge. If this were not the case, the costs would be so great that they would eventually lead to the collapse of the whole welfare system.'

One sociologist said:

'Family care is a concept which almost exclusively involves daughters caring for their parents. In almost all cases it is the woman's job to take on this extra responsibility and as a result she is often put under so much pressure that she becomes ill herself.' Unfortunately, this may be a scenario that would come to us if we do not take the right measures.

So what do the West Germans propose as part of the policy changes which they would carry out? I quote:

'In housing policy, increasing consideration is to be given to what are known as "multi-generation households". In the future, households in which people aged over 62 live with their children can hope to receive increased financial help with their rent. Measures of this kind are to facilitate the integration of young and old.'

I feel that we need to take note of the rate in which our nuclear households are breaking up. It is said that every young couple when they get married want to have their home as far away as possible from the in-laws. This is when they leave the family nest.

It is further said that they think of their parents only when the first child comes along. This is because at different times, the individual considers his different needs. But we must be aware that the dispersion of families explains why maids are in such popular demand today because the families are already dispersed. I can, and I am sure most Members, understand the position in which many of our working parents find themselves in. But at the same time, we must be conscious of this steady erosion of family ties. Otherwise, the problem of caring for children and caring for the elderly in the next century will be a difficult one. And who are the elderly in the next century? Alas, it will be most of us, especially those below the age of 40. Hence, it is of great importance that we enshrine upholding the family unit as a basic building block of society, as one of our core values if this society is to endure.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion of Thanks moved by the Member for Siglap.

(In Mandarin) Sir, the President in his address has resolved to create an even better life for all. This has indeed taken us a big step forward towards an excellent nation.

The achievement in the past 28 years is self-explanatory. Today, our island is dotted with skyscrappers and blessed with good transport system. Our people are enjoying comfortable life. These are the tangible assets of the nation and the people.

But the achievement does not come by accident. It is possible because not only do we have an effective and credible government, but also good quality people, people who inherit their traditional cultures. These are our intangible assets.

All of us should be proud of the fact that we enjoy stable and prosperous life despite living on a tiny island with no natural resources. Nevertheless, people with a sense of traditional culture have discerned a disturbing trend. There are symptoms of morbid social vogue: our young people do not show adequate concern for the country and take for granted our economic achievements and nation building. These symptoms are closely related to our being an open society and the use of English as the first language in our schools. In fact, they are the manifestation of the westernisation among our youngsters.

In the push for industrialisation and modernisation, we have had to emphasise efficiency and ability of the people as the overriding guiding principle. However, the emphasis on efficiency and ability has its undesirable influence on people's mentality. Our people have become more self-centred and pragmatic, but less humane, compassionate and cohesive. Meanwhile, people find it increasingly difficult to adjust and keep up with the pace of rapid urbanisation.

As a result, Singaporeans may be in danger of losing their cultural roots and history. They will then lose their ballast. Hence, we must focus our attention on the onslaught of westernisation, the loss of cultural tradition and the mess-up in value system. We should make our young people understand that our own culture must take precedence over western culture. We should never allow our culture be replaced by the western's.

Of course, every culture has its complex ramifications; at times, it has its internal conflicts and contradictions. However, the fact that our oriental culture has withstood the test of time affirms its useful role in the civilised society. Therefore, in the discussion of national ideology, we have to make an in-depth study of the oriental cultural tradition . Try to trace the history, recover our roots and develop our culture.

Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. We should build on the rich heritage of various cultures and move with time. The search for cultural tradition is not to embrace all that is in a culture, and least of all the rejection of modernisation. Rather, it is to broaden options from which we can exercise our choice of values. The learning of cultural tradition involves a selective process. But before we exercise our choice, we must have an adequate knowledge of our cultural tradition.

We should minimize the onslaught of westernisation as it would unsettle our people. Rather we should promote nationalism and rebuild our oriental cultural tradition. We should instil the spirits of loyalty, integrity, diligence and bravery. We should also include propriety, filial piety, kindness and love in our national ideology. This will be more meaningful and worth developing.

On the other hand, some western-educated youths openly express their unhappiness over the omnipresence and guidance of the Government. They want more independence and personal freedom.

There are others who think that our people are over-relying on the Government, lacking initiative and a sense of identity with the country. The grouses and sense of repression among the youngsters should be closely monitored. The Government should take every opportunity to mobilise all civic organisations and all channels of communication to provide forum for younger people to pour out their hearts. This will help to sort out the problems. It will in turn help building a better understanding and communication between the Government and the younger generation. We should try our best to encourage the younger generation to put forward their constructive views and proposals to the Government.

Basically, what we want is a society ruled by law. At the same time, we want to emphasise tolerance and harmony, not conflict nor contention. Encourage free competition, but upholding fair play and orderliness. We must not discard our cultural traditions. But at the same time, we are not free from the impact of western culture. Therefore, we must skim the best part of our culture and integrate it with the best in western culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, national ideology, oriental cultural traditions and education are closely intertwined. One of the important policies stressed in the Education Addendum is to ensure that our children master their mother tongue through education in order to preserve their cultures.

While we cannot dismiss the importance of English, we should give our mother tongue its rightful place. This is because our mother tongue is like the window for the exploration and learning of one's own culture. I therefore fully agree that children be given mother tongue education. They should be inculcated with good eastern values and cultures through the mother tongue education. These values will thus be programmed like computer in the children and form their basic principles in dealing with society and with problems.

I remember when I was in the primary school, I learned in a Chinese textbook a lesson which says: "The elder brother is older and the younger brother is younger. When the elder brother runs, the younger brother also runs. When the elder brother jumps, the younger brother also jumps. "This passage is to illustrate the order or seniority of family members. The moral of this passage is that the older brother being older must look after the younger brother, whereas the younger brother must in return respect the older brother.

There is another chapter about an old bird and the young bird. The text reads: "The old bird flies away, the young birds cry. When the old bird flies back the young birds hop." Here it talks about maternal love. There is a picture in the textbook. It is a mother bird with a worm in its beak trying to feed the wide-mounthed birdies in the nest. The moral of this story is that parents are working hard trying to bring up the children; it is therefore the obligation of children to be filial to their parents.

In contrast, the word "brother" in English text could mean either elder or younger brother. There is no such precise identification or moral connotation.

Our children are the masters of our nation in future. We have to inculcate them from young the oriental cultural tradition and values. I propose that such values be incorporated in the syllabus for mother tongue education. Another suggestion I would like to make is to combine the moral and religious lessons into one so that students will have a better understanding of the religions other than theirs. This will help avoid racial consciousness in the students.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address also stresses the development of personal ability to the fullest and helping people to get good jobs. In this regard, I hope the Government would consider allowing young adults with long working experience to join the university. At the moment, the university entry requirement is based on the result of one gets from the combined pre-university examination, irrespective of age. But the requirement varies from year to year. Twenty years ago, for example, a "B" plus an "A" in two major subjects would qualify to study accountancy or business administration in the university. But now, a combination of "A" and "B" in such subjects will no longer be good enough for entry requirement. I would like to urge the Government to allow such adult students to be admitted into the university as "mature students". This of course is to be done without compromising the university standards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, mature students have their experience and thoughts to share with other students. Ultimately, their presence will be beneficial to others. To the extent that the Government has achieved "home ownership for the dwellers", I believe the Government could just as well provide opportunity for those who are able to acquire a degree.

There is a stone statue at the entrance of the museum on Sentosa island. The inscription on the stone reads as follows: "Singapore is an immigrant society. We must uphold the value concept that has served us well in safeguarding our survival, security and success." I think this is very inspiring.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think national ideology should be discussed in the context of oriental cultural traditions of our country. I hope the Government will invest its human and financial resources and take concrete steps to work out a moral value system that is relevant to our society and nation. Though we may not be able to transform social tradition overnight, we could look forward to its realisation as long as all of us set our mind on the task.

Mr Charles Chong (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the hon. Member for Siglap.

Sir, the President in his Address to Parliament has illustrated the Government's plan for the country as it approaches the 21st century. It is an exciting plan, promising challenging times ahead in which every Singaporean has a part to play.

The older generation has clearly demonstrated to us that there is very little that can hinder a hard-working people, led by an able and honest government that is determined enough to achieve their objectives.

The initial objectives of providing affordable housing, eradication of widespread unemployment, provision of electricity and clean water in all households have long been achieved.

Our preoccupation now is to decide what sort of gracious society we would like Singapore to evolve into at the turn of the century. Unfortunately this new objective is a little more abstract and perhaps requires further definition in order for it to be fully tangible to all Singaporeans.

Defining the material needs alone, such as ownership of a washing machine, car or microwave oven, may not be sufficient. It is my belief that Singaporeans will increasingly strive for artistic, recreational and other altruistic objectives. The Government, with recommendations from the six Advisory Councils, could perhaps create more avenues to satisfy these aspirations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to comment on a few labour-related issues as we progress towards our new objectives. In order for Singaporeans, especially the average working person, to be able to indulge in non-materialistic pursuits, such as art, culture and recreation, he has to have enough leisure time at his disposal. One way to enhance leisure time is to restructure, wherever possible, without compromising productivity or public services, the working hours and off-days.

I therefore fully support the call made by the Member for Eunos GRC, Mr Chew, on the 5-day working week and would like to elaborate further on why companies and organizations including the public service and statutory boards that currently work a 5(r)-day week should be encouraged to implement a 5-day working week. Alternatively, the off-days should be rotated to maintain a weekly 6-day service to the public and yet enable employees to have at least an alternate 5-day week.

I note that the Committee on Community Life in its report to the Advisory Council on Family and Community Life has made a call for the implementation of the 5-day working week in order to give people more time to interact with their neighbours and family.

A similar recommendation has been made by the Committee on Family Life. This Committee has noted an alarming erosion of family ties as so many Singaporeans are so busy earning a living and getting ahead at work that they have no time for their families and leisure activities.

In a 1987 survey commissioned by the Ministry of Community Development, 55% of the respondents cited work commitments as their reason for not doing things together with the family.

Figures from the Ministry of Labour indicate that there are already 207,000 married women who are employed. With this increasing trend towards an environment where both parents work, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Yuhua, a situation may develop where there is insufficient time for parents to nurture and develop the necessary bonds with their children. This is not a desirable situation and may lead to an adverse change in attitude where the young would no longer feel an obligation to care or be inclined to accommodate the needs of the elderly.

In pursuing the objective of the 5-day working week, employees should also be realistic enough to accept the fact that where implementation is not feasible, other solutions may have to be considered or at worse the status quo maintained. Only in this way can we dissuade employers from taking the easy way out by applying the principle of equal misery to all in the interest of uniformity. Employees should also guard against erosion of the work ethic and should not expect a reduction of the current 42 to 44 hours of work per week with implemention of the 5-day week. The hours worked on a Saturday morning should be distributed over the remaining working days. Any reduction in the working hours may increase labour demand in an already tight labour market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment briefly on another two issues, that is, worker training and the tight labour situation.

In order to ensure that every working Singaporean has a skilled and well-paid job, it is imperative for our workforce to be trained. Employers must be fully committed to training their employees, whilst employees must regard training and skills upgrading as a continuous process throughout their working lives. A 1988 National Productivity Board survey on training revealed that 63% of employers in Singapore had spent less than 1% of their manpower cost on training. This figure lags far behind that of many advanced countries which may spend up to 4% of their manpower cost on training. Figures from the Skills Development Fund also reveal that many employers, especially from the small and medium enterprises, are just not providing sufficient training for their employees. The 1988 survey also revealed that 40% of the companies cited the tight work schedule as the main reason preventing them from training more.

Rescheduling the working hours and off-days may be one way of alleviating this problem. If a worker has two off days in a week, he will have more time for training opportunities than a worker who is required to be at work six days a week.

In a tight labour market, and with the prospect of increase in workforce contributing only 1-2% of sustainable growth, automation and increase in productivity should be the most viable alternatives for our continued prosperity. Employers should be persuaded and, if necessary, provided with more incentives to automate and upgrade their operations. Developing an increasingly over-dependence on unskilled foreign workers should be actively discouraged.

The level of automation and its application in Singapore has still much room for development. A recent National Productivity Council document revealed that Singapore scored approximately 68 on a scale of 0: 100 for how sufficiently and appropriately automation is utilized in the main sectors. This figure is below that of Switzerland and Japan.

Employers should also capitalize on the Singaporean worker's receptiveness to the introduction of labour-saving technology. The National Productivity Council document also revealed that Singapore has scored approximately 83 on a scale of 0: 100 with regard to the extent to which the workforce accepts labour saving technology. This figure is higher than all the NICs, USA, Switzerland and even Japan.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add that conditions have never been more favourable for Singaporeans to forge consensus on what we would like our society to evolve into and to decide on how we intend to progress towards our new objectives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is said that the plan for a year should be in spring and that the plan for a day should be in the morning. At the beginning of 1989, our President enunciated the Government's policy and its long-term and short-term objectives so that all the people in Singapore would know where our country is heading for so thereby they are encouraged to contribute their best towards nation building.

The President's Speech covers a very wide range of subjects. It is truly worthy of our careful study and discussion. Here, let me give my views on three subjects - education, culture and racial harmony.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the bilingual education policy has all along been the foundation of our education policy and I believe that this policy will not be changed in the foreseeable future. English is a language which enables us to earn a living. It is also the common language for communication among the various communities. While mother tongue is the language for us to learn our roots, it is also the language most used in our families and in our social life. The weightage of English vis-a-vis the mother tongue and their standards have all along been a controversial subject. Everybody has his own opinion and no definite conclusion has so far been arrived at.

Recently, the relevant authority has discovered that our younger generation has been deeply affected by Euro-American sub-culture and the whole society is getting more and more westernized. Therefore, it is time again for us to review our education system to see whether there is anything wrong with it, whether the standard of mother tongue is too low or whether the teaching hours are inadequate. In all fairness, one can say that the Education Ministry's approach to bilingualism is basically correct. In countries like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and China, they have only one language. In the primary schools the pupils learn only one language, that is, their mother tongue. In Singapore, even with the very successful "Speak Mandarin" campaign, our children from kindergarten onwards still have to learn two languages, ie, English and their mother tongue, although they do not have to waste time learning dialects. English is to most of them a foreign language. Therefore, they have to spend more time to learn and master it. In comparison, the time available for the study of mother tongue is relatively less. With this limited time for the proper teaching of the mother tongue, teaching materials and textbooks would have to be specially designed and edited.

To the best of my knowledge, the teaching materials for Chinese for primary schools and secondary schools are compiled and edited very carefully by specialists. Although these teaching materials are scientifically compiled with complementary use of teaching aids in mind so as to facilitate our pupils to learn and master the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing in the shortest time possible, the editors of the textbooks have not forgotten to incorporate traditional values in the texts. In fact, according to a survey, at present in our Chinese primary textbooks, the teaching and inculcation of oriental traditional values and morals take up about 45.4% of the contents, instructions about Singapore and the inculcation of loyalty to our nation take up about 11.3% and the introduction of ASEAN countries and the spirit of ASEAN cooperation take up about 1.8%. Of course, if we feel that the weightage of inculcation of traditional values is not sufficient, we could still increase it as necessary. But no matter how excellent the textbooks and the materials may be, if we do not have dedicated teachers who can give of their best, much of our efforts will be wasted as the result would not be as good as planned.

Fortunately, in Singapore, our Chinese language teachers generally have been teaching the subject very well, to the best of their ability. Apart from teaching, they practise what they teach and by setting exemplary examples so that our pupils will learn from them much of the good traditions. To blame our Chinese teachers or the Chinese teaching materials as a scapegoat simply because the society is getting more and more westenized, I think it is not quite fair. We have to find out the crux of the matter and to prescribe the right medicine so that our younger generation might be saved.

While we emphasize the importance of school education, we should not neglect the importance of home education and social education. As parents, we have to pay attention to the academic results of our children, in addition, we should also teach our children at home the basic etiquettes and the traditional values. We should not leave the responsibility for our children's education entirely in the hands of the teachers and our domestic servants. We must also play our part as parents. The society is a dyeing pot. Children will learn what they see and hear. Social behaviour has direct bearing on the children. Any corrupt social fad will lead to the moral degeneration of our younger generation. For this reason, all influential bodies or individuals should set high moral standard for the younger people to follow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now I would like to talk about the development of culture and art. We are very glad to read the reports submitted by the various sub-committees under the Culture and Arts Consultative Committee appointed by the Government, particularly the report by the Visual Arts sub-committee which I must say is extremely exciting. In the report it is suggested that the infrastructure and basic facilities for the development of arts should be increased and artists should also be supported and encouraged in a more positive manner. Although I do realize that if the Government is to accept these suggestions it would have to spend a large sum of money, I do hope that the Government would accept all the recommendations put up by the Visual Arts sub-committee.

Sir, report affirms that the dynamic development of arts would be beneficial to our economic growth. This is very correct. This also refutes the general belief that only those economically and highly advanced countries could have culture and arts. From history, economy and arts are seen to be mutually complementing. Of course, if we want to transform Singapore into a fully cultured and gracious society before the turn of the century, we require not only the monetary and other contributions by the Government but also the joint efforts of voluntary organizations and individuals. Certainly, art education in the schools could play a very important role in this effort.

Fortunately, the Curriculum Development Division of the Ministry of Education has already compiled a very comprehensive set of art teaching materials and pupils' resource books for the primary and secondary schools. This programme will not only enable the pupils to tackle drawing and related basic techniques in art but also lay emphasis on the appreciation of art. At present, a great majority of art teachers in secondary schools have gone through in-service training so that they would be able to teach this subject more effectively. However, in the primary schools the situation is not as good. I hope the Education Ministry will consider giving these primary school art teachers the same opportunity for in-service taining.

Sir, Singapore is a multi-racial society. Social stability would depend very much on racial harmony. In Singapore where three quarters of our population are Chinese, yet the Chinese could live in harmony with members of the other communities. This must have been attributable to the influence and practice of Confucianism of the Chinese in Singapore. Modesty and tolerance advocated by Confucianism are the essential factors that lead to racial harmony in a society. The development of Confucianism nowadays is such that it has become one of the major schools of thought world-wide. It is no longer the monopoly of the Chinese. Japan and South Korea are countries where the influence of Confucianism is also felt. The study of Confucianism is therefore universal. Many of its principles, particularly those relating to self-cultivation and family order, etc. are applicable universally.

Sir,long as the Chinese in Singapore are living under the influence of Confucianism they would not grudge the Government's grant of some privileges to our Malay compatriots. Certainly, they will extend to their Malay compatriots the "mutual concern" spirit of Confucianism in such injunctions like "have regard to our elders and also to others' elders, take care of our young and also of others' young", hoping that our Malay compatriots will likewise live in the mainstream of our nation and contribute towards the prosperity and progress of our country. At the same time, the authorities concerned should not hold any doubts, but try and win their support by helping them in a positive manner. Only then can our Malay compatriots be convinced by the "virtues" shown, then their support will be unshakeable. If the Government could vindicate the people of all races with "virtuous administration" benefiting them in various degrees, it would go a long way towards racial harmony in Singapore through the unconscious inculation of Confucianism in practice.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon South): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a multi-racial country. Since our independence, we have been stressing on this characteristic. Our various policies have always been based on this concept of multi-racial harmony and mutual advancement. The Presidential Address once again stresses this point. As a multi-racial country, our prosperity, progress and security depend entirely on whether our various peoples can live peacefully together and cooperate and strive for nation building together. It is not easy to succeed in this kind of a society. Just look at other multi-racial societies in the world,big or small, east or west, or developing or developed countries. In such multi-racial societies there are always certain racial problems. Their minor problems would be minor racial disputes. Their major problems would be civil strife and war. There are always various problems and troubles, too many to enumerate. Not many countries can really achieve racial harmony and co-existence amongst their peoples.

Singapore is a young nation. The various races have very different characteristics and backgrounds and different cultures, religions and traditions. To make a success out of a society of these various races, moulding them into a nation is extremely difficult. Just as the President has mentioned in his Address, "to mould the various races into a homogenous people, at least at this stage, it is not possible." We can only look for harmonious living, peaceful co-existence, mutual cooperation and unity of the various races working together for a better future. In order to arrive at this eventuality, there are two important targets to achieve. One, there must be mutual understanding and mutual respect among the different races. While the various races should preserve their own culture and traditions they must also try to have some understanding of and respect for the culture, religion and values of the other races. There should not be any extremist or exclusionist attitude. Second, there should not be too wide a gap between the average standards of economy, education and living standard of the various races. In many multi-racial countries, this would usually be a factor causing racial problems.

For many years, our Government has been implementing policies on education, housing, social development, etc with a view to achieve the abovementioned two objectives. After more than 20 years' implementation, we have achieved certain success. We have been more successful than many other multi-racial countries. In education, the various language streams have been streamlined, and children of various races have an equal opportunity to enjoy a similar type of education.

In housing, our Government has achieved and progressed much in urban renewal and development and, through HDB, housing development. Under the HDB flat allocation programme, racial enclaves have been replaced by a harmonious intermingling of the various races in all the estates. In community development, after years of efforts by the various departments and civic organizations, there has been increasing inter-racial participation in social activities. These facts are examples of our successful multi-racialism. But social development is a very complicated and slow process, particularly the long-term trend and results cannot be easily foreseen now. Some short-term policies usually will cause some aberration after many years of implementation. Therefore, the Government should always be vigilant and try to amend such policies now and then, when necessary. Examples of our population and family planning policies in the past many years are good cases in point.

Recently, there has been the phenomenon of single ethnic race congregating and staying together in one locality in various HDB estates, thus upsetting the average demographic pattern. If this trend were to continue, then it would cause certain problems from lop-sided enclaves of single race. The Minister for National Development had mentioned about it in a recent speech. The Addendum to the President's Address also mentioned about this. The newspapers have also been discussing about this trend of people of one race choosing to stay together in similar ethnic enclaves. The choice of residence is, of course, a personal freedom. Normally, it should not be interfered with. But at this important stage of national development, when different races are beginning to live harmoniously together, national identity is taking place and national ideology is taking shape, this symptom may cause certain hindrance to such development and growth of our nation. Therefore, this trend of segregation must be stopped. The Ministry of National Development and HDB are going to formulate certain new measures to curb this kind of development. When the new regulations are put into practice, they may cause certain inconvenience to some people who wish to choose certain localities and may affect the re-sale prices of their flats. I hope that the authorities concerned would give very careful consideration to such regulations before their cautious implementation; at the same time, they should let our people understand why such new regulations are necessary and how important their implementation is to the success of our multi-racialism.

To balance the distribution of our various races in HDB estates is only a short-term solution. The long-term fundamental solution must be based on the inculcation of mutual national consciousness and common ideology and value concept among our various races who have different characteristic cultural backgrounds and different traditional value concepts. Moreover, as a metropolitan city nation, Singapore is easily amenable to foreign cultural infiltration and influence resulting in a complicated scenario. It is really difficult to formulate common national ideology and value concept from such a complicated situation. But from the optimistic point of view, it affords us the widest scope of choice from a wider pool of value concepts and cultures to formulate our own common national ideology and value concept by skimming the cream from it. Although among us there are different cultures and value concepts, but on certain basic concepts of morality and judgment values, the contents are more or less the same - values and virtues such as loyalty to one's nation, filial piety to parents, sincerity to friends, responsibility in one's work and action and also honesty and integrity in character - while in politics, one should look up to freedom, justice, democracy and equality. All these are universally acceptable values to all races or possessed by them. So, it is not too difficult from these to form the universally acceptable common values in our national ideology that we all can identify ourselves with in not too long a time. I hope one day when we achieve this, we should not have any more need or regard for any consideration about race or ethnic differences when deliberating on any national problem or policy. It is hoped that in future, laws and measures having regard to racial demographic distribution including the GRC system will be a thing of the past, a record in history. When that day comes, we can then truly claim that we have successfully built an ideal multi-racial society.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.22 pm until 2.45 pm Sitting resumed at 2.45 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I am much obliged to you Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise in support of the motion of the hon. Member for Siglap. I agree with the Government's goal as set out in paragraph 1 of the President's Address.

Sir, please allow me to speak on the national ideology. I must give credit to the Government. They are never short of ideas where politics are concerned. The last time it was Agenda for Action. This time it is the National Ideology.

What are the problems? According to the Minister for Trade and Industry, he thinks that it is westernization and our people losing their roots. Mark Twain once said:

'East is East, and West is West, the twain shall never meet.' This Government does not appear to think so.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Sir, can I just clarify this point?

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, will you allow the clarification?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can you please allow me to finish my speech?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: I just want to clarify the point that his quotation is a misquotation.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tay, Mr Chiam does not intend to give way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Allow me to finish. I have never interrupted anyone in this House.

The Government thinks that we can be wholly westernized. The Government does not agree with that quotation. I personally do not think so. We shall be forever distinct. We are Singaporeans. We shall be Singaporeans. Anyway, why the sudden fear of westernization? I believe the reason is really the fear of loss of more seats in 1994 or even losing the general elections in 1999.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San): What happened in 1988?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, it is precisely westernization that has brought us where we are today. To start with, our independence was not won by a group of men with Asian training. All the main PAP leaders were western trained. I wonder if Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Dr Toh Chin Chye had gone through their primary and secondary schools in the Chinese-medium stream and had gone to China or Taiwan for their university studies and are steeped in Confucian training; and as for Mr S. Rajaratnam, he had studied only in Tamil schools, firstly, would we have got independence? And, secondly, whether Singapore could have developed to this stage of prosperity and economic level? I would say no. Our early leaders would be thinking not in terms of democracy, equality, the rule of law, justice, the rights of the individual, the right of men to decide their own destiny, they would be thinking of revolution and violence. If they did that, it would have been, of course, their end. They would have been crushed by the British and lost forever in the oblivion of history. It was precisely that they had western education, western training, western know-how, that we are all sitting here today.

And what were their slogans in their fight for self-rule? They were democracy, socialism, freedom. Those political concepts were all western ideas. Those ideas were accepted by our people. Our early political leaders did not at any time advocate Confucianism, filial piety or harmony in those days. How are we going to win our freedom if we practised harmony with our British rulers? In fact, the British colonial masters would love to have strict Confucian ideas imposed on their Chinese subjects. But the British were honest enough not to do that.

After having gained independence, did we use any Asian ideas or values to help get rid of our poverty and unemployment? The answer is again no. The Government in their wisdom invited Dr Albert Winsemius to advise them. Dr Winsemius is not an Asian. He is a Dutch and very much a westerner. He advised the Government to do three things: (1) to get rid of the Communists; (2) to control the workers; and (3) to set up industrial estates, invite foreigners to invest here and give good tax incentives.

The PAP Government was a good pupil. It accepted all the recommendations of a westerner and we progressed. But, of course, it must be said that our economic progress was more complex than just accepting good western advice. But nevertheless it was western help, assistance and advice that really got our economy going.

The Government in their wisdom again accepted the English language, which is a Western language, as our main working language. I agree with this choice. It is a neutral language. Politically, it can be accepted by all the races in Singapore and it is an international language. Our knowledge of English has helped us tremendously in our economic development and I am sure also in our political development.

Westernization has certainly got us to where we are today. I am therefore surprised to read now that westernization is a problem in Singapore. Of course, as our people become more westernized, they do want opposition. They want real democracy, and real democracy can only exist if we have elected Opposition Members in Parliament. Or they may even want a change of government. I think that is the crux of the matter. That is the real problem, not just westernization. It is politics. PAP, of course, they do not believe what many people have said but I think this whole exercise is just another tool for electioneering and to preserve their power.

Singapore is different from the other three so-called little dragons - South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. We are more westernized, right from the beginning. And our people are not of one race. Many western academics have alluded the economic success of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong and, to a certain extent, Singapore to their Confucian cultural background. I do not agree in the case of Singapore. Singapore's economic success cannot be said to be due to its Confucian culture. In the case of Singapore, the majority of our people are of migrant stock. And migrants like any migrants everywhere else work harder than the native people and that is the source of our success. It is not due to our Confucian background. The Greeks, the Italians, after the Second World War, migrated to Australia and prospered. They were very hardworking. They had no Confucian background in them and yet due to their hard work over the native Australians, they became economically successful.

We have already gained much experience in nation building by accepting English as our main language. Children of all races now are enrolled and admitted into English-medium schools. These schools are all the same and they are now learning to live as one people. We are, in fact, on our way to achieving our nation building goal of having one people. But, of course, I do agree that we must have moral education. For this, we can inculcate in our children the accepted universal values - love, kindness, honesty, hardwork, thrift and others. These are important values. We must not belittle these values and try to supplant them with others. In fact, we must accept them as part and parcel of our lives. I would say that we can just educate every one of our individual citizens to be loyal, honest, truthful; do not cheat or steal; obey the laws of the land, pay their income taxes, do their national service, in the case of male citizens, and be patriotic. I think we would have already gone a very long way.

Of course, in Singapore, we also have to accept multi-racialism and religious tolerance. For the long term, I differ from the Government. I would advocate a melting pot of our cultures. For successful nation building, our guiding principle must be to cut down as many differences and divisive factors as possible. This, of course, is the opposite of the concept of divide and rule. In the end, we hope one day to have a Singapore identity. We are all Singaporeans. We are not Malay, Indian, Chinese or Eurasian Singaporeans. In fact, I think an important issue is: what road should we take? Should we keep the communities separate and apart? Or do we want to have a melting pot? This is an important issue and I think it should be discussed. I am for the melting pot of all cultures in Singapore. So when the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Communications and Information spoke of culture and art, I was tempted to ask him what was his policy with regard to art. I think our policy should be one of trying to get all the cultures hopefully into one type of art that we have and also this art must be for a purpose, and that is, for nation building.

Of course, Confucianism does not seem to agree with the idea of a melting pot concept of the different races of a nation. An expert on Confucius' teaching, Prof. Tu Wei Ming, as reported in The New Paper of 21st August 1988, said:

'Singapore is best represented by Rasa Singapura (it is the hawker centre) because it gets the best of the kitchens of various races. Singapore must not become a melting pot because different types of food cooked in the same pot becomes quite disgusting.'

This is the view of an expert on Confucianism. Instead Singapore should strive to be a beautiful piece of mosaic. Those Members who have got flooring of mosaic would know what it is. The patterns are quite distinct and apart. I would imagine he would have meant Malay, Chinese, Indian, Singaporeans just living side by side with each other distinct and apart. Of course, we include the Eurasian Singa- poreans who have already become part of the melting pot. If I interpret Prof. Tu correctly, Eurasians are disgusting to him. Strangely, Prof. Tu himself while advocating that Singaporeans should not become a melting pot, he himself is part of the American melting pot. He chose to live in the United States of America instead of native Taiwan, married a white American girl. And I quote from the same newspaper:

' ... and for that reason he has never forced his son to assume a Chinese outlook and respect his wife's ideas on bringing up the child.'

So Prof. Tu preaches Confucianism to us but he practises liberal western lifestyle in America. I attended one of Prof. Tu's lectures on Confucianism and I will never forget what he said in his opening remarks. He said:

'The uniqueness of Confucianism is its Chinese-ness.'

If that statement were true, we must never promote Confucius' teaching at the national level. Any promotion of Chinese chauvinism must be dangerous in our multi-racial society. Have we lost our roots? I do not think so. We are Singaporeans. I heard that many times. Our roots are here in Singapore. I am a third generation Singaporean. My grandfather migrated to Singapore with my father when he was seven years old and I was born here. I am the third generation. So my roots are deeply implanted here. I am comfortable as I am in Singapore. I am sure all other Singaporeans feel like me. It will be remembered that in the early 50's many young Chinese Singaporeans still thought China was their homeland. They asked to be repatriated to China in shiploads. Even in the early 60's a few Chinese who advocated strong Chinese chauvinism were banished to China. We are now independent. All our links, our ties with China, are severed for good. Why are we now reviving the idea of our roots?

When we introduce Confucianism we must inevitably refer to China. In this way, we are reviving our racial links with China. That must be one of the consequences of emphasizing our roots. I do not advocate that. It is dangerous and shall have harmful effects on the promotion of racial harmony in Singapore.

The Minister for Trade and Industry has suggested in his recent speech that the Chinese in Singapore be taught Confucianism, the Malays will continue to study Islam, as they have always done, and the Indians to stick by their traditions. He forgot the Eurasians. He did not mention what the Eurasian children will study in our school to strengthen their roots. Remember, we have Eurasians also in Singapore. So the Chinese study Confucianism, Malays stick to Islam, Indians to their Indian tradition, Eurasians are lost. If that was the policy, is it not divide and rule? Each community being brought up differently. It is always true that the Malays have always studied Islam. But we need not make that a national policy. I think that will conflict with our idea of a secular state in Singapore. Religion must be treated as personal to the individual as long as it does not harm the nation.

All these things that the Government are bringing up are, in fact, sensitive issues. Assume just for a moment the Government has not brought these matters up and it was the Opposition who is advocating: "Chinese, you must speak

Mandarin; Chinese, you better study a lot of Confucianism in the school." If I had advocated them, say in 1976, I would be arrested in a jiffy. There would be a detention order for me for promoting Chinese chauvinism. I remember in 1976 there was one Opposition leader who was detained because he wanted to promote the mother tongue. But it would appear there is a change of thinking on the part of the Government.

But if the Government promotes such a policy, "Okay, it is all right." But the fact is that it is not all right. We have heard the hon. Member for Siglap say that he never felt so uneasy in his life when the question of race was discussed so openly, and his race was the target for unmeritorious comments. Question of race being stirred up. The pond has become calm and clean, we take a stick and stir it up again.

I think there is nothing wrong with westernization. What is wrong with westernization? In fact, it is the answer to Singapore's multi-racial problem. I hope it is not a selfish political purpose of the PAP to go against westernization now. We must be objective. We are not stupid people. We have to choose those values that are valuable to us. We cannot always highlight only the bad western values such as disco dancing, but we are still encouraging it, drugs, permissiveness. I think with disco dancing taken in its clean form, if it is well organized, there is nothing wrong with it. We have to choose those western values which if properly done would be good for nation building. Only in this way we can succeed. Singapore will have to comb the world for good values. It is not necessary western values. Any value that is good for us we have to adopt it.

Western values are neutral, just like the English language and we should continue to accept western ideas in our process of nation building. More importantly, we are in an area where the Malay race is predominant and we cannot be seen to be advocating values which will make us more and more distinct and different from the rest of the region. I think western values, if properly promoted, will be the future of Singapore.

Dr Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Siglap.

From the views expressed by the Member for Potong Pasir on western values, in fact, I do not disagree that the western values have brought us all the way to what we have today. One thing we have to be cautious about this is that we should not adopt the western values so blindly. So far, the western values have brought us to what we have today and we are also encountering situations and social problems that are experienced in the western world. Things obviously like the increase of the divorce rate, the increase of the drug abuse, and more single-parent families. Therefore, I feel that western values are no doubt important and we have to selectively choose those which are relevant to our society and should not follow them blindly.

Sir, I support the view of the Minister for Communications and Information on regulating the growth in car population and keeping our roads free from congestion. In spite of that, I would like to express my view on the road tax for diesel cars. I would advocate for more diesel cars on our roads.

In 1971 the road tax for diesel cars was revised to six times the value of the road tax for gasoline cars of the same engine capacity. At that time, most of the diesel-powered private cars were used as pirate taxis. One of the reasons for the move was to eradicate the pirate taxis on our roads. At that time, if one can recall, the road tax levels for cars were very much lower than that what they are today. For example, before 1974 the road tax for a 2-litre gasoline car was only $300 per annum. The corresponding tax for a diesel car was only $1,500 per annum more than that of a gasoline vehicle. The additional tax for a diesel car was not very far from the saving by using diesel fuel. Today, the road tax for the same gasoline car is $2,100 per annum which is seven times more than what it was in 1973. On the other hand, the difference in gasoline and diesel tax has not increased so rapidly. It has increased from 34.2 cents per litre to 41.2 cents per litre. Assuming the additional tax on diesel car in the 1970's matched the savings by using diesel fuel, then the present level of diesel tax is at least over-priced by 4.8 times. Such an unreasonable diesel tax policy is the key reason why the diesel private car is diminished from Singapore roads. This policy indirectly prohibits the use of diesel private cars and disregards the technical merits of diesel cars which are more efficient and less pollutive to our environment.

Automotive experts can tell us that any diesel car can save as much as 30% to 40% of fuel compared with the gasoline car of the same size. Based on this fuel advantage, it is anticipated that for a country having high fuel prices, the diesel car market will penetrate 30% of the total car sales in the year 1995. We are an oil importing country. If 30% of our cars are diesel, we can save as much as 50 million litres of fuel imports per annum.

Many people have bad impression of diesel engines because of the smoky exhaust of the overloaded or poorly maintained trucks and buses. But the diesel car engine is of different design. It can operate at a much higher speed and is less demanding on maintenance. In fact, a diesel car engine emits less pollutants in terms of carbon monoxide, hydrogen carbon and nitrogen oxide when compared with the conventional gasoline engine. The only setback of the diesel car is the emission of diesel soot. The current US emission standard is so stringent that it has pushed diesel technology very much ahead compared with those in the 1970s in terms of soot emission. So, on the contrary, the gasoline engine does emit lead from the exhaust of the engine and the amount of exhaust is about the same order of the diesel soot emitted from the diesel car.

Based on the advantages of diesel engine efficiency and its low emission of the various pollutants the use of private diesel cars should not be penalized. The policy requesting the private diesel car owners to pay six times the tax of the gasoline car was initiated 18 years ago. Circumstances have changed. We no longer face the problem of pirate taxis and the advancement of diesel technology has made the diesel car to be an acceptable transport vehicle. I hope the Government could look into this matter seriously and revise its diesel tax policy on private cars to encourage more diesel cars on the road from the energy conservation aspect.

Sir, in the Addendum of the Minister for National Development, I am glad to note that the Ministry has plans to develop agro-technology parks. It is noted that Sungei Tengah and Murai of Chua Chu Kang are included in the 2,000 hectares of land earmarked for such projects. It is noticed that land from 2 to 20 hectares will be allocated by tender to about 500 local and foreign investors. This piece of news comes just in time for more than 1,000 farmers in my constituency who are affected by the project to redevelop the land in the constituency.

These agro-tech projects need huge capital, specialized knowledge, environmental control and a high degree of automation in order to maximize its yield from the limited size of the land. They are different from the traditional family-owned farming activities. For these farmers to be upgraded and successful in the agro-tech projects, a certain degree of Government assistance will undoubtedly be needed. Due to the huge amount of capital involvement, the majority of land to be tendered out should be between 2 and 5 hectares, and preferably two hectares, which is more affordable to the farmers.

So far, the speed of farming out the farmlands has not been quick enough. In the past four months, only seven pieces of land were available, out of which two pieces of land for cow farms were not very relevant to the farmers in my constituency. Due to this shortage of supply, I was told that the tender price per hectare was very much higher than those which were tendered before. The Ministry should expedite the farming out of the farmlands to meet the demand of the farmers.

At present, the Ministry offers a 10% discount in HDB rent for shophouses for those people who were affected by resettlement. I urge the Ministry to also consider extending the same concession to those who have successfully secured the tendered farmlands and who were affected by resettlement.

All the various financial and assistance schemes currently aimed at helping the local small and medium-sized enterprises should also be extended to the agro-tech farms for their upgrading, automation, research, training and export.

Many of the farmers affected by resettlement are 45 years old and above. According to age, they are still economically active. It is difficult for these people to be employed in the manufacturing sector simply because they are old and not so skilful. Many of them attempted to apply for hawker licences but the majority of them were rejected simply because they did not qualify for hawker licence under the hardship criteria. For a couple who are both farmers affected by resettlement and both above 45 years old and economically active, maybe the Hawker Department could consider them eligible for a hawker licence so as to help these people to continue earning some sensible income.

In the resettlement areas, many people are uncertain as to when their farms will be resettled. It is very difficult for them to make an investment decision because it involves capital and they need time to recover the amount that they have spent on their investments. The Resettlement Department should inform the affected farmers, as accurately as possible if they can, the date when the specific piece of land will be needed. This is especially very important for those lands which may no longer be needed urgently due to a change in plans.

I note that the orchid farmers receive lower resettlement compensation than the fruit farmers although the former may have a higher yield per square area. The maximum compensation for a fruit farmer is $39,000 per hectare. However, for an orchid farmer, the maximum is $16,900 if they plant on racks and for orchid planting which is not on rack it is only $8,500 per hectare. An old farmer told me that this form of compensation started years ago when a farmer would be allocated a piece of land if he is affected by resettlement. So they could easily shift whatever potted plants to their new farms under that condition. Therefore, at that time, the compensation was reasonable. But now circumstances have changed. Now our orchid farmers are neither are allocated farmlands nor can they sell their potted plants to another farmer. So circumstances have already changed. I hope the Ministry could look into this matter and revise the compensation rate as they think appropriate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to address my remarks to the subject of the National Ideology, and especially to the alternative point of view which has been expressed by the Member for Potong Pasir, a few minutes ago. Mr Chiam said that he supports the Speech by the President so I presume he will vote in favour at the end of this debate. But I believe, if we take what he says seriously, what he presented is really a fundamentally different view of what

Singapore ought to be and which way we should develop. It is a serious view which can be argued, and which is held not just by himself but by a certain number of Singaporeans, and which must be met. Briefly speaking, it is this:

We are advanced, we are progressive, we are Westernized.

It has helped us to

succeed. It has made us what we are. Let us be even more

Westernized. We will do even better. There is nothing unique

about our position. There is nothing special about being a

Singaporean, and all we need are universal virtues which we

can pick up anywhere in the world, and we will be fine.

It is a fashionable, Utopian argument. Is it the reality? Mr Chiam said he is a third generation Singaporean, and proud to be one. So am I. What do we have in common, as two third-generation Singaporeans, which can hold us together, despite belonging to different political parties, as belonging to one people with more in common than, say, a friend who lives in Hong Kong or an acquaintance, an honourable gentleman who may be from the United States? If life is just a matter of being a virtuous man, the answer must be there is nothing special. And if there is nothing special, what reason is there to believe that Singapore is going to be here, never mind 100 years from now, but even 30 years from now, our children's generation?

No western country believes that it is ordinary. The British believe that they have some special ethos, a certain gentlemanliness and sophistication, and an ability to endure through adversity known as the "stiff upper lip". The French believe they have a certain glory, a mission in life and they are perhaps a more romantic people than others. The Americans believe that they have energy, enterprise, imagination, initiative, drive; they do not work together as closely as the Japanese but any time they want to out-smart the Japanese. It is an axiom of faith. What is our axiom of faith? Can we do with none?

We are a blend of east and west, yes. We have progressed and have benefited from many western influences, yes. This Chamber would not have this form, and we would not be debating one another accross this table with Mr Speaker in the Chair, if we were not a democracy with western forms. But if we were all, as some would believe, westernized gentlemen, and not as the reality it is - Chinese, Indian, Malay, Sikh Singaporeans - would this Chamber operate this way? Or would it not for the brief moment which it could exist, be something more like the House of Commons where MPs sit down and pat each other on the back and say, "Well done, old boy"? And hold Singapore together?

We are different. The Prime Minister and his colleagues in the fifties, yes, they were Western educated. That makes them western gentlemen? It does not. They and their generation came of an eastern society, a Chinese society. The ground was the Communist-controlled Chinese, Mandarin and dialect-speaking ground. Their westernization was enough for them to know how to operate the system and use colonial forms and legal procedures to achieve a political objective, which could only be accomplished by politicians who had the feel of the ground, and could talk to them, communicate with them, and influence and move them. That was the ground. The most Westernized political party in the 1950's is not the People's Action Party. It was the Liberal Socialists. They were proper wogs. Where are they now?

So, universal values, yes. It will be some time before everybody in Singapore considers it a national duty to pay his income taxes. It will be a significant achievement when we do that. But I do not think it will be a sufficient foundation for Singapore if all we have in common is that we know how to pay income taxes, and we would do so without being either pressed or charged in court.

What values are we looking for? The President identified four in his speech, as a starting point for the discussion. They are not Confucian items or Malay items or Indian ones. They are four universal values. But the combination, was carefully chosen to fit our circumstances. Community above self. Who disagrees? Nobody. The family as a building block of society. Who argues for single-parent families? Nobody. Consensus over contention. Who is it who asks repeatedly,and sometimes plaintively, for consultation and discussion before decisions are made? And multi-racial and multi-religious harmony? Who speaks against that? I tell you who speaks against that. The politician whom we wanted to arrest in 1976 for fanning Chinese chauvinist sentiments - Ho Juan Thai. Mr Chiam had forgotten his name just now.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think it was Tung something.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Also Tung Tao Chang, yes. They did not want to preserve Chinese culture. They wanted to fan Chinese chauvinism and create upheaval, agitation, eventually riots against the other communities in order to collect votes. They were against multi-racial and multi-religious harmony. I do not think anybody here is. I do not believe Mr Chiam is - nor should anybody be. The very least we have achieved after all these years of nation building is that the form of words - multi-racial, multi-religious tolerance and harmony is conceded, and nobody says, "I'm going for my race." Whether that is deep is not clear. But at least, in polite discourse, you do not take the opposite, disastrous line.

So are we or are we not in favour of these four basic values? You might have one or two others perhaps. But these four, that is what the National Ideology is. If we are, then I think we proceed. If you do not like the term "Ideology", if it confuses people, or sounds pretentious or ominous, change. Call it, "A Singapore Spirit"; call it "Shared values", whatever you will. I think Members have yet time to think out suggestions, which we will consider. But, do we or do we not want to preserve these values? If we do, then I think we are in agreement.

Confucianism is not one of these four. I think many elements in Confucianism will fit these four virtues, because the sense that the community matters, the sense that the family matters, the sense that we work together, and we should be tolerant, are entirely compatible with many Confucian precepts. I do not have to cite them. The Member for Jurong just now cited a couple, and I am sure many other Members will.

Should we say, just with a whitewash brush, that Confucianism, that is old hat, let's throw it away? The Red Guards said that during the Cultural Revolution in China, just throw it away. These are all old things; destroy the temples; demolish the idols; burn the books; are the new people in the new world. Why do we want to do that? What will we start with? A white slate, or a vacuum? We have to amend what is in Confucianism because it is not all up to date; does not all make sense any longer; was never designed for Singapore. But do not forget: a large part of our population are still holding those values. And, in fact, those are some of the values which are holding the Chinese part of the community together. To say that we should drop them is to tell this part of the population, "You just change. And if you can't change, make sure your child grows up different from you." You try doing that to one of our Muslim colleagues here, or one of our Tamil colleagues here, and say, "You stop being a Muslim. That's un-Singaporean." Or, "Please don't wear a turban. The majority of us don't." That is what being a melting pot means.

Do we want to become such a melting pot? What are the ingredients for this rojak? 75% Chinese, 15% Malays, 10% Indians, a few Eurasians and others. Now, you have seen Singapore art, wall murals, many of them - one Indian dancer, one Chinese lion dance, two Malays either with a kompang or doing a Malay dance, and MRT in the background. That's Singapore. That is not a melting pot. That is each community remaining itself.

If you seriously want a melting pot, I will first ask you, all right, what flavour soup are you looking for? Do you want a Muslim soup, a Christian soup, a Hindu one, or one in which there is no religion, because we cannot agree, so we all abandon? Do you want one which speaks Chinese, the language of the majority; or one which speaks English, because that is the language of none of us in the first instance, or do you want a soup so bland that there is no taste, in which case, we all de-culturalize? Let us forget about Indian-ness and Chinese-ness and Malay-ness, and let us all become - I do not know what colour - grey? Or better still, transparent? Will we still be here?

How many non-Chinese MPs would prefer to take that route? So the non-Chinese are going to keep their cultures, and rightly so I believe, because that is what makes them what they are. How does it help them, if the Chinese becomes de-culturalized? And "de-culturalized" does not just mean transparent, because something moves in to fill the vacuum. You will give up ancestor worship or Taoism, you will believe in Christianity or some other religion. You will give up values which you have, like from the Confucian tradition, but you will grow up with some other attitudes and views which, whatever they are, cannot be neutral, because no set of attitudes and views is ever neutral. Will that be good for the minority, never mind whether it is good for the Chinese? Will it help to make us one nation? I doubt.

Really, when you put all this down - if I may interpret the concerns and the hesitations behind what is expressed about the National Ideology - the worry is individualism versus the community. In other words, am I going to have my personal identity, my personal uniqueness, my ineffable spirit, squashed down in order to fit in to a community, the way the North Koreans squashed their population, and other totalitarian governments do? That is the concern, is it not?

We have individualistic drives in us. Of course. Every society does. And it is strong in Singaporeans. I am chairing this Advisory Council on Youth. One of the strongest feedbacks we have from the exercise is thatevery young person in Singapore wants to move up, because he wants to get ahead. If he has N levels, he wants to go to VITB. If he has 0 levels, he wants to go to the Polytechnic or A levels. If he has A levels, he definitely wants to go to some University. And if he has a University degree, can he get a Master's, preferably an MBA? It is a drive to get ahead, ahead of the other person. It is a constructive drive because that motivation to do well has helped them to succeed. But at the same time, it must also be complemented with a sense of group solidarity, so that you do not just get ahead one by one, but as a team.

That is what we are looking for. We are not going to submerge that drive. We are not going to suppress persons. But we would like Singaporeans to be balanced, to be able to fit in to the group and at the same time express themselves and fulfill their potential. That is all we are talking about. We are not talking about making zombies of Singaporeans. There is no danger. You cannot do that. We will fail. But just shift the balance some, from forgetting your communitarian links and bonds to reinforcing them and holding back the process of dissoluton. That is all. Individual rights and freedoms, they are guaranteed in the Constitution. What about society's rights and entitlements? They are not guaranteed in the Constitution. We are looking for a National Ideology to redress this balance a little.

The Member for Potong Pasir yesterday asked Mr Shanmugam whether he believes the Ideology should also contain a recital of all the rights and freedoms. I think Mr Shanmugam gave him the right answer when he said, "They are already in the Constitution." I would go further. The National Ideology is not going to be a constitutional document. It is a summary of our views. It is a credo. It is something which we will believe in, but it cannot have the force of law. Because we can prevent somebody from infringing on your freedom, but cannot force you to be considerate to others.

To take yesterday's argument to the logical conclusion, the answer is not to put freedoms into the National Ideology. It is to put the National Ideology into the Constitution, same way that Pancasila is in the constitution of Indonesia. And then they will be of equal status. I do not advocate that. I do not think it is necessary. It will be felt as shoving something down people's throats. But if we see it in perspective, that is what it is about. We want to redress the balance. We are not going to be like the North Koreans. We cannot even be like the Japanese. We are different. But do we want to evolve conservatively? Or do we want to proceed pell-mell and say, "All's well, hell bells." I would proceed conservatively.

Lastly, this other hesitation which people have, that all this is just a political ploy. Mr Chiam repeated it and says, "It's just to prevent a few more Opposition Members from getting into Parliament." Whether or not you have a National Ideology is not going to influence the outcome of the next three elections, at least. We are talking about the next generation. What are we concerned about? We are not concerned about a few more Opposition Members in Parliament, like the Member for Potong Pasir or the Non-Constituency Member, Dr Lee. They are part of the system. As long as Singaporeans have a consensus and can gel and can support one government which is honest, capable, trustworthy and intrepid, I think we are all right. It does not have to wear the PAP badge. But if Singaporeans become fractious and divided, and whoever is the government, two-thirds of Singaporeans outside are throwing stones at it, or worse, whatever the election, no party can acquire a majority and you spend 56 days manoeuvring, negotiating, forming coalitions in order to create the next Cabinet, as indeed the Israelis have recently done and chronically do partly because of their system, but also because there is not that national consensus, that is what we are worried about. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will one day be Mr Chiam. But if he is, I do not think he will find this a very governable place, and I do not think Singaporeans would particularly enjoy that sort of a country either. That is what we are guarding against when trying to establish a National Ideology.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3.50 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Siglap.

Sir, the hon. Member for Potong Pasir has the habit of using terms loosely. In this respect, today he strongly, unequivocally, advocated for a radically different path towards building social cohesiveness in Singapore, ie, promoting westernization.

The term "westernization" connotes a lot of things. It is distinct from modernization, the process in which Singapore had gone through and achieved to be what we are today. "Westernization" means adopting a total Western mental outlook, practising total Western social values, life habits of the western society, meaning eating what they eat, sleeping the way they sleep and in a manner which is distinctly different. To take a simple analogy, is he suggesting ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I get a clarification?

Mr Speaker: Are you giving way, Encik Yatiman?

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Yes.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am very curious. How does a Western person sleep differently from an Asian?

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Western people use quilt. I would suggest if the hon. Member for Potong wishes to follow totally, he should try to use quilt and he has to pay a lot for his airconditioning bill. It is very thick. That is western.

Sir, "modernization" means applying modern knowledge, modern scientific invention, to solve our day-to-day problems. And in our case, if we have to solve our problem of unemployment by industrialization, applying modern means to improve our productivity, that is modernization. The source of the knowledge obtained is not necessarily from the West. The Western people are learning from the Japanese. It is modernization. It is not easternization. Sir, it is easy to use terms but it is difficult to understand its totality.

Secondly, he proposed that Singapore should be a melting pot. I think the Hon. Minister has already explained what it implies - assimilation. I would like to add one more point. The fact that Singapore is very cautious to avoid ourselves from being perceived as an extension of Chinese culture, Chinese state, as a Third China, is simply because we want to live in harmony with our neighbours. At the first indication that we show our inclination to be a Third China, we must be prepared to face repercussions from our neighbouring countries which are demographically bigger than us. Is the Member for Potong Pasir advocating for that direction? Is he or is he not?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: You are not. Thank you. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has failed to understand the full meaning of "melting pot".

Sir, the President in his Speech last Monday gave a broad picture of our goals for the next 5-10 years. It is a guideline that will be the basis for charting a better and more prosperous Singapore. Allow me to focus my speech on the National Ideology, a subject which is very close to our hearts and has been touched by many of us yesterday and today. I feel strongly that a National Ideology is a crucial factor in enhancing our nation building effort and in creating a more meaningful society.

Sir, after a long process of consultation, we have decided to go ahead and accept our National Agenda sometime ago. Apart from identifying the constraints that we face such as limited land and water, we have also identified our future challenges. Among some of the challenges are the perception of our younger citizens, building and maximizing our potential, the problem of ageing population, the multi-racial society, our defence and internal security. The National Agenda is our action plan to build a better future for ourselves and our children. However, Sir, such lofty objectives are difficult to achieve if they are not accompanied by a strong common resolve or a strong common motivating factor on our part. This is where the role of the National Ideology is.

Sir, the National Ideology serves as our principles and guidelines in achieving our objectives. Some quarters, including the Member for Potong Pasir, are sceptical of the rationale of having a National Ideology. They claim that by introducing elements taken from our respective ethnically-centred or ethnically-based values and traditions for our national philosophy, we may be creating a contradiction.

Sir, for the last 30 years, our leaders have fulfilled their duties in nation building by providing all the necessary material needs of our people. We have provided them with water, overcome unemployment, built schools for our children and we have also embarked on massive public housing schemes at a scale unmatched anywhere in the world, that for every 8 out of 10 of our citizens we can find them living in the comfort of HDB flats.

The Government launched massive industrialization to ensure that our economy continues to grow so that our workers can enjoy better salaries and a higher standard of living. For 30 years, we have used economic development and improvements in our standard of living as a vehicle for nation building. And now we are proud to enjoy a standard of living second only to Japan, in Asia.

Using the economy as our post-independent struggle is the right strategy. It is not only neutral and enjoys wide public support but also able to show quick results if we work hard enough and concentrate our energy towards that effort. The history of newly-independent Third world countries has shown that using non-material elements as a vehicle for nation building can cause them to be trapped in their own minefields. Using emotional means such as language, culture and race as a means of rallying support without being balanced with the effective upliftment of the standard of living can be full of imponderables. So, if our approach of using the economy for nation building is so successful, why not just continue doing exactly that?

Sir, we are able to secure healthy economic growth because we make sure that we enjoy political stability, because our people work hard and because we have able and honest leaders.

We have acted firmly and decisively against anyone who are threats to our political stability, be they chauvinists or communists. We chose the English language which is not only neutral in terms of multi-racial sensitivities, but which also brought our people and workers nearer to the world of modern science and technology. This in turn ensures a continued economic growth through a steady inflow of foreign investors, especially the MNCs. Yes. Why not just continue doing what we have been doing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our political and social landscape has changed a lot. But the Member for Potong Pasir has failed to recognize the change of the backdrop. The comfortable life enjoyed by our people has raised their expectations. The wider use of English language in schools, despite our bilingual policy, is beginning to show changes in our people's perception of social life with far-reaching implications. Our collectivistic values are slowly being eroded and trends towards more individualistic inclinations are becoming clearer.

Realizing the potential threat and possible dangers ahead, we acted to strengthen our cultural ballast. At the same time, such effort also carries with itself some new problems.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a need, a greater need indeed, for us to strengthen our social cohesion. Social cohesiveness is becoming a more crucial factor now. In saying so, Sir, it is not that I disagree with the Member from the Eunos GRC who urged us to continuously strive for economic development. I am in full agreement with him. But while keeping our economic vehicle moving, we should not ignore the fact that social cohesiveness is the pre-condition to political stability which led to our economic growth and it shall remain so. In fact, it is not far from the truth, Sir, if I say that between social cohesiveness and economic upliftment, they are inseparable.

Why is it so? Firstly, despite continuous economic development and general improvement in our overall standard of living, there are indications that some sections of our society, especially the Malays, are falling behind. Secondly, in our desire to create our cultural ballast through adopting and adapting our traditional values which are constructive from our respective ethnic group, we have also increased communal awareness among the citizens. Thirdly, such consciousness added with the fact that our younger generations have not experienced social upheavals or communal strife may cause them to treat our ethnic problems lightly. When the problem explodes in front of our face, it will be too late for us to recognize. Fourthly, because of anomie and feeling of "emptiness" created by affluent urban life, there has been a clearer trend to seek solace and spiritual strength through religion. This too may pave the way towards possible religious polarization among our multi-religious society. Fifthly, in our desire to encourage a more open society and to discuss issues openly and frankly, including those sensitive issues, there is a greater awareness of differences that exist amongst us.

All these new phenomena, Mr Speaker, Sir, force us to look for some kind of a common motivating factor to help bind us together so that we can avoid our fragile society from disintegrating in face of difficulties.

Sir, we do not have a long history or strong tradition. We are multi-racial, not homogeneous. When material success ceases to become the sole motivating factor shared by all towards unity, we have to find a new "binder".

We, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot speak of economic development per se. It must be in the form of a total linkage between social and economic development or socio-economy. Similarly, it is no more valid for us to speak about political development without accepting the fact that between the society and politics, there is an inseparable link. This is because economic development can only be made possible if there exists social cohesiveness among our multi-racial society. But, Sir, social cohesiveness can only exist if we realize that we live in an inter-dependent community, if we realize that we live to be tolerant towards each other, if we are able to share the bigger pie, if we place community above self, if we resolve major issues through consensus instead of contention, and if we uphold our family as the basic building block for our society.

The social cohesiveness which is the pre-condition for economic upliftment and political stability can only be achieved if we do not force our viewpoints and values upon the others, regardless of whether such impositions are based on language, culture or religion. We have certainly learnt from the negative experience and the price which the Vietnamese Buddhist monks got to pay before the fall of Saigon to the Communists when the Buddhist monks decided to use religion for politics. We should also learn from the bitter experience from the Protestant/ Catholic conflict that has brought strife, death and blood bath in Northern Ireland for hundreds of years. We can also be fully aware of the Sikh crisis in Punjab and the violent clash at Masjidul-Haram (The Grand Mosque) in Makkah triggered by the Iranian Shi'ite extremists. These are real life lessons for us in charting our harmonious social life here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I would like to say here is that while we can be proud with our economic achievement and be thankful with the political stability, there is a lot more room for improvement in the area of building a cohesive society. This is the area which we are lacking. This, Sir, should be our prime objective if we are to ensure our political stability and our economic progress continue.

It is with this in mind, Sir, that the President in his Address had specially mentioned this aspect by emphasizing the need to have a National Ideology, to help the low-income group, to encourage and help Malays to better their future, to encourage consensus, to encourage participation in areas that shape their future, to emphasize the importance of religious tolerance and moderation and to separate religion from politics. In this respect, Sir, there is no half-way measure. In view of the fact that the process of creating social cohesiveness is a long and complex one, we have to apply the correct approach and use our financial and human resources effectively.

Sir, I would like to suggest that the Government form a task force to identify the approach and coordinate ideas and efforts towards this end. I would also like to suggest that the Government give special role to the existing grassroots leaders in upgrading their social community relation, and I think there will also be a need to form committees for community relations at constituency level. We could also look into the possibility of widening the role for the Ministry of Community Development to one performing the function of Ministry of Community Relations and Development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I rise in support of the Motion.

Sir, I wish to concentrate on two aspects of the President's Address. Firstly, that of building consensus and encouraging participation, and secondly, that of building a multi-racial and multi-religious society.

Building consensus and encouraging participation

Sir, the President has stated in his speech that a clear "national consensus on major issues has made Singapore a more stable Society", and that the Government will continue to work towards a broad consensus.

Sir, the challenge that faces the Government of today and tomorrow differs from that in the past in one very significant way. Singaporeans today want a government that not only governs well but also want a government that works in consultation with the people. A paternalistic style of government is no longer acceptable.

How has this Government fared in this respect? On the plus or positive aspect we have seen some very clear changes in the last five years. Firstly, the setting up of the Feedback Unit, the setting up of Government Parliamentary Committees, the setting up of Advisory Councils, and the round of consultations leading up to the National Agenda. Hope was in the air. A new style of leadership had emerged. Optimism was bountiful.

Then came a series of shocks or setbacks, as I see it, after the general elections. Suddenly, out of the blue, came a series of unexpected blows. Implementation of the full diesel tax for taxis, a rise in road tax, a rise in foreign maids levy, a rise in foreign workers levy. Why do I say that these were unexpected blows? Did we expect these rates to always remain static forever? The answer is an obvious no. They were unexpected because of the manner or style of implementation. There was no discussion. Parliament was not yet convened. GPCs were not told till the eleventh hour. I am not talking of consultation. We, at least the GPC on Communications and Information, were briefed only on the implementation at the eleventh hour. The taxi operators were not consulted. Even the newspapers had better information than us. Is this consensus building? Will this encourage participation? Sir, the GPC did not even have a chance to convince the Ministry. The decisions were already finalized when we met.

Is there an alternative opinion regarding these measures? Yes, indeed there is. Let me just take the example of the diesel tax. In the Ministry's statement of 9th November 1988, it was said that the diesel tax of $6,600 was introduced, and I quote, "to correct the anomaly in tax rates between cars consuming petrol and taxis consuming diesel". But if we delve into the historical reasons for the diesel tax, we will find the rationale fully explained in Command Paper 21 of 1970, in a White Paper of Parliament, entitled "Reorganization of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore". The problem at that time was:

(1) Air pollution from diesel vehicles - 20,000 of them.

(2) Pirate taxi operators. I quote from paragraph 7.6 of the White Paper on page 22:

'As the majority of private cars and diesel engines are believed to be used for "pirate" taxi operations, it has been decided, as a first step, to increase by 100% the present diesel tax for private cars.'

This is the historical origin of the diesel tax. It was a tax for diesel private cars. In 1970, there were 20,000 private diesel cars. Today, there is, I believe, only one registered private diesel car. Has the diesel tax been successful in achieving these aims? Yes, very successful and the Ministry must be congratulated for this.

But why now impose it on taxis which are public transport vehicles? What anomaly are we trying to correct? Mr Speaker, Sir, my contention is that there is no anomaly and the tax is irrelevant. Did we have a chance to present our case? No, we were never given this chance.

Is there hope for building consensus and meaningful participation? In spite of some setbacks, I am still an optimist. A good friend once told me, "In politics, if you live in hope, you will die in despair." I, however, disagree. As I see the momentum pick up in the discussion on the National Ideology, I believe that there is still hope for the consultative process. The Minister for Trade and Industry has just now stated that even the term "National Ideology" need not be kept. This is good. This is how we should discuss. This is how consensus should be built. I believe that there is still hope for the consultative process.

The First Deputy Prime Minister has stated and the President has reiterated that "Parliamentary Committees will hold public hearings on major proposals, to collect views from the people." Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, we will live in hope but we hope not to die in despair.

Can the Government do more to further prove its sincerity in wanting to build consensus and encourage participation? Yes, the Government can. May I respectfully suggest the following to the First Deputy Prime Minister:

1. Give the Feedback Unit more autonomy and grant it more resources - financial and manpower;

2. Provide the GPCs with more infrastructural support and give an undertaking that even before the First Reading of a Bill that the GPCs will be consulted;

3. Formalize the Advisory Councils and recognize their work by presenting their reports to Parliament for debate.

These actions will send a very clear signal to all that the Government is serious in its intention.

Building a multi-racial and multi-religious society

Sir, I next turn to the question of a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Sir, this is a reality of our situation today. Very correctly, the President has advised "tolerance and moderation". Very wisely, there is also a call to separate religion from politics. To quote from the President's Address. "Religion must be kept rigorously separate from politics. Religious groups must not get themselves involved in the political process."

Sir, the President has also stated that to separate religion and politics, the Government will "spell out these ground-rules clearly and unequivocally." This is indeed timely. It is good that clear guidelines will be set. However, in such an emotive and sensitive area such as race and religion, guidelines alone will not be sufficient. We must take more precaution. Sir, I would like to suggest the setting up of a Department for Race and Religious Relations - something akin to what was mentioned by the previous speaker - in the Ministry of Community Development to oversee this very important aspect of our daily life. Religious leaders can then approach the relevant authorities for guidance in cases of doubt. The Ministry can give cautionary advice to religious groups who may unintentionally tread on sensitive areas. Through dialogue, understanding and tolerance, confrontations will be averted - prevention is better than cure.

The money spent in having a highly specialized team in such a Department will indeed be well invested. I am sure that all in this House will support any measure that will contribute towards harmonious inter-racial and inter-religious relations. I am confident that goodwill amongst all is present today. What we need to do is to nurture this and take precautionary steps to ensure that we build upon what we now enjoy - peace, progress, prosperity and happiness. Let us never take this for granted.

Mr Speaker: I think we will end the debate for today.