PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address

Debate resumed.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of thanks for the President's Address on the goals and challenges of this Government.

For the past 30 years under the People's Action Party the Government has aimed at economic growth and development in order to give the people a better livelihood. For the last few years we have been aiming at a higher quality of life for the people. However, we can see the Government's increasing concern with grappling with the spiritual and cultural dimensions of the nation-building process. Having emphasized growth and development and succeeded beyond doubt, we have now turned full circle and come face to face with the stark reality of a non-homogenous plural society.

Many people, among them the more articulate, modern and educated sections of the population, have doubts about the need and the relevance for a National Ideology. They should not be. Just now we heard the Second Deputy Prime Minister mention the reasons why we are tackling the problems of National Ideology now. But I think there are other reasons from a sociological and economic point of view. Herman Kahn, the futurologist in the 1970's, in his study of the world economic development had predicted that as countries enter the post-industrial phase of development there would always be a greater search and need for ideologies for meaningful growth and development. We in Singapore are entering this phase of development now towards the end of the 1980's.

However, in our search for a National Ideology we must not lose sight of several considerations. Firstly, we are a modern city-state. The culture and ethos we want to nurture have to counter the modernistic culture and values. These values are likely to exert very strong pulls because of our openness and our modern communication facilities. Hence the values we want in the National Ideology must not be too restrictive or inflexible. Otherwise when applied in the context of overall policies, Singaporeans of all races, age and education, may find it unappealing.

Secondly, I feel we must be cautious that by teaching the values in the mother tongues or the mother languages in the schools, we should not unwittingly provoke or evoke communal responses. Up to now the integration of Singaporeans of different ethnic groups, however limited it may be, is conducted through the English medium. Young Singaporeans today should still have to integrate across ethnic and cultural differences in the English mode. Otherwise the outcome may be more communal orientation rather than national orientation which will defeat the purpose of the National Ideology.

Thirdly, I feel the National Ideology must give all sections of our people the sense of shared vision of the future we are heading for. This vision has at various times been defined a global City of Excellence with a Swiss standard of living. Are our people in that vision Chinese, Malays and Indians? Or are they Singaporeans with a Singaporean soul? I hope the National Ideology will consider this.

In this search for a National Ideology, I suggest we should not be too trammelled by our over-focus on the success stories of the Asian "little dragons", namely, Korea, Taiwan or Hong Kong. Communitarianism is only one aspect of their culture which sociologists can explain for their success. Other social scientists have their own explanation, not least of which are the appropriate strategic policies which were undertaken in economic development which enabled them to achieve their spectacular success.

Singapore has not done that badly with our non-homogeneous plural society background. We are still the second highest per capita income country in Asia after Japan. A good section of our population comprising Malays, Indians, Eurasian and non-Chinese speaking Singaporans need the assurance that the National Ideology should integrate them as Singaporeans and not as Malays, Chinese, or Indians or Eurasians.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that in the preliminary search for our National Ideology we have been concerned with core values but not with virtues. I suggest that virtues like diligence, duty, pride in one's work, group loyalty, cooperation, maybe even a sense of shame, be worthy of examination. In our search for a National Ideology we cannot divorce ourselves from the specific problems we are facing at this time in our work ethos, in duty, in pride in one's work, in group loyalty. This has been so in the experience of other countries with ideologies. The Taiwanese have their three principles of nationalism, democracy and social well-being which is a throwback to the revolutionary days of China under Sun Yat Sen. The Koreans have their New Community Movement with its principles of diligence, self-help and cooperation. The Japanese have their neo-Confucian culture of group loyalty since the Meiji Revolution when they started to catch up with the West.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the four core values mentioned in the President's Address are laudable. Most people would swear by these high ideals. Yet we hear of disquiet in some articulate sectors. I suggest it has to do with applying the value of placing society above self as part of an ideology in the context of overall policies. I am using the words "placing society above self" as quoted in the Presidential Address because I feel in a discussion on the National Ideology the words we use are very important in order not to have different meanings or interpretation.

While Members are proud to profess this value in this Chamber, I think it is a different thing when given the status of a National Ideology and invoked as a moral precept in the context of policy and choice. I believe a good section of Singaporeans are disturbed by this. Let me give the illustration which the hon. Member for Buona Vista, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, gave a few days ago. He was on a teaching award from the Ministry of Education and he was forced to do Mathematics more than 25 years ago. He refused and paid back his bond in dollars and went on to do Economics and I thought he did pretty well. Twenty-five years later, he is now in Parliament as a Minister of State. I can imagine not so long ago that we have similar problems where students who qualified to do Medicine, for example, were allocated to do Law at the University. It is problems like this that we face when "society before self" may be invoked as a precept, a moral precept, and individual choice is sacrificed.

The disenchanted may not be as strong-willed as the hon. Minister of State and in our context in Singapore today they may feel disenchanted and they may even leave Singapore and settle elsewhere. The Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry stressed two days ago that the National Ideology is to find a balance by emphasizing the obligations to society. Indeed this is reassuring. Many Singaporeans fear that the term "society before self" may imply a definite ordinal social preference everywhere and always by arbiters in the system. When invoked as a moral precept in the National Ideology it can be disturbing to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that we are all selfish. The fact is that most likely the State or the bureaucracy will not be in a good position to arbitrate on what is good for itself or for the individual. The Member for Boon Lay gave a long list three days ago regarding various changes in policy decisions over the last few years. This has also been borne out all over the world where command political-economic systems have failed and the free world market economies have proven to be a more efficient system in decision-making and allocation. By pursuing the individual self-interest, the welfare of the nation is raised by the invisible hand.

Hence my concern is that perhaps "society before self" may not be exactly what we need to stipulate. What we are concerned about I venture to suggest is a certain community orientation or social harmony in our endeavours which is lacking, partly due to our short immigrant background. This "community orientation" should co-exist side by side or in the back of our mind in our endeavours, while as individuals we pursue our own goals in self-interest. The pursuit of this individual interest as part of our immigrant culture has always been present in the ordinary Singaporean. It has accounted for our dynamism and flexibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, community orientation can co-exist without internal inconsistency with our strive for excellence. Putting "society before self" may mean trading excellence to second place because the search for excellence is very often a trail blazing strive by the few and the initiated. Again the Member for Buona Vista comes to mind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very important for us to ensure that various Government policies are in tune and consistent with whatever core values we want to uphold in the National Ideology. For example, while the National Ideology will want to uphold the family as the building block, there are many families with one member, either a father or a mother or a child who has been staying in Singapore for more than a decade and still cannot get permanent residence status. And yet they know of many other professionals and skilled personnel who are allowed to stay easily whose commitment and family ties to Singapore may yet be established. Although many of them could be just ordinary workers without those skills and professional qualifications which enable many others to stay permanently these people are not without their contribution. They have direct family ties in Singapore and nowhere else. Their children, or brothers do national service. I urge the Government to re-examine these policies so that the family unit as a building block of society is given credence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address makes no direct mention of the problems of the aged in our society. I urge the Government to formulate policies for the aged in three aspects. Firstly, providing more avenues for our elderly to achieve more degree of financial security. The Government or HDB should examine into a reverse mortgage scheme for elderly people who own HDB flats. This suggestion has been made in the Howe Yoon Chong Report before. This would provide an additional source of financial security for the elderly.

Secondly, the HDB should consider allowing senior citizens who own private properties to sell off their properties and move into HDB flats. This would allow many elderly citizens who spend most of their life savings paying for a house or apartment and educating their children to move into smaller HDB flats and liquidate their savings in the house or the private apartment into an annuity.

Thirdly, I feel that the Government should bring back to life discussion on the problem of the aged and seek consensus from the population as to what kind of policies and measures to adopt to formulate as a plan for action. Various measures have already been expressed like raising the retirement age to 60 and the improvement of geriatric medicine. The problem of the aged will become more urgent over the next five years. Many good suggestions have also been made by the Howe Yoon Chong Report. I think it deserves deeper study and review again.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address by the Minister for Trade and Industry there is mention of the EDB setting up an international direct investment programme to facilitate and support Singapore companies to go offshore. I think this is a worthy goal. I also urge the Government to map out a strategy to enable Singapore companies to go trans-national. As our domestic labour supply and total factor productivity become constraints to our growth, the Government should identify those companies with the resources to venture overseas. This should be under- taken as a national strategic economic development effort and not be left to the vagaries of private business alone.

Our presence in overseas countries is important in the longer term. It should complement our domestic economic development. We must get out of the confines of protectionist boundaries, labour constraints and comparative advantages to generate value-added for the long term survival of the city state. It is also, I believe, a strategic dimension of total defence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap. Sir, I would also like to join the earlier speakers in congratulating the Government for clearly outlining its policies and programmes for the next five years. Now that the directions and policies are set, I believe it is up to us as Singaporeans to work with the Government to fulfil the goals outlined in the Presidential Address. Sir, in this context, I am extremely gratified that the hon. Member for Potong Pasir is supporting the motion of thanks. Sir, I believe after one term in this House he has finally seen light.

Sir, over the past few days, various Members of this House have commented on general and specific aspects mentioned in the Presidential Address. I do not propose to go over the same grounds. What I propose to do is to follow up on what the First Deputy Prime Minister wrote to you in his letter. Sir, he says he is now in charge and to use his corporate analogy, he is the Chief Executive Officer with the Prime Minister serving as the Chairman of the board. I am confident that the new team under the leadership of the First Deputy Prime Minister will do Singapore proud and I would urge all Singaporeans to give maximum support to this new team. Also, as a new team, I would urge the First Deputy Prime Minister and his Frontbench colleagues to bring in changes, preferably refreshing changes in the governance of Singapore.

Sir, I would appeal to the First Deputy Prime Minister and his Frontbench colleagues to take a new look at some of our existing problems and policies. In this context, Sir, I would like to refer specifically to two existing policies. The first refers to car ownership policy and the second on foreign maids. I will take the car ownership policy first.

Sir, this problem has been with us for a long time and will continue to be with us. Our current method of tackling this problem has been largely by fiscal means - reduce congestion by making it expensive to own a car. Whether this has served us well as a policy I think is a moot point. I believe the Government has failed to make a distinction between ownership of cars and usage of cars. I believe what we need is to control usage and not ownership. Hence in one breath the same dose of medicine is given to both.

It is the declared policy of this Government to move Singapore and Singaporeans towards a middle class society. Whether we like it or not, Sir, one of the indicators of middle-class society must be ownership of a car, apart from house, refrigerator, washing machine, microwave oven, or what-have-you. It is indeed ironical that it is easier in Singapore to own a home than a car, and both as a result of Government policy.

Sir, I believe the Government should at least not discourage the ownership of cars. Owning a car is part and parcel of a middle class status. Today, there is tremendous frustration, particularly among younger professionals because they are unable to own a car. Sir, the frustration is even greater when taxi drivers can own their own vehicles. The Member for Bukit Timah a couple of days ago made a very eloquent case for controlling the car population. I am sure even the Minister for Communications could not have made a better case than him.

Sir, I would respectfully ask the First Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Communications and his other colleagues to seriously reconsider the present policy on car ownership. Government might want to consider the scenario where ownership of cars is differentiated from usage of cars. Otherwise, the present policy of trying to restrict ownership will be seen by many as purely a revenue-generating exercise. I for one moment do not believe it is a revenue-generating exercise. Hence, I would strongly suggest that the Government consider making ownership of cars less restrictive but really introduce stringent measures when it comes to use of cars on our roads. Technology is sufficiently advanced to enable Government to charge according to usage. It is not for me here to suggest how this ought to be worked out. This is something for the Minister for Communications to mull over.

Sir, I refer to our policy on foreign maids. Many of my colleagues in this House have pointed out the inconsistency in this policy. We are all aware of the problem. The number of foreign maids must be controlled otherwise, as the Minister for Labour said, we will face other social problems. So the question is how to determine the level of maids that we want in Singapore at any one point of time, be it 30,000, 40,000, 50,000. Sir, once this level is determined, then I believe the problem is one of allocation. Right now, allocation is affected through the pricing mechanism, that is a higher levy is introduced to reduce demand. Again, I would like to urge the First Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Labour and his other colleagues to have another look at this policy. Pricing mechanism alone may not be the only solution.

Maybe, Sir, new criteria for allocation of maids may have to be established. I think a policy needs to be established that it is not the right of every Singaporean to have a foreign maid. Some new conditions can be introduced. For example, to qualify employment of a maid, the applicant must at least be a taxpayer. Quantum of tax can be decided by the Government after some consultation. Again, at the moment, the levy is a flat levy. I believe if both husband and wife are working, then maybe the Government would consider a rebate rather than a flat rate for all. I also believe that the Government can actively promote and assist companies to provide maid services. This can result in maids being employed on time basis. Sir, not everyone needs a stay-in maid for 24 hours. These companies can be given incentives and assistance or HDB could make some flats available to accommodate the maids. The Minister for Labour could give priority for such companies to bring in maids. Sharing of maids among families can also be encouraged.

These are some suggestions which the Minister may want to look into.

Sir, the points I have made on car policy and foreign maids are suggestions basically to call upon the First Deputy Prime Minister and his Frontbench colleagues to re-examine some of our existing policies. I have discussed these with some of my other GPC Chairman-colleagues. The majority of us feel that some form of re-examination may be in order.

Sir, there is one other concern which I would like to bring to the attention of the First Deputy Prime Minister and his Frontbench colleagues. Sometime ago during a lunch with a Chief Executive of a multi-national company, I was rather shocked to hear him say that a sociologist (an American sociologist, I think), in conducting a survey on Singapore which involved a cross section of our population, came to one conclusion among other conclusions - that the civil servant in Singapore generally holds the businessman in "contempt". And this Chief Executive was very concerned with this conclusion. Sir, I am not in total agreement with this conclusion of the sociologist. But, in fact, a milder word than "contempt" may be necessary. In my case I would like to use the word "distrust". However, Sir, in reality, the truth may lie somewhere between "mistrust" and "contempt".

Sir, if this is the situation, then I believe it does Singapore no good. It is extremely important for the Civil Service, the political leadership and the business community to work together for the improvement of our people and our country. I would urge if such a situation exists that 1DPM would help to redress and forge a closer relationship based on trust and understanding. All sectors of the population must work in tandem for the benefit of Singapore. I think we can do away with "I am holier than thou attitude".

Sir, in conclusion, I can only say that changing times require new perspectives and new solutions to old problems. I would urge and plead with the First Deputy Prime Minister and his Frontbench colleagues to take a fresh and new look at all problems, old and new.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I sit down, I just want to make one other observation, that is, again to request the Frontbenchers not to be unduly disturbed because of criticisms from my colleagues, the Backbench, particularly GPC Chairmen. Sir, Backbenchers and GPC Chairmen are expected to raise issues and concerns in this House. If this exercise is to continue, then I believe there must be a certain amount of give-and-take. However, Sir, in yesterday's debate, I believe the steak was a little overdone. 4.10 pm

The Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of thanks to the President.

Our desire to preserve traditional values should not lead to a de-emphasis of democratic values in Singapore. Being more communitarian should not mean we become less democratic. It means we become less individualistic. It would be wrong to equate democracy with individualism. That was not the meaning of democracy as the Greeks understood it. That was not the democracy idealized in the West in the age of Enlightenment.

In his famous Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln summarized democracy as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". The democracy Lincoln described so succinctly is as much concerned with the duties of individuals to the community as it is with the rights of individuals. Hence, the Civil War.

The relative backwardness of Asian societies for a long time was partly the result of a lack of democracy. Feudal thinking prevented the modernization of these societies. Societal values are hard to change. Japan took one generation to make the leap. And even so the Meiji Restoration was not enough. It took the Second World War, two atomic bombs and the American occupation which followed to finally make Japan the industrial democracy it is today. For China, a much larger country with a much larger population, that transformation takes much longer. From the loss of Hong Kong in 1842 to the British during the Opium War to the eventual return of Hong Kong in 1997, China would have taken some 150 years to achieve this great transformation. And even then, we hear today this raging controversy going on over the exhibition of nude paintings. The Culture Minister himself had to declare that the exhibition should be seen as an attack on feudal thinking. And you can be sure we have not heard the last of this quite fascinating subject.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there could have been no progress in traditional Asian societies without democracy. For this reason, democratic values should be an integral part of our national value system. We are a democratic nation, yes, but we do not have a long tradition of democracy. It is not in our ancestral cultures unlike, for example, the Anglo-Saxon peoples. For centuries, since Magna Carta in the days of King John and Robin Hood, the Anglo-Saxon peoples have evolved a tradition of democratic values so tenacious that wherever they may be transplanted on this earth, they re-create, basically, the same political system. In the end the institutions we fashion must reflect the values that are in all of us. Therefore, if we want Singapore to endure as a strong democracy, we must ensure that the democratic values which sustain our national institutions are deeply held by all of us, and from our childhood.

Legally, the Constitution is supreme. But, politically, the Constitution is only as durable as the community wants it to be. Many Third World countries are democratic in the constitutional sense when they first became independent. But for as long as the ideas and the ideals of democracy are not imbued in the people, such constitutional experiments very often fail. It is very difficult to have a democratic government without democratic values and democratic traditions. And we are still building up such traditions in Singapore. Dr Lee Siew-Choh's agreement to take up his NCMP seat in Parliament is a milestone in the development of our democracy. He is of my father's generation and already a historical personage whether or not we agree with his political views. By coming back to this House after so many years, he affirms to all Singaporeans the constitutional principle that this is the way we state and settle our political differences - an important democratic principle that we do well to confirm, not only for ourselves but for our children and for our children's children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are right to worry that we may become too Westernized, too individualistic in the American sense. And for us that will be disastrous. We are particularly vulnerable because of our size and our exposure through the English language. But our problem, though more acute, is not unique. In much the same way, the other NICs face the same problem, the same challenge. Look at what is happening today in Taiwan, in South Korea, in Hongkong. China too. Even Gorbachev's Russia.

We are not choosing between East and West. We are deciding what synthesis of East and West will best carry us as a society into the 21st century. Mr Chay, the Member for Brickworks, had mentioned earlier about Dr Sun Yat Sen, the founder of Republican China in 1911. Dr Sun propounded the Three Principles of the People (San Min Zhu Yi) as the basis for a democratic, industrial nation-state. The three principles were nationalism, democracy and the people's welfare (Min Zu, Min Quan, Min Sheng) reflecting the impact of Western ideas on the Chinese mind. Dr Sun himself was the product of Western missionary education, a convert to Christianity. The Chinese Government he formed was divided into five branches, three adopted from the US Constitution (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary), but two more from the traditions of Imperial China (the Examination Yuan and the Control or Censorial Yuan). And this is still the structure of government in Taipei today. The structure is an interesting, syncretic blend of democratic Western institutions and traditional Chinese ones.

Our approach must be the same in Singapore. We remain as committed to the ideals of democracy but in a way relevant to our history and to our circumstances. Like our values, our institutions are still evolving. The British left us valuable assets in the legal system, in the Civil Service (for all its faults), in Parliament. We build on these assets. We modify them. We improve. Like the introduction of GRCs and NCMPs and, eventually, an elected Presidency or some such safeguard on the exercise of Executive power.

Singaporeans want a livelier democracy, particularly younger Singaporeans. That is in accord with the times. We live in an age where because of the minute division of labour, even the most minor tasks require the cooperatiave effort of a large number of free individuals. You cannot force people to create works of art, or to write good software or even just to provide courteous service over the counter if they are not willing. That is why QC circles have become so important in industry. QC circles are a part of the democratization process in work organization.

A diversity of views is an insurance against the unexpected and the unforeseen. Singapore cannot become a great nation in this information age without a lively democracy. Even the Russians now agree that without democratic practice, no further economic progress is possible. History, it seems, is now on the side of democracy.

Our fear is a democracy perverted by an elevation of the self over all societal considerations, signs of which we see in the West. But here, it may be the turn of the West to learn from the East. And if I may misquote Kipling, East is East and West is West, and indeed the twain shall meet.

All over America and Europe, business schools and management experts are trying hard to unfathom the secret of success of Japanese corporations. But there is really no secret. As the CEO of Sony, Akio Morita, explained it recently in an interview with Newsweek, the problem in the West is one of excessive individualism. But, alas, national characteristics are not easy to change. And it will take time now for Western societies to correct this growing imbalance in their internal value system. They too must learn to adjust.

We are trying to avoid having such an imbalance in our society in Singapore. So we must stress communitarian values. For the Chinese, communitarian values are mainly Confucianist values. Those Confucianist values which are harmful to progress, we must reject, as Dr Sun Yat Sen and the founders of modern republican China did and as our Second Deputy Prime Minister expressed earlier this afternoon. We should preserve only those which are relevant and emphasize, at the same time, the importance of democratic values without which a modern industrial society cannot be built. In short, our shared values must be both democratic and communitarian. We should therefore not leave out democratic values in our national value system. There will otherwise be a lack of balance in presentation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next century will be the century of the Pacific, of the Western Pacific where Western values have successfully leavened Eastern societies, and of the Eastern Pacific where Eastern ideas will in turn re-invigorate Western societies. Singapore's success to date is a part of the larger success story of the string of islands and peninsulas which skirt the Chinese mainland. Singapore's success in the future will be a part of the larger drama now unfolding before our very eyes in the Pacific. It must be against such a backdrop of cultural and intellectual ferment in the Pacific that we debate what set of shared values will best enable us to take our rightful place on that stage.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, that must be one of the most enlightened maiden speeches I have heard.

Mr Speaker: Are you seeking a clarification?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I get a clarification from the Minister of State?

Mr Speaker: All right, make it brief.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. If I heard him correctly, apparently the Taiwan way is the way we should take. I do not know whether he said it. Taiwan is different from us. They are a homogeneous race. Our problem here is multi-racialism. He did not address this area in which is perhaps our main problem.

On democratic values, he said that we should uphold democratic values. How do you reconcile democratic values with Confucianist values which are not democratic?

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I am not recommending the Taiwanese model for ourselves. When I said that this is the approach we should follow, I was referring to the approach of syncretism, that we should not only be looking back to the past to decide what we want for the future. What we are witnessing in Asia today is a clash of civilizations, of Western ideas impacting on Eastern civilizations with its own long traditions and producing a new synthesis. So in deciding what our national values should be, we should look forward and not backwards. That was the point I was making.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What about democratic values? How do you reconcile them with Confucianist values?

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: They too must evolve. The democratic and Confucianist values that we evolve for ourselves must represent a new synthesis of past ideas. Such is the nature of human thought. Ideas appear to reflect what they were in the past. But in the process of cyclical change, new developments have taken place. And what we are talking about are ideas which will enable us to exploit the full potential of the technological age. Look at what societies in the West today are doing. They are scrambling to find out why East Asia has been so successful in the last 20 years. And they have exhausted their own indigenous intellectual resources as to what makes the East tick and what is now giving the West problem. I think there is today a situation where Western theory lags behind world practice.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Speaker: You are still not clear?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am very happy with the answers that he has given. But I still cannot fathom: how are you going to reconcile democratic values and Confucianist values which are basically undemocratic? How do you reconcile the two? How are you going to adapt Confucianist values and fit them into our democratic system or democratic values? How do you do that?

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I do not have a precise answer because that is a solution we are now seeking in this House. But by way of analogy, by way of example, I think it would be instructive for us to look at how Japan has successfully integrated democracy with Confucianism. The institutional forms are outwardly democratic. In fact, their parliamentary system, their Diet, is not unlike the British system. The original inspiration was American and many of their laws are, in fact, based on American laws. But the practice is Japanese. So if we look at Japan, look at the way they have, in their own style, blended the two together. I think there is in the Japanese example a case study for us to look at.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is their approach towards the opposition?

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Apart from factionalism in the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, I think there is merit in the way the Japanese political system has evolved. There is national stability because when push comes to shove, the interest of the country gather around the ruling party. So there is political stability. They have a highly professional civil service which provides for further institutional stability. At the same time, there is an opposition which in its own way is effective. And which in its own way has to deal with the ruling party. The ruling party, as a matter of course, does not push Bills over the heads of the opposition. And very often, they seek consensus with the opposition. But for that to happen, the opposition itself learns that it must bargain and deal with the ruling party. That may be the way we will evolve in this Parliament.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you. 4.25 pm

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Siglap.

Sir, the President mentioned that Singaporeans should not only have their material needs met, but also able to enjoy meaningful and fulfilling life. Many hon. Members have spoken at length on the National Ideology, education, economy and the need to support the lower income groups, the unskilled workers, to improve themselves through training and retraining, so that they too could upgrade their lives. Many of my Malay MP colleagues have also mentioned the aspirations and desire of the Malay community to move ahead and join the mainstream.

I fully share the views of hon. Members on the above issues and would like to see that the Government is concerned and try to implement some of the recommendations which are practical and feasible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, the First Deputy Prime Minister announced the formation of six advisory councils to look into the various ways and means of improving the quality of life for all Singaporeans. I believe most of these committees have already submitted their recommendations.

Earlier today, the hon. Member for Ulu Pandan eloquently spoke about the Arts and how it contributes to improving the quality of life. Now I would like to speak on sports and recreation, a topic which seems to be at the lowest priority. Sir, the emotional stress of urban living, the rich and the plentiful food available to most people, the ease of an era of machines and the sedentary way of life, have generally made Singaporeans rather soft and vulnerable to both physical and mental ailments. And these, to a certain extent, tend to mar the quality of our life.

Sir, with the adoption of the Government's Sports for All policy in 1973, there has been an active promotion of physical fitness and sports among school children, national servicemen and the masses. There has been a greater awareness of the importance of sports. I know many hon. Members as well as Ministers have played their part in spearheading the sports movement. However, I still feel that active participation in sports and other recreational activities by the general public is still not up to the level ideally preferred. Although the average Singaporean is aware of the desirability and the benefits of sports, and intends to get more of it, he is stacked against his driving need to succeed and to be secure in the framework of an intensively competitive society. Time spent in sport has often struck him almost as a form of self-indulgence. This lifestyle will have to change if one wants to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

How does sport contribute to this good quality of life? Sports like art, music, contributes to the development of many personal values. It contributes to good character, loyalty, altruism, self-control, fortitude, health, physical fitness and mental alertness. As the growth of an individual or a society is a process, encompassing every aspect of human functioning and emotion, sports' contribution to the desired growth of the individual as well as the society can never be over-emphasized.

Sir, one of the primary values of sport is that it provides an opportunity for people to interact, to socialize and to overcome a sense of isolation by joining social groups. In our society, such groups are important in that they provide individuals with a sense of belonging rather than isolation. Group participation offers a realistic training ground for both cooperation and healthy competition. An individual must learn to cooperate with others, to accept group rules, to impose self-discipline and to subordinate his own wishes, when necessary, to the desires of the overall group. In multi-racial Singapore, this aspect of development is also important for nation building. Sports can help to forge our people together as it has no racial or religious barrier. What better way than to start taking part in sports and games, if not from young, in the schools?

Through participation in group activities such as sports and games, young children can learn to control their emotions and to express themselves in socially acceptable ways - to take responsibilities, to respect others, to be considerate, to be tolerant and to work as a team, etc. In short, they learn to get along well with others at the same time, the esprit de corps inherent in such team activities often leads to life-long friendship.

Today, the priority on academic excellence, modernization and unavoidable western influence have brought with them their woes and bad influence. The luxury of life has perpetuated a sedentary lifestyle in most Singa- poreans and some of us are crumbling under work and family pressures.

Our children and youth are caught up in the high-paced pursuit of academic excellence. Consequently, there is a lack of exercise resulting in obesity and lack of proper physical and motor development in them.

I recollect there were three articles in the Straits Times sometime in August 1988 which reflect the situation of our children's plight at the primary school age who are overweight. I know the Ministry is looking into ways and means of how to improve in this area.

It is indeed timely that the recommendations made by the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee be looked into seriously and, if possible, to implement them as soon as possible. And for sports to make an impact in any society, it must start from the very young. Sports and its benefits must be introduced and taught to our children right from the home, from pre-primary school, or if need to, throughout the secondary school. Then the interests and habits of participation will be carried through the child's later years and society as a whole will definitely benefit.

Sir, I understand that schools plan their Extra curricular activities programme which, while providing for health and enjoyable sports and recreation activities, may also teach pupils skills in a particular game or sport and at the same time cultivating in them great values and desirable social attitudes and habits which I have just mentioned earlier. The question is, are there sufficient qualified physical education teachers and adequate facilities available to cater for the various needs and interests of our young pupils?

I understand, Sir, that the number of activities a school provides for its pupils depends upon the availability of expertise among its staff members, availability of facilities within the school premises and the interests of the pupils themselves. However, I am happy to note that the Physical Education College has been established and new intakes of trainees are undergoing full-time courses, but it will take some time before we are able to produce enough qualified physical education teachers to be sent to all our primary schools. I do hope that more and better facilities are available when new primary schools are being built in the next five to 10 years.

By and large the most important factor to succeed in sports promotion is the acceptance and encouragement by parents and society as a whole, and this is the best guarantee for a sporting future for the whole generation. If our children are given opportunities to learn to practise the basic elements of movement, if the young have the chance to use them in a wide variety of sports and games, and enjoy doing them, then sports for a lifetime will be assured.

As it is mandatory for male youths to undergo national service, there is an inevitable need for them to be fit and strong for the physical and mental demands of military training. The experience I gained when I was in the Armed Forces is that for those trainees who were sports enthusiasts in their schools find no difficulty in adapting themselves to the rigorous military training. It is only when you are fit you are confident; when you are confident you can do your work better. One way of ensuring this is to inculcate in : em, from young, the habit of indulging in sports or any other type of outdoor activities such as adventure training, orienteering, canoeing and the like. Perhaps our youth groups that we have in the various community centres should seriously consider the promotion of sports in their activities besides all the other social activities.

When our youth enter adulthood, they will immediately be part of our workforce. Whether in the office or the factory they are playing an important economic role that demands a healthy body and a healthy mind. As a reservist, these workers have to maintain a certain level of fitness as they have to be prepared for any eventuality at any time. One way of maintaining this condition of mental and physical efficiency is by encouraging them to continue participating in sports. The many intangible values of sports provide tremendous benefit to the individual and the company he is working for.

From research conducted in the developed countries, sports in industries seems to increase productivity, reduce turnover and absenteeism, and even boost the morale of the employees. Studies have also shown that sports can help to relieve the tedium and tensions of work and reduce feelings of alienation and apathy between employer and employee. In this respect, I know there are some industries, some big companies have already provided facilities for their staff to do physical training or recreational activities, but I would like to urge more companies, especially the big ones, to provide these amenities for their staff and employees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been reminded again and again that Singapore is a small country. We have only human resources to talk about. Whether the population is fit and healthy, or unfit, will sooner or later become a question of national concern. The need for sport and physical fitness cannot be over-emphasized if we are to enjoy a more meaningful and fulfilling life and become a middle class society and continue to work together to build a nation of excellence.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC): Sir, I do hope that you do not consider long speeches a sporting event. I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to thank the President for his address.

The first sentence of the President's Address says it all - "My Government's goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans." Who can disagree? But then goals are mere statements and they can only become flesh if the appropriate policies, and the rules and the regulations are put in place for their implementation. And that, Sir, is my area of concern - the rules and regulations of the Government Ministries and the various departments.

Sir, firstly I believe that Singapore has perhaps more rules and regulations affecting our daily lives when compared to most other countries. This is not surprising as living closely together in a high density city nation such as Singapore, especially when more than 80% of our population are HDB residents, obviously requires more laws, more rules and more regulations to ensure some form of harmonious relationship amongst our residents. Otherwise, there may be disorder, chaos and anarchy.

In fact, Sir, in themselves, rules and regulations may not be necessarily bad. For example, let us examine the regulation relating to the HDB policy of allocating flats on a "first-come first-served" basis. Is it a bad policy because it does not consider the housing needs of individual applicants? The rules are very clear; an earlier applicant will have his flat before a later applicant even though it can be shown that the later applicant has a more pressing need for a house than the earlier one. Sir, does this mean that the Government is not caring? Perhaps so, if you consider that the current policy gives very little weightage to the personal housing needs of applicants. However, if we examine closely, we will see that it is not that simple. A system based on needs must obviously give rise to the question of what need comes first. For example, should a couple intending to get married come before a family wanting to upgrade from a smaller unit to a bigger one, and how can we differentiate between two or more different types of needs? Furthermore, a system based on qualitative factors would normally also provide fertile ground for corruption. In fact, I believe that it is precisely to eliminate this problem of corruption that the HDB first imposed the "first-come first-served" policy. Sir, I have taken a bit of time to show that it is not the rules per se that are of concern. But it is the attitude, the philosophy of the rule makers, it is the manner that these rules and regulations are applied to the people, these are the real concerns.

These concerns are due to what I call the "cement bucket" syndrome and the "cast-in-stone" syndrome in the civil service. Let me explain what these syndromes are.

Let us say that the Government has a new policy and the objective of this policy is to transport water from one place to another. However, only a bucket is available. Let us also assume there are some holes in the bucket. But even with these holes it is still possible to transport about 75% of the water, losing about 25% along the way due to leakage. However, like all good civil servants, this leakage is not acceptable to the rule makers. There should be no leakages. There should be no abuses. So the holes, the loopholes, must be plugged, whatever happens. Unfortunately, there is only cement. Never mind, use the cement.

Before long, you find that every hole is plugged and now the bucket is half-filled with cement. Obviously the carrying capacity has dropped from 75%, even with leakages, to only 50%. Furthermore, with cement, it is now heavier and instead of originally only one civil servant needed to operate the system, now it requires two or more. But the civil servants are now happy since the rules and regulations have plugged all the loopholes. So there is no way the policy can be abused. Never mind the drop in the carrying capacity. Never mind the heavier bucket, the extra rules and regulations. Never mind even the additional manpower needed. The important thing is that no abuse is possible. What about the 50% efficiency? No worry. Who knows that it could be at 75% because it is an either/or type of situation?

The second concern - that of applying the rules and regulations to the general public - in fact is related to the "cement bucket" syndrome. It is called the "cast-in-stone" syndrome. When applying the rules and regulations, ie, the "cement bucket", there will be situations not envisaged by the rule makers, simply because no set of man-made regulations can foresee the million and one situations that may arise in the future. However, since the regulations must be applied as established, no flexibility is permitted. We must either follow the regulations or else, "I am sorry. You just cannot have it." no matter what the peculiar or particular circumstances are. This is the "cast-in-stone" syndrome. The rules are cast in stone. There should be no, and there shall be no abuse of the system.

Sir, we all know that R & R are necessities - I mean rules and regulations. But the way they are applied can either make Singapore a gracious society or a living hell for us who are confronted with Government bureaucracy in almost every facet of our lives. I would like to urge the Government to seriously address these concerns. In fact, I believe they are the main contributory factors to the charge that Singapore is a controlled society, that the atmosphere in Singapore is stifling and oppressive. People do understand reasons. They just do not want to be told what to do just because the rules tell them to do. Explain to them the rationale for an action. They will understand.

Sir, for a start, I would like to recommend that every Government department establish a 3R Committee (Rules and Regulations Review Committee) whose sole purpose is to ensure that every rule and every regulation justifies its relevance and, hence, justifies its existence. It is a start towards the establishment of more humane regulations which will be relevant to today's conditions. It is a spring cleaning of our irrelevant regulations. It is another step along the way to a more gracious society and in the President's own words "a better life for all Singaporeans".

Mr Speaker: I think we will call it a day. Debate to be resumed on what day, Mr Tarmugi?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Tomorrow, Sir.