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

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. 1.18 pm

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC): Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap. Hon. Members in this Chamber in the last few days have covered much ground in the President's Address which he delivered on behalf of the Government. But for today I will just confine myself mainly to the discussion on consensus.

Sir, ever since the second generation leaders took effective charge of the Government in the last Parliament, I think there is a more accommodating leadership. Our younger leaders have gone out of their way to seek views, suggestions and opinions from all Singaporeans. They also made special efforts to reach out to the young. In several public forums and closed-door sessions we have with young people, I find that the young of today are much more prepared to speak out openly and are openly critical of the Government. From my experience I notice that those young people who join us in the public forums and closed-door discussions show no fear whatsoever. They have not been victimized by the Government in any way and I dare say that the Government has taken them into its confidence, which allows them to speak out even more. Sir, in the language of the day, the Government has gone out of their way to seek consensus from the people. Hence it is no surprise that this is identified as the main way in which we will move with Singaporeans.

The last Parliament also saw deliberations leading to the Economic Committee Report and the National Agenda. It also saw a reversal of a number of policies and philosophical stands of the Government. The graduate mother's policy was reversed. The CPF contribution, which was sacrosanct, was reduced in the face of the recession. The Government also reversed its stand on the use of CPF for educational purposes. All this on top of a number of other changes like petrol tax and diesel tax. As a further indicator, the last three Parliaments saw some 18 Bills committed to the Select Committee. Of these 18 Bills, 10 came in the last Parliament alone.

Taken together as a whole, these last five years have probably seen more public participation in decision-making than the whole of the period since our independence. This is contrary to what has been claimed by the Opposition. There is clearly a change of style and the recognition that a new way of reaching the people must be pursued. With a younger and better educated electorate, a more consultative approach is inevitable in our continued attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people. In other words, we must be more than just good technocrats.

I am, Sir, for consultative government and consensus building. We must adopt a more conciliatory approach of replacing contention with consensus in the family, at the work place and of course between the Government and the people. I will go so far as to advocate that dissenting views be better accommodated and I welcome the intention to increase the number of NCMPs. But in my mind this must be increased substantially and I will suggest that we should increase up to the full number in this Chamber, as many as eight or nine.

Now that the NCMP concept has been accepted by at least one opposition party we should search for wider participation, wider representation so that a wider airing of dissenting views is possible. This Chamber must see a fuller debate of opposing ideas. It is therefore unfortunate that one of the NCMPs has been disqualified at the start of this Parliament. Provision should have been made to admit another NCMP in the event of such a disqualification. If this Chamber can rectify this shortcoming for this Parliament, I think we must do so.

On the Minister for Trade and Industry's proposal of creating non-Government MPs, I should like to remark that presently views of business, of workers, of unions and university academics are already given a good airing by my fellow Backbenchers. What is needed is better and good listening skills of the Frontbench. I am more in favour of giving time to the maturing of the NCMP scheme. In the next few elections, younger and better educated opposition members will find their way into this Chamber as NCMPs. This group who are better educated will find that their standing in the public does not necessarily depend on their taking on strong adversarial postures. In the age of the DAT, the digital-audio tapes, CDs, some 45 rpm records in the last Parliament and, of course, definitely 78 rpm records will be confined to the antique shops of Sungei Road. I am an optimist.

While agreeing with consensus, I am also cautious about our effectiveness. Have we gone too far in our effort to build consensus? Are our efforts recognized as such? There are claims that this is just an attempt to explain and elaborate on a chosen plan of Government action. Has our society reached a stage whereby all issues may be discussed openly? Are some issues not too sensitive and may best be handled in a more subtle manner? In the name of consensus building, we discuss and debate too many sensitive issues openly. Too often, an open discus- sion of sensitive issues will not necessarily lead to a solution supportable by all, especially the community which is focused. If the options for a solution are limited, generation of too much heat may do more harm than good.

This often leads to entrenched positions and may not create a conducive climate for consensus building. For consensus to succeed, our younger and better educated Singaporeans must understand the parameters by which consensus will be arrived at. I am not certain that they will accept the fact that their views will be subordinate to the views of the majority. For in arriving at a consensus, it is usually the views of the majority that prevail. Even here, Sir, there are pitfalls. Sometimes the most obvious or desired solution may not be the best solution. This is amply illustrated by the Minister for Trade and Industry of British bombers in World War II. This is quite akin to having to take bitter medicine.

We must be wary that in the process of consensus building, we may be raising the expectations of the people to such an extent that all measures are, in fact, subject to a de facto referendum. Elected representatives may be placed in a position whereby the electorate perceives that the Government needs the people's agreement to act on all matters. The Government is elected by the people to lead. We must establish consensus with the people that honourable Singaporeans may serve in Parliament. We must establish consensus with the people that they elect people with ability. In short, we need to build consensus with the people on who is fit to govern. This is quite different from building a consensus on everything which is governable.

The Government should continue this consultative approach and make elaborate attempts to explain to the people. At the end of it all, Sir, it is the Government's job to decide in Singapore's best interest and to act. Even in cases where consensus is difficult to arrive at, especially in fiscal measures, I think the Government should implement its policies with a higher degree of finesse and creativity. They should apply the concept of incrementalism coupled with feasible alternatives. Incrementalism, Sir, is moving in small steps to achieve an objective. It is a concept familiar to strategic planners.

This morning you saw one example about the foreign maids levy during Question time. I think you do not need a clairvoyant to predict that the numbers will grow substantially to what it is today. What does the Government do? In one move, it expects to smother and send all foreign maids back home. It did not recognise the problems of working mothers and, more importantly, they have not implemented this in smaller steps and offer alternatives to those who depend on the maids. The most obvious alternative is the cheap and easy availability of child care centres, as the Minister has already pointed out. But all the other measures and options which he has spoken of, like sharing family work, are all very impractical measures which many housewives and working mothers will find hard to implement. He also raised the question of aged parents taking care of grandchildren. Again that is not very practical because many aged parents, not because they want to enjoy themselves, but find that it is a physical strain to take care of young children. They will like to take it easy and, if possible, the physical effort to be passed on to a maid, I think they will be more than pleased to help look after young children if there is a maid.

Another example is the land transport policy. In the name of curbing the growth of car ownership, the Government takes no cognizance of the fact that this growth is a direct function of growing affluence. Growing affluence and car ownership is a worldwide phenomenon. As we grow more affluent, everybody wants to have a car and the Government should have applied its expertise to find alternative solutions to ease traffic congestion, such as imposing a heavy utility charge on week-days. With the fine network of expressways, Singaporeans want the freedom on four wheels in their leisure. This is something we cannot stop and I predict that the next thing the Government will do is to look into raising the so-called AR. This will result in a bigger burden on young people who enter the workforce and wish to own a car after a few years.

Sir, instead of creative solutions, we see the usual time-honoured fiscal measures more tax, more charges, and expect the problem to be solved. There is no doubt that there is a consensus of opinions in these two instances I quoted revenue generation. There is consensus. They say the Government is out to make more money. What have we lost in the process? We lose in the process perfectly good arguments of the undesirability of our young to grow up with alien values, as already expounded by the Minister. He has explained to us why it is not desirable to have too many foreign maids in Singapore. Of course, the Minister for Communications has also explained on several ocassions why we need to keep our roads free of congestion. These are valid, good arguments but as far as Singaporeans are concerned, the very measures adopted mean that the Government is only interested in money and not really looking for solutions.

Quite clearly, sometimes well-intentioned and necessary policies become points of contention. What is much needed is careful thinking and I hope that with the expertise we have in our civil service, the Government should look for more creative solutions to problems.

The Minister of State for Community Development (Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address the President clearly sets out a practical goal for our people, that is, creating a clear and better life for all Singaporeans. He also pointed out that we have to safeguard our national security and maintain political stability within the country if we are to realize this goal. In addition, we have to overcome problems of scarce resources in land, water supply and human population.

Other than these challenges, we must remind each and every Singaporean that the good life we aim for is by no means dependent on the work of the Government alone, but by the collective efforts of everyone, regardless of his family background, be he poor or rich. It is important that people make full use of the opportunities the Government has created for them, and with the necessary efforts and diligence on their part, they will set themselves on the way to success, both in their academic pursuits and their careers. It is through this process that a firm and solid foundation is laid for a bright future of good life.

It is more important that we continue to strive for self-improvement, to constantly better ourselves and to hold a more positive attitude to learn better ways to deal with people and work, and to play our part for our family and society. Such are the ways to a better and more meaningful life and the only way for the Government to ensure the successful implementation of its plans and measures.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as for education, the Government has given stress to improving the education system. It plans to increase the number of places in tertiary institutions and to allow to use CPF for university education so that more people will be encouraged to pursue higher education.

With high hopes placed on their children to have higher education, parents naturally welcome such opportunities for their children. Therefore when the news was released, it was well received. But we have to face the fact, that those who can enter university are limited. This is true with any country. The Government has done all within its power to create maximum opportunities, in the context of limited resources for more intakes of qualified candidaes. With these restraints, it is quite impossible to provide place for the vast majority who intend to receive university education.

Faced with this situation, we have to be practical and allow those who have been excluded to pursue other different courses according to their ability and interests, so that they may feel confident in their future and they could play an important role in their respective industries.

With this in mind, I hope that in improving the education system, we focus our efforts on preparing the youngsters to cope with the adversities of life, help them to learn from their mistakes and failures, and spur them on to strive to better themselves through the learning process.

It is also our responsibility to see that traditional virtues are inculcated in our young at home. These include the spirit of respcting and enjoying the work they do - They have to believe that with a positive and correct work attitude towards whatever they do they could enjoy good life. In this way, those who do not go to the university can also aspire to a good life if they have the positive work attitude and work diligently.

The President's speech also touched upon some of the core values or national ideology that Singaporeans should follow and promote. One of them is the preservation of the family structure as the fundamental unit of society. I believe that most Singaporeans of the older generation will agree with the move to preserve this good Asian tradition.

We have, often enough, heard our elders say, "I am prepared to slave like a cow or a horse and sacrifice everything for the sake of my children and family." But, our younger generation may not share the same thought. Many of them even see getting married as digging their own grave, and having children as seeking trouble for themselves. They do not have the traditional family concept.

Therefore, in order to successfully propagate the family concept, we need to take the bull by its horns and focus on our younger generation, starting from the homes and schools, with support coming from both the Government and the community.

As for family education, I believe that parents should not pamper their children too much as this will result in children being convinced that parents are there to satisfy their every need and whim, while they can sit back and wait for things to be handed to them on a platter. Worse still, many families with maids expect the maids to wait on the children in every way in everyday life. I have my reservations about these children growing up from such environment being able to cope with an independent life without stout spirit and resolve and face the challenges of the nation. They may not be in a position to pay the price for the good life they aspire to. Therefore, I hope that all Singaporeans, particularly those who are parents, are fully aware of this fact and try to avoid making such serious mistakes when bringing up their young.

The President also stressed the importance of three other core values. They are: putting society above self, consensus through discussion, and racial and religious tolerance and harmony. Being closely inter-related, none of these can be done away with in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society. To place nation above self is to be concerned with community and national affairs, to play a part in the service of the nation by participating in or discussing social affairs and national issues with calm and sincerity. When dealing with major issues of the community or the nation, our priority should be that of the welfare of our people. For these reasons, it is necessary that we should further promote mutual understanding and respect for the religions, cultures and customs of the various ethnic communities. By so doing can we clearly identify our common aim, one that will enable our future generations to live peacefully and harmoniously together in their pursuit of a beautiful and better life for Singaporeans?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days, several Members have already talked about how mutual understanding and respect for the cultures, the religions and the traditions among the various races can be promoted. I am sure most Singaporeans can see why it is impossible to create one culture and one religion for all Singaporeans as if we were preparing some kind of magic potion, by mixing the various religions and cultures into a common melting pot. To think that this is possible is indeed naive. And if ever someone thinks of trying this out, I would suggest he first makes a study of the nature of the various ingredients and their respective chemical properties so that he will not end up blowing himself up when the melting pot explodes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we should do instead is that everyone should take pride in the fact that we are a nation characterized by our multi-culture and multi-religions. This characteristic indeed is one solid evidence of freedom and democracy, a way to a richer and more colourful life for all Singaporeans. Therefore, I believe that we should adopt the approach of "diverse tunes in one song" in handling the various cultures, customs and religions, to achieve the result of "identity in diversity". In other words, we should let our cultural lives be enriched by allowing individual ethnic cultures to flourish and blossom. If we can acheive that, I am sure there will be much greater harmony among all races in Singapore.

It is generally true that most Singaporeans are still relatively family-oriented. For this reason, I believe a core value that is built upon this concept will be readily acceptable by all. However, my anxiety lies with the fact that over-emphasis in family life can result in disinterest in national and community affairs by the people. Although it is the wish of everyone to be in a position to provide the best for his family in this highly competitive society, however his time and energy are limited. So, many professionals while expending their resources on their own careers and for their families leave the welfare of the unfortunate people totally to the State and look upon community welfare service as a waste of time and effort, a job for the fools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we wish to encourage individuals to be more actively involved in national affairs, we must stress the close ties that exist between the State and the individuals like the teeth covered by the lips, similarly there shall be no home without a nation. Therefore, it is only right that we place nation before self and be more involved with the affairs of the State and the community. It is also necessary that we remind Singaporeans, particularly the young, that a better life is not to be equated only with tangible satisfaction like a university degree, money, a house, expensive car, overseas trips and the like. Satisfaction and better life should include the warmth of the family, friendship, concern from friends and colleagues, friendly neighbours and the regard and esteem the society and the State place on us for our contributions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the various races can appreciate this concept, I am sure there is little that stands in the way of building a better life and a more beautiful future.

The Member for Tampines GRC, Mr Yatiman, mentioned in his speech the other day that it is necessary for us to coordinate our work and views, and at the same time maximize the use of our limited physical and human resources in order to strengthen social cohesiveness. I agree to his views. We will continue to make use of various measures and means like through effective corporate planning, Review Committee, Task Force and Advisory Council, etc. to tackle various issues relating to community development.

Mr Yatiman also suggested that grassroots leaders be given the special task of building up closer community relationship. Sir, the basic task of grassroots organisation is to promote social cohesiveness. This can be done through encouraging various races to have inter-communication through participation in various activities organized by grassroots organisations so as to strengthen the friendly ties among various races within the constituency. Mr Yatiman also came up with the idea of setting up a community liaison committee in each constituency. This, indeed, is a good idea. Advisors to the grassroots organisations could look into how they can best serve the community by setting up this kind of committee to suit the unqiue requirements according to the demography and the religion in each constituency.

But what is more important is that, as advisors to grassroots organisations, we have to set good examples and free ourselves from any religious and cultural biases, and try positively to have closer contact and rapport with the various groups by making a conscious effect to understand the customs and beliefs of various races so that we may be able to fully associate ourselves and interact freely with the community. Only in this way can we effectively perform our heavy duties as the representatives of the people in uniting various cultural and religious groups together.

As to the suggestion made by Mr Yatiman and the Member for Fengshan on expanding the scope of responsibilities of the Ministry of Community Development so as to enhance liaison among people and community development or setting up a Racial and Religious Relations Department specifically for the promotion of racial harmony and religious tolerance, the Ministry of Community Development in fact has already been doing this through several existing bodies such as the Social Defence and Community Relations Division, the Feedback Unit and the Social and Psychological Advisory Council, as well as through programmes of other departments and with the participation of the grassroots and civilian organizations. We welcome and will carefully consider any good suggestions by Members, so that we may formulate appropriate plans to do the work better.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Fengshan has also brought up the point of giving the Feedback Unit greater autonomy, human and financial assistance. What I would like to explain is that the Feedback Unit is led by an independent supervisory body which is made up of five MPs and three members of the public. The Unit carefully considers all views of substantial evidence and then passes them on to the relevant departments, and where necessary to the First Deputy Prime Minister for personal attention. At present, the Unit is manned by a director, two executive officers and three clerks. It will review its financial and manpower requirements regularly. If found necessary, manpower and budget will be increased. I would like to express my thanks to various MPs for their concern and valuable contributions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by the Member for Siglap. 1.48 pm

Dr Koh Lam Son: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap.

Sir, the President in his Address on the 9th of January 1989 outlined several tasks for Singapore to accomplish in order to ensure a better life for all Singaporeans. I wish to share my thoughts on two of these tasks, namely, to consolidate political stability and to the development of our National Ideology.

Sir, is our political stability under threat? The results of the last general elections are revealing. The PAP won 80 out of 81 seats and the popularity vote of 62.4%. This is an overwhelming victory for any democratic state in the world. However, in terms of popularity vote, there is a slight drop compared to the 1984 general elections. This is in spite of the fact that the Government has successfully brought Singapore out of its worst economic recession in 1985 and that it had actively engaged itself in diverse programmes to reach out to the people.

Sir, the President has highlighted the need for us to achieve consensus, to accommodate alternative views and dissenting voice and to evolve a more open style of government. I fully agree with these objectives and I feel that we have already established the framework and avenues to reach out to the people. The key lies in the vigorous use and the refinement of this channel to strengthen our links and rapport with the new electorate.

I see several problems with our existing process of reaching out to the people. First, the seemingly inconsistent response of the Government to feedback; second, the expectations on feedback and better communication by a more educated electorate; third, the public image of our leaders; and, fourth, the prevailing fear of victimization. Sir, there is in fact no shortage of alternative views and dissenting voice in Singapore. In this House, many alternative arguments have been presented by both the Government and the Opposition Members as illustrated by this present debate. Alternative views are also freely expressed at grassroots meetings, public forums and in the mass media. The problem is not the lack of alternative views but the lack of response to alternative views. This gives the impression that these views are not heard or deliberately ignored by the Government. As a result, when policies are implemented, it generates public unhappiness. This is especially so if the feedback was given after careful consideration and with sincerity.

As an example, the Minister for National Development recently brought up publicly the danger of racial enclaves developing in HDB estates. He further revealed that there would be some policy adjustments to bring about a better racial mix in the housing estates. The public expressed several concerns, such as the possible drop in the value of the flats and the difficulty of living closer to relatives. So far, the Ministry has not responded to this feedback and this creates uncertainty among the HDB flat dwellers. Instead, the Ministry has stated that policy adjustment will be implemented soon.

Sir, I think it would be better if response to feedback is given prior to announcing a policy. In this way, the Government will be seen to have given the feedback full consideration. Prompt response to feedback, I think, should be an integral part of the consultative process. One good example to illustrate this is when the Minister for the Environment announced his decision last Wednesday not to introduce the compulsory use of disposable crockery after consideration of the feedback from the hawkers.

Next, a more educated electorate expects fuller explanations on decisions taken by the Government, Government agencies and the civil service. When this is not forthcoming, they get frustrated. For example, when the increase in the foreign maid levy was first announced, no explanation was given. An explanation was only forthcoming when a Member tabled an Oral Question to the Minister for Labour last Wednesday.

Another example relates to replies given by the various Government departments. Although explanations are sometimes given but, by and large, the appeals are rejected without proper explanations. The standard reply one receives is that the appeal has been carefully considered and that it cannot be accommodated. Sir, this is not satisfactory. Specific reasons for the rejection should be given unless the reasons are of a very sensitive nature.

Another problem in the consultative process is the public image of our policy makers. It is important for our leaders to reveal more of the humane side of themselves to the public. I read with great interest a letter in the forum page of the Straits Times recently. The reader expressed surprise at the care and concern that our First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, showed to his friends. He had the impression that Mr Goh is a very cold and uncaring person and this influenced his voting in the last general elections.

Sir, the same impression may have been given by other Ministers. The electorate may feel that our Ministers are detached and unfeeling when announcing and implementing policy, especially the harsh one. Sir, more needs to be done to project and bring across the human side of our leaders to the people. This will help to dispel the misconceptions and fears that Singaporeans have.

Last week, I watched the TV programme "Contact Y" which was referred to by the Member for Ayer Rajah and I too was shocked by the view expressed by some of the participants in the forum who felt that they could not speak freely because of a "climate of fear". Subsequently, I spoke to an NUS student and he too told me the same thing. When I asked him what he and his friend thought of the National Ideology, he told me that they had talked about it and they felt that it was a PAP's ploy. And they feared that the National Ideology would turn out to be like the little Red Book carried by the Red Guards in the cultural revolution in China. Sir, I am not saying that this is the view of the majority of the young people in Singapore. But this demonstrates the point that in spite of the extensive efforts of the Government to reach out to the people, the communication gap still exists.

Sir, next, I would like to touch briefly on the National Ideology. I believe that the National Ideology is good for Singapore. It will foster even closer ties between the various communities and help us to achieve greater unity. Much has already been said and it appears that we have managed to identify some important values which are likely to be accepted by the majority of the communities in Singa- pore. These are multi-racialism, religious tolerance, consensus, emphasis on the family unit and placing community above self.

Sir, the more important question now is how to implement the National Ideology when it is formulated and make it work. No concepts or ideals can be translated into practice and internalize without effective implementation. The Government should identify ways of rewarding those who practise these ideals in order to encourage them. Singaporeans are a pragmatic people. That is why we are able to make such progress. If the National Ideology continues to remain vague and does not impact on Singapoeans in a real and immediate way, I fear little will be achieved. We need to answer the question of what the National Ideology would mean to the poor and needy Singaporeans, to the jobseekers looking for a job and to the person looking for advancement in his career. Indeed, in the short-term, we may need to make the subject compulsory in school and in higher institutions of learning and to promote it to our grassroots organizations, town councils, social and Government agencies. Songs could also be used. These measures would serve to encourage more rapid and widespread practice of the National Ideology until such time when it becomes an integral part of our lives and culture. When this happens, we can be assured that Singaporeans will be fully equipped to deal with the undesirable aspects of Westernization such as the breakdown of the family unit, sexual permissiveness, drug addiction and over emphasis on the interest of the individual. 1.58 pm

Dr Aline K. Wong (Tampines GRC): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me the chance to participate in this debate.

I find the clarifications made by the Second Deputy Prime Minister in yesterday's debate on the meaning of "chauvinism" to be very significant indeed. And therefore I would like to begin my speech on one aspect which was touched on during our current debate on the National Ideology.

When we are deliberating on something as important an issue as the National Ideology which is meant to be a common set of core values for all the communities in Singapore, we are bound to encounter, as indeed we have already encountered, very different viewpoints from the various racial communities. And these reactions, I think, indicate that racial sensitivities are involved in many of our discussions and that we have to be very careful in trying to handle these public discussions throughout the country.

The minority communities, when they are asked to express their opinion on the National Ideology, are justifiably concerned. They are wondering whether the Chinese values might be imposed on all the minority communities. Specifically they ask whether Confucianism is actually meant for all Singaporeans. Now that the Government has made it abundantly clear that the purpose of the National Ideology exercise is to search for values which are common to all the communities and that consensus is the method by which this set of common values would be arrived at, I hope such anxieties on the part of the minority groups will be sufficiently allayed.

Interestingly, the Chinese community is also asking some similar questions on the National Ideology. Does the National Ideology mean that they also have to adjust their values? They are actually quite confused by the Government's call for the preservation of traditional values on the one hand, and the repeated warnings against cultural chauvinism on the other. Among the Chinese educated especially, many feel that the Government has been giving out quite conflicting signals. Their hopes for a return to cultural traditions have been raised because of the Government's emphasis on preservation of traditional values. But whenever the warning against chauvinism is sounded, I think they feel that their hopes are also dashed to the ground again. The older Chinese population, in particular, feel that the word "chauvinism" conjures up very unpleasant memories. The term is linked to the Communist and communalist threats of the 1950's and 1960's. Of course,we have learnt a very bitter lesson from that turbulent period in our history and the mistake must not be repeated again. But when the term "chauvinism" is used within the present-day context, one wonders if it is still appropriate. There are some people who are even cynical enough to ask: "Is it not possible for other communities to develop their own kinds of chauvinism as well?" And "What about other people who think that everything from the west is best? Would it not constitute some form of western chauvinism also?"

So it is in this light that, when I heard the Second Deputy Prime Minister's remarks and his clarification on the meaning of chauvinism, to quote him, "When we talk of learning Chinese culture and values through the use of Chinese for the Chinese, it is not chauvinism, and that when other races think about acquiring or learning their traditional cultures and values through their own mother tongues, it is also not chauvinism", I find that very very timely and very good indeed. I think this kind of clarification, this kind of reassurance to all communities concerned must be made, otherwise I think the Chinese community, in particular, would feel that they do not really know what the Government is driving at.

The above aside, it is still necessary for us to take a closer look at what most of the Chinese want out of a policy on cultural preservation in the present-day context. Whether they speak Mandarin well or none at all, few of them would still identify themselves with the Chinese in China. What they want out of a policy on cultural preservation is based on what they see as a vacuum in the lives of their children, in the lives of their younger generation. They see it happening. So they yearn for some ways to give back to their children a cultural identity that will help them to face the vicissitudes of life with greater confidence and a sense of purpose. And that is all. Parents who think this way are not likely to be those who write to the Straits Times or speak up at forums. I do not know how many there are of these parents. I suspect there are a large number of them and they may even constitute the silent majority. So I think some ways must be found to reach them and to seek out their views.

One should also note that among the Chinese not all embrace Confucianism in its totality. In fact, many among the Chinese think that Confucian values need to be modified to suit today's modern circumstances. One issue involved is the relationship, or how Confucianism is reconcilable with modern democratic values. There has been some debate in this House on the question of democracy and I note with interest that even Prof. Tu Wei Ming who in his earlier lectures given in Singapore was of the view that Confucian values were compatible with democracy has, of late, in his more recent lectures conceded that perhaps Confucian values would not lead a system which is the mere image of western democracy. He specifically mentioned that Confucian tradition places a premium on a Government which is based on moral authority, leaders who lead by moral example and acting in accordance with what wisdom and morality would dictate as a public good in the interest of the people. In other words, a model quite different from the mechanistic or simplistic model of western democracy. So that is one issue I think we have to thoroughly thrash out because many of the Chinese do not agree necessarily with the view that Confucianism is conducive to democracy.

A second issue that also has to be thrashed out is the role of the family. The ideology of the family or family values occupy a very central position in Confucianism. But how are we going to reconcile this with the fact that, again, the lives of the people have changed much, aspirations of the people have changed much and we have witnessed in the last few days a raging debate on child care centres, on the foreign maids levy, on the participation of women in the labour force. So in other words, there are really some contradictions in the way we look at the role of the family and the role of women in the kind of society that we want. The Minister for Labour did not admit as much. He gave a very clever answer. He said no policy (unless I heard him mistakenly), no policy should be pushed to the extreme. But he seemed to be saying, "Yes, we do not know really what to do about these conflicting demands but the best solution is probably the medium or the golden rule of the mean." I hope he would not feel upset if I misinterpreted him. But my point is that this is a second issue that many people would hope to be resolved when we debate Confucian values and family ideology.

As far as the question of the second language policy is concerned, I think some people still think that the teaching of traditional values need not be done through the mother tongue. This happens mainly among the group of Chinese who were English educated. It is not their fault that they did not have the opportunity to receive an education or receive some language skills in the second language when they went to school. They may not even use dialects at home but they cannot help feeling that the Government's policy on language and culture has left them in a peculiar, if not uncomfortable, position. So they examine their own lives. They have done well. They have moved up in society and they have made contributions. So, like the Member for Potong Pasir, they ask, "What is wrong with westernization?" I think to address the anxieties of this group of English educated people we need to reiterate the message that the return to cultural values, the teaching of traditional values through the second language policy is really meant for the next generation. It is really directed at the younger people. Nobody need feel hurt or need feel uncomfortable. If he or she does not speak Mandarin or the mother tongue it does not matter. It is directed at the second generation. Granted, the greater concern of the English educated is over the problems faced by the children in coping with the study of CL2. They fear the children's future will be affected if they cannot cope. Thus one hears very frequently that professionals are leaving or intending to leave Singapore because of the Government's second language policy. If this is the main reason for the emigration of professionals, actually I personally doubt whether this is indeed the main reason, but I have no evidence to show, but even if it is the main reason, perhaps something can still be done about the method of teaching the second language. But I would not agree with any further lowering of the standard required because here we are talking not just about a minimum standard of proficiency as a means of communication or as a communicative skill. Here we are talking about a minimum standard of proficiency for the transmission of cultural values.

Yesterday the Member for Braddell Heights gave a very interesting table to the House which showed the L2 results at both the 'AO' level for GCE 'A' level students as well as the L2 results for GCE 'O' level examinations for the last three years. It is abundantly clear from these statistics that the percentage of people passing CL2 at both the 'AO' level and the 'O' level has been more than 90%, in fact around 95-96% throughout these recent years. So I think again the anxiety of the English educated parents who give the problem that their children have with CL2 as a reason for intending to migrate must be allayed again. Based on these figures it is clear that the children would not have a problem in coping with CL2, particularly now that the Government has given clear indications that we are not changing the list of vocabulary or raising the standard of the language course required.

Let me move very quickly to a different theme in our debate. The concern for the lower income groups is a very major concern as expressed in the President's Address, and as the Minister of State for Community Development and Education in her maiden speech expressed over the impact of the rising health care cost on the lower income groups. This is also one of the major issues which my GPC has in the last two years taken up with the Acting Minister for Health and his Ministry. We have repeatedly called upon the Government to pay special consideration to the lower income families since they would be the most affected by the restructuring of the Government hospitals. The answer given by the Acting Minister for Health on this question has always been in the following manner. In fact,he gave the same answer to the Minister of State for Community Development and Education two days ago. He pointed out that the occupancy rate of C-class beds has gone down from 73% in 1980 to 65% today. This, he said, shows that even the lower income groups can afford the B2 wards. We know that in fact, parallel to the decrease in the number of C-class beds in Government hospitals, there has been an increase in the number of B2 ward beds. But does he not think that the reason, at least a very important reason for this drop in the demand for C-class beds may very well be on account of Medisave? A large proportion of Medisave members actually have balances of less than $1,000 and this amount is not going to last them very long, especially if they fall seriously ill. Since Medisave is money locked away unless it is used, people who can actually ill afford B2 beds are tempted to use it. Another fact is that many people actually do not realize that the difference between a B2 ward bed and a C-class ward bed is more than just a difference in the ward charges and the meal charges per day. Everything else adds up. Everything else, that is, the daily professional prescription fees, the X-ray charges, the laboratory fees, operations fees, and miscellaneous specialized investigation fees. The least the Ministry can do to help people from the lower income groups who are also likely to be less educated is to explain to them at the time of admission to hospital that there would be this kind of difference in the scale of fees if they opt for B2 beds. Then they can make the rational decision. Then I think the Government will have discharged its duty of explaining to these people before they choose the B2 beds. Once they receive the bill the shock comes but it will be too late. If this has not actually happened to many of the lower income families who were recently hospitalized, then why did the Minister for Labour find it necessary sometime back to call attention and to give a warning to the people that the Medisave accounts are running very low and that they should exercise more care in using them in future? I think there must be something there. The statistics may not show it but I think the reason is there and the Ministry should very well take a closer look into this matter - the use of Medisave and how, in fact, the lower income families have been using Medisave unwisely for B2, apart from the question that the rise in the charges, ie, the differential between C and B2 beds has now been quite steep in the recent 1988 exercise.

The Acting Minister for Health also quoted the figure of only 1.8% of the C class ward patients applying for and were given waivers. My point is: how stringent are the criteria for application? If people go and ask, say, the medical social worker for consideration of waiver, the first piece of information that the social worker will inquire is how much is their household income and if they do not qualify they cannot apply. In other words, for those who applied, ie, the 1.8% who applied, of course they get the waiver because they meet the eligibility criteria. But does this mean that hospital services, even the C class beds in Government hospitals, have now become or have remained affordable to the lower income groups? So in the ensuing Budget debate I think the GPC members may very well take this matter up with the Minister again and hopefully he will give us a better answer this time.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap. Sir, I will speak specifically on two topics, namely, religion and politics, and the Elected President proposal.

May I speak first on the Elected President proposal. Sir, I am in full agreement that we need a two-key system for the future. With so much at stake, it would be wise to provide for a second key to guard our reserves and to protect the integrity of the public service. No one doubts the wisdom of this. However, opinions differ as to the means to achieve this end. The Elected President is certainly one way to provide a check and balance. There are other ways which should be considered. An Elected President, because he is elected, will have the mandate to check the government and Parliament in the key areas in which he has been given power. But election has one disadvantage. It leads to polarization. In making the change, will we be in danger of losing the office of Head of State which at present is above politics and acts as a symbol to unify all our people? In our multi-racial society, I believe that a President who is above politics is important.

Other alternative methods to achieve a two-key system should be considered. One could be a Presidential Council. The Council could be elected or appointed. Its main strength will lie in its ability to alert Parliament and the public if it should disagree with the government of the day on the use of reserves or on key appointments. It could be as effective as the Elected President. I hope that this and other alternatives will be examined and I am glad that the Government in the President's Address has decided that the proposal will be fully discussed before a final decision is taken.

On religion and politics. We have enjoyed real peace and harmony in Singapore for many years as far as matters of religious faith are concerned. This is despite the fact that we are a multi-racial, multi-religious society living in a small and crowded island. The more I think about this and compare ourselves with other countries bigger and better endowed than we are, the more I appreciate this fact.

What has brought about this happy state of affairs? First and foremost, I believe that the vast majority of our people are pragmatic. They have exercised good sense and give and take in matters of religion. From time to time, there have been complaints about indiscriminate distribution of religious tracts. There have also been complaints about wind-blown ash and noise from religious ceremonies. The groups responsible for these have responded and generally moderate their practices. Good sense has prevailed and an easy accommodation of one another's practices has developed.

The Government, the ultimate temporal authority of the land, has set a good example by being scrupulously fair and even-handed towards all religions. We are a secular state. The Constitution provides for freedom of worship for all our citizens. Religion is kept out of politics and the running of the country. It has not been allowed to become a factor in the social and economic life of our people. Imagine, Sir, how different the picture would be if it were otherwise, for example, if religion were a factor in job appointments, in educational opportunities or in the awarding of tenders and licences, practices which are common in religiously-biased states. There would be great indignation. We have been able to avoid this. The Government has not shown favour to any religious group nor has it discriminated against any group. It has been even-handed towards all groups.

Sir, this happy state of affairs is likely to continue if religious leaders recognize that the right and proper function of religion is to meet the individual's spiritual and personal needs. From time immemorial, religions have provided an anchor and a compass for their believers. They embody core moral values and are responsible for transmitting them from generation to generation. They have contributed much to our society through welfare services, education and charitable works. All religions are primarily concerned with matters of the spirit and the transcendent.

There are key events in everyone's life - birth, marriage and death. People experience happiness. They also experience distress and despair. At these times, many people turn to a religious faith. Religion has a unique role to play in being able to meet these personal needs. So long as religious organizations remember this, they will play a valuable role in our society. But if they should seek also to publicize themselves, to heighten their image and to impose themselves on others, this will lead to rivalry and competition from other religious groups. This will be the beginning of tension and disorder.

Sir, it does not take much to arouse tensions. Insensitive job advertisements favouring applicants of a particular faith, careless and provocative remarks, even unintentional or intentional controversies started by letters to the press, these are enough to rouse emotions immediately. Religious sensitivities have arisen between different religious groups when criticisms are levelled by one group against another, usually by immature members of the group. Religious leaders have a responsibility to prevent such criticism. They should speak to the members of their group. They may by all means preach why their way is superior. But there is no need to denigrate others in doing so.

Sometimes, in their enthusiasm for their faith, members of a religious group may decide to evangelize others without regard to whether they have espoused another religion. Some Christian groups do this. My advice to them is to refrain from doing so. There is a proper and orderly way for evangelism. Faith should, first, be borne out by the way one lives. And secondly, it should never be forced on other people. Religious leaders should therefore keep clearly in their minds that their primary role is to meet the spiritual and the personal needs of individuals. If they do so, the chances of friction with other groups will be minimized.

Sir, religious organizations or religious leaders should never try to seek political power or even to influence politics. This is a particularly dangerous minefield for them to get into. When a small group of Catholics and non-Catholics began to organize for radical change under the cover of properly constituted religious organizations they breached this important principle.

World history is replete with horrendous examples of the consequences when religion becomes involved with politics. The problem of separating church or religion from the state is not a new one. The debate goes as far back at least to St Augustine. In Europe, right through the Middle Ages and the Reformation, religious groups sought to dominate by capturing political power. States joining forces with the Vatican or with the Protestant churches fought bloody wars with one another. In our own continent, Asia, we still witness slaughter and bloodshed when religious groups seek to assert themselves by moving into the public, political arena.

In our multi-racial, multi-religious context, the consequences of such things would be worse. The entry of any religious group into the public arena no matter what their cause will invite a response from other religious groups who do not want to be outdone. The chaos that could follow would be as bloody as that arising from inter-racial conflict. The problem is that religion appears to provide an attractive and almost sacrosanct cover. Misguided religious leaders may act from this vantage point believing that the Government would be reluctant to act against them because the Government does not want to be seen to be anti-religion. Worse, political activists and Machiavellian idealists may decide, for the same reason, that they should also operate from behind the shield of religion and in the name of religion.

Sir, is this scenario far-fetched and alarmist? I do not think so. We have only to look at the religious/ political civil wars taking place in countries not far from us Sri Lanka, the Punjab. There is also a world-wide revival and resurgence of all religions. Two great ideologies have dominated this century: Communism which has captured political power in almost half the world and Individualistic Humanism or Individualism as a philosophy which has captured the hearts and minds of many, particularly in the affluent West. They have both failed. The communist leaders, Mr Gorbachev and Mr Deng Xiao-ping have said as much in their speeches and in their actions. In the West, Individualism promised ever-increasing individual freedom and happiness and self-realization. It has also failed. It has instead produced the breakdown of the family, the drug culture and disillusionment.

The traditional religions are making a come-back. People are looking to them for new solutions to their old problems. This explains the resurgence of all religions. We have practically all the major religions present in Singapore. The question is this: as they revive, what are the chances that they will come into rough contact with one another? What are the chances that those who seek radical social actions will exploit this revival to further their aims of revolutionary change?

I am glad that the Government has recognized these dangers and will be looking into ground rules which will keep religion and politics separate. Such rules should not inhibit freedom of worship. The rules should seek to prevent the misuse of religion for political purposes. They should protect religion from abuse. I urge the Government to consult all religious groups as it formulates these rules, so that the intention and purposes will be clearly understood and accepted by all parties.

Sir, I have no doubt that there are issues touching on moral or ethical principles which religious groups would want to draw attention to. These are legitimate grounds which may affect them in particular or society as a whole. There are two ways for them to handle these matters. The one way I do not recommend is that they take the matter to the public and organize pressure groups and publicity campaigns. However worthy the cause, this is political action. It will invite reactions from other groups.

The better way is for the religious group to communicate its views to the Government and to discuss the matter confidentially and frankly in private. Consensus, agreement and good sense is more likely to be reached by this approach. The Government should keep its channels of communication open.

Sir, our Prime Minister said in a speech reported in the Straits Times on 14 December 1988, that Government Ministers and all Members of Parliament must serve all Singaporeans regardless of their religious beliefs. All Members of this House would surely concur with this. We are a secular state with a secular Constitution. The elected government is a secular government. Whatever our personal religious beliefs, we serve all Singaporeans regardless of their race, language or religion.

However, Sir, I would like to add a corollary. I would like to ask that all religious groups should also recognize that this is a secular state. They should not expect special favours from Government. They should also avoid involving Government leaders and MPs publicly in their religious ceremonies and functions.

I have two reasons for making this point. The first is this. If religious groups seek to involve government leaders and MPs in their religious activities, will this not lead to competition? All groups know that they will gain greater prominence if they can attract well-known public figures, like Members of Parliament, to attend their functions. This may be a perfectly normal human desire, but it will be a short step from this to competition by different religious groups for the attention, and even the patronage, of prominent state leaders. The converse will also be true. Political parties and politicians eager to win support will be tempted to move closer to certain religious groups. Where will it lead to? The competition and publicity can only excite feelings and increase rivalry and suspicion.

My second reason is that mutual respect must work both ways. Government leaders and Members of Parliament have their personal beliefs, including religious beliefs. Although they are public figures, it would be wrong for those of another faith to try to involve them in their religious ceremonies. Respect for another person's faith means that we should not intrude into his belief by involving him in the ceremonies of other religions. Some Members of Parliament have no personal objection in accepting invitations from any or all religious groups. It is, of course, their own choice which I respect. But if mutual respect is to mean something, religious groups should not expect or require all Members of Parliament to do the same.

Sir, I have drawn a line for myself. I have declined official invitations from all groups to attend their religious ceremonies, although I have attended their functions which are not religious but are related to charity. I have also turned down official invitations by Christian groups to their religious activities although I am a Christian. It is not an easy line to draw because there will be some who will misunderstand the purpose. But if we believe that the separation is necessary especially in our context, then maintaining a certain distance between the state and all religions is important. If the two sides get too close to one another, religious friction and political involvement will be the result.

In conclusion, Sir, Singapore has enjoyed an unprecedented period of religious peace and harmony. Religious leaders have been sensitive and sensible. They have sought quietly to meet their members' spiritual and personal needs. They should continue to concentrate on this. They have wisely not tried to seek publicity and to excite feelings. Let us keep it this way.

There are many religious conflicts in the world today. Religious extremism and xenophobia in the world is on the rise again. This can affect our own religious groups which have connections and affinity with outside groups. It is in Singapore's interest as well as their own interest that religious leaders should be wise and keep their followers calm. Religion, like race, is visceral. Once it is aroused, its fury cannot be easily contained. To quote the 18th Century French philosopher Blaise Pascal, he said:

'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions.' Religion when mixed with politics is an unholy and dangerous mixture. All parties must recognize clearly that a line exists between what belongs to the state and to politics and what belongs to religious faith and belief. If we do so, we will continue to enjoy peace.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Member for Siglap. Except for Mr Ng Pock Too, who has lost his voice and I believe will not speak this week, I am the last of the new MPs to make a maiden speech. As I contemplated last night of this prospect, I began to wonder about the origin of this term and its significance. Mr Speaker, Sir, does it mean that at the end of the day we will all lose our innocence and our virtues, whether Eastern or Western? I hope not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1988 General Election was a watershed in the history of our nation. We witnessed the retirement of almost all the veterans of the Long March, the first generation leaders of our independent state. More than we realize, it was the passing of an era.

I wish, Sir, to pay tribute to these leaders who preceded us. They gave their best, and held nothing back in the service of this nation, to lay a firm foundation for us to build upon.

The Government won all except one seat in the last Election. In most countries, this would be hailed as a landslide victory. But the votes went down by over 1%, despite the booming economy and the absence, I think, of major controversies. In my view, this is disappointing and disquieting in the context of Singapore. There were, as you know, even close-shaves in many constituencies. And some of us here today are very glad that we made it to this House.

I believe, Sir, that the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans would like the PAP government to continue the good work, to have "More Good Years", but a significant number wish to send a signal to this Government to register their protest and their frustration. Sir, we can never win them all, but we must try to win most of them. What do we do to bridge this gap between the Government and those who are disenchanted? I am sure historians in the distant future will give their considered views. Here, in the meantime, I will offer some thoughts on this subject.

Sir, we must first of all give more attention to the poor and less privileged of all races. Their voices must be heard. In the midst of prosperity and arguments here about car ownership, of buying a car before the expected car increase, we tend, I think, to forget that there are amongst us who are struggling to make ends meet. Some have double jobs and many work long hours. On my house-to-house visits in Bukit Batok, some of the residents pleaded with me to convey this to the Government: Please, when you next consider increasing any fees, remember there are many at the bottom who just can't pay. To them, it is all pay and pay. They are trying to keep their heads above the water.

I discovered while working on my thesis as an undergraduate that in the early years, the PAP was the champion of the poor, the down and the out. It was this that attracted me in the first instance to join the People's Action Party many years ago. But have we, Sir, lost this zeal and mission for the less privileged?

More, Sir, should be done for the have-nots. I am not asking for more hand-outs or a welfare state, but more thoughts on the effects of policies and imaginative schemes to help them in key areas, for example, more liberal remission of school fees, more bursaries, and more flexibile terms for home ownership. These will help them to help themselves and contribute to this nation. Sir, at this stage of our national development, we can afford to be more caring and compassionate. We can be caring, without being soft.

Sir, besides the poor, there are other groups of Singaporeans who feel alienated from the Government. They are young, articulate, and disenchanted with some aspects of policies or the style of government. A new generation has grown up since the 1960s and 1970s. They want dialogue. They want to be heard. They want to be consulted.

They may be misguided and may not necessarily be right, but the Government should never adopt the "cleverer than thou" attitude or the "Father knows best" syndrome. Yes, the Government has the undeniable courage to implement unpopular policies for the ultimate good of this nation, but we should not trumpet this endlessly nor wear this as a badge of honour. It is, in my opinion, a rather heavy badge that drags us down.

I must say in all fairness that in the last four years, the Government has adopted a more open and more consultative approach. This is good. But somehow the perception of high-handedness persists. The Government should, therefore, be righteous and fair, without being overbearing. It can be firm, without being nasty. We must have the ability to laugh at ourselves. We must swing, move and be in tune with the people. Instead of a frowning face, Government needs to show a smile, now and then. A smiling, caring and approachable Government.

I know that the Government is trying its best to bridge this gap. There is room for improvement. But it is trying. I believe that this Government is committed to a democratic way of life. How else could you explain the presence of a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament like Dr Lee Siew-Choh? His presence is proof that democracy is at work here.

The proposal, Sir, floated by the Minister for Trade and Industry, for non-partisan MPs drawn from the universities and the trade unions is a step in the right direction. But this would take a number of years to work out. I have a suggestion, Sir, which I hope the Government will endorse and the Opposition MPs will support: Expand immediately the NCMP scheme from 3 to 6. Under the current scheme, we have three seats reserved for the Opposition. Mr Chiam was elected, Dr Lee came in as an NCMP and Mr Francis Seow was disqualified. Let us expand this number immediately by amending the legislation and backdate it, and allow the next three highest opposition candidates, Mr Mohamed Khalit Baboo, Mr David Chew and Mr Ling How Doong to come in here as NCMPs. Admit them into this House. The more, the merrier. We will have more spice, more variety, more input. Let them play a role in our democratic setup. This will disabuse the cynics and refute the charge that the Government tends to control the thoughts.

Sir, to those who criticize the Government or take a different stand, I also have this to say. Do not just jump on the bandwagon and criticize the Government blindly, though it may be fashionable to do so. Give credit where credit is due. Indeed, I think we should also be thankful that the PAP Government has brought us 30 years of unprecedented growth, peace and prosperity. We should count our blessings. Criticize constructively, but do not be cynical or destructive. Otherwise, this country of ours will become ungovernable.

If you can, offer alternative solutions to the problems of the day. If you must, argue, but never forget, as the President stated in the first sentence of his Address to this House, our "goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans".

Sir, we are all Singaporeans, whatever our differences in approach. Or, if I may add, whatever our race, language or religion. At the end of the day, we all share a common destiny. This is our home; this is our country. Let us then be united in purpose; be part of "Singapore United" as a united football team if you wish and go for it, "to create a better life for all Singaporeans".

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, may I be allowed to ask for clarifications in regard to two points? The first one is in regard to the statement made by Dr Ong. He said that over 1% drop of the PAP's vote is disappointing and disquieting. What I read in the papers about what the Ministers say was just the contrary - it was an overwhelming victory. How does he explain that this is disappointing and disquieting?

Mr Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Why can't he say it?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I want him to clarify. I am asking for clarification.

The other thing that I require clarification is that he supports the Minister for Trade and Industry. He says bring in NCMPs drawn from the university and the Chambers of Commerce. And to have more NCMPs is a step in the right direction. He says this is democratic. But does he not agree with me that democracy means representation? All these people who come in as NCMPs do not represent any constituency at all. So where is the principle of representation in regard to this type of MPs?

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, I am expressing my views and I cannot pretend to speak for the Government leaders when I refer to the issue of the election results. I believe definitely it is a victory by all counts. But the trend is disturbing, from my own point of view.

As regards representation, I think the NCMP scheme is a great step forward. We are the first to do it and I think other countries might think that we have found the key to stability in the Asian context. As Dr Lee Siew-Choh will say, he represents, in his view, part of the people of Singapore. I think we must concede to him because he won quite a number of votes. We cannot take that away from him. So I am sure Mr Chiam would agree with me that Dr Lee represents, to some extent, the voters who put in the votes for him. I would rather ask whether Mr Chiam would accept and endorse my proposal that the NCMP scheme be immediately expanded so that three other opposition candidates can come in here as NCMPs. Is he fearing some competition?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I be allowed to answer?

Mr Speaker: Sure.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I gave a talk to university students, lecturers and professors recently and this same question was asked of me. The Prime Minister apparently has remarked that we are not having good people because I fear competition. I do not fear competition, Sir. In fact, I love competition. That is the reason why I want the Potong Pasir community centre to be run by the Opposition so that we can give them more competition.

Sir, I am not afraid. In fact, if there are more elected Opposition MPs in this House, I would be very very happy. Unfortunately, we tried our best but only one got in.

Mr Chandra Das: He is very proud of it!

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, we are talking of representation as it stands at the moment. Of course, everybody represents somebody. Each one of us here who is elected represents a constituency. But there is a difference between the NCMP and an elected MP.

Mr Chandra Das: Tell us the difference.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The difference is that the elected MP has the mandate of those who have put him in Parliament. Whereas the NCMP has no mandate; he has been invited by the ruling party. He is here by the grace of the Government. That is the distinction.

Mr Chandra Das: No. It is a constitutional provision.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Chiam whether he could confirm that he would support the proposal to expand NCMPs from 3 to 6. He is trying to wriggle out his way by giving so many comments but no firm commitment, one way or the other. Does he or does he not support the immediate expansion of NCMPs so that more Opposition voices or alternative views can be offered to this House?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, immediately after the last general elections, our party announced that we were not accepting any NCMP seats if letters of invitation were received from the ruling party. Because this is a very important principle.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): The answer is no.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, it is no. If you start to compromise on this principle, Sir, then we might as well not have any elections at all. We leave it to the ruling party to invite whoever they like to come into Parliament.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, may I ask Mr Chiam whether he is aware that 49% of the residents of Eunos GRC voted for the Workers' Party, and that is about 35,000 voters in all, and that is many more than those in Potong Pasir? And, therefore, Dr Lee represents 35,000 people?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: May I be allowed to say few words, Sir?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Can Mr Chiam make his clarification before I call on you, Dr Lee? Yes, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged to you, Sir. I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs has brought up an irrelevant point. We are contesting under the first-past-the-post system. So even if you lose by a whisker, you lose. Whether it is 49.999% or whatever, it is still a loss. This is the system that we have. We are competing under your system. We are not talking about proportional representation. That is another distinct system whereby under the law which says, "If you get 5% or more or whatever percentage, you are in by virtue of the law." But the difference here is that these MP-designates have to wait for the letter to come from the ruling party.

Mr Chandra Das: No.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Now it is not so. Let me clarify. In the previous elections, Mr Tan Chee Kien was invited. He refused, on principle. Then Mr M.P.D. Nair was invited. He also refused, on principle. But the Government stopped at that point. By right, you should have invited the third best. But it was your choice. In other words, the Government is given the discretion whether or not to invite whoever they like to come into Parliament.

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, that is the position. It was a precedent set in 1984. So there is a clear distinction. They are, in fact, coming into this House under the invitation of the PAP.

About numbers, I think we have got a small constituency and therefore our numbers will have to be less. But the percentage, I obtained 62.3%, better than many of the Ministers here.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Is Mr Chiam aware that Dr Lee comes in strictly under a constitutional arrangement as provided for in the Constitution as well as in the Parliamentary Elections Act?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I am surprised, Sir, the NCMP seems to be the butt of so many comments. Earlier on, the Government Ministers and MPs have been saying that the NCMP is here because of democracy. Let us go back and analyze how the NCMP came about. Very easy, Sir. At that time, you remember 1984, there were lots of people asking for representation from the Opposition. They wanted more Opposition in Parliament. And to create an image that the Government was not opposing any Opposition, they created this NCMP scheme, a facade, to create the impression that they would like to have Opposition, but that the only thing was that the Opposition could not make it. That was the whole idea. And now, of course, once it is in the Constitution, nobody can stop it, not even the Prime Minister. Of course, Mr Chiam has his own views. I do not want to disabuse him of them. We disagree on quite a number of points. I do not want to make any comments on that. But let us not forget that at this point, the NCMP is part of the Constitution.

Hon. Members: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: And, Sir, if the PAP had the choice when Mr Seow and myself came in, they would have knocked us out. They have knocked Mr Seow out. They are waiting for a chance to get me! Because they know that I know quite a lot of how the PAP works. I have analyzed, for example, why they created this National Ideology. And I have given you the steps as to how it came about. If you look at it, you will find that it is historically correct. I analyze events and things on the basis of facts and reasoned arguments.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, are you going on with another speech?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: No, Sir, I will make it short and quick. There was another talk about representation.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, I am allowing you to clarify your position regarding what Mr Chiam has said about NCMPs. But I think you should not embark on another speech on the National Ideology.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: No, I am not talking about the Ideology at all. I was merely giving an example of how we look at things.

Mr Speaker: But your clarification seems to be rather long.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sometimes it needs to be long!

Mr Speaker: Could I ask you to be short?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I just want to say a few words.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: It is not a matter of representation or mandate. Some people have more votes than other people and think that they have more mandate than others. That is not true. I want to make it very clear that I come from the Eunos GRC. As has already been admitted by the Leader of the House, we represent a very good proportion of the voters there; and also near 40% of the total electorate, which comes to hundreds of thousands of votes. Therefore, it is not non-representation at all. Maybe he wishes to confine himself to one constituency, maybe Potong Pasir. So, Sir, on the matter of representation, I do represent many voters. Let us not just harp on it again and say I do not, otherwise I will have to say something more.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will suspend the sitting and take the Chair again at 3.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.02 pm until 3.25 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Exempted Business