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

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed honoured to be given the opportunity to move the Motion of Thanks to the President.

Sir, I beg to move,

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

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

The First Session of the Seventh Parliament was a relatively short but busy one. In his Address to Parliament then, the President had stated that his Govern- ment's goal was to create a better life for all Singaporeans. A better life meant not just having material needs met but also enjoying meaningful and fulfilling lives. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, this would mean not just having our physiological and safety needs met but also our needs for love, self-esteem and the esteem of others, and self-fulfilment.

In the last 18 months, in the words of the President, "We have completed a substantial part of this programme." As we begin our Second Session now, it is useful for us to take stock of our progress and ask ourselves whether we are moving nearer towards our Vision for 1999, ie, attaining the standard of living of the Swiss, and becoming a city of excellence, a society of distinction.

Economically, we have done well for the last three years, the average growth rate having exceeded 9%. More importantly, labour has been given its fair share of the economic growth. Nominal and real earnings went up by 10.3% and 7.9% respectively. The employers' share of CPF contribution has also been restored gradually. With another 1 1/2% increase in July this year, the employers' share of CPF would have been restored to 16 1/2%, still 3 1/2% short of its long-term goal of 20%. If the economic growth continues to be robust in the next few years, the Government should restore it to 20% quickly. In this respect, the Government should be congratulated for having kept faith with the workers. Although the restoration has taken many years and is still not complete, it is moving in the right direction.

The Government's action in this area will help to further strengthen the existing trust between the Government and the people. Trust, like glass, is very brittle and takes time to forge but can be shattered in an instant. This bond of trust and understanding between the Government and the people should not be taken for granted, but should continue to be treasured and nurtured.

The challenge that we face today is how to maintain our impressive economic growth for the rest of this decade. In order to do so, Singapore must remain attractive to investors. We have been given 1A ratings by BERI as a very attractive place for investments together with countries like Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Taiwan and the Netherlands. In another report on world competitiveness by IMEDE in July 1989, we were rated first out of 10 NIEs. The important key factors taken into account are political stability, Government policies and a good labour force. Although our workforce has been rated the overall best in the world by BERI for 11 successive years, the Singapore worker still lags behind his counterpart in Japan, Switzerland and Taiwan for work attitude, and ranked 14th for technical skills. These two areas have also been identified by NPB's Productivity 2000 initiative as two of five main areas to focus on.

Our workers are generally better educated than before. In 1989, 51.1% of the workforce had at least secondary education compared to 41.5% in 1980. To-date, 134,000 workers have completed the Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) while another 22,500 finished the Workers' Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) programme. These improvements, however, are inadequate to help us attain the status of a developed nation. Of even greater concern is the declining enrolment at our BEST classes. To reverse the trend, the Government should play a more active role in promoting training, increasing training opportunities through part-time studies in educational institutions and self-learning programmes, giving greater recognition to workers who have succeeded and providing greater financial incentives. In this respect, I am pleased to see the Skills Development Fund setting aside $20 million a year for the next three years to develop better training programmes and facilities. Unfortunately, current tight labour market and high labour turnover have made it increasingly costly for employers to spend on workers' training. Nevertheless, employers should still proceed as the nation as a whole will still benefit as long as all the workers remain in Singapore.

Positive work attitude has been identified as one of the key factors of higher productivity. Recently, I read in the newspapers with disbelief the case of an architect who resigned from his job so that he could concentrate on watching the World Cup matches. Many others took annual vacation to watch the entire series. Although I have nothing against soccer, I read with concern because this kind of attitude towards work, as if it was a hobby or a pastime, is undesirable, and which we cannot afford as a nation searching for excellence. It must be kept in check, otherwise the entire work ethos which we have been trying so hard to build will be slowly eroded.

Indulgent parents who have succeeded economically are very much to blame for the poor work ethics of many of our youth. Parents should inculcate in their children from young the importance of working hard for a living and not relying on parental or state financial support, except as a last resort. These concepts should also be promulgated in our schools during moral and civics education.

The temptation for parents to shower upon their children what they were once denied in their childhood is great, but should be resisted. The situation is aggravated by fewer children parents have today. The danger comes when a younger generation grows up taking many of the luxuries of life for granted; worse still, our economic success for granted. Parents at home and teachers in schools should continue to imbibe in our youth the values of hard work, and set good examples themselves for their children to follow, otherwise we might never attain our Vision for 1999.

A better life for all Singaporeans is not just giving people higher wages, better housing and greater comforts of life. As we move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, creating a better life for all Singaporeans is not just providing the people with their basic physiological needs, such as food, or their safety needs, such as housing and CPF, it is also meeting their needs for love, self-esteem and self-actualization.

According to Maslow, if both the physiological and safety needs are fairly well gratified, then there will emerge the needs for love, affection and belongingness. The Government has met most of the material wants of a large proportion of Singaporeans. Not too long ago, the Government even ventured into helping to meet the love needs of our young people by setting up match-making agencies, such as the Social Development Unit, the Social Development Section, the Social Interaction Unit and the Social Promotion Section. I am pleased to note that these activities have met with enthusiastic response. In our society, the thwarting of these needs has often resulted in cases of maladjustment and more severe psychopathology.

The Government can meet the people's needs for self-esteem by being less paternalistic and giving them a greater say in running the country. The President has highlighted the importance of this issue when he addressed it at the Opening of the First Session as well as this Second Session of the Seventh Parliament. I am pleased to note that we have made further progress in this area in the last 18 months.

The Feedback Unit has diligently sought the views of the public as well as special interest groups on most major Government policies announced. The Unit has also used these occasions to explain Government policies in order to help the people understand them better. Unfortunately, these good intentions have not always been fully recognised and appreciated by the people. There still exists scepticism on the feedback channel being more form than substance. More effort may have to be expended to dispel the remaining doubts of the sceptics and cynics.

In addition to the Feedback Unit's dialogue sessions, public hearings at Select Committees have also provided opportunities for interested Singaporeans to debate, give their views and attempt to influence Government policies before their formulation. Not everybody, however, will have their views accepted and incorporated in the final policy decisions. But they would have been heard and their submissions and views documented.

The Feedback Unit sessions and Select Committee hearings have been well received and are seen by the people as a genuine attempt by the younger generation of leaders to listen. Our political democracy, after all, is about representation of the people by the people. During the last debate on the nominated MPs' Bill in Parliament, the First Deputy Prime Minister's concession to incorporate a self-destruct clause in the Bill is an excellent example in accommodation and consensus building. That act of compromise had great impact not only among MPs within this Chamber but also far-reaching ripple effect outside the House. The people outside saw how their future Prime Minister would lead and forge consensus in the face of controversy and conflict. It is an encouraging example which I hope other Ministers will follow under his leadership.

We should continue to encourage participation on all important issues that affect the people's lives. We know we have succeeded when such participation becomes spontaneous and people speak up candidly, without fear, not with personal vested interest, but because they care about what happens to us and our future.

In the next few months, Parliament will also see the first few nominated MPs. The scheme is meant to give independent, non-partisan views to Parliament, and help improve our debates through the contributions of people with different experiences and perspectives. In this respect, the choice of the candidates is extremely important. The candidates have a heavy responsibility to live up to the basic objectives of the scheme. Hence, the Government would do well in this regard by getting Parliament involved in the nominations.

Self-esteem and the esteem of others can also find expression in strength, achievements, adequacy, confidence in the face of the world, independence and freedom. These needs can be met not only through greater political participation but also participation in the fields of education, sports, culture and the arts. The Government should give greater recognition, attention, importance or appreciation to participants in all fields of endeavour.

The satisfaction of the self-esteem needs can be and should be enhanced through less regulation and giving people more choices and options in life. One example where less regulation can give people more utility is the issue of sunken bars in swimming pools. I am told that in Singapore, this is not allowed because the Ministry of the Environment regulates the distance where preparation of food and beverages must be kept away from the edge of the pool. It even regulates the distance flora can be planted from the edge of the pool. The end result of all these regulations is that Singaporeans who want to enjoy sunken bars in swimming pools (and I can assure you that they are quite enjoyable) must visit our neighbouring countries or other developed countries whose standards of hygiene cannot be said to be inferior to ours.

Another example where self-esteem can be enhanced is the issue of passports for reservists. The restriction on the validity of such passports to two years (formerly just one year) for reservists gives rise to feelings of discrimination, unfairness and resentment which the Government should resolve.

As we progress and become more developed, the people would also want more choices in the area of education, both for themselves and for their children. Independent schools is one step in this direction. The establishment of a third polytechnic and the upgrading of the Nanyang Technological Institute into a comprehensive university next year are other moves in this direction. Right now, too many parents, some of whom can barely afford it, are sending their children overseas for further education, some because vacancies were not available, others because the courses of their choice were not available. Some parents do it in the belief that their children would get a more rounded education. We should therefore continue to upgrade both the number of places in educational institutions at all levels as well as the quality of our educational system so that parents need not spend their hard-earned retirement savings in order to give their children the right start in life.

Singaporeans are also pleased with the many choices they have now in the area of land transportation, from more expensive private cars to taxis, buses and the MRT. The Government should work on providing the people with the choice of using bicycles, for example, from their housing estates to the MRT stations, by building bicycle sheds at or near the stations. Since the concept of a weekend car was mooted, the people are waiting in anticipation. The Government should expedite its study on the proposal.

The choices available for the people in telecommunications are also varied and fascinating. However, many choices are still not affordable to the man-in-the-street. The Government's role in this respect is to encourage privatisation and greater competition. The greater efficiency and higher productivity that result should be translated into lower costs for consumers.

In the area of broadcasting, however, the choices do not appear to be as wide. Allowing the use of personal satellite dishes would increase our people's choices tremendously. The Government's concern over the undesirable consequences of unrestricted external influence may be genuine but unfounded. Besides, our people travel so frequently abroad that any attempt to censor information may be futile. As technology advances and the satellite dishes become smaller and smaller, the cost of enforcement may also become prohibitive.

The censorship of films should also be modified and relaxed to allow our people a better and fuller appreciation of the arts. One way would be to classify films into various categories suitable for viewing by different groups of audience, as in many developed countries.

In the leisure arena, Singaporeans are enthused by the many new recreational facilities and activities available, from more golf courses, to theme parks and marinas. The proposed Singapore-Johor-Batam triangle opens up new possibilities not only in business, but also in leisure. Recognising that Singapore is limited in size, a triangle as proposed effectively enlarges not only our business prospects but also our recreational choices.

Finally, a better life for all Singaporeans includes fulfilling their self-actualization needs. For some, this may mean engaging in cultural programmes and activities. For others, it may mean continuing education through BEST, WISE and eventually a part-time degree in university. If we are to be a centre of excellence and a society of distinction, our people must be able to find outlets to fulfil these self-actualization needs. It makes for happier and psychologically better adjusted people.

Although many Singaporeans have their physiological and safety needs adequately met, there is still a group among the lower income whose needs may still only be partially met. I am pleased to note that the Government has pledged to help improve their living standards, increase their assets through HDB upgrading and provide for their children's education as well as subsidize their medical fees. Some of these lower income groups are living in one- or two-room HDB rental flats which are in the process of being demolished. However, HDB's relocation programme spreads over many years, prolonging the agony of these people who have to put up with lower quality maintenance as the blocks they live in gradually become half vacant. The common problems encountered include infestation by rats and mosquitoes. In addition, their safety needs are greatly increased as more and more of their neighbours move away. I would like to urge the HDB to consider expediting these relocation programmes so as not to prolong the inconvenience of the lower income groups affected.

Let me now turn to the issue of the different rates of progress of different races in Singapore. This has resulted in the Malays having different needs as the other races. Fortunately, the Government has been very supportive of these schemes, such as MENDAKI, by the Malay community to uplift itself, as long as they want it and support these programmes too. The people of Singapore are very pleased to see special efforts being expended in this direction to uplift the lower income group and certain communities that may lag behind. Many were surprised by the generous contribution of $10 million by the Government to start off the MENDAKI Fund to subsidise the fees of Malay students in tertiary institutions. The non-Malays are happy for them because they realise that Singapore cannot continue to progress and prosper rapidly and achieve our Vision for 1999 if certain sections of society or communities are lagging behind.

A developed society should also be a compassionate one. In this regard, I think we still have work to be done, especially Government bureaucracies which deal with the lower income people and other disadvantaged. The Immigration Department, for example, has come across as extremely heartless to the people. Let me give you an illustration. A young Indian lady of Singapore citizenship came to see me just about a month ago, looking distressed, because the Immigration Department wanted to deport her two-year old son, born in India, back to India. Her husband, an Indian citizen, was away working in Saudi Arabia. Having no other relatives in India, she is now back in Singapore working and naturally she wants to be with her children. Her elder daughter was fortunately born in Singapore and not subject to the same threat by the Immigration Department. I cannot imagine how you could send the two-year old son back to India on his own. I have written in on her behalf and I hope the Immigration Department will review the case compassionately.

This illustration is just one of many cases of Singaporean women being discriminated against by our Immigration law. The Prime Minister has recently proposed that we review it so that we can keep our Singaporean women in Singapore and, hopefully, their foreign spouses too. I hope the Minister for Law and Home Affairs will look into the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are standing on the threshold of a new and exciting decade. When Vision 1999 was announced as the PAP's election promise during the 1984 general elections, a lot of Singaporeans could not quite imagine what it would be like as it was still many years away. Many had not been to Switzerland and seen how the people lived. The mention of Switzerland probably conjured up visions of snow-capped mountains and white swans in blue lakes. Now, although we are not quite half way there yet, we have come round the bend and onto the long home stretch with a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The reins of leadership will be changed this year, but we are safely on course. Our basic physiological and safety needs have been met. We must now work towards satisfying the people's higher needs and help them to find self-esteem and self-fulfilment. The people are looking forward with confidence and excitement.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Sir, I rise to thank the President for his Address, and to support the motion.

Sir, this is indeed an appropriate time for stock-taking. The Presidential Address summarises the events of the First Session of the Seventh Parliament and the addenda set the policy statements for the various Ministries. The First Session of the Seventh Parliament is outstanding in two respects.

Firstly, the process of governing by consensus has taken a gargantuan leap forward. Many of the Bills tabled in this House had been discussed with Members of the House, especially the GPCs, even before the first draft. Several of the Bills, especially that on land transport and racial harmony, continued to be extensively debated after introduction. Select Committees and extensive dialogue took place after the introduction of the Bills. Two White Papers were also introduced. This augurs well for a participatory style of government.

Secondly, the Government has continued to be decisive in providing leadership in addressing the sensitive issues such as the racial distribution in housing estates and the maintenance of religious harmony. These are pre-emptive actions, taken in the context of our own unique situation, regardless of the criticisms by those who do not, will not, and do not want to understand the problem and importance of ensuring racial and religious harmony.

The attitude of governing through consensus, while at the same time not compromising on issues of national importance, will give our Government the credibility to govern at the end of the day. This we must continue to build upon. This will call for all of us to develop "thicker skins" so that we can debate candidly, without being personal and unnecessarily acrimonious. Debate, by its nature and definition, cannot be friendly. The days of "shadow-boxing" or "wayang kulit" are over. An intelligent and better educated electorate will demand that its elected representatives in Parliament, whether on the Backbench or Opposition Bench, are serious in their debate and presentation of the views of those whom they purport to represent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the achievements of the PAP Government in the last 25 years need no repetition. What I would like to do is to address several issues which I feel are of concern to all of us. These are issues which the new administration must address.

Health care

Sir, the rising cost of health care is of great concern to all Singaporeans. The recent increases announced trouble employers (who provide health care benefits to their employees) and the individual Singaporeans. The "privatisation" or "restructuring" programme needs to be re-evaluated. There may be many benefits, but all of these will be useless unless they become affordable. Even B2 has become too expensive for many. May I suggest:

(1) The creation of a B3 class to provide for an intermediate between C and B2, or an upgrading of C class wards with very moderate price increases, that is, for a little extra charge, the C class patient can enjoy better facilities while at the same time he still receives a substantial subsidy. There must be no reduction in the subsidy.

(2) The uncoupling of class of hospital admission and class of outpatient management. For example, during the acute phase of an illness of, say, one week, a patient who can afford for that one week can opt for B1. After his condition has stabilised, he may be well satisfied to be followed up as an outpatient at B2 or C class status. There is no good medical reason to deny this when it is of the patient's own choice. This will also free the more popular specialists to attend to the complicated cases. It makes for good sense.

(3) I call upon the Ministry of Health again to retain Tan Tock Seng Hospital as an un-restructured hospital, while at the same time revising the salaries of the staff in Tan Tock Seng, Hospital, so as not to demoralise them.

Sir, I next turn to the issue of "contract marriages" or work permit marriages. This is an old and painful issue that has yet to be resolved: the marriage between Singaporeans and work permit holders. The earlier speaker has mentioned one example. This is an issue of "the heart" and not of "logical thinking". I am addressing the issue with respect to those whose families are separated. Their children are now growing up and coming to be of school-going age. Father is in Singapore, while mother and child or children are in another country or vice versa.

In many countries, when national events are celebrated, an amnesty of different sorts is granted. May I suggest to the First Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet that as we celebrate our 25th Anniversary, can we not offer a one-time amnesty to these families? The number is not all that great that we cannot afford to accommodate them. No number of festivities, carnivals, parades, light-ups, fireworks or expositions can substitute for a permanent life-long family reunion. A once-in-25-year amnesty is surely not too much to ask. I am sure that this will not send the wrong signal to the ground, if that is what the Government is concerned about. For this one time, let us be ruled by the "heart" and not the "head". This is something which we should not be ashamed about.

Privatisation programme

Sir, the term "privatisation" to the public is now almost synonymous with price increase, especially the examples set by the Ministry of Health. The public view the impending privatisation of Telecom and PUB with fear. Likewise, the staff of these two statutory boards view it with suspicion. Perhaps a clarification by the respective Ministers in charge will be most comforting.

Child care facilities

Sir, there is now an acute shortage of child care facilities. This is a problem that deserves an immediate solution, even if the solution is less than perfect. Will the Ministry of Community Development allow foreign maids to be employed by those who wish to set up child care centres? Will the JTC, when it develops new industrial estates, set aside land to be leased by community, welfare, religious, or even business groups who want to manage child care centres? Many of our factory operators are young mothers, and having a child care centre in an industrial estate makes sense. I am sure that several factories in an industrial estate can get together to support a group who may want to manage such a centre provided they have the staff to do so.

Increasing cost of doing business in Singapore

Sir, one major component of the increase in the cost of doing business in Singapore, especially in the retail trade, is the phenomenal increase in rental in the last two years. We are here talking of 100% to 200% rental hikes! I am told that approximately 80% of the major buildings and office complexes in the CBD are owned by not more than 20 companies. Would it not make good sense if we, in this instance, legislate that in the renewal of tenancies, a fluctuation clause of, say, 20% to 30% either way, at maximum, be allowed? As rentals are now at a high point, landlords should not complain. This will provide for a more stable business environment - to the advantage of both landlord and lessee. I know that the reflex answer will again be "market forces will dictate prices", but this is a case where I feel that moderation through legislation will be in the best interest of all concerned. I hope that the Minister in charge will at least consider the suggestion before replying a reflex "no".

Education policy

Sir, the education policy is most laudable - a larger university enrolment, a third polytechnic, more emphasis on vocational training and single-session schools. Since the Minister's last statement in Parliament on the bilingual policy, many parents are anxiously awaiting further announcements of the Ministry's plan to help those who have real problems with the second language. Whilst awaiting the long-term solution, will special dispensation or special programmes be initiated for the present-day cohort? For example, can one of the independent schools be allowed to initiate some form of remedial or other programmes to help them?

Defence and National Service

The vast majority of Singaporeans accept the importance of having an effective and credible defence force. The message on the importance of the reservists as front-line soldiers is well understood today. However, we must never take this for granted. We must try not to unnecessarily inconvenience the reservists with quasi-social activities, such as Commanding Officers' Day, and burden them unnecessarily. Social activities should be conducted under the patronage of SAFRA and be voluntary, and not through serving the SAF100. The SAF100 should be used only for duty related activities. The move to extend the reservist's passport for up to two years at a time is a step in the right direction.

To prepare our youth for full-time national service, the programme for ECA, rugged outdoor activities, and obesity correction programmes in schools must be stepped up. Each new intake of NS recruits is different. One can notice an attitudinal difference in every cohort of about five years. Therefore, there must be no let-up in the effort to expose our youth to the rugged outdoor life and to the activities of the SAF. The SAF should continue to support activities in schools and community activities to ensure that all our youth are mentally and physically prepared for national service.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn to the President's remarks on the transition in political leadership. To me, this is the most important aspect of the President's Speech. The President has most aptly called it a "watershed in our political development", something that we have prepared for a long time.

When I heard the President read, "The leadership transition is also almost complete. Mr Goh Chok Tong will take over as Prime Minister by the end of the year.", I was overcome with emotion. My feelings were mixed. These words of pronouncement with finality in this august House indeed mark the end of one glorious era of Singapore, and the opening of a new and exciting chapter.

Our Prime Minister and the founder old guards have seen us through some of our darkest days. We owe them much, and their contributions must not go unacknowledged by this House in this discussion on transition. One Member of the old guards in the House today, Mr Ng Kah Ting, started at the age of 23 years. He has served seven terms over 27 years. It is people like them who have made Singapore what it is today. Our Prime Minister has selflessly planned for his own exit. In the last few months, he has travelled the globe to endorse his successor, Mr Goh, and the new team. Some others would do the exact opposite. They would travel abroad to plan a coup against their successor. All of us in this House have benefited from his wise counsel.

Personally, I will never forget the occasion in 1986 when he very fatherly admo- nished me for spending too much time in my public duties and neglecting the family. I was sent to Mr Goh for counselling and to have my duties re-prioritised. As a new MP then, my wife and I were deeply touched by his concern. His order to me: "One short and one longer holiday every year with the family." At my first interview with him, he asked only one question of a personal nature: "Are you sure that after one or two terms you will not come to me and say that you have had enough?" That was his caution, and that was his concern even before we became involved in politics.

Our Prime Minister is a man who does not need anyone to defend him or his image. Let me just say this to those who portray him as a tyrant and dictator: they could not be more mistaken, for one simple reason - they have not had the privilege that Singaporeans have of knowing and loving their Prime Minister. Their uncalled-for criticisms simply expose their ignorance and infuriate Singaporeans!

Mr Goh, our First Deputy Prime Minister, was the man who selected many of us (the so-called third generation MPs) in this House today. He has been tutored, and prepared by the grand-master himself for his new job as the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister is the "father" figure, Mr Goh is the "big-brother" figure. As each day passes, we see how fast his hair is turning grey - the greying of Singapore. Often, it is the very Backbenchers that he himself has chosen, like myself, who have contributed to the greying process. Yet he encourages us to be constructively critical! He is constantly picking our brains for new ideas, and testing new ideas on us. He is a man committed to governing Singapore by consensus. His commitment to the less privileged in society is seen in the personal interest that he takes in the PAP Community Foundation as Chairman of the Management Committee. Problems and issues of the kindergarten programme are not too small to escape his attention.

What is Singapore's most valuable asset? SIA? NOL? Changi Airport, the world's best airport? PSA, the world's best sea port? The MRT, the most modern mass rapid transit system? No, none of these! We have always said that Singapore's only asset is her people, and of course the most valuable asset must surely be the man who has led the people over the last 25 years - our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

The question now is how Singapore, as a nation, can benefit from her most valuable single asset which is the envy of the whole world: Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The First Deputy Prime Minister's views are set in today's papers:

'Before a founder is assured of the capability of a younger person to take over, he would not relinquish his custodian role. I very much hope that Mr Lee would accept the post of a Senior Minister and give his views on policies, playing the role of a wise man and consultant.'

As a Member of the third generation group of MPs, I fully endorse this. Mr Goh has hit the nail on the head. The majority of Singaporeans and foreign investors, I feel, will be most happy to see our Prime Minister in the role as a "custodian". The final decision is his, the Prime Minister's. He well deserves a long vacation to enjoy his family and grandchildren to whom he is so devoted. But we still need him, in Mr Goh's words, as a "custodian".

Singapore is indeed fortunate to be able to have this smooth transition of leadership. No traumatic changes, no blood baths and no undue excitement. To borrow our Minister for Education, Dr Tony Tan's description, "a boring style of politics to onlookers, but a style that indeed suits any nation that treasures continuity and stability." With this as our foundation, we will build, and successfully, an even better Singapore for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Member for Fengshan? He says that other world leaders go abroad to plan a coup against their own successors ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, I suggest you save it for your speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I have a clarification, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Clarification is to clarify something in your speech which has been misunderstood. You have not made your speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I want the Member for Fengshan to explain. I really cannot see the point that he is trying to make.

Mr Speaker: You could ask your point later on when you make your speech. Mr Teo.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): ( In Mandarin): I rise to support the Member for Tanglin's motion thanking the President for delivering the Address to this House.

The President's Address has clearly announced that we are about to enter a new era in our political development and that the Government will look for new challenges so as to motivate our people to continue working hard for a better future. Because of the adequate preparations we have made for various development plans, we have every reason to be confident about our future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past 25 years, due to the effective leadership of the Government, not only have we fulfilled all the plans and targets in nation building, we have also been able to build up the confidence of the people in our nation and won their support for the Government. This has brought about progress and prosperity and a state of full employment and a better life for the people. We have to remember one thing, and that is, so long as we continue to work hard together, we will continue to have stability and progress.

The President's Address mentions our investment in education. It says the Government will continue to emphasise investments in education, both to develop the talent of our people and as the best way to raise the standard of living of Singaporeans over the long term. There have been many changes and reforms in our education system, some of which have met with criticism from the people. We have to ensure that whatever changes we make to education must be understood by the people. For instance, when the Primary 3 streaming examination was first introduced, it had caused some dissatisfaction among the parents. This was because they thought that the Government had pre-judged their academic future when the children had not even understood the meaning of the word 'education'. In order to ensure that our children will be given a sound education right at the beginning, we must make sure that all primary school teachers will be better qualified so that they will be able to guide our children to develop their potential.

The Nanyang Technological Institute will become a full-fledged university in 1991. This is a wise decision to be welcomed by us. It signifies a step forward in our tertiary education and will alleviate the intense competition resulting from only one university in the nation. It will also make it possible for our younger generation to have a better opportunity to study in our local universities at a cheaper cost. This technological university will produce more professional people such as engineers to meet the rising demand for trained manpower in our national development. Another welcomed decision is the building of more polytechnics and junior colleges. Parents are also happy with the decision to allow them to use their CPF savings to pay for their children's tuition fees at local universities.

The upgrading of HDB flats in old housing estates is another programme which is bound to be well-received because this will raise the housing standard (of the people) and at the same time retain the distinctive features of community life in the old housing estates. It will also induce the younger generation to keep living in the old estates so as not to turn these areas into places where only old people are found. The upgrading scheme will have a great impact on our community life and lead to a more balanced development of the housing estates.

The restructuring and privatisation of Government hospitals is another issue that has given rise to some misunderstanding among the people for they have the impression that from now on, the Government will shirk its responsibilities in the provision of health care for the people. They will have to resort to Medisave or to dig into their own pockets to pay for the enormous amount of medical expenses (many people are not aware that the Government has already given subsidy in the form of hospital equipment and medical staff). The President's Speech also mentions the Government's plans to build more hospitals to give more options to people in health care. The Government will continue to subsidise those who are in need of health care but who are not able to pay for it. No one who needs medical treatment will be deprived of such treatment, whatever his income. The Government will retain the B2 class and C class wards which are subsidised wards. This will help to remove people's fear that they should not fall sick if they do not have money because of the costly medical expenses incurred.

While we have achieved rapid economic growth and full employment resulting in raising the income of the people, like any other country in the world, we still have pockets of the low income groups and the unfortunate lot. Therefore, it is necessary to provide assistance to such people to alleviate their burden of bringing up their children (for instance, school fees.) for our charity and generosity will be a mark of a compassionate and caring society (in which we find ourselves).

Mr Speaker, all along, the Government has listened to and accepted the views of the people. This has helped to nurture a sense of national awareness among them. This national consciousness and identity will serve as a strong force and foundation for our struggle for further progress, unity, a better life and in meeting all the challenges that may lie ahead. It is also a plus factor in our effort to build up the shared values and to mould a multi-racial society.

Mr Speaker, the President's Speech has imbued our people with confidence and stimulated them to strive for a better future, greater prosperity and progress.

May I wish the President good health!

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to thank the President for his Address.

The President has given us much hope and optimism for the next phase of inde- pendent Singapore's development. As he has said, the circumstances for the leadership transition and the beginning of the development of the next phase are as auspicious as we could have hoped for. I congratulate and thank our leaders and the people of Singapore for bringing us thus far.

Sir, recently, I watched the movie "Dead Poets Society". While watching this movie, it struck me that the four pillars of the school in the story in the movie, the four pillars of "Tradition, Honour, Discipline and Excellence" were, in many aspects, similar values which had brought Singapore from a country least likely to succeed to where we are today.

Yet, as we stand on the threshold of joining the ranks of the developed nations of the world, we surely must realise that what had sustained us in the past may no longer be as effective in the future. No longer can we use cheap labour nor financial incentives nor strategic location as trump cards to draw international capital and industries to our shores. For cheap labour, there is cheaper labour in our neighbouring countries. For financial incentives, too many countries and states nowadays are giving away financial incentives - some much more generous than ours. As for strategic location, I believe that locating one's plants in the countries where the consumers are makes much more sense than locating them in Singapore.

Sir, I bring this up not to say that the past factors of success are no longer important, but as a grim reminder that the road of the next 25 years will not be easy. In fact, I believe that it will be more difficult than before. And to travel the future path as successfully as we did in the past, we need to inject as quickly as possible into our environment that abstract quality called "creativity".

As I have said earlier, the Government's programme, as embodied in the President's Address and the Addenda, gives much hope for the future. Nobody, including myself, should be unhappy; yet, should there be any disappointment, it is this - that little attention had been paid to the cultivation and the nurturing of this so essential, so crucial quality.

Perhaps it is too abstract. It is not something which one can touch, see or smell. I mean, we can say we will build more roads, more schools, train more teachers, and do all the things that we want to do, but can one really put a finger to nurturing more creativity? Yet the issue is not new, and fortunately, our leaders recognise the need to have this quality in our society. The Economic Committee of 1985 recognised its importance when it raised the issue of how to bring about a more creative and less conformist society, a crucial element if Singapore is to achieve the growth in entrepreneurship needed in the future. Earlier this year, the First Deputy Prime Minister and also the Minister of State for Education and Community Development also spoke on the need to have a more creative society and to have more creative people.

The question, of course, is this: Can creativity be cultivated, nurtured and sustained in our society? Perhaps so, but given our relatively intolerant society with controls to ensure that we conform in almost all aspects of our lives coupled with the resultant "kiasu" attitude of our people, I am not too sure.

Why do I say this? Perhaps I would like to add some comments from Professor Herbert A. Simon, Nobel Prize winner in Economic Science in 1978. I believe some of his views will add some clarity. At this point, I must add that most of the Professor's evidence about the creative process was derived from research on scientific creativity, but there are no reasons why the foundations of creativity should differ in other fields of human endeavour.

First, he gave a very simple definition of creativity. He said, and I quote:

'Acts are judged to be creative when they produce something that is novel and that is thought to be interesting or to have social value.'

He further went on to postulate that, by its very nature, creativity almost always requires a calculated gamble. Novelty involves exploring previously unexplored territory. A creative person is thus looking for a situation where he pits his knowledge, beliefs and guesses against the knowledge, beliefs and guesses of the established order. As such, creative persons require a "contrarian" streak that gives them the confidence to pit their knowledge and judgment against the common wisdom of their colleagues. This means obviously a willingness to adventure, even with the risks of failure.

What I have just said is a very simple precis on the role that "propensity for risk-taking" plays in the nature of creativity. There are, of course, other aspects, but for today, we just need to recognise that the opportunity to be creative can seldom be fully separated from the opportunity to fail.

It this aspect that I want to bring to the attention of the House, to the attention of the Government - that creativity and failure are perhaps opposite sides of the same coin - that we call the successful non-conformist a creative person and the unsuccessful non-conformist a failure - that in not forgiving temporary lapses of failings and shortcomings, we may also be stifling creativity.

For, Sir, if we recognise this linkage and still believe that creativity will be much needed in our future path for a better life, then I suggest that we need to be more tolerant of mistakes. We need to recognise that there is very often no such thing as total abject failure. Sometimes a person fails in one aspect, or even two, because it is simply not his cup of tea. A school drop-out could one day be a master craftsman, or even a personal computer inventor. A foolish action done in the heat of youthful bravado - should it condemn a person for life?

Sir, I have brought up several times in this House the trials and tribulations people with minor criminal or drug-taking records face when they try to fit back into the mainstream of life. It therefore pains me to read only last week a letter in the newspaper from a girl on this same issue - a girl who has just recently completed her schooling and should be looking forward to her adult life with all the enthu- siasm, optimism and zest that only youth can muster. Sad to say, Sir, the letter projects hopelessness and resignation. With your permission, I would like to read this particular letter. It is a letter addressed to 'Dear Aggie' and the headlines put 'Condemned for past mistake'. [New Paper, 6th June 1990].

'Dear Aggie,

I am writing to you because I'm at my wit's end.

I am a school leaver waiting for my results but I have not applied for permanent jobs because I know I will not be chosen because I was once caught shoplifting.

It happened when I was 12 years old. I knew that with such a record I am never ever going to get far in our society.

Who would employ a girl with a criminal record? I feel that I have already been condemned. Would anyone ever believe that I had regretted and repented for my folly a long time ago?

My friends encourage me to start looking for a stable job but I could not disclose to them why I am reluctant to do so. Only two persons know about my record - my grandmother and a close friend.

I have always wanted to be a teacher. How can I achieve my ambition with such a record?

I can apply for jobs but I am afraid to face instant rejection because of this one mistake.

Signed: Condemned.'

Sir, how does such a young person reach such depths of despair? Obviously from the belief that our society does not tolerate mistakes or aberrations, even if one makes them in the folly of youth.

Sir, please do not get me wrong. I am not equating criminal acts with the creative process. All I am suggesting is that the despair of those who had made mistakes, and the fear to be creative spring from the same source - our society's high degree of intolerance towards failure. Can we change this? And at the same time, give due recognition that Singapore needs a multiplicity of talents, that there is, after all, life outside academic brilliance.

I really do not know. But I think we should try. I have deliberately refrained from coming out with any solution because, unfortunately, this issue needs to be looked, from a bird's eye view, at the whole and not in parts. If we look at the parts, we will find that everybody, any person involved in administration or in the planning of the part, will always have good reasons and good justification for this control of that regulation or that policy. Yet looking at the whole, with one regulation here and another control there, the result is what we have today - a society where we dread to make mistakes.

Sir, lest I give the impression that Singapore is all sterile and nothing creative grows, let me dispel such thoughts. We do have our share of creativity. The arts and culture are beginning to flourish, entrepreneurs are beginning to come out of the woodwork, the consultative process has loosened the thoughts and tongues of many of our citizens, and so on. But is it enough? I believe we need more, and at a much faster pace than hitherto.

There is yet another reason why I feel that we should take this step to be a more tolerant and less unforgiving society. Moving in this direction means bringing more into play the values of love, charity and compassion. Add these to the four values I mentioned earlier, I cannot help but see future Singapore a gracious, refined and caring society, enjoying in all its splendour the good life that affluence can help to bring about. Otherwise we may end up rich, boorish, crass and selfish - in short, the Ugly "kiasu" Singaporean!

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Toa Payoh GRC): Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin.

Sir, since Mr Goh Chok Tong took charge of the day-to-day administration of affairs of Singapore, his style of Government has been one of open discussion of policies and consensus building. Singaporeans were since 1985 given a chance to participate and debate prospective Government policies and issues facing the nation. The nation has since debated and agreed on the National Agenda and other major issues. The Government Parliamentary Committees with their resource panels have allowed more participation from the people and allowed new policies to be discussed on the ground before they were brought before Parliament. The people will remember the GPCs as Mr Goh's innovation. Not only does Mr Goh discuss about his taking over from the Prime Minister, but he also discussed about others eventually taking over from him. I do not think we can get a more open style than that.

This more open style of Government has been welcomed by the people and the majority of the nation supports his style of Government. As a result, Singaporeans in general feel they have a bigger say in important issues on national matters that affect them and their families. Mr Goh's style of Government is more compatible with the style of the younger Singaporeans who are more educated, more exposed to western practice and more vocal in their demands.

The President in his Address confirmed Mr Goh taking over as Prime Minister by the end of this year. Mr Goh and his team have proved that they are capable of managing Singapore and doing a good job at that. They have brought Singapore out of the 1985-86 recession. Singapore in 1988 experienced its most broad based growth since 1983-84, posting an 11% expansion. That was the highest annual growth in 15 years. The President reassured the nation that the timing for Mr Goh Chok Tong's takeover is correct when he said, and I quote:

'The circumstances are as auspicious as we could have hoped for.'

Sir, while the present style of the Government in discussing issues with the people to gain consensus is a good practice, it is inevitable that too much discussions can cause confusion among the people. It is unfortunate that not all the people follow all the discussions and arguments in the newspapers. Some just read headlines which at times are misleading. Some just remember points they agreed with, while some remember only the gossips they gather at coffeeshops.

When the President opens a new Session of Parliament, he makes a major policy speech which has a very great impact. His message helps to focus the nation's attention to major issues agreed upon and remind the people of issues that need to be settled and issues that are forthcoming. It also serves as a strong encouragement to the people to continue on our strive for a better life.

I therefore fully support the First Deputy Prime Minister's idea to prorogue Parliament at more frequent intervals and at the end of each year to take stock of what has been done and what needs to be done in the coming year.

Sir, while we are looking forward to the next phase to find new challenges to inspire our people to continue to strive for a better life, I feel it is an appropriate time that we pay tribute to a group of people who have been working quietly in the background and help to bring Singapore to where we are today. Sir, I am referring to the group of dedicated community leaders who serve in all the community organisations, particularly the CCCs and the CCMCs. Many of the community leaders give up their time and contribute huge sums of money to support many of the activities. As community leaders, they have to explain Government policies to the people and some of the Government policies are really difficult to explain. They have to collect feedback from the people and in the last few years this role has intensified. Some have started their service in the CCCs and the CCMCs before 1965 and are still serving today.

When we celebrate our nation's 25th National Day we are in fact also celebrating the contributions and achievements of the community leaders who have done a great job for the past 25 years. I strongly feel the Government should recognise their continuous contributions in some way. The Government could identify these community leaders who have served continuously for the past 25 years. Some form of commemorative certificate could be given to them; better still, a commemorative medal. This simple form of recognition will serve as a strong boost to the morale of the community leaders. It will also help to encourage younger people to come forward to join in community work. Volunteering for service in the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs, CDCCs and CSCs is a very good tradition we have developed. It is very much a Singapore institution. It is a good tradition that we should maintain. It is therefore very appropriate that this year, as we celebrate our 25th National Day, we also recognise and record the contributions of our dedicated community leaders.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, between January 1989 when the President delivered his Address and last week, a relatively short span of over a year, the world saw a number of tremendous changes. The 1980s ended with the Eastern European people rejoicing in triumph. Credit must be given to Gorbachev of the Soviet Union for inspiring the reformists in Eastern Europe. The economic restructuring has given rise to the free market mechanism. His policies on East/West relations greatly encouraged those seeking reforms in Eastern Europe.

Fundamentally, the profound changes in Eastern Europe were brought about by the failure of communism to solve the basic problems in life. Severe shortages of daily necessities, inflation, prolonged one-party or military rule gave rise to a pervasive sense of despondency and discontent. Once the call for reforms was made, the desire for change spread instantly.

The communist system is undoubtedly beset with problems. But the largest capitalist economy in the world is faced with other problems. The huge budget and trade deficits, drug addiction, violent crimes and aids have made many wonder about the quality of life in the United States. Whether communist or capitalist, it is the Government's responsibility to look after the basic needs of the people, raise their standard of living and enhance the quality of life - the Government of Singapore has done precisely this.

Against a backdrop of natural constraints in terms of manpower and land, the success of our future development will depend on how well we overcome various obstacles. The proposal to improve primary education and vocational training and to provide more choices in the education system will receive unanimous support. Increasing the size of intake of University students is good news indeed. In the past, some students with reasonably good results could not find a place in NUS. Those from well-to-do families could go abroad. But the cost of living and tuition fees in foreign universities is high. Apart from the loss in foreign exchange, some Singaporean students may decide to remain abroad after graduation. This is a loss of talents.

Whilst we improve the education system, we should look after the educational needs of the working population. The NTUC has conducted BEST courses and some commercial schools offer courses such as computer programming and book-keeping. In addition, we should have courses in History, natural sciences and the arts. In USA, there is emphasis on life-long learning and education. One out of three college students is over the age of 30. Of course, with our limited resources, we cannot reach this level. But we should provide shorter courses so as to provide greater understanding of history, natural sciences and the arts. This will lead to a more enriched life and a higher quality of life.

Singapore is a very competitive society. With an ever conscious need to do as much as possible, some suffer from chronic tension and anxiety. Inter-personal relations have suffered. It was reported recently that some drivers even resorted to physical violence over minor traffic accidents. Is this evidence of poor upbringing? Or is there a shortcoming in our education system? We hope to build not only an affluent society but also one which is civilised. But if we depend entirely on the Government to promote courtesy campaigns, it will not be effective. Parents should practise what they preach and set good examples for their children. Teachers should monitor closely the pattern of behaviour and language used by the students. A real education does not consist of scoring straight A's in examinations. Character building is even more important. Teachers should show their students how to treat others with respect and tact.

With economic progress comes the materialistic approach. If a person is a mere money-making machine, then life will be empty and meaningless. This is why it is important to use the leisure hours well. How we encourage our people to be creative and artistic, give due recognition to community service and religious beliefs; these are basic questions we should address in seeking the real meaning in life. President Bush said that the true worth of a person is not the sum total of his assets and that the definition of success must include caring for and service to others.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the new generation leaders have always stressed the importance of obtaining feedback and reaching consensus before important policies are changed. Consensus building is not easy in a multi-racial and multi-religious society. We must look for common ground and achieve unity in diversity. In regard to policies or measures which are controversial, efforts must be made to explain and clarify repeatedly so that the people will understand the objectives and rationale for the policies. This will facilitate the implementation of such policies.

When we discuss the pros and cons of certain policies, it is inevitable that some will insist on their stands. Heated arguments will take place. However, as long as the views are brought up in all sincerity and the criticisms are constructive, the civil service should pay attention to them. Of course, people outside the Ministries would not have all the relevant information. But they come from all walks of life and have first-hand knowledge of the practical effects of certain policies. Some of their views are indeed commendable. Accommodating differences of views and opinions is an essential feature of a mature society.

In the past, it was the great fortune of Singaporeans to have been steered by a group of very able leaders out of poverty. But the world does not stand still. If we have the will and determination to succeed, we can do so. With a group of outstanding leaders with vision and energy and a population which is well-educated and believes in the values of hard work and co-operation, the 1990s will be an exciting decade, promising new and great opportunities for Singapore.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin.

Sir, I am pleased that the Government is further committed to improve the life of all Singaporeans. However, this commitment must be translated into concrete terms such as better housing, education, health and security. The benefits must continue to reach most of the sectors of our population. If these benefits are realised, then the bond between the people and the Government will be strengthened.

Sir, in the last few years, some policies, particularly on health, housing and education which have immediate and longer term impact on the life of most Singaporeans, have been reviewed and changed. These changes are directed to make the provision of public sector services more efficient and more cost effective. They have also emphasised on market pricing of public social service provisions. Sir, in principle, it is a good idea, provided the prices keep in tandem with the rise in income level. However, I feel that we are rushing too quickly towards market pricing which does have consequences for the average working class.

The average working class people may find that it is difficult to catch up with the rising cost in the various services that are provided. Sir, they may face difficulties in having access to basic social services which have been a cornerstone in strengthening family life in particular, and our nation building in general.

Sir, if basic social services become increasingly less affordable and burdensome to the working class families, they will feel left out of the mainstream of our social and economic life. Consequently, this may make them and their children realise that they have no stake in our society. The bond that we have built over the years must be maintained. I hope that it will not be eroded and weakened through time.

Sir, we must try to prevent minimum dislocations to their livelihood and provide adequate opportunities to upgrade their skills so that they will be able to move up the economic ladder. In this respect, it is therefore important for various Govern- ment Ministries undergoing restructuring and privatisation of their services to carefully monitor whether the costs of their services are affordable. Government Ministries must therefore be mindful not to behave like private enterprises where profit becomes their primary preoccupation. Government Ministries must be sensitive that there is a sector of our population whose per capita income is less than $400 per month. This sector comprises 20% of our population and a majority of them have dependent children who have potential to be developed.

Among them, we have the not so poor, Sir, whom I will call the "sandwich class". They are neither poor nor rich, and they find it increasingly difficult to cope with the increased cost in social services. This group sees that they are being slowly squeezed out. Sir, I cannot but agree more that there is a need to reduce the burden of bringing up their children, particularly in providing more educational support and also a more graded pricing of social services which they can select on the basis of their income level. There is a need to look at different levels of affordability of social services which can be priced so that people can then make the choice on the basis of their income. This I find that under today's provision, a bit too rigid. I hope that the Government will be able to look further into the different pricing of services so that it will allow more flexibility for people to make their right choices.

Sir, there is a general concern among people about the increasing cost in goods and services of both the private and public sectors. This is compounded by the nagging increase of our consumer price index. Since 1987, our consumer price index has increased from 0.5% to about 2.9% in the first quarter of 1990. This increase, as I see it, is tolerable, but we should keep a close watch on it. Sir, inflation would be our biggest and most persistent threat to our economy in the near future. We should take various cost control measures to check inflation.

Sir, aside from just ensuring that our basic social services are affordable, there is an urgency for us to focus our attention on the children of lower income families. There is a need for us to ensure that they do not prematurely leave school or vocational training because of family problems and economic circumstances. In the light that a more trained and educated manpower is essential to our economic development, it is desirable for us to consider extending further fee rebates and financial assistance for secondary education as well as for vocational training. We should consider, if possible, providing free and compulsory education up to secondary level. In doing so, we will be able to develop and harness the human potentials of a larger base of people who, because of various circumstances and problems, may not be able to make it. I hope that this will be looked into and, in doing this, we will in the longer term help more lower income families to improve their living standards.

Sir, I trust that the Government will be able to look at how it can peg its social service provisions at an affordable cost. This will in the long run build a stronger bond between the people and the Government and more Singaporeans will find a meningful life in our society.

Mr Charles Chong (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin and I appreciate this opportunity to comment on a few of the subjects raised in the President's Address.

On the subject of education, I am glad to note the Government's commitment to investment in education as a means to develop the talents of Singaporeans to the fullest. I also endorse the Government's emphasis on education to raise the standard of living of our people.

The Ministry of Education has over the past few years also taken measures to improve the entire education system in Singapore. However, no amount of improvement in the system can benefit children that are not given sufficient education. During the last three years of constituency work, I have come across cases where parents have stopped their children's education prematurely despite their satisfactory performance. These parents attribute domestic problems and other constraints for their failure to keep their children in school. Fortunately, they constitute only a very small proportion of our population. The vast majority of parents go to great lengths to ensure that their children receive the best possible opportunities. However, as our human resources become more critical with our declining population, we should make it a requirement for parents to ensure that their children receive an opportunity to develop their full potential through education. We should also attempt to minimise the casualty rate in our education system without compromising standards.

Introduction of streaming in our primary and secondary schools has significantly reduced the drop-out rate by enabling late developers to cope at a more comfortable pace rather than to drop out of the system altogether. We should also enhance schemes that permit bright students with language deficiencies, either in English or the second language, but who are able to do well in other subjects, to progress through our education system in order to avoid wastage of talent. I have heard of the anguish of parents whose children are unable to progress higher in our education system because of language deficiencies, either in English or the second language. Those with difficulty in the English language usually suffer in silence. However, those with difficulty in the second language appear to be more vocal in their sufferings.

I have observed friends and colleagues who have studied in universities in Germany and France on scholarships. They took a one-year intensive language course in German or French before commencing their university programme. At the end of their language course, they tell me that their command of the language was still below 100%. However, these students, despite their apparent language handicap, still manage to graduate with First Class engineering degrees. Therefore, whilst we acknowledge that language acquisition is central to learning, we should never confuse the inability to master a language as an indication of an inability to excel in other disciplines that do not require a strong language bias.

Sir, the figures may indicate that the proportion of students that are able to excel in all subjects other than language subjects may not be very high. However, in our present situation, we should endeavour to make every one of them count.

We should also guard against assumptions that mere knowledge of the mother tongue would instil a strong cultural foundation and strong Asian values. Values in our young must be carefully nurtured essentially by parents, and these are reinforced by experiences in our daily life. If we cannot relate these values to everyday living, then it would be very difficult to retain them or to transmit them to our children regardless of how competent we are in the mother tongue. Similarly, the preservation of one's cultural heritage becomes difficult if we merely try to perpetuate past practices and rituals that have little relevance or meaning in our present environment. I am therefore delighted to note that the Ministry of Education will be introducing a new civics and moral education programme in 1992 to enhance sound moral values in our students.

I would like to suggest that, in addition to this new civics and moral education programme, a cultural appreciation programme also be initiated. This programme could perhaps provide an updated and structured explanation on the significance and relevance of our various cultural practices. The best possible chance we have of preserving our cultural heritage is to have our young appreciate and see the relevance of our beliefs and practices in addition to learning the mother tongue in school.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in our attempts to strengthen our cultural heritage, several cultural programmes were organised since the beginning of this year. These programmes have successfully enlightened many Singaporeans on their diverse heritage. However, it has also heightened racial awareness between our various ethnic groups, including some Eurasians. I am therefore glad to note that the Government intends to publish a White Paper on Shared Values, setting out those values which all communities hold in common. The objective is to help us gradually evolve a Singaporean identity. Hopefully, it will also shift the emphasis away from our diversity into an area in which all our various communities can find common ground.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to note that the Government intends to reintroduce the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill in order to prevent disharmony between religious groups. However, I would like to caution that in the long term, it is not always possible to pass legislation that completely protect our people from exposure to religious agitation. Everyday, religious strife occurs somewhere in this world. With communications being so advanced, as it is today, can we possibly hope to create a sterile environment in Singapore where our people can be completely insulated from the real world? Our best chance to prevent religious strife is to gradually expose and educate our people such that they can always think and remain rational even in the face of irrational provocation. This may take more than a generation to achieve. However, we should always bear in mind whenever we pass legislation to protect the people, be it religious harmony or film censorship, that the aim should be to immunise rather than to sterilise.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the labour situation in Singapore, I am glad to note that the Ministry of Labour feels that it must change the attitude towards employment of older workers. Despite the good progress made in raising the retirement age in unionised establishments, a lot more need to be done in non-unionised firms to raise the retirement age to 60. I would therefore like to urge the Government to legislate raising the retirement age to at least 60 without further delay.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first and foremost, I support Mr Lew Syn Pau's motion to express our thanks to the President for his Address.

A strong nation must have a strong people and a strong people come from healthy bodies and healthy minds. In the process of building up ourselves physically, I hope the Government will implement fully our health care system. Health is our people's asset and it is through this that we maintain a healthy body. So birth, death and health are part of our lives.

The Government has also said that it will try to provide the people with good health care. I am glad the Government has acknowledged this need to improve our health care system. I am sure this will also mean an increase in expenditure. The Government cannot go on forever subsidising health care. Therefore, I hope the Government will, at an appropriate time, make the necessary adjustments. It is these adjustments, especially to B and C class patients, that we need to consider. And I am sure in future they may be given some kind of subsidies and assistance so that the benefits can be transferred to the appropriate class.

In the President's Address, we can see that the transition of power to Mr Goh Chok Tong has been smooth and he is leading us with confidence to a new era. And he has promised to lead Singapore to a more prosperous life. I am sure the next 25 years will be the same as the last 25 in terms of progress. The PAP has always worked on the principle of anticipating problems before everybody else. And our accomplishments have not been attained easily. But if we want to continue to progress, depending on wise leadership is not enough. What we need more is a people with a similar identity and who are willing to work. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to educate a generation to appreciate what they have today and to look forward to a better life in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we say a thousand-foot building will start from the stone on the ground. The Government must immediately launch its programmes in terms of educating our new generation. I am very happy to see that a new set of syllabus has been implemented for Secondary 3 and 4 students in civic and moral education and co-curricular programmes. But I feel that it is more appropriate to start this programme from young.

The Minister for Education has given priority to primary education and also to the implementation of single session school right from primary level. However, I hope he will also consider the following two points. First, besides putting due emphasis on English, I think the education system should also put similar emphasis on the learning of the mother tongue to build up a better foundation so that our Asian values, traditions and characteristics can be preserved.

Secondly, I hope the Ministry will also consider developing a mother tongue and civics education curriculum together and use the Ministry of Education experts as consultants. They should use their experience to develop a curriculum which has also been used in other Asian countries and incorporate it into our civics education. If necessary, I think we should also incorporate the history of our neighbouring countries into our education system to enhance our understanding. We can also use the values to be spelt out in the White Paper on Shared Values and incorporate them into our curriculum so that Singaporeans can be identified with the spirit of "One Nation, One People and One Singapore" and build up a new generation of Singaporeans which is literate, fluent, physically capable, sharp in business and patriotic to our nation.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Tanglin thanking the President for the Speech which he delievered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.

The Government's programmes in the next few months will bring to an end an important phase in the history of Singapore's growth. The end of this year will be a watershed one in our political development as we see Mr Goh Chok Tong takes over as the next Prime Minister of Singapore.

Sir, this transition in political leadership cannot be more timely. We now stand on the threshold of the last decade of this century facing not only bright prospects but also great challenges. Whilst our closest competitors - Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea - have all been hit by a wave of political uncertainty and unrest, we enjoy political stability. Our economy remains buoyant. The world economy stays healthy. We are in the heart of booming Southeast Asia. Our relations with our neighbours are good. The region has never been more peaceful. The establishment of the Singapore-Johor-Batam "growth triangle" is indeed an indication of the confidence and optimism ahead.

Sir, as we complete this last phase of growth, we are also at the same time epxeriencing a noticeable change in the style of Government. In recent years, the Government has stepped up efforts to seek inputs and feedback from the public on various issues. This has in turn helped the Government to improve policies and generate fresh ideas and enable the public to understand these issues and policies better. More and more Singaporeans have come forward to participate in this consensus building process. This trend marks the beginning of a maturing country and augurs well for the future.

Sir, as we embark on the next phase of development to become a fully developed country, we should take stock of our achievements and shortfalls, review our plans, fine tune them and ensure that undesirable trends in the world do not undermine the achievements we have so painstakingly built in the last 25 years. The introduction of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and the Elected President Bill are but two examples of counter-measures we need to take against these trends. The intention behind the Bills are good and I urge Singaporeans to support them.

As an addendum to the President's Address, the Government has laid down its economic strategy in the next decade. The aim, as everyone knows, is to sustain a 4-6% economic growth through raising productivity, tapping international and regional markets and cooperating with neighbouring countries for regional prosperity. Foreign MNCs will be encouraged to use Singapore as a strategic node in their regional strategy. Singapore will continue to be promoted as a hub for services and high-value added manufacturing activities. The Government will continue to capitalise on its communication links, business infrastructure and strategic location in promoting Singapore, and to encourage both local and foreign companies to invest in neighbouring countries to develop their potential.

Sir, this strategy of attracting foreign MNCs to Singapore is good. However, we cannot solely depend on foreign MNCs for growth. If we were to achieve a fully developed economy, we need more local enterprises. We must therefore step up our efforts to develop them. We must encourage the formation, the growth and the upgrading of indigenous Singapore companies so that they could compete internationally. We need more successful home grown companies like SIA, DBS, F&N, Yeo Hiap Seng, Keppel Corporation, Wearnes, Singapore Technologies, Times Publishing and so on. It is therefore crucial that in the next 10 years, the Government directs more attention and resources to develop local enterprises. The formation of the Enterprise Development Council is a good start.

Sir, given our limited resources in land and manpower, we have no choice but to continue to improve our productivity if we want to grow. Whilst skills upgrading, labour-management cooperation and automation have helped raise productivity, we must watch the work attitude of Singaporean workers, particularly the younger ones. Already we are seeing signs of job-hopping given the very tight labour market situation. There is nothing wrong with Singaporeans changing jobs to take on enlarged responsibility and provide greater contributions. But if Singaporeans change jobs simply for higher pay, then this will affect our level of competitiveness. Some from among us, particularly the younger Singaporeans, cannot wait. In pursuit of rapid career advancement and material wealth and of course peer group pressure, they tend to switch jobs. If this happens too often, employers will be reluctant to invest in their training and upgrading and hence affects their level of productivity. I would like to urge Singaporeans to look longer term, show greater commitment and loyalty to their organisations. Sir, I am not saying job hopping is a serious problem now but it is certainly a trend which must be monitored closely. It has the undesirable twin effects of lowering our productivity and affecting our international competitiveness.

Sir, the First Session of this Parliament saw the implementation of the Town Councils Act. Town councils have already taken over the management of most HDB estates. Through the councillors, residents will now have more say on how they want to run their HDB estates. I am happy to see many of my fellow MP colleagues in this House together with their councillors going about most enthusiastically improving the estates under their charge in order to try to meet the needs of residents. One area, Sir, however, requires review and fine tuning if town council is to be a success. The current tight labour market has indirectly affected the cleanliness of some HDB estates. Cleaning contractors have difficulty finding workers. Singaporean workers prefer to work in offices and factories where the environment is more conducive. I therefore urge the Government, particularly the Ministry of Labour, to be more liberal in granting work permits to foreign workers engaged by town council cleaning contractors.

Finally, Sir, I am heartened by the willingness of many Singaporeans, companies, voluntary and grassroot bodies to contribute towards the 25th Anniversary Charity Fund. This is a clear signal that a strong sense of nationhood has prevailed. We have come of age. We are confident of our future. So long as we continue to work hard, remain nimble and agile in adjusting to changes, are conscious of our weaknesses and potential dangers and maintain the same spirit of unity and cohesion, I am confident that we shall continue to progress and prosper. By the year 2000, Singaporeans will enjoy a standard of living much higher, if not double, what they are enjoying today, in terms of better living environment, social cohesion, and overall improvement in the quality of life.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Speech.

However, Sir, I am rather unhappy. I am a little perturbed by what I have seen and encountered within our society. I get reminded of that saying that usually wealth within a family does not extend beyond the second generation. I have a strong wish to see a future generation that will treasure and, just as patiently build upon, add on to the past achievements of this generation of leaders. Progress, as seen in the economy, defence, education, health, housing, industry, technology and welfare, has been won at a price and to see continued progress requires further inputs, discipline and, of course, self-sacrifice. What I fear most is a lost future generation, a generation that carves itself in ugliness and impatience. The ugliness and the impatience are signs and symptoms of a generation gone a little jaundiced, and I feel strongly the need to see that such a situation does not become common-place.

Sir, look at that driver who is slow to take off at a traffic light. He is tooted from behind to get him to move on. He is irritated, he gets out of his car, he goes to the vehicle behind him, opens the door and punches the driver. He returns to his car, he drives off, feeling satisfied with what he has done. Within an HDB estate, we see cleaners go out early in the morning to clear the litter and rubbish which some Singaporeans have thoughtlessly thrown down the stairs, along the corridors, and into the compounds the night before. These people could have more thoughtfully thrown their litter down the rubbish chute or into any rubbish bin where the litter rightfully belongs. See how they behave?

What I have observed and witnessed in our midst and which has given me a greater sense of disquiet that does not seem to go away are blatant negligence and abuse inflicted upon well-meaning, if at times, too trusting parents by their adult children. You would imagine such things happening only in the Chinese serials and then, even that often dealing only with the cruelty of mothers-in-law towards their hapless, dutiful daughters-in-law but certainly not a son misguided and instigated by his wife to drive out his mother from the very home which she had so magnanimously signed over to him, never dreaming that she would be served such a turn for her selflessness. Then, there was this old man made to live in the corridor in front of his flat where he was stripped naked and water thrown on him for a bath and where he was given his food, a bowl of plain white porridge most unceremoniously. Sir, there cannot be any mitigating circumstances that can justify this gross lack of compassion. I cannot imagine what dark, unfeeling and unthinking mind could bring forth such treatment as when a man deserted his wife and son to go abroad. After an absence of 10 or more years, and with no financial support of any kind for his family, he sent word that she should sell the flat that she had been occupying all this while and keep half the proceeds; the rest belongs to him, an action that is tantamount to evicting her from the home that she had largely paid for.

What distresses me most is that these acts came from relatively young persons whom we feel should know better, given the advantages of our present prosperous times. Is there something that is lacking, that we have not provided for? Such very distressing situations should have no place in our society where we strive for a more cultured life, more gracious living. One should expect more goodness, more charity in our present society built upon the very fat of a burgeoning economy. Sir, where is the soul of our nation? Have we somehow lost it somewhere along the way of progress?

This is where a shared national ethos runs through the youngest to the oldest, the yellow-skinned to the brown, grey and other shades in between. For united we stand, divided we fall, so the adage runs. In fact, there seems to be now a greater urgency for all races, all faiths and cultures in Singapore to come together as never before. Our younger generation has been brought up in good times, during the economic prosperity of the 70s and the 80s; they have eaten the fruit of success. They have lived a life of instant satisfaction, the consumer culture of today and they cannot be expected to appreciate otherwise. Sir, we need to do something about this.

Back in the 70s when Singapore was hard put to fight international competition on the economic front and our productivity was found wanting, somehow, the problem was diagnosed and the right steps prescribed to boost productivity. I remember then, how concentrated the onslaught was, with no letup. That was more than 10 years ago. But today we are still reaping the harvest of productivity.

The National Productivity Board was restructured, we were bombarded with jingles and slogans to become productivity-conscious; the Prime Minister kicked off the productivity drive and Singapore's productivity has not lost that momentum ever since. The question, Sir, is, could we do something parallel to that? Start a concentrated drive to put the soul into Singapore's future generation; ensure that a spirit that is dominated by compassion and goodwill with justice and other important values is not lost. The National Agenda, which I think is a masterly feat of engineering on the part of its creators, could be the vehicle to undertake or incorporate such a Singapore spirit. The spirit which should glow in every Singaporean's heart is a mix of responsibility and hard work, discipline and charity, courtesy and respect towards the nation, the family, the neighbours, and to oneself. The shared values that we want to develop and enhance will undoubtedly bring about the blossoming of that special spirit of Singapore within the young who can then pass that on into the future. Sir, the spirit must live on and endure!

The inculcating of this spirit should not be the domain of the church or any religious organisation as part of a religion; it must be the concerted effort of all, preferably institutionalised like the productivity drive, in order to ensure that it becomes a permanent feature of the Singapore personality. If we want a nation of caring people, who would not think even of chasing old people out of the home into the corridors or return an act of parental concern with shameful neglect, then the caring nature has to become integrated into our future Singaporean. This caring nature should also extend to working life such that a Singaporean will not shirk or give what is less than the best that is expected of him. It is my hope that the driving force that compelled our forefathers to strive on against all odds will live on in the future Singaporean. No more do we have that stretch after stretch of palm oil plantations, coconut plantations, rubber plantations and the lot which our neighbours still have. Even the islands of Batam and Bintang still have them. They represent the piles of wealth our neighbours are bestowed with. Our plantations are gone and they are gone forever. We must, therefore, press ahead with a concentrated drive to put the soul into Singapore's future generation and bring about the blossoming of that special spirit of Singapore to take us successfully into the future.

The Government's intention of having a set of shared values should be seen as a step towards giving Singaporeans this soul, and only then can we walk with our heads held high as true responsible Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.36 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, many of my parliamentary colleagues have articulated many subjects concerning local politics and municipal matters. These are important, and as they have been discussed with some detail, I want to take this opportunity to try to create more awareness amongst Singaporeans to think beyond our shores.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Presidential Address, the President said:

'Outside Singapore, momentous changes in international affairs have reshaped the geopolitical landscape beyond recognition. It will be some time before their full implications become clear.' However, one of the many implications that has resulted from the changes happening in Eastern Europe and I am sure the concern of the business community is that ultimately there will be a significant diversion of funds and investments from the Asia Pacific region to the newly emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. The creation of the EEC market is both a political as it is an economic entity. It is naive to downplay the potential shift of funds away from the Asia-Pacific purely on economic perspectives. There is a great innate current based on ethnicity, cultural, historical and political emotions drawing away funds and resources to rebuild Eastern Europe and Russia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fear the emergence of trading blocs. In the next five to 10 years, there will be tendencies in the West towards more introspection and isolationism with the establishment of the North American-Canadian Free Trade Zone, a European Common Market and the Asia-Pacific Bloc. To a great extent precipitated by the dismantling of the communist system and the receding threat of European war. We must make haste to dynamically interphase our economies and the cultures with the West now. It is imperative that we ensure and fulfil the vision of a world of freedom in trading with no restriction to flow of business and goods between East and West. And for Singapore, a pivotal role in being the great gateway and catalyst for trade between East and West.

It is a master stroke to come up with a bold concept and rapid implementation of a triangle of economic growth between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. The dividends are not only in economic terms but will convert erstwhile suspicions of ethnicity and politics into a mutually beneficial economic denominator with our non-Chinese neighbours. However, I hold the caveat that with our limited human resources and expertise, we may not be able to satiate the appetite for growth of our neighbours, in particular, Indonesia with their overwhelming population. Our role is mainly that of export of our expertise and financial investments for which there are limits to our participation.

A more spectacular thrust, one with a larger global impact, would be to develop another triangle in the north linking Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. If the boldness of this concept can be accepted and achieved, I believe that we shall be able to attract funds and investments to ensure the success of what I describe as the "southern triangle". I cite this as there will be growing unease and political pressures for these two NIEs to diversify and move out of their home bases come 1997 and beyond.

If we are able to gel these three NIEs into a mutually enhancing economic entity, complementing the rest of ASEAN, the impact on the Europeans and our traditional investors, like the Japanese and the Americans, cannot but be obvious. I think this is a positive sum game with many beneficiaries. Hong Kong and Taiwan are presently competing NIEs with us. There is no reason why we cannot combine and husband our respective strengths and potentials to attract and open the market places of the world. Hong Kong and Taiwan share common ethnicity, languages, cultures with neo-Confucianistic work attitude and disciplines with us. It is not difficult for us to come together to work for the common goal.

The Prime Minister has recently, in his trip to Britain, West Germany, France and Turkey, thrown great sales pitches to the Western industrialists. The momentum must be continued and quickened. We must not wait for Europe to come to us. The obvious next step is to boldly cross into their territory with the combined strengths of the NIEs and the potential of the South East Asian nations. We simply cannot so easily face the whole of the EEC singly. We must establish our offices, branches, agencies, permanent exhibits and extend the influence of our MNCs there to make our presence felt. In short, we must make it inevitable for the West to come East. There is therefore a need to quickly develop interphases with our European counterparts.

The establishment of a tripartite economic understanding and linkages with Hong Kong and Taiwan will be great preparations for the eventual penetration of the vast Chinese markets for us. Instead of Hong Kong being the traditional gateway to China, China can gain three gateways where trade and goods can flow with the rest of the world. We must seize our initiative now with our vision, assets and political stability. We must, as I said earlier, create awareness amongst Singaporeans to think beyond our shores. The Singapore of the 21st century beckons excitingly.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Presidential Address.

Mr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now coming to the end of a major phase in our nation-building. I would like to take this occasion to congratulate the Government for having been able to carry out programmes as outlined in the Election Manifesto and for having completed a major part of this programme with only a little left to go. This new session will allow us to have a smooth transition from this first phase to the next phase of nation-building, when the First Deputy Prime Minister takes over as Prime Minister of Singapore. I would like to deal with two aspects of Government which are important and which will see us through the next phase of our development as a nation.

The younger generation leaders have decided correctly to adopt a consultative style of governing. This is because as Singaporeans have become better educated and more politically sophisticated, they want to have a say in the process of governing. Whether the Government can help people to feel they have been consulted and have a role to play in shaping the nation will decide whether we can carry the people with us for the next 25 years of our development.

For a number of years, the Government has advocated a new style of governing, by contrast to that of the old, that is a participatory style, which is meant to involve people in the decision-making process. Good examples of that have been the Medisave scheme and the land transport policies.

Now, there are those who believe that consultative government means that the Government must not pre-decide things and that we should go through a long process of getting views from everyone on how to solve a problem. For instance, critics in fact say that the Government had already long ago decided to have a vehicle quota system and that all we were doing in the Select Committee and in this House are just PR work, pretending to have involved people in the decision-making process.

But surely a good government with capable leaders would have thought through a particular problem and worked out a sensible and workable solution before consulting the people to ensure that what they present to the people is worthy of their consideration. Is that not, after all, the role of government leaders anywhere? It is only good that leaders should have thought their way through something, if they are leading a nation. Indeed, a good government must anticipate problems long before they arise, and think through all possible solutions, weighing the pros and cons in the process. It is therefore ridiculous to say that the Government should come to the people without any firm idea of what they are leading the people to! Government is thus actually leading and working in an efficient way. Therefore, in this context, the Government can still be consultative and consensus-building by going to the people and getting their views on what they have already thought through. They will then proceed to modify, where necessary, especially when it comes to details about implementation.

Now, I am not saying, on the other hand, that ideas cannot be generated by the people. By all means, if Singaporeans have good ideas or feel that certain problems are getting worse, they should feel free to throw out their own ideas for tackling persistent problems. Such ideas will certainly be very welcome. As a result, I believe that the Government may well react and change policies or enact whatever new laws that prove necessary.

Consultative government is therefore a two-way process. I feel that is what the present Government stands for, and will not be apologetic for the fact that it often is the initiator of new policies, and does its part to get the people to accept them. Of course, if Government does not consult and discuss intended policy matters and just enacts laws without consulting the public, then that is not practising consultative government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi) in the Chair]

3.15 pm

Mr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Now, consultative government, by its very nature, entails the need for an intellectually vibrant society. In order to see us through the next 25 years in our social, political and economic development, we need a people who are adaptable, who will take the initiative to contribute to the decision-making process. In short, we need to be creative, and re-creative.

With respect to our economic development, we need people who can learn new things quickly, upgrade themselves as the need arises, and to have generally flexible minds. In the social and cultural realms, we need people who can express themselves in a free environment. And in terms of our political development - especially in the area of consensus building - we need people who will not lack ideas, and who will want to participate. The question is: are we preparing Singaporeans for this? How do we nurture creativity in our people?

Research carried out time and again over the years has shown that 'people will be most creative when they feel motivated primarily by the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself - not by external pressures'.

I believe most Singaporeans are motivated by anything other than intrinsic reasons. They generally do things not because they have a passion for them, but merely because of external factors such as material reward and recognition.

Why is this happening? Are we guilty of shaping such attitudes and perpetuating them? For example, while it is good to ask employees of some statutory boards to donate money to the 25th anniversary charity fund, why then should you offer them different types of certificates of appreciation in return for the varying amount donated? I am sure this scheme produces results, but that only goes to show that we have brought up Singaporeans in the manner I have just described. If I may give another example, I believe there are many people with 8th grade certificates and even diplomas in piano, but when put to the test, they cannot really perform, while in some cases, there are highly talented pianists who have no paper qualifications at all. Therefore, it is important that we be motivated by the right reasons, and if we are not, we will never be truly creative - or caring.

I am glad the Government has stated that in the coming years more effort will be concentrated on primary education, because we have to teach children a certain crucial set of values right from the start. What is important is to instil in them an attitude of caring and a love of learning very early in life. But you cannot develop these attitudes if you are under lots of pressure! And the impression that our education system gives many people is that there is certainly too much pressure right from a very young age. Does it come only from the schools? Or from parents? Or both?

Recently there was a Newsweek article which compared the educational systems of several countries around the world, including Japan. Now, this was very interesting, because it pointed out that although the Japanese system is very pressurized, it is much less so before the child reaches the age of nine years. That is a very important revelation, because in those early years, we want the child to develop a love of learning, not to kill it with too much pressure. Once this love of learning is there, it stays for life. And the love of learning is in itself the best way of learning, and the beginning of creativity.

It is a fact that many parents who complain of the second language requirement are themselves from English-educated backgrounds. Their children often see no practical necessity for having to learn the mother tongue. Now when such a child sees the highly structured way in which the mother tongue is taught in some of our schools, he finds it a very burdensome, unwelcome chore. By contrast, a child will automatically learn as soon as he sees its usefulness - and the fact is that he does so when the environment is right and when positive feedback and encouragement are present.

I therefore very much hope that the Ministry of Education, as part of its effort to improve primary education, will pay close attention to this problem. We need to provide a free environment - within the parameters, of course - to allow children to express themselves and to explore and enjoy doing this at the same time. We need to ensure that the environment is right so that the benefits will be reaped in all spheres of human activity. In drama and in the arts generally, we must be sure we help Singaporeans to express themselves in their attempts to come up with good art forms. To do so, we must, for example, ensure that the unnecessary restrictions are kept to a minimum. For instance, we could be more liberal in granting permission to stage a public drama. We ought to allow people to criticise, to laugh at certain aspects of the system, and at ourselves, from time to time.

So I submit that if we have the right framework in our educational system for our children, we will not find ourselves short of people who will make solid contributions in the economic, political, social or cultural realms, and who will add a dash of colour and some novel ideas to our on-going efforts in nation building.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, the President in his Address gave the direction of the Government for the current session of Parliament. He touched upon the Government policies on education, housing and health. There were no surprises. In all cases, the President indicated that the Government would continue to pursue its current policy. In other words, the Government would continue to move towards free market allocation of resources through privatisation. In education, we see greater freedom for indepen- dent schools. In housing, market forces are brought into play in the allocation of Government flats, instead of the usual principle of first-come-first-served and the luck of the draw. In health, the Government policy is towards greater cost recovery through increased hospital charges.

Sir, these moves are in tune with the time. The global trend is to move away from the command economy towards the market economy. The rejection of the Eastern European countries of their communist system proves the superiority of the free market system. Our adoption of a free market allocation of Government services would lead to greater efficiency in the allocation of limited resources. However, in certain areas where the Government has been the provider of the safety net services, in particular, health services, we should ask ourselves whether Singaporeans are ready to accept this greater responsibility for their own welfare. In many cases, I am not even talking about their ability to pay. In many cases, they are able to pay. I am talking about the mind-set of Singaporeans.

Sir, the reason I pose this question is that when I thought about some of the Government polices in the past, I am not so sure that we have always properly evaluated and anticipated the reactions of Singaporeans. Two examples come to my mind. Firstly, the taxi fare increases in 1985 when the flagged-down fare was increased to $2. At that time, most Singaporeans were so shocked by it that they switched to an alternate mode of transportation en masse, leading to protests from taxi drivers. Whereas the Government believed that the taxi commuters indeed took the increases in their stride.

Secondly, the petrol tax increases around the same period when a large number of Singaporeans drove over to Johor for cheap petrol, and wasting valuable time in pursuit of a few dollar savings. Again, a completely unnecessary waste of human energy. In fact, I still remember some drivers installing additional fuel tanks in their cars. I believe these were quite unanticipated by the Government. In both cases, the Government's decision was reversed later.

On the other hand, today, when the interim measure of $5,000 was imposed on the registration fee at the beginning of this year to deter the mad rush to buy cars, not everybody was deterred. Not only that, the $5,000 has become the benchmark for the transaction pricing of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) in the secondary market. In fact, this has allowed many who are successful in bidding their COE to make great profits even though the scheme was introduced with the assurance that speculation would not pay.

Sir, I surmise from these example that the reaction of Singaporeans could be quite different from that anticipated by the Government. Some might say that in the examples I gave, the economic recession of 1985 and the economic boom of 1989 account for this difference in reaction. That the change in economic fortunes of Singaporeans definitely plays a significant part in these different reactions cannot be discounted. However, if we just accept that as the explanation, we might miss some other reasons for these different responses from our people.

Sir, I think another reason for the unanticipated reaction of Singaporeans is the fact that these are indeed responses from two very distinct and different groups of Singaporeans. In one group, we have the wealthy, the upward mobile, the younger generation. And in the other group, we have the older generation, the not-so-rich, not so well educated, and the poor. The seemingly inexhaustible money to buy new cars obviously comes from the first group and the people who change their behaviour to save a few dollars definitely come from the second group. However, Sir, I believe that wealth alone is not the dividing line in these two groups. The habit of spending and the value of money inculcated in a person through his upbringing and his past experience is indeed the key differentiating these two groups.

One reason we have such a dichotomy of people in our society, I believe, Sir, is our rapid development over the past 25 years. Our rapid economic development has telescoped our development time-frame from an underdeveloped country into a reasonably well-developed country which will normally take three to four generations into one single generation, so much so that today in Singapore we have a group that can fit into any western society and live comfortably, and another group that still retains the mentality of people of an underdeveloped country. Had we developed at a slower pace then the transition would take place over a longer period of time, and this dichotomy would not have been so distinct. As it is, we are a society in transition, a transition between the old and the new, the past and the future. For the people in the first group, they will be able to adapt to Government's move towards market allocation of Government resources. In fact, many of these people would prefer less Government interference in their daily lives. For instance, they would prefer greater access to information, eg, on satellite television. They would also prefer less censorship in their reading and entertainment materials.

The second group, however, Sir, still clutches to the more socialistic concept of government, namely, the government has to provide the basic social and health services; the government as an arbiter of equitable distribution of resources. As the individuals in this group grow older and retire, their dependency on Government increases. As the Government moves towards greater free market allocation of social services, in particular health services, these are the people most affected and they are the people least likely to adapt to the new world. In fact, in my point of view, it is a problem of how to live in a developed country with an under-developed income.

In one of my dialogue sessions with my constituents, one of the retirees present made a simple point. And this point is that his fellow retirees are afraid of getting sick. They fear the very thought of hospitalisation because they have known of acquaintances whose life savings were wiped out in one single major operation. They feel that the Government they have supported all these years and they have paid tax dutifully all these years has changed the rule on them. They see sizeable accumu- lated surpluses in the Government, and yet they fear of growing old, they fear of getting sick and die a pauper through high medical costs. I must add that not everyone has gone through this and suffered this plight. But I think it is the worry that they would have to go through this path that remains with these people.

While I think the policies of Government towards free market forces and privatisation are the correct ones, I would urge the Government that in the pursuit of privatisation it should take into consideration this sizeable group of people who still prefer the old ways. I think, Sir, we could accommodate them. For instance, I would urge that we adopt what I would call "life-line" policies concurrently as Government services are privatised. I call this "life-line", using the analogy of a life line being thrown to a person who has fallen into rough water, so that he could grasp the life line, be pulled aboard and be saved.

In health services, the promise by the Government to retain class C wards is a very good example. And in the privatisation of PUB, I would urge a life-line service with minimum charges for some basic consumption level. In the privatisation of Singapore Telecom, I would propose a life-line service for each household so that some basic services can be provided at the minimum cost.

I hope through the acceptance of this life-line concept, the interest of this sector of Singapore society, ie, the under-developed sector, can be taken into consideration. I hope through such policies this Government will continue to serve all Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion thanking the President for his Address.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin in thanking the President for his Address to this House on 7th June, 1990.

We have been given the rare opportunity to listen to the President for the second time in this Parliament. The President has given an update to this House and to all Singaporeans on the progress of Government policies and the tasks ahead in the remaining months of the year. The President has told us that once we have resolved the few remaining items on the agenda, we would have reached the "end of a major phase in our nation building".

We are into the watershed in Singapore's political development - a change in the Prime Ministership by the end of the year. Indeed, we have all been prepared and are ready to have Mr Goh Chok Tong as Prime Minister.

We will certainly miss Mr Lee Kuan Yew at the helm. But Prime Minister Lee is doing this voluntarily for the greater love of Singapore. Singapore's political leadership will remain young and dynamic to enable us to forge ahead.

There is no country in the world where political leaders who are still fit and healthy are prepared to make way for their successors whom they have helped to nurture and groom. Maybe that is what makes Singapore special and extraordinary.

Over the last 25 years, we have achieved high rates of economic growth and development. With the experience behind us and if we put some of the bitter lessons to good use, we should continue to make further advances in our economy. Singaporeans can look forward to enjoying higher standards of living.

Politically, our system of parliamentary democracy has remained largely intact. There have been refinements introduced, for example, the GRC, the NCMP and the nominated MP. We have been given notice that the Elected President will be added as a new feature to our political system and indeed in our Constitution.

Our political and legal systems have been modelled largely along the UK and Commonwealth traditions. We are very much influenced by our English-speaking background. Is there nothing that we cannot learn from the non-English speaking countries and the systems like that of the French, the Germans and the Japanese? These countries have different history and tradition. They evolve ideas, concepts and systems that suit their culture and their environment. They have dared to be different. They have been equally successful in achieving high standards of living for their peoples.

In Singapore, we may appear peculiar in the way we solve our problems. Indeed, we may have learnt the art of reverse engineering in the political field. But then, the challenges that we face require unique solutions - we do them Singapore-style.

I just wish to state that we should be rational, objective and realistic in discussing the issue of Elected President. We shall have the opportunity to debate the issue in greater depth when the Bill on the Elected President is introduced in this House.

At the social level, I see the need for the Government to critically review the policies in a number of areas. I feel that though there is a growing middle class in Singapore, the income gap between the well-off and the less well-off has widened. I am concerned that the Government policies of late have tended to affect the lower-income category proportionately more.

I do subscribe to the principles that excellent efforts should be rewarded and the users of services should bear the cost in consuming them. But what good is a society where the well-off does not lend a helping hand to the less well-off and the poor? We should continue to make our fiscal policies progressive so that those who can afford to pay more are asked to do so, be it in school fees or hospital charges. We can in fact emulate the principles embodied in the Yayasan Mendaki scheme.

If we accept that there is always a small percentage of Singaporeans who would not be able to afford to purchase their own homes and need to depend on rented HDB accommodation, we have to ask ourselves whether the old designed 1-room flat is suitable as a family accommodation, say, for a couple with two growing children.

One common ground given by these families who could not afford to buy their HDB flats is that they do not have CPF savings. In this regard, I welcome the steps taken by the CPF Board to insist that all employers contribute to their workers' CPF accounts. Means must be found to make the lower-income workers contribute regularly and to accumulate their CPF savings.

Sir, on the subject of shared values, I believe that Singaporeans are already identifying themselves as such. Many Singaporean art-works, books, music, dramas have been produced that have distinctively Singaporean characteristics and flavour. The climate is right to encourage more Singaporean works to be produced and promoted as part of our cultural development.

As we open our doors to more immigrants from overseas, the social fabric of our society will undergo further changes. Therefore there is a need to continue to evolve a Singaporean identity to unite our people so that there would be no doubt that we are one people - our loyalty, dedication and patriotism will no longer be questioned.

We want to make Singapore one that we are proud to belong, and build a nation with peace, progress and prosperity for all Singaporeans.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the motion.

The Address by the President provides a good intermediate reference point to the people and the Government as to the direction and the achievements of the Government in this Parliament. It is good to search ourselves occasionally and to make sure the people are with us.

It is gladdening that the President in his Address makes a special point in mentioning that the Government will do more to help the lower-income group by building up their assets and lightening the burden of bringing up their school children, in meeting their expenses.

I hope the Government will spell out more soon on what the specific policies are. This will greatly lessen the anxiety which many Singaporeans are feeling in the face of rising charges in their day-to-day living expenses.

Over the last 1 1/2 years since the opening of the Seventh Parliament, the Government has pushed through many measures - education fees, in car and car parking charges, in health, etc. I must say that they are done for good reasons, and necessary. Politics and Government being the art of the possible, I do not doubt that the leaders are fully conscious of this. Yet it is significant to remember that the average Singaporean worker is earning only about $1,000 a month. With economic growth and full employment, income growth may rise, but real gain is constrained by productivity gains. It is quite common to hear complaints among the lower-income group of rising charges. It is wise of the Government to do more and soon enough.

I must applaud the Malay community and the Mendaki leadership in rising to the challenge in accepting the Government's proposal, first braved by the First Deputy Prime Minister, on the administrating of the financial subsidies for Malay students. Such sound-minded choices in the response to the challenge can only prove that our Malay brethren has what it takes in meeting the challenges of the future and in interacting equally with the other ethnic groups in Singapore.

I believe it is in the interaction of Singaporeans at work and play, with one another, and with the world, that will finally forge a Singaporean identity. We have been attempting to do that for the past 170 years. A body of principles for the people, such as the Constitution or a National Ideology, vis-a-vis the Government, the State, law and justice, individual freedom and the social limits, can be a basis to evolve the Singaporean nation. But I am not sure whether a formal statement of shared values can be of much help to evolve a Singaporean identity. A statement of shared values can at best give an expression of common ground among our races. Yet, it is in the areas of ambiguous and uncommon ground, the uniqueness, the character and the identity of Singaporeans are forged that makes one pick out a fellow Singaporean in the streets of London, or Tokyo or San Francisco and feel comfortable with him whether he or she is a Chinese, Indian or a Malay. Such an identity is evolved out of working, playing and generally interacting equally and respectfully. Sometimes it is by the turmoil of the age that the identity is catharsised. We often talk about the old Singaporeans who have been through the 50s and the battle for merger. We often say today of the young who do not know.

The problem is how to transmit the experience and the virtues born out of necessity of the age and the times. It is through the history books, the fables, the drama, the fun, the leaders and the people interacting with one another with the outside changing world that this character is forged. It is through the sweat of training and sometimes the call of battle.

I remember when I was an officer controlling a unit of soldiers on an exercise when I was doing my national service more than 10 years ago. It was on one of the hills inside SAFTI. It was beginning to rain heavily. A young soldier on exercise ran up to me and gave me his raincoat while he was on the move, though he knew that he would have a long day and night ahead. He did not know me because I was not his officer as I came from another unit. He was from the Malay platoon. I thanked him but kindly refused his offer. He was a Singaporean. He interacted with me equally as a soldier to his officer. And I hope that I did the right thing by refusing his kind offer. We understood one another at that point in time.

A statement of shared values may not evolve the Singaporean identity. But I believe more and more Singaporeans of all races interacting with one another equally with mutual respect to our race, our language and religion will confirm that Singaporeans know that what they share in experience and work and play gives them their unique character, more than what they possess from their own culture or social or religious background.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to turn to the Addenda to the President's Address. In the section by the Minister for Finance, it was mentioned that legislation on a broad-based consumption tax would be introduced this year and that actual implementation would be deferred for as long as the revenue position permits. I wish to suggest that it may not be wise to defer the implementation for as long as the revenue position permits. If times are good, the revenue position should be good. The economy is doing well. The Government collects more revenue in taxes. If the economy is not doing well or in recession or when the Government's budget goes into deficit for expansionary growth, the revenue position deteriorates. Collecting revenue then through a consumption tax may not be wise. It would be the wrong time to implement the consumption tax as it would have further deflationary or withdrawal effects on the economy. At such times also, the Government would be subject to other pressures politically and economically.

I would suggest and urge the Minister for Finance to consider the consumption tax bearing in mind the experience of the women voters in Japan. If it should be implemented, it may be better to introduce it on a graduated scale in good times, not bad ones, when the revenue position more than permits.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to turn to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Minister observed that other global actors are coming on to the screen and that the East/West relations have never been better. It is gladdening that the Minister will continue to exploit the opportunities present in this new situation. Yet, the end of Communism in East Europe and the disunion in the Soviet Union and the new multi-polar world with many potential medium powers do not necessarily mean that peace is at hand. Of great concern is the military pull-out of the United States from the region with the problem faced by them in the Philippines. The ensuing vacuum may attract interest which may not be beneficial in the longer run. But I have no doubt that the Minister has an answer to this changing danger.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, finally, I wish to support the motion.

Encik Zulkifli Bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Tanglin in thanking the President for the Address which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the Second Session of the Seventh Parliament.

Firstly, Sir, allow me to say a few words on the subject of "Consultative Government and Consensus Building". In my view, the "experiment" we started in early 1985 in having a greater number of concerned Singaporeans participate in decisions that will chart our nation's future course is working out satisfactorily. By now, few will dispute the fact that the Government has amply demonstrated its serious intent and purpose in seeking inputs and feedback on national issues. This is evident by the encouraging response witnessed during the several dialogue sessions, be it during Ministerial walkabouts or at Feedback Unit sessions or at the constituency level.

To me, the ball is now in the court of many Singaporeans and they should make good use of the opportunities presented to them. The argument that the Government is not listening no longer holds water. What is required is for all parties to have an open mind and think positively so as not to misunderstand each other's motives and thus make it difficult to work for consensus. It is critical that Singaporeans have the courage and commitment to make their ideas, views and opinions known by giving concrete proposals and alternatives and not just comment or criticise for comment or criticism sake.

Secondly, Sir, I would like to touch on the point regarding the progress of the Malays. It is indeed heartening to note that the Government is giving its full backing to MENDAKI. To yield the desired results, it must be recognised that the Government's commitment must be matched by an appropriate response from the Malay community.

One clear signal is the decision by MENDAKI (after consultation with several Malay organisations) to accept the proposal to charge Malay students from better-off families tertiary education fees. For the Malays to continue to move forward, all concerned Malay-Muslim organisations and the Malay community must rally behind MENDAKI so that they can focus on the major issues and problems and avoid being distracted by parties with ulterior motives. For example, the call made by some quarters to MENDAKI to set up a special committee to administer the tertiary fees is contradictory to the self-help aspiration and is therefore irrelevant.

With this fresh approach taken by MENDAKI on the fee issue, I hope the observation, whether rightly or wrongly, of Malays not wanting to be in the mainstream will be seen in its proper perspective. The point I wish to put across is we must be clear of what we mean by "mainstream" as otherwise our different ethnic groups will be clinging to mindsets which would be obstacles to better understanding.

Finally, Sir, we are entering a new phase in our political development when Mr Goh Chok Tong takes over as Prime Minister by the end of this year. Singaporeans fully realise that to take over the reins of the state from our esteemed Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, is indeed a daunting task. Having known Mr Goh's style of political leadership, let us be unequivocal in giving him the requisite understanding, support and cooperation for our nation's continued well-being.

Our nation-building efforts are far from over because the greatest challenge facing Singporeans today is how to ensure that we continue to make progress as a cohesive society for our future generations.

On this note, Sir, I once again support the motion moved by the Member for Tanglin.