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

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [11th June, 1990],

'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.".' - [Mr Lew Syn Pau].

Question again proposed. 12.36 pm

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, on Monday, 11th June, 1990, the Straits Times carried a front page news headline on the kitchen that caved in at a flat in Bedok. I was saddened by the news because it is a fear that I had long ago and it came true. It was the pace in which we built flats and I was afraid of the lack of supervision involved, and this actually happened.

But what attracted my attention most, and I was very concerned, were the comments made by the HDB's Chief Executive officer, Mr Chuang Kwong Yong who said recently that:

'Spalling concrete and other defects such as tiles popping up from floors were due to poor on-site supervision by the Board during the rush to build flats from 1980 to 1986.'

The question in my mind is: how safe are the other flats built during the period 1980-86? Will cave-in likely to occur again? What assurances will the Board give to the owners of the flats built during that period? If poor supervision is the root cause, will HDB conduct a survey of all flats built during that period? With the Hotel New World still fresh in our memory, this fear is a very real one. I hope the HDB will advise on these matters to calm their fears.

Reading the comments of the HDB's CEO, I cannot help thinking that his comments may be true in many other areas. Is it not true in years past that we were very concerned or sometimes very obsessed with numbers, quantities or achieving of goals in the shortest time possible? We are rightly proud that we build the greatest number of flats in record time. We are elated that our economic figures shot up in such a short period. We are very happy that so many foreign investments have been committed and, of course, not forgetting our MRT was completed in record time and ahead of schedule. And not forgetting that so many national events have been organised or will be held to celebrate the 25th anniversary. It is like going down the rapids where you have no time to stop to rest, to consolidate, and to review.

But the biggest question I have is: granted that the form is impressive, what about the contents? We have been building flats for so many years, and did it not occur to our architects that our void decks are really void - void of activities, unfriendly and, in some blocks, very ghostly in the night? I was wondering to myself what is the purpose of void decks if they are not used daily by the residents. Can we not design a more friendly void deck where residents can interact? Can we not cater for some snacks and refreshment stalls to brighten up the void decks? Yes, I think we have the greatest number of void decks in the world. But is it not better to have void decks which residents can find them useful?

Our architects have been designing coffeeshops ever since HDB flats were built. Coffeeshop is our way of life. But I think we should take a look at our coffeeshop. The design of our coffeeshop is such that customers and patrons have got to compete with the heat coming out from the stalls. We all know that we like to sit in the open air to enjoy our food. Can we not design a better and more bearable coffeeshop which can then be our national identity? Just as in Europe, they have the sidewalk cafes as their identity there? I am sure if we stop, consolidate and review the designs, and not just be so caught up with numbers, I think we can come out with better designs.

In the field of education, we have been very successful in producing students in great numbers with good results. One observation I have is that many of these students are poor in articulation and in application of their knowledge. Can this be because in our school system students have always been commanded to be quiet, speak only when spoken to, and if a child is outspoken he is labelled as talkative and sometimes penalised? Exposed and disciplined in such an environment for about 10 years in primary and secondary schools, it is possible that our students will graduate as we see them today. Yes, we produce many students, but what about their personal development?

In business, we have always been very happy, and rightly so, to see so many big MNCs coming out with their foreign investments in Singapore. And also rightly so, our whole Government machinery is geared to promoting them and hoping that they would establish here to increase the economic pie that we have. But my concern is, in the midst of all this activity for attracting foreign businessmen to Singapore, the increase in foreign investments, what about the local businessmen? The local businessmen have always been advised by Ministers and Government officials to automate and to go for overseas projects. Though the advices were well intended, the realities are that because we are clouded by the high investments of MNCs, we tend to pay relatively small attention to the local businessmen. I think that we should increase our focus to help the local businessmen so that they can be helped to go overseas.

Recently, as you can see, there have been many Government-owned companies competing for the local business. These companies can do well because of many reasons. There are two main reasons. Many of these companies have no cash flow problems and their old boys' network is very large, especially among the Ministries. The achievements of these companies have blurred our vision of a possible disaster that can occur in the future. When these Government-owned companies grow in numbers and size, they will be very formidable. The biggest danger is when you have an inefficient government. Things can go very wrong. I have no doubt that this is unlikely for the next 15-20 years. But it will be prudent for us to anticipate such possibility.

Touching on the quality of life in Singapore, our lifestyle is very much influenced by three factors, as I can see it, namely, the non-welfare state, productivity and meritocracy. The non-welfare state has unconsciously generated in us a sense of insecurity. We often hear people saying that they must save for rainy days. But there is a very thin line drawn between prudence and insecurity and, as such, it does not augur well for the psychology of our people.

Next, productivity. In the area of productivity, usually the companies view it from their point of view. As such, productivity in Singapore has always been correlated very closely with long hours of work. The long hours that a person spends in work has resulted in very little time left for social interaction and recreation. This has created some problems.

Finally, we have meritocracy. Although we must achieve excellence, meritocracy has an ugly side. Meritocracy has the danger of producing a very selfish population, in that if one wants to excel, he or she would try to be the best and very often it means keeping information and not helping others. I admit that it is difficult to strike a balance between what we are doing and what I have said earlier. But I would like to suggest maybe one way to mitigate this situation is to create an environment in Singapore so that daily informal social interaction can take place instead of the organised events that we have in Singapore.

Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC): Sir, I support the motion.

The President has given us a general idea of how Singapore will be governed under the new leadership. Two features stand out in particular - consultative government and the Elected President. Whatever the merits of the Elected President, what impressed me were two vital ingredients which have been endorsed by the Government, ingredients which are vital to administration in any democracy. First, open government and, second, a system of checks and balances.

Sir, a government which is detached, impervious and inscrutable can be effective but not indefinitely. It can only work where and for so long as you have people who due to their circumstances are preoccupied with other problems, for example, the need to survive. Our parents found themselves in that situation. They were out to sink roots in Singapore. Their primary concern was to earn a living and to do that, they needed a secure environment. They had come from places and backgrounds which had given them a real sense of insecurity and which encouraged them to play the game according to the rules, as it were. They were not likely to rock the boat or to allow anyone to do that if the result of that exercise were to increase the insecurity in Singapore. They had nothing to gain from challenging, questioning or taking issue with the manner in which government was run if that government was seen to be fair and honest. They had other problems on their mind.

In that context, one can understand why in the 50s and the 60s it was not fashionable to demand for the rights which during that time had become cherished by the Americans - democratic ideals, in particular, the need for accountability. But we have come a long way. Due to education and information, we have been brought up to question, to assert our views, to demand respect and to take control of our own destinies. Gone are the days when Singaporeans would do what they are told to do because it is in the interest of themselves and in the interest of Singaporeans.

Some of us see this as a degenerative trend which, if left unchecked, would result in a tearing of our social fabric. Measures have been put in place, for example, the reshaping of our educational policies and the encouragement of acquisition of cultural ballast. And in fact we have also been accused of over legislating. These measures have an effect but the effect will be limited. The process of westernisation is an inextricable one. There is no stopping people who have had the benefit of education and information from reaching out for western ideals, especially accountability. There is just too much information flowing into Singapore and the sources of such information will increase over time. Increasing numbers travel and they make up their own minds about the merits of one system over another. Satellite TV, as we all know, is at the doorstep and I personally cannot see how we can keep the door shut.

Short of a calamity affecting the standing of the United States in the eyes of the world or affecting our livelihood, it is my view that this empathy for the need for accountability will strengthen with the passage of time. If the system is to survive, we must anticipate and accommodate these ideals of democracy. We must adapt our style and system of government so that we keep in tune with the mood, as it were. Participation in government is one such way and we have been doing that. I applaud that move. But we have to move further afield now.

It is time that we changed the stony and sometimes disrespectful face of the public servant and made him accountable for his decisions which affect the lives of the man-in-the-street. Accountability of the public service is, in my respectful view, the safest guarantee for the integrity and survival of the system. Hundreds of Singaporeans interact with public servants everyday and quite a few of them walk away extremely disgruntled for two reasons. One, the nature of the decision which is made in respect of their case and, two, the manner in which they are treated.

As things stand today, public servants can make decisions without giving reasons for those decisions. And without reasons, how are we to know whether those decisions have been taken rationally, legally, in good faith and with full access to all relevant information?

Most of us believe that the public service in Singapore is well oiled, fair, efficient. But there are many people who feel differently. These are the people who have had their applications rejected without reasons. These are people who have gone for assistance, for answers, to public servants but have been treated very badly, extremely shoddily. And their feelings for the Government must take a turn for the worse and with good reason. This is all very counter productive because, as we know, our Ministers spend a lot of time listening to members of the public, accommodating their views. They do their best to give members of the public as much access to them as is possible. What good is all of this going to do if the representative of the Government, which the man-in-the-street encounters everyday, is rude and is disrespectful?

Sir, all of us are accountable. MPs are accountable to constituents. Judges are accountable to Appellate Judges. Ministers are accountable in a way. Public servants may well take the position that they are accountable to their respective Ministers in Parliament. But there is this theory of accountability of Ministers in Parliament which in practical terms works in a very limited way. We all know that in Parliament we debate legislation and we discuss policy matters through the legislative process. It is a very rare occasion when we get down into the nitty-gritty of individual complaints, ie, complaints of constituents in relation to their livelihood. We do not discuss these things in Parliament.

It is in our interest, I suggest, that we develop a system of accountability, a system which will assure the man-in-the-street that if he has a grievance, he can take it to a person or a body who has a right or has power to look into it, look into the files of the Ministry, if necessary, or bring a complaint of shoddy treatment up to the superiors. This can be done by appointing a commissioner, or what in other jurisdictions is called an Ombudsman, with powers to look into complaints, with powers to redress grievances about treatment.

Alternatively, the terms of reference of the Feedback Unit could be widened. So people with legitimate grievances can come forward and feel and believe that there is someone willing to listen to them and someone willing to take something up. At the same time, I would ask Government to consider changing the entire system about not giving reasons when decisions are made rejecting applications. Reasons should be given as far as possible. If reasons are given, constituents or MPs, on constituents' behalf, can know the reasons why an application is unsuccessful and take steps to address that problem. If more information is required, obtain that information. If guidelines have not been complied with, then the man-in-the-street will know what he has to do to comply with the relevant guidelines. If these steps are put in place, Sir, people will believe that they are being given fair treatment. If that is the case, Sir, there will be very little reason, or at least less reason, for them to be upset with the system. Our system cannot be hurt if we experiment with an exercise to ensure fair play.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I touch on the subject which I intended to speak on, I must say a few words about what the Member for Paya Lebar has said concerning the HDB. Let me declare my interest. I am a member of the Board of Directors of HDB. I think that the CEO of HDB was being frank when he said that during the rush to build so many flats the on-site supervision by the Board was poor and that HDB now has a programme to correct all these defects. An unfortunate event happened in Bedok where in the repair of spalling concrete, the floor caved in. A statement has been made by the HDB on this. We still do not know completely what happened because there are a number of things which could have given cause to this unfortunate accident. The Member for Bedok GRC, Dr Hong Hai, has asked for a full explanation and I think we should await for a full explanation of this incident before we jump to the conclusion that the buildings are unsafe for habitation. I think the last thing that we should do, as responsible Members of Parliament, is to cause panic. We should not cause panic among the people.

Members will also recall in the statement of the HDB that with respect to the particular case in the block concerned, HDB has given an assurance that the building is safe and that the fault has not affected the structural integrity of that particular building. So I think we should all sit back and wait for the HDB's full explanation in response to the Member for Bedok GRC before we make any further statements on this.

Sir, let me now turn to the subject that I wish to speak on. Here I must first express my support for the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin.

The most significant event of this session of Parliament is the impending leadership transition. The preparation has been thorough and we will see a smooth transition. But yet every change must bring with it a different environment and possibly unexpected results. It is said that the style of Government will change to reflect the character and thinking of the new man at the helm. But styles may change to fit the needs of the times. We cannot preclude that there will be no other developments, planned or unplanned, that may be in store as a result of change. The forces of history are not under the control of any one man. A strong personality can influence the cause of history but cannot control totally the course of history. As such, we must be prepared for change, and whatever that may come our way. To cope with change, we must be guided by certain constants. What are these constants? These are fundamental values on which our society is founded. On these values, policies are shaped. These core values are those we share in common. These are values which our multi-racial, multi-religious society hold as fundamental for the maintenance of peace and harmony without which progress and prosperity cannot be achieved.

First and foremost, is the principle that every citizen of Singapore has an equal and rightful place, irrespective of race, language or religion.

Before 1959, I was in primary school. At that time I could not fully understand what was going on in our island except that the British were the masters and we were not of the same status as them. Singaporeans were not happy over this state of affairs, and demanded the right to manage our own destiny.

In 1959, we made the first step to independence, with internal self-government. It was an event of great rejoicing, when all Singaporeans felt that at last we had made one significant step upwards - from being a subject people, towards full nationhood.

What followed was merger with Malaysia. It was welcome. At last we attained full independence. The Federation held out great promise. The future was ours to shape.

By then, I was in secondary school. It seemed to me then, that the path to the promised land was, to put it mildly, rocky. We were all Malaysian citizens, but why were there differences between bumiputras and non-bumiputras? As a non-bumiputra, I felt a sense of gross injustice that I was less than equal to others as a citizen.

A few years later, during my undergraduate days in the United Kingdom, I was to meet Malaysians, mostly Chinese. They felt strongly the sense of injustice that there were no equal opportunities for everyone, that race was first and foremost in most things. I could well understand why some of them even talked of joining Chin Peng in the jungles.

For us in Singapore, our union with Malaysia was to be shortlived. We were on our own in August 1965. When our Prime Minister said soon after separation, and I quote:

'We are going to have a multi-racial nation in Singapore. This is not a Malay nation, not a Chinese nation, not an Indian nation.'

I could fully share this value. I could fully identify myself with this principle.

Having been a minority, I was fully prepared to extend to the minorities in our small country an equal place in our nation as his basic right. This was a principle that the vast majority of Singaporeans could agree upon. Singapore cannot be founded on the superiority of any one race. The only basis is that of equality of all races, with the right to use his own language, and to practise his own faith. The PAP included this as one of its fundamental planks - this has been repeated in its manifestos, and enshrined in its constitution. Today, one of its objectives in its constitution reads as follows, and I quote:

'To forge a nation of Singaporeans; to build a multi-racial society, fair, just and tolerant to all, whatever their race, language and religion; to infuse into Singaporeans a sense of national identity and to bind them together by patriotism and commitment to Singapore.'

Because the PAP held this out as a fundamental principle to all, Singaporeans identified with the PAP, and the PAP won the support of the people.

It has been because of this fundamental principle that we have enjoyed peace and harmony, in spite of our multi-racial and multi-religious character. Not all multi-racial and multi-religious countries have been so similarly fortunate.

This is a fundamental principle on which our nation is based. It must remain so, if we are to continue to enjoy peace and harmony. Therefore, the Government, under a new leader, must continue to abide by this principle. We should take care, when new policies are formulated, that we do not breach this basic principle. I know that equality has been the cornerstone of all Government policies. In the implementation of policies, however, fair play and justice may not be seen to be upheld by our minority races. If this is so, and where this is so, we should correct them.

Equality extends not only to consideration of race, language or religion. Each citizen must have equal opportunity in all things, whatever his station in life. This has been also one of the fundamental principles upheld by the PAP.

For example, education has been open to all. It has been the policy of the PAP that every child shall have a place in school. He should be given whatever help necessary to achieve the highest level of education that he is capable of. Because of this, whether from rich or poor, a child can rise up in society. For the poor, this is especially important, as it holds up the hope that if they themselves are not able to enjoy the good life, then at least their children can aspire to that. This again is fundamental to peace and harmony in our society. In fact, so important is this principle that it has also been enshrined in the current PAP constitution, and I quote:

'Within the overriding interest of the good of society, to provide equal opportunities for all Singaporeans to strive to fulfil themselves and to achieve their maximum potential through education and training so that there will be a place and a role for every Singaporean, whatever his contribution.'

Today, we may take these two fundamental principles for granted. But it bears restating these fundamentals on which the policies of the new administration will be based. Today, we are searching for shared values, to enshrine them as the basis of our nationhood. We must ensure that every citizen shall have an equal and rightful place in our society. Beyond this, we must find values we share in common, values that bind us together.

The search, in fact, was commenced much earlier than the past couple of years. It started even just after we attained independence on our own. For example, Mr Lim Kim San said in the 60s that Singapore's most urgent task was to find a common national framework for people of different races, languages, religions and cultures. Mr Rajaratnam said: "It should be our constant and unrelenting purpose to make people aware of, and become emotionally attached to, these commonly shared cultural elements."

What are these other elements? The PAP's early constitution holds some. It said:

'... to infuse into the people ... a spirit of national unity, self-respect and self-reliance, and to inspire them with a sense of endeavour in the creation of a prosperous, stable and just society.'

These are sound values. And I feel one of the more important words is the word "just", and we must at all times strive to ensure that what we do is just.

What other values? These can include what Mr Ong Pang Boon said years ago: "... cultivate such simple virtues as obedience, patience, honesty, courage and self-discipline."

Mr Speaker, Sir, we await the White Paper on Shared Values. In line with the desire for participatory democracy, I hope that Singaporeans will join in the discussion on our commonly held values that will strengthen our nation.

As Mr Rajaratnam once said: "It should be our constant and unrelenting purpose to make people aware of, and become emotionally attached to, these commonly shared cultural elements."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the motion.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the President's Address to Parliament on 7th June this year. The Presidential Address provides a broad framework for us to analyse our various political, social, educational and health issues. It also brings up the difficulties that we may have to face in our future development and the need to work out strategies to counter these difficulties. Despite all the issues that were raised, I propose to speak only on the issue of shared values.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a multi-racial society. We treasure the fact that since our independence, we have never had divisively considered ourselves as belonging to the "majority group" or the "minority group". Everyone is treated equally, and we all live together in peace and harmony. And this is precisely the very important factor contributing to our vigorous development in the past 25 years. We have no racial discrimination or racial conflicts. On the contrary, we are now working on how to promote further interaction and harmonious relationship among our various races. Not too long ago, some organisations attempted to merge the various cultures together in the hope of speeding up the evolution of a representative Singaporean culture. For instance, different types of drums from different races were put together for a joint performance of drums with the view to producing a musical movement unique to Singapore. Such an undue haste to integrate different traditional cultures and, at the same time, thinking this is mere formality, will get us nowhere. However, from this example, one can appreciate how anxious we are to further build consensus among the various races and to establish a common culture and feeling.

To deal with the traditional spirit and culture of different races, in a superfical manner, is bound to fail. The reason lies not only in the attitude in which the problem is tackled but, more importantly, on the lack of understanding that if we want to promote the exchange of thinking and culture among the various races, we must first of all have a deep understanding of the thinking and culture of the respective races.

So when we are dealing with the shared values of the various races, the facts that I have just mentioned may serve as a reference.

Shared values should not be confined to only one level. We could have the national level and we could also have the racial level. The shared values put forward at the national level must be based on the racial level, in order that they may be strong and relevant. In other words, when we put forward suitable and appropriate shared values which can be accepted by the people of Singapore, apart from those which are made in the national interest, they must also be based on the racial level. As such, it is essential that we thoroughly study and understand the thinking, cultural traditions and history of the various races.

In this respect, I must emphasise that although the various races have their respective cultural roots, what is more important is that these people from the various races have been living in Singapore for a long time, and many of these people have been born and brought up here. Their feelings for, their identification with, and loyalty to Singapore, coupled with the influence of the other races and foreign cultures, have resulted in their thinking, habits and customs, and cultural characteristics being significantly different from their original or native cultural traditions. If we probe deeper into the flesh and blood relationship and feelings of the various races with Singapore, we will be able to discover the consensus among the various races and their deep-rooted, latent or manifested common identification with Singapore. From here, we will be able to define the shared values of the people of Singapore.

Of course, exchanges of traditional cultures among the various races may help to promote better understanding among the races. And that is why the organisation of cultural months for the various races is very meaningful.

To sum up, my view is that there is a need to work out and shape the shared values of the people of Singapore. This will enhance the cohesiveness of our society and strengthen the unity of our people. However, the shapping of shared values must not be treated as a mere formal process. There must be a deep understanding of the thinking and cultural traditions of the various races for the values to be strong, effective and relevant. And this is particularly so if we appreciate how the various races identify themselves with the type of culture peculiar to Singapore. A set of shared values developed and worked out along this line will be more readily acceptable to the various races in Singapore, and will be capable of building up a consensus among our people here.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the President's Address at the Opening of the New Session of Parliament. I share the President's confidence that our country's future will be bright and that we will be able to continue to forge ahead so long as we maintain the same spirit and cohesion, not forgetting our vulnerabilities and potential dangers. The action plan outlined by the President will definitely enable our people to enjoy a better quality of life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Speech has drawn the nation's attention to the task of binding Singaporeans together, despite differences in race and religion. The Government hopes to achieve this objective by the introduction of a National Ideology through which a set of shared values can be crystallised.

Sir, I believe this important factor would ensure our continued success in the preservation of racial harmony and cohesion amongst our various ethnic communities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the Government's motive in pursuing this objective in the next phase of our nation building.

The Government's support for Mendaki and the crystallisation of a set of shared values, so outlined in the President's Address, will strengthen social cohesion and help us to evolve a distinct Singaporean identity.

The National Ideology, to be agreed upon by consensus, will give our people a compass with which to steer the future of the nation in the decades ahead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, in particular the first generation leadership, should be congratulated for setting the right conditions for all our ethnic communities to live and progress together in the spirit of peace and harmony.

Due to the foresight of the first generation leadership, the Government has achieved racial harmony through adherence to multi-racialism in all its policies and programmes. Just to give you a few examples. The Government has allowed Singaporeans as a whole to do their part in the defence of Singapore. The Government has introduced measures to preserve a balanced composition in our housing estates and the Government has even enshrined multi-racialism in this House through the GRC scheme. Sir, this is a record of a Government committed to multi-racialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we have achieved so far should be preserved, maintained and improved upon. One key area to preserving and enhancing harmonious inter-ethnic relations and social cohesion must lie in our education system because it is through our young that we can ensure the maintenance of racial harmony. This is one area where I feel the Government can do more. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why I am bringing up this particular point is that I have received feedback, particularly from the minority communities, that our children in the schools have become more racially conscious than in the past. It appears that children nowadays have become keenly aware of their racial differences.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my generation and the generation of the Ministers in the Frontbench and most of us in this House grew up in an environment where in our classrooms and at recreation, we mixed with Chinese, Malay and Indian friends alongside each other. This interaction makes all of us feel that we are one and we are members of the same society; racial barriers were eroded, and we did not see each other as anything but fellow Singaporeans. This is important for when we become adults, and are senior civil servants, Members of Parliament, or even Cabinet Ministers, this background and practice we have had in school are carried with us. The question is: will this multi-racial perspective and absence of racial consciousness be assured for future decision-makers in Singapore? Far from feeling self-assured about this, I am afraid our school system tends to hinder the continuation of this beneficial approach. Sir, let me explain.

Sir, at various dialogue sessions, parents have related to me a number of stories. One particular case is how his daughter in the kindergarten wanted her name changed because other children did not want to play with her. I have also met many Chinese students in junior colleges who have told me that they did not have friends from other ethnic communities during their primary and secondary education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all this, I believe, is the result of decisions taken for administrative convenience. For example, Sir, schools have grouped their students according to second language taken and this has unwittingly contributed to racial segregation. In many cases, pupils were not streamed according to academic merit but more by second language taken. Some principals of good schools discourage Indian children from joining the school by saying that Tamil will not be available as a second subject during school time. This is another example of administrative expedience. This is not the policy of the Ministry, I must make this point clear. It is individual principals of schools who take such policies.

Sir, the point I want to make is that whilst the policy of the Government is sound, it is in the implementation that we have gone wrong and as a result, we will now have to pay a price and will continue to pay a price as far as inter-racial relation is concerned, if nothing is done to correct it.

Another area which worries not only minority communities but also some educationists, including school principals, is the promotion of SAP schools, both in primary and secondary schools. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me at the outset make it clear that I understand and accept the objectives behind the establishment of SAP schools, ie, to preserve the teaching of Chinese language, and I have no quarrels on this. Whilst we are able to achieve this one objective, ie, the preservation of Chinese language and culture, we are unwittingly paying another price in terms of inter-racial relations. Children in SAP schools will be doing things, playing and studying in a totally Chinese environment with little or no contact with other ethnic groups. Sir, the Minister for Education has stated in this House and I quote:

'As I explained earlier today, we need the SAP schools in Singapore to foster a core of students who will learn Chinese as a first language and subsequently have enough expertise to transmit the language to other generations. As I said, if there is demand from Malay and Indian children to learn ML1 and TL1, we will also make arrangements to make this possible.'

Sir, the point I want to make is that it is not necessary, totally unnecessary, to set up SAP schools for Malay and Indian children. All I am saying is some ways must be found for bright students of all races to be in the same environment. I think the Ministry of Education should apply itself and find ways and means to achieve this. My colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, sometime ago suggested twinning of SAP schools with national schools. We have heard nothing from the Ministry on this subject.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid if something is not done in this direction, we may have a potential problem in our hands at a later date. As I mentioned earlier, the products from the SAP schools will ultimately hold high positions in politics, civil service and business and there could be serious implications in the way Singapore is governed and run. In saying this, let me emphasise once again that I accept the principle behind SAP schools. However, the implementation has to be looked at again from a multi-racial perspective.

Sir, education should be used as a tool to foster national consciousness and also multi-racial values in the Singapore context. Educational policies or administrative actions which tend to create racial divisiveness or result in ethnic groups being isolated should be discarded. In this light, I would call upon the Government to review the policy on SAP schools as considerable concern exists within and outside this House on the long term implications of such a policy.

In conclusion, let me urge the Government, particularly the new leadership, as my colleague, Mr Lim Boon Heng, has said earlier, to pay some greater attention and see what more can be done to promote and preserve racial harmony and cohesiveness amongst our ethnic communities.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, as in January 1989, Government on this occasion has again stated that its programme is to "create a better life for all Singaporeans." As I can recall, the PAP Government has been saying this many times over the last 30 years. And it has never failed to claim to have completed this or that part of its programme. But we may well ask: Has the PAP in fact created a better life for all Singaporeans? All Singaporeans? No, Sir. Some people? Yes. There is no doubt that some people have benefited and they do have a much better life under PAP rule. Top civil servants, for example. Our Ministers, for example, who now draw fat salaries that can be said to be the highest in the world. But what of the vast majority of workers in Singapore?

According to the Report on the Labour Force Survey of Singapore 1989, more than 65% of our workers, numbering more than 1,260,000 workers, earn less than $1,000 per month, as some other speakers have already touched on. And among them, 20% or 250,000 earn between $600 and $800; 22% or 270,000 earn between $400 and $600; and 12% or 160,000 earn less than $400 per month. Dr Vasoo has updated the last figure to 20%.

If we take away the CPF and other contributions, their take-home pay will be much less. With such low incomes, looking after a family of four is no easy matter. These people, as stated by several speakers over the last two days, live from hand to mouth. They certainly do not have a better life under PAP rule. Is it any wonder that many HDB dwellers are in arrears in their payments of lease-loan instalments, rents, PUB and conservancy charges?

In 1984, the First Deputy Prime Minister had said that one of the priorities for his new Cabinet was "help for those in the bottom 25% of society, who have missed out on progress and prosperity." Over the last six years, to say nothing of the last 30 years of PAP rule, has the Government done anything to help those in the bottom 25% of society? The answer is: hardly anything. Instead of help, all they get from the PAP are higher and higher taxes, charges and fees imposed on a wide variety of items. Little wonder that, as others have said, the rich-poor gap keeps on widening.

Take, for instance, medical charges which have been touched on by quite a few other speakers. As is well known, since 1st April, hospital charges have gone up in restructured hospitals. From 1st August, charges will also go up in all Government hospitals. Government has also promised that there will be yet further increases every year. What is worse, the number of Class C beds in all hospitals has been drastically reduced while the number of Class B2 beds has been correspondingly increased.

The NUH and SGH have no Class C beds. Hospitals have been restructured in order to pass the cost of health services on to the sick people themselves. Or to allow greater recovery of cost from consumers, as Dr Wang has put it.

For the low and middle income groups who seek hospital treatment, there is no choice but to opt for B2 beds for which they will have to pay much higher charges. Though Government has said that it will reintroduce Class C beds in SGH, that has not come about as yet. This may well take another year or two.

Government says it "will always subsidise health services for those in need of treatment who cannot afford to pay for it." How sweet these words sound. But, in actual practice, few Singaporeans will be able to pass the means test, and fewer still are willing to suffer the humiliation of having to subject themselves to all sorts of inquiries into their private lives.

It would appear that the PAP has forgotten its duty and responsibility to care for the poor and aged sick and its early Party promise to struggle for a more equal and just society which Mr Lim has just emphasised.

Government has introduced MediShield which comes into operation on the 1st of July and which had initially given many people such high hopes when the scheme was first announced. But many people have become very disappointed and disillusioned when all the details of how the scheme actually works are made known. It would appear that with all the "deductibles" incorporated in the scheme, the sick man who is stricken with a catastrophic illness will find that he benefits very little from it. Moreover, coverage ends at age 65, just when the sick most need such coverage. MediShield must therefore be suitably amended to truly help those who are stricken with catastrophic illnesses and are most in need of MediShield help.

From all this, it can be seen that far from creating a better life for all the low and middle income workers, (life for them has not been so very good) the Government has caused them more sufferings and hardships instead. Hard experience tells the people that the PAP stands for making people pay and pay. Many now say, "If you are poor, don't get sick." Dr Arthur Beng is right there. Those who have low incomes just cannot afford to get sick. That is the scandalous situation that restructuring of hospitals has brought about.

Consumption taxes. Government has stated in the Addendum of the Ministry of Finance that "Legislation on a broad-based consumption tax will be introduced this year." But since "actual implementation will be deferred for as long as the revenue situation permits," is there any reason why legislation has to be introduced this year?

Our revenue position is good. We have just had three good years with huge surpluses and our foreign reserves have reached $40 billion early this year. What need then is there for such broad-based consumption taxes?

Further, what is meant by "an equitable balance between taxes on income and consumption"? Since the 1980s, the amount of direct taxes on income compared to the indirect taxes on consumption has been progressively reduced. Now it would appear that Government intends to reduce the proportion even further. That would not be an equitable balance between taxes on income and consumption. An equitable balance would be one in which the direct taxes go up and the indirect taxes go down. But if indirect taxes or consumption taxes should instead go up, and direct taxes go down, then that would be an inequitable balance. It would be inequitable because indirect taxes impose heavier burdens on those who can least afford to pay the taxes, and especially the low and middle income groups.

The proposed consumption taxes are unfair and regressive. They do not create a better life for Singaporeans and they can only bring them further hardships. Government has already imposed consumption taxes on a wide variety of items. If it should further widen the net, then it only shows that Government is becoming more and more uncaring, and intends to impose heavier and yet heavier burdens on the people.

Privatisation - another related issue. We support privatisation of certain Government companies that are strictly commercial and that can be handled by the private sector. But we cannot support privatisation of Singapore Telecom and the PUB. These are state undertakings operated for the common benefit of all the people in the country, and also the industrial sector. When profits or surpluses are made, they go not to private individuals but to the state. And these state funds may generally be used for the general welfare of the people in various ways. Both Singapore Telecom and PUB are at present very efficiently run. Telecom has been toasted as one of the best and most advanced in the world. Moreover, we are not in need of extra funds, as I have already indicated. We therefore do not need to privatise Singapore Telecom and PUB. Privatisation will only mean selling off of Singapore's assets that have been built up over the years by the people and which belong to all the people, to those private individuals who can afford to buy shares, and to the rich and financial institutions, including foreigners.

If privatisation in UK should be any guide, privatisation of Telecom will lead to a fall in efficiency and standards and a rise in costs for consumers, "lifeline service" charges notwithstanding. Much of Singapore's land assets and industries have already fallen into the hands of foreigners. Government should not also sell off our family silver, as the saying goes.

Let me now comment briefly on our new consultative style of Government, namely, participatory democracy and consensus building.

Many speakers have heaped praise on this new style of Government of the First Deputy Prime Minister. But in praising the new style, I wonder if they also realise that they have, at the same time, perhaps inadvertently, in some ways, shown their disapproval of the old style of government under the present Prime Minister. This must certainly cause our Prime Minister some unhappiness and perhaps even make him regret that he had not practised a more consultative style of government in the past.

As for the Workers' Party, I must say that we always fully support all policies and styles of government that are truly democratic, fair and just, old or new style.

As regards the new style of Government, my question is: how has Government gone about its participatory democracy and consensus building? The First Deputy Prime Minister cites ministerial walkabouts and whatnots. Enlarging on participatory democracy he also said on 8th May, and I quote:

'On big issues, Government will spell out the problem, detail alternatives, solutions, discuss and choose the one that benefits most people and hurt the fewest'.

Very well said, Sir. I give my full support if those words are carried out to the letter. But is all this that genuine? Or is it merely another instance of PAP double-talk? Let us see how such praiseworthy policy pronouncements translate into actual practice.

On the car quota issue, for instance. The Parliamentary Select Committee Report was published on 3rd January, 1990. In less than one month Government had announced its decision to implement the quota system on 30th January 1990, and on the following day, an interim registration fee was imposed, in spite of talks by the Minister for Trade and Industry, with clear intention to mislead, that it would take some months to decide, and other Ministers also saying the same thing more or less.

There were no ministerial walkabouts, no dialogue sessions, no public debates with Government on such a big important issue, an issue which affects the lives of so many people in Singapore before the Government decision was made. Certainly the people did not have any opportunity to choose and decide for themselves since the decision had already been made for them by Government, probably even long before the Parliamentary Select Committee published its report. Moreover, the car quota system benefits only a small section of the people, namely, the well-to-do and the speculators, whereas it "hurts most people, not the fewest". So everything that has been done is just the opposite of what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. I can quite understand why Dr John Chen has put up such a spirited defence of his Party. But most people in Singapore would not be able to agree with what he has said.

From the way in which the car quota issue was handled, it can be seen that there has been no true practice of participatory democracy as pronounced by the First Deputy Prime Minister.

However, I would like to stress that pari passu with the Government leadership transition and a rapidly changing world, Government should not miss the opportunity to initiate changes similar to those that have taken place and are still taking place in Eastern Europe, and other parts of the world, including South Africa, so that we in Singapore may also develop our society into a truly participatory democracy.

What are the steps that are necessary for a participatory democracy in Singapore? A participatory democracy must mean that everyone has an opportunity to freely and without fear express views and take part in the political process of the country. Thus, the first prerequisite is that our society must be truly free and democratic. We must uphold fundamental human rights, justice and civil liberties. The whole world is marching towards democracy. Singapore should not lag behind.

It goes without saying therefore that Government must immediately and unconditionally release all political detainees, especially Chia Thye Poh, who has been detained for 23(r) years, and allow them to take part freely in the political affairs of our country. For instance, no restrictions should have been placed on Teo Soh Lung who has been recently released.

As regards the release of detainees, I ask: What has Government to fear? Does the Government fear that the release of detainees will bring about a revolution? But today the people will no longer buy stories of communist or Marxist revolutions. There is therefore no justification for further detention of political detainees. If the Government still does not release unconditionally all political detainees, we can only conclude that all talk of participatory democracy is just so much hot-air propaganda and PAP double-talk.

A participatory democracy must also mean that elections which are held every four or five years must be free and fair (those are the important words, Sir, which are now currently in use all round the world), free and fair elections, with no intimidation of political opponents, so that the people will feel free to participate in the political affairs of the country without fear. That is the most important thing. It goes without saying that the press must also be free and impartial, and Opposition parties are given adequate air time on radio and TV to present their views to the electorate, as has already been stressed by Mr Chiam.

In addition to this, what other concrete steps should be carried out? I suggest that Government should:

(1) abolish the requirements for police permits for the holding of rallies, forums and debates that may be carried out by discussion groups, on any national issue that may be of concern to the people. At the present moment, these police permits are an encumbrance, a hindrance, to anybody wishing to take part in such discussions.

(2) remove legal restrictions on professional bodies (like the Law Society, the Singapore Medical Association, and so on) from voicing criticism on any legislation or issue that may be of national interest.

(3) amend the law recently passed in Parliament to allow peaceful assemblies and demonstrations against any policy of Government. I emphasise, Sir, "peaceful". We are against any form of violence, especially from certain quarters in any way.

(4) abolish the ISA's power of detention without trial. Or, if they do not want to do that straightaway, introduce legislation to ensure that the powers of detention will not be exercised against any person or persons voicing grievances peacefully and legitimately, or mustering support for their views on any important issue.

These are some of the basic and elementary steps necessary for the implementation of participatory democracy in Singapore. But what Government has done is the very opposite. For instance, opposition parties are harassed in every way possible. Their activities are hamstrung. The press is all one sided. Even our right of reply is denied us in the Forum page of the Straits Times. Right of reply, which is so much emphasised by the Government and fully supported by the Straits Times, has been denied us. If they want me to quote actual instances, I may.

The foreign press is restricted. Even the religious bodies are to be muzzled in some ways. (I do not know how yet). Where is the so-called participating democracy that Government talks so much about? Of course, I can appreciate the difficulties that may be encountered in trying to reach consensus in the Government. Because while the First Deputy Prime Minister speaks of participatory democracy, the Minister for Trade and Industry also talks of something different, that if anyone wishes to take part in the political process, then he must join a political party. Or is it a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?

Let me now touch on consensus. The New Collins International Dictionary of the English Language defines "Consensus" as "General or widespread agreement". The Oxford English Dictionary defines "Consensus" as "The collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons".

Let us take two important issues that have been singled out by Government to be dealt with during this parliamentary session.

On the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill, Government has apparently some support. But there is also considerable disagreement from many quarters. Some people believe that the Bill is unnecessary, that the issue has been brought up in a belated attempt to justify the detention of so-called Marxists, that Government fears dissent from a growing number of young Christian converts, who could adversely affect PAP votes in the next elections. But how would Government go about to obtain consensus or widespread agreement on this Bill? We will have to wait and see.

On the Elected President proposal, legislation of which will be tabled in Parliament this year, it must be remembered that although most people would agree in principle that our national resources and the integrity of key appointments should be safeguarded, there is also widespread disagreement over how that should be done. Should these national resources and key appointments be safeguarded by an Elected President? Or be left in the hands of elected representatives of the people?

Moreover, many people also disagree on the many details that are listed in the Elected President proposal in the White Paper. How then does Government intend to obtain consensus on the matter? By railroading the Bill through the use of its overwhelming majority in Parliament? Or by a democratic national referendum so that every voter in Singapore will be able to freely express his or her views on the matter? Many people have asked:

Will Government truly seek consensus through a democratic national referendum? Holding a national referendum is the only way to allow the Government and the people to move as one, as Mr Ng Pock Too should know.

In 1988, the First Deputy Prime Minister had said he would let the issue of the Elected President be decided by a national referendum, but now he pretends to have already obtained a mandate from the people in the 1988 elections, and he sings a different tune.

On the referendum issue, he sings a different tune, a la some European leader, who had earlier said he would let his new policy be decided in a referendum and now says he will not.

The leader apparently has got cold feet, the "kiasu" syndrome. Is our First Deputy Prime Minister also infected with the same "kiasu" syndrome bug? Is it because he suspects that he would not get the support of the people if he should hold a referendum on the Elected President issue?

The President's Address is strangely silent on the question of a referendum on this important Elected President issue. Neither has the First Deputy Prime Minister mentioned any possible referendum on the Elected President proposal in his recent press interview with Taiwan journalists.

I therefore propose an amendment to the motion before the House.

Sir, I beg to move,

"That at the end of the words 'this Parliament', to add:

but regret that the programme outlined in the Address has made no provisions for seeking the consent of the electorate by means of a national referendum on the Elected President proposal which would mean such a fundamental change to the way we have governed ourselves."

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, as an amendment to the Question, that at the end of the words 'this Parliament", to add:

'but regret that the programme outlined in the Address has made no provisions for seeking the consent of the electorate by means of a national referendum on the Elected President proposal which would mean such a fundamental change to the way we have governed ourselves.'

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to participate in the debate on the President's Address but, in view of the amendment, permit me to speak on the amendment first.

In a way, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite predictable that the NCMP would put some sort of amendment to the motion before the House by the Member for Tanglin.

From the outset, Sir, I would like to oppose the amendment and propose that a vote be taken on it so that we can dispose of this amendment and resume debate on the Original motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment merely re-opens an issue. It is not a new issue. The NCMP may not be aware that the proposal for the Elected President was mooted in 1984, and that the Government leaders had deliberated for a long time before coming out with a White Paper, which was debated in this House. As the NCMP mentioned, the White Paper was presented to this House in July 1988 and it was fully debated. It was debated not just in this House, but also outside of this Chamber. There were discussions at constituency level, there were letters, views expressed in the press.

Then, of course, in September 1988 at the general elections, the First Deputy Prime Minister put this issue before the people. And I recall him saying that he wanted to seek the mandate of the electorate so that this proposal could be put forward before the people. We all know the results of that general elections. The mandate has been given to the PAP Government to proceed with the Bill. And I am sure the NCMP does not deny that the PAP has the mandate to proceed with this Bill.

May I, Mr Speaker, Sir, just recall a few points with regard to this proposal? This proposal for the Elected President gives powers to the person in two main areas, mainly to safeguard our financial assets and reserves and the integrity of our civil servants. The proposal has also stated who can be eligible for candidacy for the Presidency. I recall the White Paper mentioning that such a candidate should be one who has ministerial experience, moral authority and personal integrity. More importantly, Sir, the power of the President is a custodial one, it is not executive. The Elected President, as I recall, does not initiate or make decisions. These are left to the Prime Minister.

Another point which one may to recall is that in the event of a dispute between the Elected President and the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister may refer the matter to the people, ie, through a referendum, or make a constitutional amendment.

In view of all this, I would think that any right thinking Singaporean would not oppose this proposal. The proposal has been discussed widely in line with our participatory democracy.

The Bill will be introduced by the end of the year. The provisions for implementing the principles behind the proposal would be made clear. There will be ample time for the NCMP, the other Opposition Member, and others to debate the Bill. And I am sure that it would be referred to a Select Committee and that there would be widespread public debate on the issue.

In view of what I have said, Sir, in my opinion, it would be unnecessary to have a referendum; it would be a waste of expenditure in terms of finance and manpower. And as such, I would propose that this amendment be defeated.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the Elected President issue is such an important issue that I would support the amendment to the motion, and say that there must be a national referendum on the Elected President. I do not agree with the hon. Member who says that the Elected President has no executive powers. He may have the custodial powers in relation to national savings but in relation to appointment of key civil servants, he will definitely have some say in the selection of the key personnel. Therefore, he would have executive powers.

The introduction of an Elected President is really a very fundamental change to our Constitution and to our parliamentary system. At the moment, our Constitution only requires in two areas where a national referendum is required, and that is, the surrender or transfer of our national sovereignty or the relinquishing of our Police or Army powers.

When we became independent in 1965, I am certain that our law makers at that time could not foresee that there would be such a drastic change to our parliamentary system. If they could foresee that one day a government could call for the surrender of the sovereignty of Parliament, I am certain provisions would have been included in our Constitution to hold a national referendum in such an event. What the Government effectively is asking now is for the surrender or transfer of part of the power which has been vested in the people to one man. This is akin to asking the surrender of part of Singapore's sovereignty which requires a national referendum. I would submit that it must be implied in our Constitution that should a government want to deprive the power of the people, then a national referendum must be held to ask the people whether or not they are willing to give up that power.

In 1988, Sir, the PAP won the general elections but I would say that that mandate did not really include the right to take power away from the people. Therefore, the Government must go back to the people to get their consent, whether or not they are willing to surrender part of their power to one person.

This Government has harped on its new consultative style of government, and I agree with Dr Lee that the best way to consult the people on this issue is by holding a national referendum. Any measure short of this is not real consultation. If the Government takes the Constitution seriously, then it must not change it at any time it likes, just to suit its own political ends. In principle, it is not advisable to give so much power to one man without having real measures effectively to check his actions.

Let us not have a charade of democracy. If we really believe in democracy, then let us practise it to the letter. In Switzerland, they do really have real democracy there. Over there, issues which are less important than changing the parliamentary system have to be put to a national referendum. As we know, Switzerland is a neutral country and the people really believe in the principle of neutrality. But in recent times, many politicians there thought that it was a good idea for Switzerland to join the United Nations so that they can have an international forum to voice the Swiss national point of view.

They put that issue to a national referendum many times. And the proposal to join the UN was rejected at each of the national referendum held. So it goes to show that when the Swiss believe in a principle, they really do not change it so easily, even at a national referendum. Over in Singapore, if we do really cherish the principle of sovereignty of Parliament which really means the sovereignty of the people, then if we really believe in this principle, the Government has no right to change it or to tamper with it without really getting the consent of the people at a national referendum.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I would like to urge this House to accept Dr Lau Teik Soon's suggestion that this House rejects the amendment proposed by the NCMP.

Both Mr Chiam and Dr Lee seem to have very short memories. The question of the Elected President was widely debated. A White Paper was put on and discussed in this House and the Opposition made it an election issue during the last general elections, urging the electorate to deny the PAP two-thirds majority so that a constitutional amendment could not be made.

Sir, we all know the election results. The Government has the mandate and I am sure the First Deputy Prime Minister, when introducing the new Bill, will receive further views, maybe even commit it to a Select Committee. But as of now, I think a referendum would, as Dr Lau Teik Soon said, be a waste of not only time but also valuable money.

Mr Speaker: I will now put the Question on the amendment proposed by Dr Lee Siew-Choh.

Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added", put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin.

The President, in his Address, stated that we have yet to evolve a national identity. This is an important and crucial task which we have to tackle immediately. We have made so much progress in the political and economic fields, but we have yet to evolve a national identity. If we have a national identity, I am sure it will bind Singaporeans more strongly. In the meantime, more and more of our citizens are emigrating. Did they leave because they did not have a sense of national identity? Can we reduce the flow of Singaporeans out of the country if we do have a clear national identity? So, if we do have a national identity, hopefully it may forge unity and slow down the flow of Singaporeans out of the country. But there is another vital reason why this task should be tackled urgently. It is that nationalism is becoming a more assertive factor in international politics. And to withstand the pressures from outside, Singaporeans must be strong and united.

Lately, Sir, Singaporeans are becoming more aware of the need to have a national identity. In my view, towards creating this identity, I would suggest that we adopt a more multi-racial and less inter-racial approach towards various issues. We should emphasise multi-racialism as a vital element of our national ideology.

Sir, by multi-racialism, I mean the emphasis on the integration of our various cultures. Whereas inter-racialism recognises the relative strength of the racial groups and allows for the separate development of the different cultures. In my view, multi-racialism will promote our national identity, whereas inter-racialism will slow down the evolution of our national identity.

Over the years, I think the inter-racial approach has been a significant factor in decision making by Government. Particularly, it has been a basis for many cultural policies, ie, they have been influenced by the nature of our demographic distribution, especially the relative strength of the three major communities. In my view, it is time to change such an approach: multi-racialism must be a stronger element as a basis for policy making.

In politics and public administration, we have managed to reduce the impact of inter-racialism. In politics, the GRCs as well as the Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) provide the opportunity for a truly Singaporean representation based on multi-racialism and meritocracy. In public administration, meritocracy ensures that multi-racialism exists in various statutory and Government departments.

But as far as decisions in the cultural field are concerned, I think the Government still regards inter-racialism as an important determinant for policy making. It still relies on inter-racialism, or the relativity of the various communities. I would like to refer to three specific areas where I think multi-racialism should prevail and that policy changes would be necessary in order to forge a national identity.

Recently, the Government encouraged the holding of separate Malay, Indian and Chinese cultural months. On this matter, I agree with my colleagues who have said that we should have a Singaporean or multi-cultural month instead of a separate cultural month for each racial group. Why not a Singaporean cultural month, when all items in the programme, whether they be the display of food, traditional dances, cultural artifacts, will all be mixed and multi-racial in character? Personally, I would prefer to see on display multi-racial colours, sounds and faces, and not just those of one community.

Another area I would like to touch on is the bilingual policy. My colleague, Mr Chandra Das, has mentioned a very significant impact of this bilingual policy on our children, ie, the awareness of ethnic differences. Sir, I would like to raise this question. Why should children of Singaporeans be forced to opt for a second language not of the parents' choice? If we are truly Singaporeans, does it matter if we opt for one official language besides English? Let the bilingual policy be a flexible one. Let Singaporeans decide what the second language of their children should be: whether it be Malay, Tamil or Chinese. In this connection, I would be very interested to know how many non-Chinese children are studying Mandarin, and how many Chinese children are learning Malay or Tamil. If we are Singaporeans, we should be bilingual, ie, English and one other official language, whether it be Malay, Tamil or Mandarin.

The third area concerns the weightage of programmes for different communities drawn up by the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, especially SBC TV. The ques- tions I would like to raise are: Why should there be so much more of Chinese programmes than non-Chinese? Why does SBC have English and Malay programmes over Channel 5 and Chinese and Tamil programmes over Channel 8? Why not mix them all up? On such matters, may I say that the cultural dominance of one community is not a positive contribution to the national identity.

Sir, I have stated enough to show that if we want to be Singaporeans, we have to think and act Singaporean, ie, multi-racial, instead of race. We should not play the number game, ie, because we have 76% Chinese, 15% Malays, 8% Indians, then we should have the same ratio of cultural programmes or whatever. This will not promote, in my view, a Singaporean identity. Instead, it will reinforce separate cultural development, as in the case of the bilingual policy being implemented in our schools today. This will not only be detrimental to the evolution of a national identity, ie, if we play the number game, it will also have an unfortunate impact on our relations with our immediate neighbours.

Sir, towards the evolution of our national identity, we must take into consideration our external environment. If we develop a national identity which is in stark contrast with that of our neighbours, especially Malaysia, we may be on a collision course with our ASEAN neighbours.

To put it bluntly, we cannot be a predominantly Chinese city state. We have to be a Singaporean or multi-racial nation. We have to make sure that Singaporeans of whatever ethnic background will feel that they belong here. As I stated at the beginning, we have made progress in the economic and political fields, but we have yet to evolve a national identity. Policies affecting the various communities are very sensitive matters. But we must tackle the problem head on. Our leaders and all Singaporeans must think multi-racial or Singaporean whenever they formulate policies. In that way, the Singaporean national identity will be achieved earlier. Then national unity will be forged and less Singaporeans will want to leave the country.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in thanking the President for his Address in this august Chamber.

Sir, the President's Address and the Addenda by all the Ministries pointed to one direction, and that is, forward to the future. It is forward looking with the ingredients befitting the challenges that face a city state. For instance, we need leaders who are strong, have character, possess the greatest sense of sympathy and who are fair to all regardless of their race, creed or religion. We have such leaders, namely, our own Prime Minister. I would like to share the sentiments expressed by my colleagues about our Prime Minister. I would like to consider all the speeches made by them about our PM as if it is mine, with one addition at this juncture, and that is, Singaporeans are indeed fortunate and privileged to have a person of his calibre. I also have full confidence in our First Deputy Prime Minister and his consultative style, and of course his colleagues, our colleagues, in Cabinet.

Sir, the city state also needs quality people within and without to ensure the dynamism of the city state. A dynamic society or a strong society must strengthen its vital structures, namely, the structure of its faith between men, social, cultural, administration, economic and, of course, politics. This can only be achieved through education and upgrading of education, in fact, constant upgrading of education. And this is exactly what the President said in his very first sentence when he addressed this August Chamber.

Sir, permit me to concentrate on this particular area, education, with particular reference to the Malay society.

I am indeed privileged to be asked by Dr Ahmad Matter, as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs and Chairman of Yayasan Mendaki's Board of Directors, to be the Chairman of the Mendaki-MOE Joint Committee (MMJC), and more so when he requested the MMJC to study the issues raised by Malay Singaporeans on the fee proposal.

Since its establishment in September 1989, the MMJC has worked very hard to find ways to improve the education of Malay pupils. As for the fee proposal, after three months of deliberations with various Malay/Muslim organisations, MMJC had worked out the tertiary fee proposal. A significant feature of the proposal is that Malay students will pay full tertiary fees, if they can afford it. This will allow more financial resources to be channelled to projects which will benefit the needy Malay pupils. I am indeed encouraged by Mendaki's bold decision to accept the proposal as well as the positive and generous gesture of our Government.

Critics have contended that the tertiary fee scheme tantamounts to the Government's abandoning of its constitutional duty to safeguard the special position of the Malays as laid down in Article 152. Whether this is so is a matter for constitutional lawyers, not just any lawyers. If need be, they should ascertain whether it is a mandatory one with imperative language which guarantees right or is it an enabling provision, an enabling clause, that allows the Government of the day to pass laws or introduce administrative measures in favour of that particular community, in this case the Malay community, if the Government wants to do so.

Sir, this Government is noted for its fair play and it will be unthinkable for it to introduce something which is unconstitutional.

The Government has from the time Singapore became independent taken a policy decision to offer free education to members of the Malay community regardless of their means. This is a specific measure which benefits the Malay community alone. Of course, the Chinese and the Indians are given free primary education. It is saved from being in contravention of Article 12 because of Article 152 of the Constitution.

Sir, when we discussed the matter, the question at that point of time was whether the Government should continue its policy of providing free education to all members of the Malay community regardless of their means. Whether or not this policy of the Government should continue, to me, must depend obviously on whether the circumstances which led to the introduction of this policy still subsist, still exist, and continue to exist.

It should be obvious to anyone who has lived in Singapore that circumstances have changed considerably over the past 25 years. This is especially so for the Malay community and the relationship between the Malay community and the other communities of Singapore. As a result of the policies of the Government, especially the policy of providing free education up to the tertiary level, the Malay community in Singapore has made economic progress. In fact, some of them have made tremendous economic progress, and we are talking about this particular group of Malays, not the ones who are less endowed. But the cynics and the churlish never think so or simply do not want to think so.

Sir, the more important point to be made to the Malays is not about Article 152 because it will be there and it is safeguarded. Assurances have been given by none other than our First Prime Minister, and if I am not mistaken, twice already, and in another instance by Minister for Trade and Industry, BG Lee, himself. At this juncture, I think it is worth our while to ponder what the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia said. The DPM of Malaysia twice made a point regarding their version of Article 152. In their case, it is Article 153 of their Constitution with all the imperative language. Mr Ghafar Baba said that the Article is useless, is meaningless, if the Malays in Malaysia do not pursue education seriously and reach the tertiary institutions. Because high calibre people, high calibre individuals, are needed to run the country.

Another caption "Bumis should not depend on special rights. (Ghafar)." I quote:

'Bumiputras should try to achieve success without depending on the special rights available to them under the Constitution.'

Again, on 5th February, early this year, he said:

'Bumiputras, he stressed, should stop thinking in terms of special treatment accorded to them as the indigenous people of the country so that they could be truly proud of their achievements.'

Hence, I think what we should be concerned with and consider as a problem, should there be, is that, if no Malay Singaporean ever graduates, then there is a problem, a very serious problem. Maybe our education programme is a failure. But as it is now, even with stiff competition, with keen competition, they not only survive, but make the grade. Mind you, while we are looking at the cohort, a few managed to get straight As in ten subjects. I do not advocate ordinary students offer more than eight subjects, but some did. And with all the machinery, initiative of the Government, Ministry of education, Mendaki, MMJC and the push and the pull of the society, Insya Allah, we will succeed.

Let me give you the figures that I have. In 1979, NUS/NTI, we have only 45 Malay graduates, percentage-wise of all graduates, 2.4%. After 10 years, in 1989, we have 153 graduates, percentage of all graduates is 3.3%. In the Polytechnics, the number of Malay graduates was 70 in 1979, percentage of all graduates, 3.1%. Last year, it was 200, percentage of all graduates, 3.8%. And something quite significant is that the number of Malays reading Honours, we started with four in 1980/81, but in 1989/90, we have 11. In terms of percentage, it is a 175% increase. The details are as follows: 1980/81, 4; 1981/82, 4; 1982/83, 6; 1983/84, 7; 1984/85, 8; 1985/86, 8, 1986/87, 14; 1987/88, 12; 1988/89, 12; and 1989/90, 11.

Sir, the fee proposal is a difficult issue. It is a sensitive issue. We believe, however, that a well-thought out implementation plan will receive the Malay community's support. This is why we recommend that the proposal should be implemented gradually so that the community has ample time to prepare for it. The gradual introduction of the scheme will also give Mendaki sufficient lead time to get itself established. To me, this is a turning point in the attitude of the Malays. The concept of the "haves' helping the "have-nots" will be heightened. More and more will be in the mainstream of society, in shorter time. This I have no doubt. As Lord Denning once said: "I may make mistakes, and sometimes am, but I was never in doubt." Of course the Malays must do more than hard work. As Mark McCormak once said in his book "What they do not teach you at Harvard Business School" - "Not enough to work hard or smart, but work hard, long and smart". This I think we should pursue. The Malays should pursue. Pursue excellence to improve our standard of living and continue to strive for excellence - an intrinsically worthwhile goal to pursue.

Sir, since Mendaki has accepted the proposal, let it formulate and implement the projects to help those with greater needs. I am confident we will see results in the foreseeable future.

In order to achieve this, what should Mendaki do with the Government grant? This is purely my own assessment, my own suggestion. At this stage, I would like to suggest immediate action in three important areas:

(1) Provide additional financial assistance to those students at tertiary level with family income less than $2,000 or who are below the poverty line.

(2) Provide assistance to Malay pupils who have gained admission into the independent schools so that no bright Malay pupil would be deprived of the opportunity of studying in an independent school due to financial reasons.

(3) Work closely and wisely with existing schemes available in schools and outside schools, such as work with established kindergartens, find a good kindergarten, and tuition centres, to improve the academic attainment of Malay pupils.

In the final analysis, the Malay's aspirations should be, as far as I am concerned:

(1) to further create a well-educated Malay community by having a total and comprehensive programme involving each and every Malay. Every child and every person attains the highest possible level of education in both the secular and spiritual dimension and be part of the national educational effort.

(2) to strengthen values consistent with universal and Islamic teachings in order to contribute to wholesome family and social and cultural values. The Malay becomes not only an active participant and contributor but, more importantly, a leading-edge resource in the effort of making Singapore a more dynamic and vibrant multi-racial society.

(3) to help identify economic opportunities for the Malay community to take advantage of and aim at creating, say, a pan-community financial base.

How are we going to do this? I suggest two approaches.

(1) Government, Malay MPs and Mendaki can develop rapport and support by bringing together family, students, professionals, Malay/Muslim, grassroots organisations and outside organisations, including the non-Malays, into an integrated system.

(2) Build up the required research, administrative and support services to attain the mission objectives of Yayasan Mendaki, as mentioned by many of my colleagues yesterday.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I firmly believe the three-pronged approach, plus the two, will lead more and more Malays into the mainstream of our society - Singapore society. It will also lead to the creation of a sophisticated Malay (Kewujudan Masyarakat Melayu Canggih). Malays that can manage to keep pace with time, with the future - the Singapore future. Because we are moving to a new plane of sophistication, respect and dignity, and these must be earned, cannot be given or taken.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.48 pm until 3.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, a point of clarification from the hon. Member for Jalan Besar GRC.

Sir, I want to ask the hon. Member whether or not he thinks that Article 152 gives the Malay an educational right.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: From the Member's statement, I do not quite understand what he is aiming at.

Mr Chiam See Tong: For a right to free education.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: In general, you can say "yes".

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you.

Mr Bernard Chen (Pasir Panjang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, as we progress economically and socially as a nation, we will continuously be faced with one serious constraint posed by the way we manage our manpower resources. I am speaking both in quantitative and qualitative terms. With regard to the numbers, we can draw a few lessons from our previous attempts to manage our resources for economic development.

There have been many debates on how we can meet our needs of labour force by increasing the import of foreign labour, and we all can agree that there is a limit to which we can import these workers, because they have to be balanced against the social cost that we have got to pay. Despite the liberalisation introduced by the Government lately, we are fast reaching a limit.

The population policy which the Government promotes is rather long term in nature. It will take another generation before we can see the numbers coming in. There was also a suggestion that we could slow down economic growth to keep pace with the limited manpower resources that we have. But the economic machine cannot be just turned on and off or slow down as we please. Hence, the Government was right that we should progressively and actively move towards higher skilled and more capital-intensive industries. This again introduced a shortage of another kind, that is, skilled manpower shortage. I would like to say a few words about the education of our workforce.

In order to meet the needs of these more sophisticated industries, we must train more and more people and impart more and more skills to our workers and managers; in other words, improve their productivity. This can be done at various levels. At the university level, I welcome the Government's intention or decision to set up a second University. It is a right step.

My question is whether it is sufficient, given the large number of 'A' level graduates that we have. The Government has said that by increasing enrolment, standards will not be compromised. Given the large number of 'A' level graduates that we have now, are we satisfied that we are providing every place to all students who can qualify? Or is it the case that because we do not have enough places, these 'A' level students are forced to go overseas? This is a subject which I will touch on a bit later.

In terms of polytechnic education, again, the number of applicants apparently far exceeds places available. In 1989, 16,000 applicants went for 8,700 places (one in two). This year, I understand, the ratio has increased somewhat, despite the introduction of a third polytechnic. The large number of applications shows that Singaporeans are prepared to acquire more skills if they are given the opportunities. And if we are talking about imparting skills at various levels and different sophistication, I think we should seriously look at whether in fact we should provide more places, without necessarily sacrificing the standards.

The third level is VITB. There are enough places made available in VITB but it seems that VITB has an image problem. The general population always tends to think that it is the last resort. If you cannot get into the polytechnics, at the worst you join the VITB. I do not know whether this is a fair assessment of VITB. But perhaps the VITB may need to think how they can convey their services and their standards more effectively to the students.

I think providing places is one answer. The more difficult question lies in how we can develop the correct kind of attitude in our population. In spite of all the training that we can give to them, ultimately how people perform in various situations depends on their attitude towards work, whether they are prepared to work hard, strive for excellence, whether they see a stake in nation building and feel that they are part of it and therefore they should contribute to it. Or whether they are prepared to go up and down with the country's performance in good times and in bad.

This attitude has to be in inculcated early, not only at the university or at the polytechnic but right from the primary schools and going on to secondary and pre-university. By the time they reach the university when they are given a choice to either stay here or going abroad, it may be a bit too late to impart that kind of attitude. It is quite well known now that there has always been complaint about the generation after ours. They seem to be more cynical and some even bordering on anti-establishment. Why is this so? Is it because of the youthful enthusiasm that they want a better life that they like to argue? Compared to the past generation, the question seems to be "what is in it for me", rather than in "what we have to do". And it is this kind of attitude perhaps that we have got to modify or change for the better.

At the end of it all, if we were to develop our manpower resources and to ensure that we have got all the skills available, we must look hard at one key question, ie, whether our people, especially the generation that comes after us, are they prepared to stay in Singapore? I have talked to many people who have emigrated and come back for a visit. Their answer invariably and overwhelmingly is that they migrate because of their children. It could be because they feel that Singapore is not having the right environment for them to develop their children. It could well be that education has been an impediment, that they cannot get to the university or polytechnic, that they have got to go elsewhere. In other words, the key factor of migration would seem to be one of their children, whether it is bringing them up or to ensure that they can prosper and have a career in Singapore. The answer would appear to lie more in whether we can convince them to stay, firstly, by providing a safe and healthy environment for the family as we are doing, good rewarding job careers which we are also assuring, but more important, I think, to provide the kind of education that they can have their children go through, instead of sending them abroad. Once you send them abroad, it is quite likely that few of them will come back.

l would like to think that education is not an expenditure per se but is an investment. If we can reorient ourselves in this regard, then perhaps we may be able to convince our population and the children that come after us that it is a worthwhile place to stay and to make a stake. Whatever we say about national identity, ideology, ultimately it boils down to the simple fact whether our people are proud to be part of Singapore and to be part of the system and to work to make it excel. Hence, education, I think, may well be the key answer to our problems.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Tang Guan Seng) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the motion tabled by the Member for Tanglin.

The First Deputy Prime Minister will be taking over the Prime Ministership at the end of the year. As the President said in his speech, this will be the watershed in our political development and that we have prepared for this for a long time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the undesirable factors in the old Asian culture have made the leadership transition a painful process. It sometimes results in upheavals. Although we are an Asian nation, the leadership transition has been well-planned and smoothly carried out. This is something that Singaporean should be thankful. In the past few years, our political leaders with Mr Goh as their head has been running the country. They have been involved with major decision making. However, the style of the new Government will be manifested only after the leadership transition is completed. As the President said in his speech, this consultative style of government will be the hallmark of the new leadership. As described by the Member for Fengshan, this 'Big Brother' style of governing the country will be supported by the people. I hope this new spirit will be practised at all levels in the Government departments and statutory boards and eventually this spirit will filter down to the private bodies and civic organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we want to build up is a non adversarial society and that the interest of Singpore should be above everything else. Only then can we achieve greater success in our next stage of nation building. The consultative style of government means that powers will be decentralised. In our initial stage of nation building, powers were centralised in the hands of Ministers. However, in the last few years, with the setting up of the Government Parliamentary Committees, the Feedback Unit and the NCMP system, Government powers have been gradually decentralised so that MPs and professionals and even the man-in-the-street are able to contribute to the process of government. This decentralisation of powers is in keeping with the present world trend and it will help to further stabilise our society.

Other examples of decentralisation include the setting up of town councils, school autonomy and restructuring of hospitals. There is social and economic significance in these measures because they mean that the various organisations would develop according to market forces so that they are not hampered by central planning or command type of economy and the consumers can have more options. They can decide what to do according to their means. However, we would like to know the limit of such decentralisation. What will be the functions of the Government? Are there any changes in their functions? What will be the relation between the Government and the people? When power is decentralised and with the autonomy of the various organisations, we should not make economic factor the only factor in any decision making. Otherwise, the relation between the Government and people will be that of monetary relationship. If that happens, the gap between the rich and the poor will widen. This is the anxiety of the lower income group because they fear their expenditure will increase. Their burden will increase and they would not be able to share in the fruits of prosperity.

Fortunately, the President assured us that all Singaporeans, whatever his income, will be deprived of their basic medical treatment and the Government will also lighten the burden of the poor people in the upbringing of their children. I think the Government should further clarify these new concepts to win the confidence of the people when these processes of autonomy, restructuring and decentralisation are carried out. I believe such exercises are sound in principle. However, on health care and education, the Government should continue to look after the interest of the people in order to keep the close rapport between the Government and the people. The reason why Singapore could overcome all difficulties and successfully develop into a modern and prosperous nation is that there is a close relationship between the Government and the people. People love the Government and are attached to the Government and therefore have given their wholehearted support to Government policies, and also because of their self-restraint and self-discipline. If such a relationship is weakened or undermined, if we are faced with crises in the future, those who are able to emigrate will leave while those who are not able to emigrate may not give their continued support for the Government.