PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address

Debate resumed.

The Acting Minister for Heath (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Sir, I would like to respond to some of the points raised by Members on the cost of health services. Quite a few Members have touched on this issue and I think it is only proper that I share with them some of my views.

Sir, the concerns of the MPs and of the general public on the high cost of hospital services are understandable. The Government is also concerned and that is why we have focused a lot of effort on looking into how hospital operations can be made more efficient and cost effective.

Over the last 10 years, the costs of hospital operations have been going up by an average of 10-12% a year. As the hospitals are managed centrally from the Ministry, it is very difficult for them to respond to changing conditions and to innovate. We have therefore moved to provide hospitals with autonomy in management by restructuring them. In this way, they will have a better chance of developing more cost effective systems, and I think they will have a far better chance of keeping the future rate of cost increase to below the 10-12% that has been experienced in the past decade.

Sir, the question is, should hospital services be expensive? Is there a way to make them cheaper? The problem is that hospital services are highly labour and skill intensive. We need trained nurses, doctors, therapists - a whole spectrum of skills. As a result, manpower costs make up 70% of the total operational costs. The hospitals also require very expensive medical equipment and products. With improving technology, these products tend to become more expensive over the long term rather than less expensive. Consequently, hospital services are costly to operate anywhere in the world, not just in Singapore.

Let me give Members an example. In the USA, basic hospitalization cost for each day of stay in an acute hospital is between S$2,000 and $4,000, and this does not include stays in intensive care units. In Singapore, in the Government hospitals it costs about $400 a day for us to look after a patient in the 'A' class wards and about $210 a day in the 'C' class wards. So in comparison we have managed to keep our services more efficient and also less costly than elsewhere. However, because of the highly labour intensive nature of hospital services, the overall cost will always be very sensitive to the national wage changes in Singapore. If salaries go up, I think it is difficult to tell the hospital staff that they should be earning less than their colleagues, their friends or relatives who are working in other sectors. For example, if the salaries go up by 10%, because manpower costa make up 70% of operational cost, automatically the overall cost of operations will have to go up by 7%. So it is very closely linked to the wage situation in Singapore.

The question is, in view of this situation, who should pay for the hospital bills and who should bear the cost increases that occur from one year to the next? It is very easy to say, "Of course, well, let the Government pay." But, unfortunately, there are only finite financial resources available for subsidies to the Ministry of Health. The question is how to distribute the available subsidies. Should we distribute subsidies equally to all patients? That means a patient going to an 'A' class ward will receive the same amount of subsidy as a patient going to a 'C' class ward. We can do that if Members feel that that is equitable. What it means is that 'A' class fees will become lower and that 'C' class fees will have to go up significantly. Or should we focus the available subsidies on the lower income group that uses the 'B2' and class 'C' ward?

Sir, the Government policy is that we should focus our available subsidies on the group that requires help, that is, the lower income group who uses the 'B2' and the 'C' class wards. It is only right that the financially better-off who are using the 'A' and 'B1' wards pay for the cost of the services that they use. They should not deprive the lower income group of the available subsidies. If Members do not agree with this approach that we should help the lower income group and let the higher income group pay for what they use, we can debate this if Members move the necessary motion.

The Member for Kampong Glam, Mr Loh Meng See, yesterday said that those who can afford should be made to pay more. Sir, I agree with that philosophy. We will therefore be gradually reducing the 'A' and 'B1' subsidies that are still existing at the present moment because the subsidies that are available to them now are at the expense of the lower income earners. We will continue to keep the 'C' class subsidy at about 80% and sustain the 'B2' subsidy. For the poor, those who cannot even afford to pay the highly subsidized 'C' class rate, the waiver system will still be retained. So for the poor, there is 100% subsidy.

The NCMP, Dr Lee, again just now criticised the waiver system that it is not workable. I hope he was here yesterday to listen to the Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua, who described how two of his constituents who could not afford were able to obtain waiver for the operations that they required.

Our system of subsidizing the lower income group on a differential basis, that means 'B2' having a lower subsidy than 'C', gives Singaporeans an wide range of choices. I think this is a fair system because patients are now able to choose according to what they can best afford. There is no need for anyone to be bankrupted because they only need to go to a 'C' class ward, pay $40 on the average per day. If they cannot afford that, see the hospital authorities for a complete waiver.

The other question is how do we deal with the inevitable cost increases that will occur each year. Sir, the subsidies, as I have pointed out in the Budget debate, will increase on a year to year basis in line with inflation. But the incremental subsidies can only cover part of the cost increases. The hospitals must therefore increase the fees to cover the remaining cost, otherwise it will not be possible for them to maintain the workforce and to maintain the quality of care. The question is, how should the incremental subsidy that is available be used? Which class of wards should we be covering? Again, our philosophy is that we should subsidize most of the 'B2' and 'C' class increases.

Sir, the last comprehensive fee revision was in 1984, six years ago. As a result of not increasing the ward charges for six years, the recently announced increases are fairly large. But I would like to inform Members that despite the fee increases the subsidies for 'B2' and 'C' class wards and patients will still increase significantly. For example, in 1989 the 'B2' and 'C' subsidies amounted to $159 million. This year, despite the increase in the 'B2' and 'C' charges, the subsidies for these two groups of wards will increase to $172 million, quite a significant increase.

Sir, as I have informed the House in the Budget debate and also in our addendum to the President's Speech, the future increases in fees will be made more regularly so that we can keep the increases small. They will be what you can call "ant bite" sizes. You do not like them. They are irritating, but tolerable.

Sir, the lower income group will continue to be safeguarded. We believe this is the best approach. We may be wrong because certain Members may prefer that we keep the intervals longer. If we do that, then the fee increases likewise must also be larger. So I think it is a choice which is available and which we are prepared to consider.

Dr Arthur Beng had mentioned about the upgrading of wards, an upgraded 'C' class ward, for example. Sir, we will definitely be continuing to upgrade the wards and even within each type of class of ward there will be new wards available that are more comfortable compared to the old wards. For example, in Toa Payoh Hospital and Kandang Kerbau Hospital, they have upgraded and they have offered these choices to patients - old 'B2' and new 'B2' that are available. Similarly, in SGH when the 'C' class wards are available, they will also be of an upgraded nature, as suggested by Dr Arthur Beng. He has suggested that we can charge a little more for the upgraded 'C' class beds. SGH will be offering better 'C' class wards and the fees of course will also be a little bit higher.

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Singaporeans that whilst there are many choices available for them, it is important that they continue to use medical services prudently. They should choose wisely - the type of hospitals to go into, whether it is private or Government, and the sort of wards that they can afford. If they can afford only 'B2', please do not go into 'B1' because it will just deplete their savings very rapidly. It is very important that they conserve their savings in their Medisave funds for the future.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Sir, may I seek one more clarification from the Minister? I made a suggestion about the uncoupling of inpatient class charges and outpatient class charges. Will he consider this?

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: I will look into that.

The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am encouraged by MPs' support for my consultative and participative style of Government and Government's programme and direction in the coming years. They have raised many useful points. These would be addressed in due course. What I want to do this afternoon is to share with you my priorities over the next few months.

Two years ago the Prime Minister indicated that he was ready to step down. I asked him to carry on for two more years. I wanted him to complete his negotiation with Malaysia over water and gas supply to Singapore. The supply of water to Singapore is a very sensitive and complex issue because of its wider political implications. Under the 1962 Water Agreement we are entitled to draw up to 250 million gallons per day, but unfortunately we cannot draw that quantum unless we build dams over certain parts of the Johor River. These dams have to be built but their construction requires the approval of Malaysia. PM is seized with this problem and has dealt with this for two and a half decades. We agreed that it was better for him to settle this with Dr Mahathir than for me to do so.

Since then, we have made good progress over our negotiations over water with Malaysia. The Prime Minister and Dr Mahathir signed a Memorandum of Understnding on 28th June 1988. That paved the way for the Mentri Besar of Johor, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, and I to sign an agreement over the compensation to be paid when we build Linggiu Dam and also over the price formula for the treated water which we will be buying from Johor in excess of the 250 million gallons per day.

But the formal Agreement has yet to be signed. It should have been signed by 20th April this year. I understand that Kuala Lumpur is still working on the draft. As far as I can see, there are no major obstacles. At any rate, it will not affect the time-table of leadership change in Singapore. Prime Minister will continue to see the Water Agreement through, whether he is Prime Minister or not. I have asked him to settle old accounts as I prefer to open a new era unfettered by old thinking.

Once the Water Agreement is signed, it should open up a new chapter of cooperative relationship with Malaysia. At least that is what I hope, and that is what I will work for, not just with Malaysia, but also with Indonesia and our other neighbours - a new era of cooperative relationship with them.

We are living in a new world, a world that is turning its back on past unhappy experiences. The Berlin Wall is now a historic relic. The two Germanies are being united. The Warsaw Pact is being dismantled. Gorbachev has met Roh Tae Woo. The Japanese Emperor and Prime Minister have apologised to South Korea for Japan's past misdeeds during the Second World War. The world is marching relentlessly towards peace, greater cooperation and openness. Everywhere, there is movement forward. It is a world that is breaking loose from its past shackles of animosity.

In such a world, we too need new attitudes and a new relationship with our neighbours. We must not be handcuffed by history. We have to break free, and play and work together, for a more prosperous ASEAN and a more peaceful world.

As I look into the future, I see a prosperous ASEAN, including perhaps the Philippines, provided the Philippines can put its own house in order. Within ASEAN, there will be a smaller region, a growth triangle, a special region that will grow faster than the rest of ASEAN. This triangle comprises Johor, the Riau Islands of Batam and Bintan, and Singapore.

I expect Singapore to grow by about 5% or 6% per annum over the next few years. But Johor and the Riau Islands can grow by a much faster rate. This is because both Johor and the Riau Islands are start- ing from a lower base. They also have abundant resources, untapped resources, long stretches of beaches under-used, and also more labour than Singapore. More importantly, Johor and the Riau Islands will be getting a cheap supply of energy. In the case of Johor, gas from Trengganu. In the case of Batam and Bintan, gas from the Natunas. They can supply food to Singapore - pigs, poultry, fruits and vegetables. They can industrialize. In tourism, this area can be the Caribbean of the East.

Let me give you an example of how cooperation can make this triangle of growth concept work. Batam and Bintan do not have sufficient water over the longer term to support a bigger population. And Indonesia wants both islands to prosper and grow so that they can support a much bigger population than now. Singapore also needs water. And water is available in Sumatra, but from Sumatra to Singapore the distance is over 250 km, and much further than 250 km to Batam and Bintan. It will not be economical or feasible for both these islands to tap water supply from Sumatra or even to pump water from Pulau Bintan to Batam. But if Singapore comes into the picture and we provide the base for water supply from Sumatra, then Batam and Bintan can tap water off the pipe-line from Singapore from Sumatra. That makes it economical for Batam and Bintan to have water from long distance. Of course, the pipe-line and the costs of development will be astronomical, even for Singapore. But despite the high costs, we will pay for the development and for the pipe-line from Sumatra to Singapore. We will just write off the expenditure the way we have written off the investments in our MRT tunnels. In other words, treat them as infrastructure, pay for them, and hand them over to the PUB.

We welcome Indonesia' offer of water to Singapore from Bintan and Sumatra. We will reciprocate by helping Batam and Bintan to develop. That is the least we should do. In exchange for the water from Sumatra, we have to reciprocate, and economic growth, if we can help them to do so, is the best way of reciprocating.

Singapore can also help Johor to develop. I see Johor becoming a newly- industrializing state within Malaysia. It has tremendous potential - land, good beaches at Desaru, and also more labour available in Johor than in Singapore. It has also better infrastructure than Batam and Bintan. But Johor lacks capital and managerial expertise and, of course, entrepreneurship which Singapore has. So Singapore can provide capital, entrepreneurship, managerial and, computer programming expertise to Johor. But how fast Johor will grow depends on what signals they give to foreign investors, in particular to Singapore investors. If it signals that it wants cooperation from Singapore, it welcomes investments from Singapore, and also of course when it signals that there is good cooperation with Singapore, I believe investments will pour in into Johor.

Let me give you another example of this potential of the growth triangle. Changi Airport is being developed to handle huge volumes of passengers, some 20 million passengers per year. I see droves of these passengers coming to Singapore, and then from Singapore moving outwards to parts of Johor, to Pulau Bintan, to Batam, particularly when the holiday resorts are ready. I see cruise vessels ferrying passengers from Singapore to these areas for those who have time to take a leisurely cruise. For those who are in a hurry to go to their destinations, there will be hydrofoils and hovercraft taking them over quickly to Batam, longer to Bintan, and perhaps a little longer to Desaru. I see this place teeming with tourists because the Japanese will be travelling in a big way; the Germans will be coming too. And as the world develops, other tourists will come to this part, provided we can attract them over here with good facilities.

Now, Johor wants to develop Desaru, Pulau Bintan wants to develop its Pasir Panjang. Singapore can help in these developments by having a ferry terminal at Changi Point - a modern ferry terminal which can cater to the ferry boats and the passenger ships.

For the next stage of our economic development, Singapore has to go international. We have to think international - beyond Singapore, think of the region and beyond. This is because nowadays manufacturing processes are located in many parts of a region, not necessarily in a country. Investors now do not just evaluate a country by country. They evaluate whole regions, the single European market, for example, Eastern Europe as a region, the Asia-Pacific as a large region, and the triangle of growth as a smaller region. They would have one component manufactured in one country, another component in another country, and another component yet in another country, depending on the comparative advantages these countries offer for particular components.

This point came to me vividly when I had dinner recently with a group of investors who participated in the Global Technopolis Exhibition. There were about 10 of them, and I asked whether they have investments in Johor. I was surprised that all 10 have plants already in Johor. And one of the investors also has a plant in Batam, and a few more are thinking of setting up plants in the new industrial park which EDB is jointly developing with Batam. These investors are excited over the triangle of growth concept and they are assessing whether there will be genuine cooperation between the three countries. If they feel that there is, then they are going to further invest in the region, because it is very convenient for them to do so, taking advantage of the resources and labour available in the other parts of the region and using Singapore's organisational ability, its financial attractiveness and transport and communication infrastructure.

When the growth triangle takes off, we can link it with other growth points or other regions. We can begin to invest, and encourage investments, in the northern Malaysian states in Penang, Kedah, Langkawi. Sarawak is interested in developing its tourist potential. We can link with Sarawak, invest in Sarawak. Not just Singapore investments but investments from Johor, and investments from other foreign interests. We can link up with Brunei, Sabah, and other parts of Indonesia. And as this concept grows, and as the plan is being realised, we can go further afield, and from bigger triangles or stronger links with other triangles or other developing regions in other parts of the world.

As we go international, we need a new breed of Singaporeans, the expatriate Singaporeans or those who are required to work outside Singapore for long periods. Singaporeans are reluctant to work abroad, I think, for very good reasons. One is Singapore is a very attractive place to live in; secondly, education of their children. As good parents they are concerned with the education of their children. So we have got to begin to address the problem and see how we can look after the education of their children, and we will address this problem in due course.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this session of Parliament is rather special. It is a changeover session, like a changeover in a relay race. I can sense that there is quiet excitement, although there are no fireworks in this debate, but that is as it should be. It shows that we have dealt with the major problems successfully. MPs do not feel agitated over unsolved major problems. Otherwise they would have raised them over here in this House. Circumstances are as favourable as they can be for the baton to be handed over.

But the life of a nation or a society is a never-ending relay race. We may have covered one lap outstandingly. But there is another lap to be covered, and yet another lap and another lap, and by new runners. We are ahead in this lap. Do we have the stamina to stay ahead in the next lap, and the lap after that? There is no guarantee that we will still stay ahead, or that others will not overtake us. How to stay ahead, and give Singaporeans a prosperous, secure life? This is the basic question we must increasingly ask ourselves.

The Prime Minister will pass his baton to me later this year. But that does not mean I am running the relay alone. We are all that runner. You are not a spectator or a disinterested outsider. You are on the field, running collectively to keep Singapore ahead. Metaphorically, all Singaporeans are now running that new lap.

Political succession cannot be considered successful or completed unless we win the people's support at the next General Elections. How we perform will depend on how we discharge our responsibility to the people, whether we can give a new lift to their lives and whether we have gained their confidence and trust. That is important. We have got to gain their confidence and trust and we have three or four years to prove that we can perform, that we can give them a new meaning to their lives.

We have to understand the aspirations of the people. That is important. Unless you understand their aspirations, their hopes and fears, you cannot realise their aspirations for them. Singapore is a middle-class society. So there are new aspirations, middle-class aspirations. These have to be met. At the same time, there are others who are not quite yet middle-class. They too have their aspirations. And in our society, as in any society, there will always be an under-class. They too have their problems and their aspirations and those aspirations too must be met. Talk and rhetoric will not do, not sufficient. You have got to go beyond talk and rhetoric, translate ideas into practical programmes which can benefit the people, and the people must see the benefits of these programmes.

The next few months will be busy ones for us. We have a heavy legislative programme - elected President, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and, also as important, a White Paper on shared values. I also have to make several major decisions. I will consult my colleagues but ultimately I have to decide for myself. I have to take these major decisions myself.

First, I have to settle the date of changeover. It will be a November date. Next, I have to decide on who would be my Deputy Prime Ministers, and whether I have one or two. I have decided on two Deputy Prime Ministers. Third, though we have decided on Mr Lee's role after he steps down as Prime Minister in the Cabinet - Mr Lee will be a Senior Minister - we will also have to prepare for a role reversal. Fourthly, Cabinet changes. There will be no drastic reshuffle. It will be a Cabinet that reflects continuity rather than radical changes.

Lastly, even as we work on the programme of this Parliamentary session, we are simultaneously preparing the programme for the new session, for the next President's Address. It will be a fresh programme to bring us a few steps nearer our Vision of 1999 which we formulated in 1984.

The society which we want to bring about will be more refined, more compassionate, kinder and gentler, to borrow President Bush's words. But it will not be a welfare society. The Government will not run a budget deficit. It will continue to revise fees periodically, in line with changes in costs and wage increases.

The Government will not flinch from taking critical decisions on issues which are for the national good. It will continue to be hard-headed and tough-minded. It will not govern by popular polls.

There will be greater freedom for Singaporeans to make their own choices, and to express themselves, but this freedom is not extended to actions which rock the boat. We will not allow anyone to capsize Singapore. We will not brook interference from foreign newspapers in our domestic affairs. Those that do will be gazetted and have their circulation reduced. Those that have done so will continue to be gazetted unless they acknowledge that they were in the wrong and satisfy us that they will not interfere in our domestic politics again.

Mr Speaker, we have a bright future ahead of us. We face it with good cheer and confidence. For that, we owe it primarily to one man - our Prime Minister. [Applause].

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the conclusion in the Presidential Address is that we have reason to be full of confidence for our future. In our new phase, we have to seek new challenges to inspire our people to continue in their work for a better life. A good life does not mean just material life. We have to cross into another dimension, including the art, cultural and recreational activities. For those who have visited the Singapore 2000 Global Technopolis exhibition, they would have an insight into the type of comfortable and convenient way of life in the 21st century and be optimistic about the future of Singapore.

I believe the people of Singapore will work harder to promote good economic growth because this would benefit everybody. So long as the free and multi-lateral trade system continues to function, so long as productivity continues to increase, and so long as the management efficiency and organizational ability continue to improve all the time, we have reason to believe that our economy will continue to expand. Of course, we have to closely monitor the advance in technology and the changes in the international market so as to seize the opportunities that come with these changes.

In 1992, the unified European Community will be established and it will be a force to be reckoned with alongside the North American and Asia-Pacific region. In late May this year, I went with the Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) and two other colleagues to Brussels and Berlin. We saw the Berlin Wall being knocked down and I picked up a few pieces of stones from the wall as souvenir. I was deeply impressed by the economic dynamism in Europe and the self-confidence of the Germans. We have to strengthen our economic ties with the European Community. In the meantime, we have to cultivate more talented people who speak German and French.

The rise of the European economic power does not mean sunset for the Asian-Pacific region. This region is still full of vitality, great potential and has its competitive advantage. Apart from Japan and the four NIEs, we will see Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia taking off one after another. The First Deputy Prime Minister has just mentioned about the triangular economic growth between Singapore, Johor and Batam. That will give us more confidence in the growth of this region. But I want to point out that the cooperation among these three countries is for economic purpose based on certain complementarity of such factors as land, labour, capital, management and water. At the same time, though China is suffering a setback because of the Tiananmen event last year, perhaps there will be another turmoil with the change of leadership. I believe the open door policy of China will not be changed. No one can afford to ignore a US$300 billion economy. If China can maintain Hong Kong as it is after 1997, and if it can come to some economic agreement with Taiwan, then China will play a very important role in the Asia-Pacific region.

Singapore is the hub of the Asia-Pacific economy and it has maintained good relations with the United States and the Western European countries. And for this reason, I am full of confidence for our economic future.

In the economic arena, there is one problem that has been troubling the Government, ie, the distribution of social services. On the one hand, we have to satisfy our people's demand in the quality and diversity of our social services. On the other hand, we have to look after the lower income families to make sure that they are adequately taken care of in the areas of education, health care and housing. This is a problem of distribution of wealth in economics. In this area, we cannot depend too much on market forces. We must strike a balance between efficiency and equity. At the commencement of this new phase, we should remind ourselves that the PAP still advocates democratic socialism. We must ensure that the children from the lower income families will have an equal opportunity to be educated in independent schools and tertiary institutions. We have to provide adequate subsidies so that the poor will get good medical care.

However, I believe the biggest problem that the second generation leaders will have to face is not in the economic area but in culture and politics. The Commonwealth magazine ( ) has described Singapore as follows, and I quote:

"The lack of root in culture, the confusion of values and the impact of westernisation are problems that are gradually surfacing in the horizon."

Prolonged prosperity and stability have led to complacency. There is no crisis mentality, and the people have developed an illusion that the stability and prosperity that they have enjoyed up to now will automatically go on forever. They have higher aspirations and they become fussy over things. What they ask is: what can the country do for me and not what I can do for the country? Some of them even use their votes to bargain with the Government, and some choose to emigrate for minor excuses. Sometimes in my discussion with my colleagues we often sigh and ask, "Why is it that during the 60s and 70s when we went overseas to study, we were prepared to give up the opportunity of getting higher pay by staying in the foreign country, and chose to come back to Singapore where our careers were not certain, but now that Singapore is much affluent and offers better opportunities, why are some professionals migrating and pledging to be citizens of other countries?"

Another problem is brought about by our multi-cultural and multi-religious society. For example, some people question the bilingual policy, and some dispute the celebrations of cultural months by different ethnic groups; there are conflicts between religions and there was controversy about the tertiary education fee of Malay students. On the last issue, Mendaki has made a very bold decision, that is, Malay students who come from well-to-do families will have to pay part or all the fees in the tertiary institutions. This decision will not only benefit Malays in the lower income group, but, more importantly, Mendaki has given a signal that the Malay community is prepared to march together with other communities on equal footing. As stated in the Presidential Address, "it augurs well for the progress of the Malays and the integration of the different races of Singapore." The Chinese community should make an appropriate response and to encourage our Malay compatriots to march forward in this new direction. Chinese companies should give the Malays equal opportunities of employment and to do away with any misconception of racial discrimination in employment. At the appropriate time, the Chinese organisations or enterprises should cooperate with Mendaki by enriching its financial resources so that more Malays stand to benefit.

The Member for Sembawang GRC, Mr Charles Chong, mentioned that those who have difficulty in English normally suffer in silence but those who have difficulty in their mother tongue are more vocal in their protest. The bilingual policy is a right policy. In 1989, the President, in his speech, stated that the promotion of mother tongue was to enhance the teaching of traditional core value. In this Presidential Address, the addendum on the Ministry of Education has reiterated that language acquisition is central to learning. The younger Singaporeans should learn their mother tongue so that they can retain their values. The Ministry of Education has decided to give priority to primary education. We should give credit to the Ministry for this decision. At the primary level, inculcation of moral education and core value and learning of mother tongue will be most effective because primary school students are in an impressionable age. Therefore, I suggest that in the first three years of primary education, more time and emphasis should be given to the learning of mother tongue than English language, and that only in primary four should the emphasis be reversed. In fact, if we look at Japan and some of the Western countries, they are using the sequence method, that is, to learn their mother tongue first before they start learning English. This has not affected the progress of the economy or technology in these countries. Although we have been using the parallel method, we could use the experience of these countries for our reference.

On the teaching of Chinese, I have spoken a lot about it. Maybe Members are all tired of listening to me. To speak to those who do not understand Chinese about the Chinese language is like playing the harp to the cow ( ). I do not know whether the cow is stupid or because the player could not play well, but it is sad that the player has to go on. I hope that the policy makers in the Ministry of Education will not feel that learning 3,000 characters within 10 years is too much. Let me give some statistics. The Lianhe Zaobao has been using 3,428 words in Chinese and it has a core vocabulary of 11,622 items. But in the curriculum for Secondary 4 students, there are 3,000 single words and 10,509 vocabulary items. So the number of words is still less than that used by Lianhe Zaobao. If we were to reduce this number, then there will be a bigger difference between the curriculum and the words used by Lianhe Zaobao. This will result in our secondary school students being unable to read the Chinese papers and magazines. Then how are we going to encourage them to learn Chinese, so as to acquire the values, and to cultivate their interest in their own culture?

When we were talking about the bilingual policy, some Members mentioned that students in SAP schools lack the opportunity to interact with students of other races. First of all, I would like to say that students in SAP schools have opportunities to interact with students of the other races during their ECA or sports activities. From what I know, we have right now the World Conference of Girl Guides in Singapore. The organisers make sure that students from various schools and of various races work together. I know this because my child is studying in one of the SAP schools. Her partner is a Malay student. They have been working happily together. 4.19 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair]

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Secondly, I must say that school life is not everything to the students. When SAP school students are at home or when they go to the junior colleges, tertiary institutions or doing national service, they have plenty of opportunities to mix around and interact with students from the other communities. Thirdly, and more importantly, we must remember that SAP schools are not established purely for the teaching of CL1 and EL1. Another main objective is to maintain the excellent tradition of the Chinese schools. If parents from the other races are willing to send their children to the SAP schools and to study in an environment of traditional Chinese schools, I believe the SAP schools are ever willing to accept and welcome them.

There is one point that I wish to respond. This is about the cultural months. We have listened to Dr Lau Teik Soon just now and I have also read Dr Tay Eng Soon's suggestion that we should have a Singapore Cultural Month among the ethnic groups. Firstly, we must understand one thing: if we do not have a Singapore culture, how are we going to hold a Singapore culture month? How could we have a drama performance if we have not written the scripts? If we merely put the art performances, handicraft, and food stalls of Chinese, Malay, and Indian, can we call this a Singapore culture? I remember I read an article in a book called "Management of Success". There is a formula: S = C + M + I + O. S represents Singapore, C for Chinese, M for Malay, I for Indians and O for others. Are we prepared to accept this formula, ie., S = C + M + I + O?

Secondly, if we are not proud of our own cultural heritage, how could we appreciate and respect other people's cultural heritage? From the feedback of some constituents and community leaders, I sense that the majority of them were very happy and proud of their cultures when they visited the activities in the different cultural months organized by the various communities.

Thirdly, I have brought up this point before and I will repeat it here - we must not mix "cultural identity" with "national consciousness". After 25 years, we have developed a strong sense of national consciousness. We are proud of the success of Singapore, we are proud of not only the SIA, Changi Airport, and our Prime Minister, but also many of our achievements, but this does not mean that we already have our Singapore culture. Let me give an example: Members of Parliament often go in groups to other countries to represent Singapore. The delegation may comprise MPs from various ethnic groups, and the MPs may deliver speeches to defend the interest of Singapore. We behave like Singaporeans. But when we are having our meals, we have to be conscious of the differences of our religions and the customs of different ethnic groups.

Finally, it will take a long time for the Singapore culture to develop. Moreover, this must come about naturally and not be pressure cooked. Some observed that the Americans established their own literature only after Mark Twain published his work. So, we should not be too hasty in the development process towards a Singapore culture. Of course, we have the Singapore dress and things which are Singaporean, for example, hawker food, but this does not necessarily represent the Singapore culture.

Given the thinking of some of our highly educated Singaporeans and the inherent problems of our pluralistic society, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and the White Paper on Shared Values are of great significance. This is a clear example of our far-sighted political leaders who are leaving no stones unturned to make sure that there is peace and harmony among our races and religions. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill is a preparation for the rainy days in anticipation of any possible mishap and to reduce any inter-religious friction and to prevent people from making use of religion to attain political objectives. The White Paper on Shared Values is an attempt to seek common ground in diversity. It is to list out the values shared by our people from the various ethnic groups so that the cohesiveness of society can be strengthened and that we could develop our own characteristics. The shared values are not merely a formal statement. They serve as a guidance and code of conduct for Singaporeans and for future generations. If we can always put national interest and collective interest before our own individual interest, then it will help our people to reduce their self-contrednes and individualism, or even to reduce the desire to emigrate. If we place great importance on 'family' then we would not have, as what Mr Eugene Yap has described, people who are unfilial to their parents or couples who are hostile to each other. If we can inculcate mutual tolerance and mutual respect, then we should be able to avoid conflicts between races or religions. If we try to deal with problems in a consultative, and not confrontational manner, then we would be able to build consensus and solve many problems in a harmonious way.

When we enter the new phase, we shall face many new problems which are intan- gible and related to emotions and inner thought. For example, how to build up a cohesive society? How to strengthen the sense of identity with our nation? How to encourage people to participate in decision-making? How to strengthen the ties between the people and the leaders? These are new challenges that we have to take. We cannot have something like a cultural revolution to purify the thoughts of our people. We must also not depend on satay or char kway teow or soup kambing to group our people together. We must be frank and sincere and solve our problems together in a consultative manner. We must share with our people our aspirations and concerns. We must accommodate those who oppose us and instil more confidence in our people in the second generation leaders. We must build up new bridges or new channels between the people and the Government so that we can work together for a better future.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC): Sir, over the last few days of debate, we have heard many fellow Members talk at length about our new style of participatory government - ruling by consensus - and caring for the lower income group, and many other issues, although they are not burning ones.

This suggests to me that the various options open to us are an indication that the new leadership has in many ways a more difficult task to perform than our first generation leaders. The options are more varied and highlight the need to strike a balance between effectiveness and style in our government, in our economy, and in our society. Sir, I have in mind three areas - leadership and consensus, market economy and the lower income group, and work ethics and social refinements.

First on consensus building and leadership. By and large, the changing style of government and governing by consensus is welcomed by a new generation of better educated Singaporeans. It is agreed that there should also be more participation from the people, but it should not be from a select group but a wider one. Consultation with people should not be seen as mere lip service but be genuine, lest the people think that irrespective of their views, the Government will push through its proposed legislation, whatever is said. However, I would like to add a word of caution in case we get carried away and forget that ultimately the Government must govern, dissenting views notwithstanding.

We have to guard against carrying the question of consultation to an extreme. As in the past of hard-headed leadership, if a bitter pill must be swallowed for the good of the country and strong measures implemented despite popular resistance, the Government should not flinch, but should proceed even if consultation with the people shows its unpopularity. In this I applaud our First Deputy Prime Minister when he was quoted as saying that he is not going to count hands in the Cabinet. I am also glad to hear from him just a moment ago that he will not govern by the opinion polls. There is no contradiction in his style of building consensus and putting his foot down. The art of government is indeed the ability to seek a balance between seeking views and opinions and selling a hard decision. It is not to go to the people on each and every single issue. I believe the right mix and balance will come when our next Prime Minister establishes that level of rapport and trust with the people which is enjoyed by the Prime Minister. Many Singaporeans will agree with me that when I say we want participation, we also need strong leadership.

On the lower income group and the market economy, Sir, I have spoken out for the lower income group on several occasions in this House. A number of my honourable colleagues have also covered this subject with much passion in the last two days. Despite the burgeoning middle class, the plight of the lower income group is a matter close to the hearts of hon. Members. We can identify with them because most of us come from that very same background. We see in them shades of ourselves and our family.

However, at the same time, as rational and thinking people, we also realise, as do many East European populations, that a market economy is the only workable system which will bring the desired benefits to the people. A market economy is efficient, effective and allocates resources with the least wastage. This being so, it seems to be a ruthless weapon and strikes fear in those not accustomed to this effectiveness. This very fear is one which East Germans now face in the union with West Germany -the fear that a market economy tends to penalise those who are less able and privileged.

Hence, the question for the Government to address is not whether we should or should not privatise this or that service. The question to ask is how do we do so without pushing our less privileged into an even more disadvantaged position. In this, I am certain the views expressed by my colleagues, Dr Vasoo and Dr Koh Lam Son, are worthy of consideration. Dr Vasoo's call for graded services is in fact the opposite side of the same coin of our progressive tax structure, and that is, the more able should shoulder more without letting this becoming a disincentive.

We have always urged our people to be more compassionate and show more concern for the less fortunate in our society. Besides the 25th Anniversary Charity Fund, our people have responded positively in many other ways. As for the Government, this question of the poor has been continually highlighted in each President's Address since I became a Member of this House. It is time therefore that the Government set the example and put into concrete form by adopting some of the suggestions brought up by my colleagues. This will not only send a positive signal to our people, but will go down well with the people.

I welcome the First Deputy Prime Minister's undertaking just a moment ago that more practical measures will be put into place in the next few months. Here, indeed it is the real challenge to the Government - of how to balance efficiency of privatisation and, at the same time, easing the burden of those who are most adversely affected.

Sir, the last area I want to highlight is social refinements and work ethics. I wish to pose this question to the House and to all Singaporeans. We have reached a high level of economic development which few can deny, but have we arrived? Have we as a nation, and a people, attained that level of maturity and graciousness that marks the great civilisations of the world? We have acquired the trappings of comfortable living, but have we imbibed the nectar of life?

My humble submission is that we have yet to acquire the social refinements that mark a long established and mature society. We are more like the nouveau riche. We have the money but we still lack the social graces that mark a great nation. How else do you explain the phenomenon of Singaporeans piling up on their buffet plates with more than they can possibly consume just because the price tag covers all they can eat? I believe, Sir, that we need time to grow, and to arrive in the real sense of the word. What we are is to some extent no fault of our people's. It is just that - like good wine - we also need time to mature.

I would, therefore, urge our new leaders to set as our next national goals, superseding even that of economic development, the nurturing of social refinements and our people as a great people. Like the man who strives to get out of his fishing village by succeeding in the big and rough city, and then working day and night so as to have the luxury of going fishing, let us not lose sight of the philosophical and social side of economic development.

At the same time, as we go for the softer aspects of life, social refinement, culture, music and the arts, we should not lose sight of what brought us here - our survival instincts and our relentless pursuit of economic growth. Are these two objectives contradictory? Must we lose one to gain the other?

My view, Sir, is that we can have both. First, by continuing to emphasise and not lose sight of meritocracy as an important foundation or pillar of our system; and secondly, by working smart. Computers, office automation and the new technologies will give us the additional edge we will need to improve ourselves economically and still have the time for more leisure activities and a more refined life-style. We need not equate a more relaxed life-style as a dent in our work ethics so long as we are better equipped with the new tools and technologies.

The real challenge is how to instill in our people the survival instincts of our forefathers and the older generation and, at the same time, pursue the trappings and refinements of a developed society. This, I believe, is a balance which will be struck over time.

Sir, the marathon goes on. Some may say the next leaders' task is fine-tuning what has been achieved and passed on to them. I submit that our task is more than this. There are greater heights to scale and we have completed but one leg of our marathon and the end is not in sight.

While we identify the goals for the new milieu, I submit we should strive not for the good years - as historically we have not yet had that many - but for better years. Our future development should not be one based preponderantly on economic yardsticks. Instead, it should now be based on social ones as well.

To be judged to be successful, the Government has to meet the contradictions I have highlighted. Of even more importance is the ability of the new leadership to establish the kind of rapport and understanding with our people - the understanding that when we reach out to the young, we are not alienating the elderly; that when we cater to the middle class, we have not forgotten the less fortunate; and that when we search for life's refinements, we are not seen to de-emphasise hard work.

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

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I just want to reply to a point that my friend, Dr Ow Chin Hock, made just now concerning a speech that I made three weeks ago.

Sir, I think I was misunderstood by Dr Ow Chin Hock when I listened very carefully to what he said. What I had said on that occasion was that instead of the three cultural months that we have this year, perhaps for the future we could consider having a single cultural festival at which the different cultures could be displayed for all to see. But he misunderstood me and said that this would be a rojak arrangement where all the cultures will somehow be mixed and we will have something which is a messy mixture. This is not at all what I had proposed.

What I had suggested was that if there was an occasion when all the cultures of all our different races were to be displayed, and the achievements were to be shown at one place and at one time, then the visitors to this festival would have the opportunity not only to see the achievements of their own culture but also what others have to show. This would lead to greater exposure and understanding of the diverse cultures that we have.

Sir, it is all a question of what the objectives are. If the objective of a single cultural month is to teach members of that race what their culture is, then of course having separate cultural months will achieve that. I was told that this year, with our three cultural months, many of the visitors to the Chinese Cultural Month were Chinese; those who visited the Malay Cultural Month were Malays; and those who visited the Indian Cultural Month were Indians. If the objective is to teach the respective races their own culture, of course, that has achieved it. But if we have another objective, which is to expose our people to the cultures of others, and therefore to bring about greater understanding and perhaps even a greater sense of unity as a nation, then my suggestion, I think, has some merit.

I just want to make this point.

Dr Ow Chin Hock: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not misunderstand the Senior Minister of State's speech. From what I have read in the newspaper reports and the official press release of his speech, I know that he did not intend to have a rojak culture.

In fact, our exchange just now has already reflected the lingual or cultural difference between the two of us. He did not know exactly what I said because he heard my speech through an interpreter.

I agree with him that apart from encouraging various races to be proud of their own cultures, we must also give the other races an opportunity to learn from each other's culture. But I would like to ask a very simple question: In that case, are we not like a three-ring circus in the United States where they have three rings performing at the same time? Next question is, what are we going to have for our opening ceremony? Should it be Malay, Indian or Chinese? Should we have all these performances at the same time? If so, we have already done that in our National Day rally, carnival and other festivals.

If we want our people to appreciate the cultures of other races, I think the most effective way is through television. With television, we could introduce the cultures to the other races. A few years ago, I suggested to the then Minister for Culture, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, that we should publish a booklet on the traditions and customs of the various races so that the younger generation could learn about these customs and traditions. Moreover, for the decision maker in the Ministry of Education (MOE), may I suggest that when we are having the cultural months, the MOE should organize the students to visit these activities so that they could understand these cultures.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): ( In Mandarin): Sir, actually many important points have already been brought up in Parliament by my colleagues and the First Deputy Prime Minister. But I still wish to make use of this opportunity to raise some of my own personal views.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister and his team for what they have done in the past 30 years, bringing Singapore from a backward fishing village to a modernised society, a garden city with luxuriant growth. This achievement cannot be described in a few sentences. They risked their lives, sacrificed their families and their time to work for the Singapore people. I must also thank our last generation for their hard work and cooperation with the Government so that we can enjoy the peace and prosperity of today and have a share in today's economic success. So if we decide to regard our Prime Minister as the Father of Singapore, nothing can be more appropriate than that.

We must also welcome our First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh, for what he said just now. We can see that our successors are no opportunists and we will not rule by pleasing the masses by twisting reality or misleading our voters. We will continue to work for the interest of Singaporeans and for the general good. Therefore, when I study the President's Address and various Addenda, I feel that what Singapore has achieved economically and in infrastructure is obvious and there are not many things we can point an accusing finger at. But I feel what we have to stress is how do we raise the quality of Singaporeans and to raise their spiritual development and a sense of national solidarity.

In fact, in the past two days, some of my colleagues have raised the issue about some Singaporeans' attitude towards life and they have complained that they are unable to catch up with the economic development of the country. And their mentality remains at the stage of a developing nation. Some of my colleagues have also mentioned that Singaporeans are ugly and they suffer from this "kiasu" syndrome. To me, put simply, all these have to do with what our future leaders, our parents, corporate bodies, our social and cultural activities. More importantly, it has to do with our education system and its implementation in deciding what sort of a society Singapore will become.

When I studied the information I received from the Ministry of Education, what moved me was that fact that we have set aside $2 billion in our budget for education. This is more than in New Zealand. Australia has a population seven times our population, but what they spend on is only four times of what we are spending. So we are indeed putting a lot of emphasis on education. What I am talking about is not education in its narrow sense. This not only includes formal education. I will first talk about formal education and then general education. In order to provide parents with more choices and in an effort to raise the general standard of education , what we have done in increasing our universities and higher tertiary institutions is credible. But I feel in order to cultivate a creative society perhaps the Government needs to consider allocating more funds on research. And as for primary and secondary schools, I am happy to see in the Addendum on the Ministry of Education plans are underway to convert secondary and primary schools into full-day schools. And I think this should not be delayed any more. But before we launch the full-day system, during this transitional period, what we should do is to help some schools which have shown a willingness in providing before and after school care. I think the Government should give them the necessary financial and personnel support.

Another point that I am happy to see is that the Ministry of Education has also aimed at raising the quality of staff in primary school. But I have on several occasions raised in the House that 90% of our pre-school children attend day care and kindergarten before they enter primary school. So I hope the Ministry of Education, besides putting efforts at improving the quality of primary school staff, they should also help to train pre-school and kindergarten staff as well. As our Prime Minister said in 1974 in the World Teachers' Seminar, no matter how advanced and good the facilities are more important is the relationship between the teachers and the students, as a positive relationship, can help motivate the child to reach his potential in learning. Such relationship also serves to help children in their formative years form a positive attitude towards life. Therefore, in the process of formulating a syllabus for our national values, I think the most important factor is teachers' qualification because they serve as models for our next generation. So I think while improving our teaching aids, we must also work on this teacher/pupil relation and their moral education. This is what I call formal education.

The next point which is more important is adult education. The fact that our parents often put pressure on their children is because under the present system formal education is the only way to success and it is only through university education that their children can become a lawyer, engineer, doctor, etc. But we know that in may advanced countries they put a lot of emphasis on adult education, especially in terms of technical training. So a child does not necessarily have to attend university to become a professional engineer. This is especially true in Germany where their vocational training in line with the work a person does. Through opportunities in night school, and open-university and Television school they can become engineers. If we can strengthen this type of remedial education in the adult education project, I can be certain that parents and the society will change their attitude towards education, that is to say, every person in every stage of his life can continue to learn. Therefore, I call on the Ministry of Education that although expenses in this area can be high and cost of per capita investment is high, they should consider it so that those who do not make it in the formal education system may be able to work towards a professional certificate. At the moment, most people's attitude towards VITB is biased and I think this is wrong. They see VITB students as naughty kids.

But lately from what the VITB has done in raising charity fund. I can see they are concerned members of the society. They have raised $400,000. For these children, our objective should be how to tailor courses for these students to suit their work, so they can continue to attend night class and eventually get that professional qualification. Only this way will parents change their attitude towards VITB. Perhaps this has to do with the negative attitude our society has towards those who work with their hands.

What Germany and Japan have achieve today, I believe, stem from the importance and respect they place on technical personnel. Although I believe a name may not be that important, psychologically, many may still be bogged by the negative image on VITB. Therefore, I suggest changing VITB's image into a vocational training board may be more appropriate, thus changing parents' concept towards VITB.

Another area of training is on the workers. Japan's leading role today comes from many factors. I trust the minister knows more than I do. When we visited the various factories in various countries, training for workers in Japan is continuous and it is not based on individual stages of production but according to the 5-year or 10-year plan of the company. And I know that when some companies in Singapore undergo restructuring or the production procedures, they push all their failures onto the workers, saying that the workers' standard is only that of Primary 6 and that they cannot be trained. With the change in production procedure, they are retrenched. This is a very negative way indeed. A more positive way would be for the company to raise its competitiveness. the company should carry out total restructuring in workers' training. I read in the NPB's report that they are to get companies to spend 4% of their salaries on retraining of their workers. This indeed is good news. Perhaps this figure should be reviewed every year to see whether they are coping with the needs. Through such complete training programme, I am convinced that our 20% of the lower income workers, ie, those who are unable to catch up with our economic growth, will also have a chance to improve themselves and their lifestyle subsequently.

What I have touched on has to do with a certain aspect of human quality and it involves the way they earn a living and their training. The other aspects are the moral attitudes and spiritual development and what we were debating about - a national identity. This needs more time. Personally, what I feel is the most important factor or an indirect means is not through talk or through celebrations. More important, every one should serve as an example. What we believe and what we do will effect our next generation. Our political leaders are chosen by us and we choose them because we have our aspirations and expectations on them. But we cannot say that they must comply with the wishes of the people in every way. Let us say, everyone may aspire for a car. Sometimes an individual's aspirations may come into conflict with our national interest, then there must be control. Take our second language requirement, for example, if parents were given a choice, although they can appreciate the advan- tage of learning the mother tongue, for obvious benefits and to lighten their children's load, they would drop it. Given a choice, children may not even want to study it at all. So I am happy to hear the First Prime Minister say that he will not rule by the count of hands and that he will not mislead the people to win popular votes. I am happy to see that our successors have this firm stand and we fully support them in continuing to bring Singaporeans a better life.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Tanglin to express our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of the Second Session of the Seventh Parliament on 7th June.

Sir, the President's brief Address is Singapore's response to the challenges of the future. It reflects our aspirations and desires for the future, to create a Singapore of excellence and distinction, developed, mature, existing in an atmosphere of stability and peace. It is not a statement of unfulfilled desires, as claimed by the Member for Potong Pasir, but is in continuation and an enhancement of the real and concrete efforts we have taken so far.

The President's Address was delivered at a very significant moment for Singapore. It was delivered while we are celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Singapore's independence. We are now at the threshold between two different generations, moving from a generation meeting the demands of independence to a generation evolving a society of excellence, from a generation seeking to fulfil basic needs, ie, food, clothing, housing, jobs, education and health, to a generation living comfortably, cultured, artistic and strong in human compassion, from a generation sufficient in physical requirements to one that has its inner and spiritual needs satisfied. We are now in the phase of a society approaching maturity.

In this sense, we are entering a more difficult and complicated arena, one that will challenge our capability. We are moving from the state in which every step, every action taken, every programme, are readily measured and gauged, into a state in which a common yardstick can no longer apply. This is because we are no longer faced with the responsibility of meeting just the needs of the masses, but also of satisfying the diverse and often arbitrary desires of the individual. In the past, we could come up with statistics to show what percentage of the population owned flats, how much they earned a month, what their qualifications were. Today, flat ownership is no longer the consideration. The question now is how meaningful it is and how satisfied one is with one's flat. The same applies to monthly income. It is no longer a question of just how much one earns, but what one can do with it. It is no longer a question of what one's educational qualifications are but what discipline is preferred, what purpose will the qualification serve and what satisfaction can one gain from it, having achieved it through such stiff competition in school. Sir, we are moving from tangible considerations to abstract considerations, from the objective to the subjective world.

Another point I would like to make is that as a society achieves maturity, social stratification will appear, with all its attendant features and effects. Social stratification manifests itself not only in terms of income, social status and education, but also in terms of lifestyles and perception of life and a slower social mobility. As long as there are ample opportunities to climb the social ladder and social mobility is fast, we have little problems. But when we are faced with the situation now prevalent in the United States and Europe, where social mobility is so slow, we will have to do something before society falls apart.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the higher our economic advancement and the more complex our infrastructure, the more specialisation would be required. This will mean more diverse tasks and roles for our citizens, leading in turn to differences in social perception. If these different perceptions are not homogenised through a set of shared values, we will encounter fresh problems.

Signs in this direction began to surface some time ago in the commonly-held ideas, particularly among parents, of the difference between white collar and blue collar jobs. As a result of public prejudice, parents became reluctant to send their children who are not performing well academically to vocational institutes.

This puts us in double disadvantage. Firstly, our children gain only limited education or, indeed, are uneducated or unskilled at all. Secondly, while the country thirsts for skilled workers, we cannot rely on our unskilled young people and have to import foreign skilled labour, thus adding to our social ills. To address this problem, VITB must bridge the information gap through publicity in schools to highlight the achievements of VITB trainees. Members of the public who are unsure about the functions of VITB should be encouraged to approach its institutes whenever they hold their open houses.

We have to change our attitudes toward blue collar workers because they too have a not insignificant contribution to the economy. Imagine the situation if, for some unavoidable reason, the blue collar workers we had brought in leave us en masse. Production will stop, factories will close down. The managers and the white collar workers in the organisations affected would lose their jobs, too.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I cite the example of VITB trainees and graduates just to emphasise the importance of adopting and maintaining a positive attitude and social perception in our society. It is because of the need to evolve and uphold a set of shared values that the President dealt with the National Ideology in his Address. The thrust of his message is that we need to reach a consensus in our social attitudes towards and perceptions of each other regardless of race, religion, profession or income. Everyone of us has a role to play and a contribution to make and these form an inseparable part and, indeed, a guarantee, of our existence and well-being.

Sir, we are now in the process of leadership transition. This is not a transition in the usual sense, but a transition in continuity. The Hon. Prime Minister will be relinquishing his post by the end of the year. To the people of Singapore, he is the man who built, developed and moulded the independent Singapore that exists today. I agree with the Member for Yuhua that Prime Minister Lee is the Father of Singapore, the man who was prepared to make sacrifices and devoted himself to the realisation of the vision of a modern Singapore rising in the midst of the many failures among newly-independent countries. In the eyes of the world, Prime Minister Lee is a pearl set in an uncertain and chaotic world. He knew what Singapore wanted. Many foreign leaders welcome his opinion, even as the Western media, while admiring him, deplore the unique way he has ruled the country. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have our own philosophy and culture, and they are not the same as the West's.

As for the Malay community of Singapore, they feel secure while Singapore is under the leadership of Prime Minister Lee. This is an important consideration to them. Now the leadership is to be handed over to Mr Goh Chok Tong. Will the Malay citizens of Singapore continue to feel secure? The answer is yes. The Malays of Singapore, I am confident, will continue to feel secure and will stand firm behind Mr Goh.

Indeed, some quarters have even accused Mr Goh of being too concerned about the affairs of the Malays. They say Mr Goh is pro-Malay. They also charge Mr Goh with giving too much to the Malays and cite as evidence the $10 million that has been granted to Mendaki to administer. But if we were to ask the Malay community the same question, they will say Mr Goh is not pro-Malay.

Sir, I think, to quote a scholar, the truth must be somewhere in between. This must be so. Mr Goh is concerned about the affairs of the Malays not because the Malays are Malays but because they are Singaporeans. He is just as concerned about the affairs of Chinese Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans and Eurasian Singaporeans, because they are all citizens of Singapore. For the same reason, the people of Singapore as a whole should appreciate and accept the short-term, medium-term and long-term measures Mr Goh and his colleagues in the Cabinet have taken. In the short-term, certain measures might appear painful and difficult to accept, but we have to view their long-term results on the stability and progress of Singapore and its population. No less important is the need to build mutual trust among us regardless of religion or descent. Indeed, this mutual trust is the prerequisite of the total involvement of every citizen of Singapore.

In this connection, may I now, with your indulgence, speak on Mendaki and the tuition fees scheme for university and polytechnic students. I fully agree with the views of my fellow Malay MPs on this issue. I am aware that in the one year since the issue was first mooted and debated, there have been signs of growing schism within the Malay community over this issue. This arose from differences of opinion, perception and understanding. Such things are bound to happen in every process towards consensus through dialogue and discussion. But the decision has now been made, through consultations, and the Malay community must now put aside the past and look ahead. We must now take maximum advantage of the scheme. I believe Mendaki, in the spirit of consensus, with its clear objectives and with all the wisdom and resources available to it, will be able to put the scheme to its maximum advantage. If effective handling requires outside contribution, including expertise from our non-Malay brethren, I am sure the Government would be willing to help. I say this because, in the final analysis, we have to look in terms of seven or ten years ahead. The scheme will show its results. Would the paddy we plant this time produce large, solid, quality rice, or would there be no harvest to reap? Or would weeds grow instead? We are the ones who will answer these questions and bear the consequences. Let us ensure that an empty harvest it will not be.

5.13 pm

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the last three days, more than 40 Members have spoken on the Motion of Thanks to the President which I had the honour and privilege of moving on Monday. All who spoke supported the motion except Mr Chiam See Tong, the Member for Potong Pasir, and Dr Lee Siew-Choh, the NCMP. In fact, even Mr Chiam supported the Motion when he first spoke yesterday. However, he decided to change horses mid-stream. This indecisiveness or fickle mindedness only reflects on himself.

Before I sum up the debate, I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not correct an allegation by Mr Chiam See Tong yesterday and Dr Lee Siew-Choh today when they said that the average worker's life has not improved. Mr Chiam did not support this with any data, but merely talked about fees going up - school fees in independent schools, hospital fees, the cost of private cars and long working hours. Dr Lee used labour statistics to claim that Singaporean workers are not better off today. In so doing, he has not given the entire picture.

The data I have from the same sources, however, have shown otherwise. Between 1980 and 1989, a period of nine years, the median monthly income of workers almost doubled from $409 to $764. The source is the Labour Force Survey of Singapore, 1989. The average pay per worker more than doubled over the same period, from $692 to $1,427. The source: the Yearbook of Statistics 1989. Inflation rate was low during the entire decade, having risen only 17.7% over the same period. Hence, workers enjoyed a real increase in income, and this real increase in income is a proper measure of purchasing power and, hence, living standards. Therefore, our workers and our people are certainly better off today than 10 years ago.

The debate we had just last year after the Opening of the First Session of the Seventh Parliament by the President centred on three main areas: the National Ideology, multi-racial and multi-religious harmony, and our style of government. The debate which has just concluded today focused on many issues, mainly leadership transition, a consultative government and consensus building, education, shared values, a compassionate society, economic growth, and emigration.

On the issue of leadership transition, all Members agree that this would be a watershed year in our political development as the Prime Minister hands over the reins of leadership to Mr Goh Chok Tong, First Deputy Prime Minister, before the end of the year. The fact that it was planned for a long time speaks well of the incumbent, of his far-sightedness, and his selflessness.

I think I would not be too far wrong if I were to say that most Members view the Prime Minister's departure with regret, but are happy that he would stay on in the Cabinet as a Senior Minister. The younger MPs, like myself, from the last batch in 1988 have not had the same privilege as our older parliamentary colleagues of listening to him in Parliament and learning from him the cut and thrust that sharpen debating skills. However, we have learned in other ways from his speeches elsewhere and other informal contacts. And I am sure we will continue to learn from him in the future.

At the same time, Members are greeting Mr Goh Chok Tong's assumption of leadership with confidence - confidence in the knowledge that he will maintain his open, participative and consensual style of leadership but at the same time remain decisive and firm. Members have also expressed support to rally behind him and his new team. This brings me to the next issue of a consultative government and consensus building, which many MPs spoke on.

Many Members saw the consultative and consensus building mechanisms established so far, such as the Feedback Unit, Select Committees, and GPCs, as a genuine attempt by the Government to be open and receptive. Unfortunately, some members of the public are still sceptical. More public relations exercises will therefore be necessary to get the remaining sceptics on board.

Many of my parliamentary colleagues also dealt with the subject of education. Recognising that in land-scarce Singapore, developing our manpower resources to their fullest potential was the only way to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity, Members urged the Government to improve the quantity and quality of education so that none who qualify would be denied a place here. At the same time, our graduating children will not only be good at examinations but also become creative and more enterprising. Further investments in educational institutions were urged so that people would have much more flexibility and choice in the system.

A few Members also spoke on the issue of shared values. Although it was felt that there was a need now to forge a Singaporean identity to unite the people despite differences in race, culture and religion, not all MPs thought that a formal statement on shared values would do the job. Much more will probably be said on this subject when this House debates the White Paper on shared values later on this year.

Sir, let me now sum up the views on a compassionate society. It was felt that in our search for excellence and economic progress, we should not become intolerant and soulless. We should still remember the less fortunate financially or physically and make special attempts to pull them on board not only with aid or subsidies but also with training and education. The Government was also asked to be more forgiving of those who have erred or failed in the past and to give them a second chance to start anew. This tolerance of failures or mistakes will encourage greater creativity and risk-taking and help to build entrepreneurship in our people.

On the economic front, MPs talked on a wide range of topics ranging from calls for development of local MNCs to forming strategic business alliances, and the formation of a northern growth triangle with Hongkong and Taiwan, in addition to the Johor-Batam-Singapore triangle for business and leisure. Others, however, felt that Singapore should go regional rather than plug in with certain countries so as to avoid misunderstanding with our neighbours. Ultimately, however, it seems to boil down to the issue of how we can exploit our critical success factors of loca- tion, political stability and our people in order to remain competitive and attractive to investors, of how we can increase our GNP further so that our workers, our people will have more good years ahead.

This brings me to the old but difficult subject of how the Government can meet the challenge of making Singapore attractive to our people so that they will stay and help build a nation. Apart from meeting the basic economic needs, Members also urged the Government to meet the people's higher needs by giving them more choices in their life and their work, and in their leisure. Retention of seemingly little things in life, such as small traditions and shared experiences, was also suggested to help Singaporeans call Singapore home, and perhaps even to lure those who have gone away to come back to Singapore.

Sir, apart from these main issues, Members also expressed their views and concerns, together with exhortations, on many other subjects which are equally good food for thought. For example, both Malay and non-Malay MPs alike have called on the Malay community to rally behind Yayasan Mendaki and help to get it going. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to mention them all here without giving you all indigestion. I am sure we will discuss some of these issues again in the future.

Let me conclude by thanking all Members again for their contributions and support of the motion. I must also thank the Speaker, and you too, Mr Deputy Speaker, for presiding over this debate with great patience. Thank you. [Applause].

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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."