SHARED VALUES (Motion)

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That this House adopts the White Paper (Paper Cmd. No. 1 of 1991) as the basis for developing Shared Values amongst Singaporeans."

Mr Speaker, Sir, this set of values, as outlined in the White Paper, is the distillation and crystallization of our thoughts. They are the common values which hold us together as Singaporeans and which we cherish and we uphold. Whether we know it or not, they are instinctively our guide to actions and interactions. We live by it.

Sir, we must applaud the Government for undertaking this difficult and unenviable task of defining these core values. It is also a dangerous mission, as it may run foul of public opinion or be accused of having sinister ulterior motive, of gearing up the propaganda machine, and trying to stifle free thought. But after 25 years of independence, it is time for stock-taking and reflection. Indeed, these common values are not the creation of the present Government. The process of evolution begun when our forefathers stepped upon the shores of this island, and brought with them the cultures of the great civilizations further ashore. Over time, there evolved a distinctive Singaporean way of life, drawing upon the best of each civilisation.

It is better for the Government to come forth and table the common values for discussion, rather than deciding on its own what they are, what should be done and doing it quietly on its own. It is part of our style of consultation, consensus-building and nation-building. You may ask, if these values are part of us, why should we consciously uphold and promote them? Ordinarily, in a big country with centuries of existence, these values would evolve at a leisurely pace with impetus coming from, among other things, folklore, poems and music. But, alas, we are a small nation, with a short history, situated at the confluence of East and West, at a time of rapid changes in the world.

Moreover, with the decline of the extended family system, we find that it is more difficult to mould our young and pass on to them our rich cultural heritage. Grandparents may stay apart, and there are not so many aunties and uncles around to help in the transmission of values.

We need the core values to anchor ourselves, to enable us to face the storms of life, and to be the compass for the ship of state as we sail into uncharted waters. We therefore quicken our pace in our evolution of shared values and national identity so that they will tide us over in times of crisis.

In a multi-racial and multi-religious society such as ours, these common values will be the glue that binds us together as a nation.

There is another reason. Professor George C. Lodge of Harvard University points out that nations compete and we live in a fiercely competitive international market place. Multi-national companies and investments gravitate towards nations with competitive advantage. And the right ideology or core values would perhaps be a nation's most important competitive advantage.

Such core values will have a communitarian emphasis, and is capable of adapting and adjusting to the exigencies of the real world, and whose government, business, unions and the people work for the common good of all, in a spirit of cooperation and consensus.

Professor Lodge believes that a nation can compete successfully if it has the "the will, the purpose, the discipline, the consensus, the coherence, and the theory." He gives an example: "Panama has about two million people, so does Singapore. In spite of the fact that Panama has significantly greater resources, including a canal, Singapore is a nation that is demonstrably more competitive." And we should stay competitive for our long term development and prosperity.

In evolving our shared values, we should be eclectic in our approach, selecting and inculcating the best from each culture; incorporating what is relevant, whether Western or Eastern. No one has the monopoly of virtues or wisdom.

We should not be like the Boxers of Manchu China who, at the turn of the Century, resisted change with outmoded ideas and methods, riding on the tide of anti-Western bandwagon. Nor should we be apologetic about time-tested Eastern values. We should not be bashing the West nor be bashful about Eastern virtues. We do not, I am sure, want to be the ostrich with the head in the sand, nor be carried away by every whim and fancy emanating from the West. As BG George Yeo put it recently, "We are part of this great dialogue between East and West. What we should really seek is a synthesis which will raise us to a higher level of human civilisation."

What do we make of the five core values highlighted in this White Paper? I will not go into details, but comment on some of the salient features.

In general, I would say that these core values are wholesome and desirable, almost like motherhood. No one can seriously quarrel over them. If you were to ask me which is the most important of all, I would say it is "Racial and Religious Harmony". Without this harmony and peace, nothing else is possible. Our society will be torn apart. There will be chaos, riots, possibly civil war and foreign intervention, like what is happening in Lebanon. That will be the end of our way of life as we know it today. We must therefore not take racial and religious harmony for granted. We have to work at it at all times, year in and year out.

Next on my list is the "Family as the Basic Unit of Society". We can see that some developed societies are beginning to decline. One reason is the permeating permissiveness and the continuous erosion of family ties. This is a lesson we have to take to heart. If the family units are strong, society will be strong. With the greying of Singapore, we need all the more the families to care for and stand by our senior citizens. Do not forget, we will all grow old one day.

You may characterize the family as the building block of society, but I would rather call it the pillar of society. If the pillar is eroded or weakened, society will not stand.

"Nation before community and society above self" will be what Professor Lodge would term as communitarian values. "Nation before community" reminds us that national interest supersedes community interests. What is good for a community is unacceptable unless it is good for the nation as a whole. Each community, whether majority or minority, should not insist on having its own way if it is not in the national interests to do so or if it disrupts harmony. This reinforces the earlier point on inter-racial and inter-religious harmony.

"Society above self" helps us to put the individual in the context of society. The individual should assert himself, go for excellence and achieve the best. He should be allowed, and indeed encouraged, to develop his potential to the fullest. But this is not the same as self-centred and rampant individualism, with callous disregard for group or national interests. In other word, individual fulfilment and satisfaction should be in the context of society. There need not be a conflict between individual and society. For example, one can find individual fulfilment as a top surgeon and yet serve society, provided he charges a reasonable fee.

"Regard and Community Support for the Individual" beautifully, I believe, balances the emphasis on communitarian and group interests. It explicitly recognises the fact that the individual has rights which should be respected. We are a democratic nation, based on the rule of law. We should not, and cannot, encroach or trample upon the individual.

It also means that we as a community care for and support those individuals amongst us who are less fortunate or have fallen behind. The generous donations to the 25th Anniversary Charity Fund demonstrate that we are a caring people. But more could be done by all.

Sir, apparently, the most contentious of all values appears to be "Consensus instead of Contention". There is a fear or suspicion that the Government will use this call for consensus to browbeat critics, stifle creativity and muzzle opponents.

As I see it, the emphasis on consensus is to wean us away from adversarial relationships to one based on consultation, trust and team spirit. We can make a point without being contentious. We can deliberate and reach a conclusion without tearing apart the fabric of society or tearing our hair out in exasperation. We can agree to disagree, respect each other's opinions and differ in judgment. As we search and as we debate, we have more and more common ground. We bring more and more people on board. Over time, consensus develops and emerges democratically. We then act as a team.

Those who fear that the Government would abuse the mechanism of consensus should take heart in the fact that this, or indeed any other government, cannot buck the trend towards democratic practices around the world. You cannot hold back the tides of history. Singapore is a global city. People would just leave, and vote with their feet. I will be the first to stand up and speak against the Government if it tries to enslave us. So would many of you.

It is pertinent to note that the Government is now not calling these values national ideology or even national values, but "shared values", with a different connotation. Of course, the process of consensus does not mean that there is no contention of ideas or ideals. Far from it. The better ideas should hopefully emerge and be accepted. But it need not be done in a contentious way. Perhaps to clarify and allay the fears, the term "Consensus instead of Contention" should be re-worded to "Democratic Consensus".

A good example of consensus building is found in companies where the management and unions work together closely to improve productivity and profits, instead of fighting over rights and privileges in an adversarial relationship.

At the national level, the Government, management and unions would seek consensus on issues which affect them, and thereby enhances economic development and the investment potential of the country. A case in point, Sir, is the National Wages Council, a tripartite organisation which arrives at a consensus on wages. Seen in perspective, therefore, consensus building is a democratic practice which would give us the competitive edge in the world-wide technological and economic race.

Sir, has any desirable trait been unjustly left out from the set of five core values? Some have been suggested: Belief in God; Honest Government; Rule of Law; Environment; Social Justice and Upholding the Constitution. We can go on ad infinitum, but I will just address the first two.

"Belief in God", Sir, is indeed a most desirable characteristic. Those of us who believe would know that without God, there would not be creation, and we will not be here. In some countries, "Belief in God" is enshrined in their constitutions and etched on their coins and currencies. But Singapore is a much more diverse and multi-religious country. If we put in "Belief in God", then the next question is: Which God? It will lead to a great deal of sensitivities and unnecessary heat. We should, I believe, therefore remain a strictly secular nation in this regard.

That does not mean that the State should be against religions or it is unmindful of the religious needs or spiritual needs of the people. At SAF commissioning ceremonies, for example, the leaders of the major religions are invited to say prayers and meet the spiritual needs of the officers.

One value which I wish personally to see included is "Honest Government". The emphasis on honest, incorrupt and upright government has seen us through many, many difficult years, and brought us to where we are today. We would have perished without this inclination for integrity and disdain for corruption. Though we try explicitly to keep political cultures out of this set of core values, I would plead for this inclusion, as it is a most critical and essential element for our success. Though political in nature, it is really a non-partisan value which all parties would be able to subscribe to.

It is, I would say, beyond politics; it is our Singaporean way of life. As Nadesan Chandra, a Singaporean soccer referee who rejected bribes and refused to fix a match in Kuwait in 1987, declared, and I quote:

"It is just not Singaporean to be corrupt. Taking 'dirty money' has never been my cup of tea. I am proud that I reacted and behaved like a genuine Singaporean." This, Sir, is our Singaporean way of life.

Overall, I must say that these values should not be a strait-jacket or be an albatross around the neck of our citizens. They are only to be reference points and our compass, not rigid dogmas. They are skeleton guidelines and it is up to the people to flesh it out in every day life and every day conduct.

As the world changes, these values should also be subject to new interpretations by succeeding generations of Singaporeans, so that they can adapt and adjust to changing circumstances.

If we agree on these values, how are we going to go about inculcating them in our young? If we only pay lip service to them, they will have no bearing or meaning in our lives. After the initial flurry of publicity in forum and mass media, they may be quietly forgotten, and end up as dead letters.

Sir, I suggest that we set up a National Council comprising representatives from the Government, the business sector, the unions, the civic organisations, as a team effort to keep the issue alive and to consider ways and means of promoting these desirable values. It will be part of our consensus building and would widen input and participation from all sectors of our society. This should not be just a government role, but the business of every citizen. It is not a Government set of values, but the values of all Singaporeans, and we can over time reinforce and institutionalise these values through the mass media, schools, colleges, SAF, unions, corporations and civic bodies.

The point is we should not only talk about these values, but act on them, so that a hundred years from now, they will say this is the turning point in our history and a watershed in the evolution of our national and Singaporean identity.

Sir, we have a special responsibility to the future generations of Singaporeans. To fail is unthinkable. Not to do anything is an abrogation of our responsibility. We must but succeed. Let us row together as a nation, as a team in consensus building. We shall succeed.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Sir, Dr Ong has been most comprehensive in his speech. I shall be brief.

Sir, so far we have concentrated on turning this country into a successful economic unit. And for some time now, we have also increasingly addressed ourselves to the question of forging this entity into a nation. Crucial in this exercise, Sir, is the formation of a Singaporean identity and a sense of attachment and belonging to one another and to this country. I see, Sir, the proposed promotion of these shared values as part of this important exercise.

Ours is a multi-racial and multi-religious society with a relatively short history as nations go. There was not simply enough time for us to evolve a set of commonly accepted values to which all citizens could adhere and subscribe to. The glue that have kept the society together and going are the benefits and rewards that economic prosperity and political stability bring to its members. Stripped of these elements, Singapore would, as some would argue, surface as a society of separate races with probably separate loyalties and interests, waiting to break in times of stress and tension, for there is nothing deeper to anchor its members to one another and to this place.

In this context, Sir, the proposed shared values could offer the deeper and more enduring emotional and spiritual ties that could bind this society together, especially in an atmosphere that is fast changing and perennially exposed to influences from other societies. We must therefore take the shared values very seriously.

Some say that the sentiments that have been proposed are nothing new and are already embedded in our respective traditions and our cultures. Indeed, Dr Ong has already alluded to this earlier, and I agree. What in fact we are doing is to institutionalise and formalise these values at national level whereby they become common reference to all Singaporeans instead of being buried in our separate groups. In other words, to make these values not merely Chinese, Malay, or Indian values, but Singaporean values, because they emphasise our similarities rather than accentuate our differences.

We have spent a considerable amount of time and energy in searching for and identifying these values which we can commonly hold. Five have been chosen. And I agree with Mr Chandra Das, the Chairman of the Feedback Unit, that, although we may have many other values worthy of consideration, it will indeed be more practical and more effective in terms of implementation if we confine ourselves to a workable number to cover only those which are basic to our quest for nationhood and to our survival.

I will not discuss all the values proposed as I believe other speakers would comment on each one of them. But as Chairman of the GPC for Community Development, I am particularly pleased with the addition of a fifth to the original four values proposed, that is, Regard and Community Support for the Individual. Sir, it is only fitting that while we put the interest of the nation above community and that of the latter over the individual, we should not forget and brush aside the condition and welfare of individuals.

The practice of meritocracy has enabled us to prosper and progress and facilitate our adaptation to an ever changing environment. But the pure and simple practice of this principle must necessarily end in the rewards going only to those who are able and to those who make the effort. Those who are unable, through no fault of their own, or through no lack of trying, to grasp the opportunities that are available will tend to be left behind and to be left alone. I am referring, Sir, to those who are less fortunate among us - the poor, the handicapped, the less privileged. These individuals and these families must be given the community's attention and the community's assistance, and indeed this includes also the Government. To enable them to live a decent and meaningful life, the community must take upon itself to share with and care for them so that they too have a place in this country. This also dovetails our aspirations towards creating a society that is not only economically successful but also kinder and gentler as well.

How do we inculcate or promote these shared values? In our earnestness, Sir, we may be tempted to legislate and turn these values into law. I would strongly discourage this. By all means reflect these in our policies and the way we, the Government and the people, conduct ourselves. But they should be accepted, not forced down, internalised and not contrived. It would appear therefore that the best way is through education in the home and through the schools, and starting also from the young.

I am confident, Sir, that through these methods, our shared values will, through time, be a body of values that are alive and relevant to our people.

I support the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Batok.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Speaker. Sir, the Feedback Unit held a dialogue session last Saturday on this subject. Participants at this session included representatives from ethnic organisations like the Chinese clan associations, MUIS, Taman Bacaan, the Tamil Representatives Council and the Singapore Eurasian Association. There were also concerned citizens from all walks of life.

Sir, first of all, some participants felt that there seemed to be little time given to discuss this White Paper. Frankly, there is hardly any time between the day the White Paper was released and the commencement of today's debate. However, Sir, having said that, I am happy to inform Members that there was much support for the idea of a set of Shared Values to be promoted amongst Singaporeans. This, many felt, will help preserve our heritage and gradually evolve a Singaporean identity. The five Shared Values identified are acceptable to most people except for the wordings and the spirit intended in some of them.

Sir, for the two values on "Nation before community and society above self" and "Regard and community support for the individual", there is a feeling that these two values slant too heavily towards the society and community. Not enough premium is placed on the individual. People are afraid that these values would lead to a stifling of the individual. While individualism, per se, is not a good value to promote, over-emphasis on the community could lead to a stifling of innovation and creativity, and hence reduce our competitiveness. The line between the two has to be carefully drawn.

A few people felt that the first value could be more explicitly phrased as "Love for the Country", if it is loyalty to the nation that we are talking about, instead of its present rather passive form. Similarly, in the case of "Regard for community support for the individual", the two ideas that appear to be captured could be expressed separately as "Respect for the individual" and "Compassion for the underprivileged".

Sir, it is, however, on the fourth value, that is "Consensus instead of contention", that much reservation was expressed over its meaning. I think my colleague, Dr Ong Chit Chung, has already touched on this. People are afraid that this value would lead to the suppression or brushing aside of dissenting views. Consensus should not mean that everyone must agree right from the start. On the contrary, it is through debate, arguments, and sometimes contention that consensus could be reached. One participant went on to suggest that it could be phrased as "Consensus through consultation".

Sir, since so much reservation has been expressed on the word "contention", I would strongly urge that the Government consider rephrasing this to something more acceptable without deviating from the basic principle.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the fifth value, that is "Racial and religious harmony", some felt that it did not go far enough to promote greater understanding and goodwill between ethnic communities. The word "harmony" simply implies more tolerance which is really not good enough. This value could also be extended to fostering good relations and understanding with neighbouring countries within the context of ASEAN.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in additon to the five Shared Values, there were also calls for the inclusion of new values like "Belief in God", "Honest and Efficient Government", "Strive for Excellence", "From Each His Best", and "Commitment to Democracy". Strong arguments were offered for the inclusion of each.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having decided on the set of values to be adopted, the next step is really the question of implementation of a programme to promote these Shared Values. Sir, the White Paper, in the opinion of some, did not deal with this in sufficient depth. While teachers and parents have important roles to play in inculcating the values amongst the young, other organisations and institutions, like the clan associations, ethnic organisations, grassroots organisations and, in particular, the mass media, should be involved in the promotion of these values. There was a suggestion, and a similar suggestion was echoed by Dr Ong Chit Chung, that perhaps a central body or a council be set up to spearhead and coordinate the promotion of these values. If, for some reasons, a council cannot be set up, maybe then the Ministry of Community Development could be appointed to undertake this role.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that the White Paper, particularly the five Shared Values be accurately translated into three other languages - Chinese, Tamil and Malay. There are some comments as to the correctness of the translation and my colleague, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, will later explain the differences in the meanings. I am not competent enough to comment on this. Sir, this is to ensure that the translation is correct and that we are talking about the same thing. If proper translations are not used, we could end up promoting different versions of each value in different languages.

Sir, what I have done is to briefly summarise the feedback that we have received on the White Paper. I hope it will be useful in further refining the Shared Values so that the end product will be acceptable to all. As for me, Sir, I fully endorse the principles contained in the White Paper. The core values as stated in the White Paper are about the minimum in which all Singaporeans can agree.

Mr Speaker: Order, I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 p.m.

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