SHARED VALUES (Motion)

Debate resumed.

Dr Hong Hai (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, my recent conversations with students, grassroots leaders and business colleagues give me the distinct impression that many people scoff at the idea of a paper on Shared Values. Most of these things are obvious, they say. Is it necessary for Government to try to push yet another load of sanctimony down our throats?

I must say that I reject these negative attitudes for being cynical or naive. Those older ones who are cynical or sceptical, we cannot do much about: their values are already set by their upbringing and their life experiences.

However, there is hope that the younger generation and the children after them can be inculcated with values that make for a more cohesive society and a more gracious society. This White Paper is for them. If the ideas are presented correctly, these values will be a lighthouse by which we navigate the ship of our culture and nationhood.

I therefore support the adoption of the White Paper. However, I would like to suggest some changes.

The first value, "Nation before community and society above self", is an injunction for us to prioritise our loyalties. Always let the community sacrifice for the nation, let the person sacrifice for society. It is highly idealistic, even simplistic. Taken at face value, this injunction can lead to serious moral dilemmas. Charity, after all, begins at home. If you do not look after yourself and your family first, how are you in a position to help others? Suppose a public-spirited person spends so much time in charity and community work that his family is neglected, his wife is estranged and his children do badly in school. Has he done the right thing? The community has gained from his services. He may have saved the futures of other families in the process. But was it morally correct for him to have sacrificed his own?

Sir, I think we should spare future Singaporean generations with such moral dilemmas. Leave it to each man to decide how much to give to society and nation, and how much to his home. It will suffice that he values service to nation and to society.

Furthermore, it may not be useful or meaningful to draw a sharp distinction between self-interest and the interest of society. As the philosopher and psychologist Erich Fromm tells us, in order to love others, you must first love yourself. To love others, to love your society and your community, you must first respect yourself and have self-esteem. Doing good for others rewards a man best in that it enhances his own self-esteem and gives him immense self-satisfaction. In that sense, an act of goodness for society is an act of self-gratification or inner fulfilment.

Albert Einstein put a similar idea simply and beautifully when he expressed his passion for service to society. I quote:

'Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose.

From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smile and well-being our own happiness depends, and also for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day I realise how much of my outer and inner life is built upon the labours of my fellow-men, both living and dead, how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received.'

"How earnestly," Einstein said, "I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received." Therein, Sir, I believe, lies the simple statement of our shared value.

Sir, may I suggest that our first shared value be restated simply as follows:

"Service to nation and society."

Sir, the fourth value, "Consensus instead of contention" has been the subject of much contention in public discussion, and the consensus of opinion seems to be that it should be scrapped. I do not agree with this opinion, but I would suggest that the statement be amended. In the first place, the statement carries a flaw in logic. Consensus is a state of affairs, and end-result. Contention is a process. One cannot be a substitute for the other.

In the 1950s, when Chairman Mao made the call, "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a thousand ideas contend", he might have been looking for some kind of consensus. He did not get it. So he decapitated the flowers. In the Singapore Parliament, we often have a contention of ideas. Occasionally, we reach a true consensus.

But I think we may be giving too much credence to consensus. In my view, the hallmark of Prime Minister Goh's administration up to now has been, not consensus in public policy decisions, but a more consultative style of government. Government is elected to lead, not to make decisions by popular consensus of views. Government should consult the people, and in today's environment should do so more than in the past. More importantly, the views gathered from consultation should be treated with sincerity and with humility.

If we must state a political value in a White Paper, then I would restate the fourth shared value simply as:

"A consultative style of leadership."

Finally, Sir, I want to propose, if I may, an additional value. I would like us to enshrine in our national shared value system the idea that all men who excel in their chosen fields of endeavour should be given due recognition and reward.

Singapore's system of meritocracy today carries an inherent bias. It rewards well and places high social recognition for those whose attainments add directly to economic growth: administrators, managers, professionals in medicine, engineering, law and so on. These are basically people of higher academic ability.

Recognition and praise for such individuals come early: the academically precocious go into the so-called "gifted education programme" at the age of nine. Sir, in a speech in this House some two years ago, I lamented the use of the label "gifted" for these children. I objected to it because it implies that the others are not gifted or without gifts.

Not every child is gifted academically, but most children have other gifts: music, art, oratory, creative writing, sports, a sharp sense of humour, and so on. All these gifts must be valued in our society because people who develop these gifts will enrich our lives. They too must be recognised, rewarded and accorded the prestige and respect alongside those who drive the engines of our economic growth. As Thomas More put it:

'What good is it to a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?' As it is for man, so it is for nation. What good is it if we gain the world's wealth, but lost our soul?

Sir, our system of meritocracy must be widened to accord recognition to those gifts and talents that contribute to a more cultured, gracious and resilient society. Our Prime Minister has said on several occasions that he wants to see a more rounded and cultured Singaporean. It is indeed a laudable vision.

But the gap is still very wide, for example, between a popular SBC actress, or SBC journalist, and a business executive of equivalent talent. The gap is both in remuneration and social recognition.

To illustrate my point, let me take a somewhat personal example. The American TV personality, Barbara Walters, was once paid US$6 million for a three-year contract with the station ABC - about as much money as Lee Iacocca of Chrysler Corporation some years later, give and take some adjustment for inflation. She was known as the "Six million dollar woman". She also enjoyed about as much prestige in the American public as Iacocca.

Does Diana Koh of SBC enjoy the same remuneration and social prestige as, say, a corporate chieftain like Koh Boon Hwee? I think the gap is much wider here than their equivalents in America, or Europe, or even Japan. Mind you, I am not comparing pay levels between Singapore and America; rewards are much higher in America because it is a much larger country. I am concerned about the yawning gap between reward and recognition for one kind of talent compared to another within Singapore.

As long as such large gaps exist, we shall be unlikely to produce or retain great talent in what we might call the "non-establishment" fields.

You could throw the free market argument at me and say that if they were worth that much recognition in the market, surely they would have achieved it. The market apparently does not accord them sufficient recognition, so why blame the system?

Sir, but let us not forget that we never allowed the free market to operate when we sent our best scholars to study chosen academic fields that would contribute directly to economic growth. The free market would have turned much of this talent into contractors or stockbrokers, because that was where the easy money was. Our Government intervened, and rightly so, to ensure that those who could best contribute to the economy gained the pecuniary and social rewards for their contribution. This emphasis was particularly necessary in the past when we were struggling to enter into the ranks of the NICs.

We must of course continue to promote and recognise such economic talent. But alongside this, we must also produce writers, artists, entertainers and athletes who are well paid and well praised. In practical terms, let us have more scholarships and subsidies for talented young people to go into the creative arts, journalism, entertainment and so forth. Let us promote culture and the arts with ever more vigour - and more money - so that such talent will find a more receptive market. Let us also recognise them publicly with better media coverage, invitations to Istana receptions, National Day functions, and so on.

My suggestion for this shared value, that of recognising talent and gifts of all kinds that are beneficial to society, would be, "Equal opportunities for all."

With a broader recognition of talents from all quarters of society, our people will gain greater self-esteem and find it less daunting to seek fulfilment in life. Parents whose children do not score enough distinctions in school examinations need not wring their hearts in despair. The child, if he is encouraged, will find success in another field for which he is talented and for which he should be respected.

One mark of a cohesive and mature nation is indeed that few of its people feel left out or lack self-esteem for not having gained social recognition in their vocations. It is a foolish government that leaves the majority of its people feeling not appreciated or respected for their individual talents and contributions. If these people become plagued by a sense of inferiority or failure, the government too would have failed.

Sir, I urge that this notion of equal opportunity and esteem for all talents that contribute to the social good be enshrined in our system of shared values.

Sir, the statement of Shared Values in the White Paper, with some amendments and refinement, could serve as the basis of our nation building for generations. I commend it to the House.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Sir, may I thank all the Members who have contributed to the discussion, as well as all those outside of this chamber whose inputs have helped us to formulate the Shared Values for Singaporeans over the last two years. We have deliberately taken some time over the Shared Values proposal, because it is a very difficult exercise. There are two conflicting requirements which we have to meet.

Firstly, it is a sensitive subject. For the exercise to succeed, the Shared Values cannot be controversial. They must enjoy wide consensus support. If this is an exciting discussion, then we have already made our task more difficult. But secondly, neither can the Shared Values be mere platitudes, what one Member earlier called "motherhood" statements. They cannot just be a general list of virtues, with no practical meaning. They have to convey something significant to Singaporeans.

We have tried to combine these two opposing requirements in one White Paper. Our aim is to identify values which have us to succeed as one nation, so that we can pass them on to future generations, and gradually develop a common Singaporean identity.

Originally, we had four values - society, family, consensus and harmony. After the discussions, we modified one: "Society above self" became "Nation before community and society above self". We added one to cover the individual: "Regard and community support for the individual" This gives us five items - the nation, the family, the individual, consensus and harmony. The sequence is a logical one, but it does not indicate their relative importance of the five values. As some MPs have pointed out, perhaps the first one on "Society above self" and the last one on "Racial and religious harmony" are the crucial ones, because without these two, all the rest mean nothing.

These five values are compatible with the traditions of the vast majority of Singaporeans, whatever their race or religion. Chinese scholars feel that they reflect Confucian ideals, and some have said they are Confucian values. But they are also compatible with Islam, Christianity and Hinduism. So some people have called them universal values. We did not choose these values because of any particular name which they had, but because they reflect the heritage of Singaporeans, and have contributed to our success as a nation. They may not be unique to us, but they are relevant to Singaporeans. I think we should uphold them and strengthen them. We should make them Singaporean values.

If you take all five together, this group of ideas emphasises putting society above self. In other words, they are communitarian values. That is basic. We start by asking ourselves the question: Does society exist for the sake of the individuals which are inside it? Or is this group, the society, something more than the sum total of the livelihoods of its members? There is no universally right or wrong answer to this question. Every society has to ask it, and every society has to answer it. Each one does so in its own different way. The two extreme positions are, on the one hand, individualism, and on the other, communitarianism.

Individualism, which is the same idea as liberalism, holds that it is the individuals, not the groups, who are the significant actors. The people matter, one by one, not the society as a whole as one organism. The society, the group, has no intrinsic value or significance in itself; its value lies, solely in the individual members who make it up. The state is simply the means by which these individuals within it realise their potentials and fulfil their aspirations. It is a convenient way for individuals to get what they need, what they want, what they aspire to. But more than that it is nothing - it is just a tool. It is what they call a social contract, meaning an agreement amongst its citizens who have gotten together to provide themselves with certain shared services, like defence and public order. We all need it, we cannot do it separately, well, let us agree, sign a contract, we hire an armed force, provide for all of us. Beyond that, what is not specified in the contract, the society has no right to. That is one extreme: individualism.

The other extreme is communitarianism, also called corporatism in a recent pair of articles in the Straits Times by two academics from the National University of Singapore. Corporatism emphasises the importance and the well-being of the society as a whole. In this view, the society comes first. The individual has rights, yes, but he also has duties. He has a standing and a worth, not because of his own merits, but because he happens to belong to a society. His place in that society, what he does in it, gives his life meaning and value. To take him out from the society, standing by himself, no matter how talented and how able he is, he loses that meaning and worth. In fact, some people will say he loses that purpose in life.

This division between an individualistic society and a communitarian society has nothing to do with democracy. A country which puts the group above the individual can be a democracy, just as a country which puts the individual first can be a democracy. If you are going to put group interests first, then you must determine what group interests are. It is not what one or two people say. It is what the people as a whole feel. There is no ideal way to do this, but the best way is through the ballot - let the people express their will, let them choose leaders who will carry out their wishes, and let them then decide whether these leaders have served them well. You can even argue that if democracy is to work well, then the citizens cannot be totally individualistic. To some degree, they have to be prepared to put the country first, and to put aside some of their differences in order to achieve common goals.

These are the two logical extremes - individualism and communitarianism. In reality, every society lies somewhere in between these two extremes, and gives some weight to both of these values; both to the individual and to the community. The only question which we have to decide is where exactly to pitch that balance. How much weight to give to each one?

For many Asian societies, the balance has always been tilted towards the society as a whole. Japan is the clearest example of a country where the individuals all feel that they are part of the group, and the group is far more important than any individual Japanese. But we should remember that putting society first is not a uniquely Asian idea. You will have heard this phrase, "No man is an island, entire of itself". It was not expressed by Confucius or any Asian philosopher. It was an Englishman who said it, John Donne, a 17th century churchman and poet.

Right now, of course, individualism happens to be the dominant philosophy in the West. The US is the leading example of an individualistic society. Most Americans are quite convinced that this is the right solution for them. It suits the US, it suits their history, it suits the temperament of their people, it suits their position in the international order. Perhaps they are right. Some Americans would go further and claim that all mankind should do likewise. I personally think that is probably not right. But there are also a few American scholars - Dr Ong earlier mentioned Professor George Lodge - who think that individualism is precisely the cause of the economic troubles which the United States is now undergoing. These scholars believe that individualism is an inferior way to organise society and to generate economic growth. You have many brilliant ideas, many sparks of genius, but you cannot gather these sparks together and kindle them into a blazing fire. So they argue that the US needs more communitarianism to compete against Japan, to compete against East Asian countries. They include Singapore amongst the East Asian countries which the Americans must compete against, but I think we flatter ourselves if we pitch our position quite so high.

Where does Singapore stand? We also have both strands in our tradition. We believe in developing each individual to his or her fullest potential. We value our citizens, not just because they happen to be useful to the country, but because we believe that each person is intrinsically worthy of respect. In economic matters, we depend on competition and on free markets to make each person give of his best. We do not believe in the communist ethic: to each according to his need; from each according to his con- tribution. We believe that people will perform best when they are rewarded according to their contribution and when they compete furiously against others in order to do well. That is the individualistic strand in our national ethos.

But Singapore has not succeeded by being an individualistic society. We depend on cooperation and teamwork amongst ourselves so that we will do well not just as individual Singaporeans, but as the Singapore team, competing against other nations. We have succeeded as a nation because we have repeatedly pulled together to overcome adversity, and put the nation's interests first.

In fact, the very idea of individualism is alien to our mother tongues. For example, there is no native Malay word for the concept "Individualism". I looked it up, the Malay word used is "individualisme". It is imported directly from English. There is a Chinese phrase, " " (ge ren zhu yi). It conveys the meaning of the word, but it carries negative overtones and it suggests selfishness. It is an undesirable trait. We are a society which has always put the community before the individual.

I think there is more to this than simply finding the best way to fulfil each individual. There is some value in the nation of Singapore which is more than the sum of the individual livelihoods of Singaporeans. Consider this hypothetical scenario. Suppose some day something happens to Singapore, as happened to Kuwait. As a result, Singaporeans find themselves dispersed, scattered all over the world, in America, Canada, Australia, Europe, Britain, China, India. But suppose like the Kuwaitis, we still manage to keep our living, so that while we are scattered around the world, we are personally and physically not hardup. If you are an engineer, you are an engineer in America. If you are a technician, you are a technician in Australia. If you are a lawyer, you are practising in the United Kingdom. You have your livelihood, you have a family. This is what happened to the Kuwaitis. They are overseas, they are scattered. But do you think they feel happy? Do you think we would feel happy scattered like this? I doubt it. Surely we will feel that some important part of us is lost - the sense of togetherness and identity, the sense of being in charge of our own future, the sense of being one nation, one Singapore.

So we need to put society above self, and not only out of enlightened self-interest. An individual Singaporean fulfils himself not only on his own, but by being part of a living society, and by contributing to this living society, each one in his own way. As Dr Hong Hai says, whether you are an artist, whether you are a dancer, whether you are a radio announcer or a corporate chieftain, all are deserving of respect. We need to learn many things from Western civilisation. But we should be careful not to adopt individualistic values blindly, just because they happen to be the current fashion in the West.

So this has been the overall thrust of the Shared Values. It is a thrust which has been confirmed by the vast majority of the people who have participated in discussions and expressed their views on this matter. However, we have modified the individual values to take in the suggestions and the views which various people have expressed.

The first value - "society above self" - we have modified by adding in the idea of "nation before community". It is one important part of putting the nation first, putting society first. The nation must come not only before the individual, but also before the interests of any sub-group. We are doing our best to keep our individual cultural heritages alive - the Chinese, Indian and Malay. Every time you see a lion dance or kompang or a Deepavali celebration, we are keeping our separate cultures alive. It is necessary, because we cannot, and we should not, cook up a new unique Singaporean culture overnight. It is not like blending a new perfume and giving it a name. But we must not allow this seeking of roots to draw us apart. We are all, first and foremost, Singaporeans.

There is another aspect to putting the nation before the community, and that is, racial and religious harmony is not just a matter of being polite and sensitive to other people. Yes, you have to be polite and sensitive, but you also need to subordinate the interests of your own group to the overall interests of Singapore. If you are lording it over the others, no matter how polite you are, race and religious relations will become tense. For example, if the Chinese, who happen to be in the majority, push for Singapore to become a predominantly Chinese society, this must lead to trouble, because the minorities will feel threatened, they will mobilise in response, and the polarisation cannot easily be undone. Fortunately, the Chinese have not done this, although from time to time Chinese chauvinists have tried to stir up the ground. And the same will happen even if a minority group puts its group interests first before the nation. Dr Hong Hai says these are painful dilemmas, very difficult situations for people to face. But they are real dilemmas which from time to time life put before us, and we do have to choose. They are not hypothetical situations.

Although the thrust of the Shared Values is on the society, we added one value to emphasise the importance of the individual, and that is, "Regard and community support for the individual". It helps to round out the set of values and give it proper balance. We want to tilt the balance slightly, towards the society and the group, and away from the individual. But as one of my colleagues pointed out, the Shared Values are not just the delta, the direction in which we want to move. We are specifying the end position, what is the final balance. We want that to be a reasonable mean, not an extreme.

Somebody said that "Regard and community support" did not make it clear enough. Maybe we should use the word "respect" - Respect and community support for the individual. We can consider such amendment. It is not too late. If we fail to point out that the individual deserves respect and consideration in his own right, then we risk over-emphasising the demands of society, and riding roughshod over the intrinsic rights of individual Singaporeans.

The other limb of this value stresses that the community ought to support the individual, especially those in most need of help. It does not say, "Support for the needy. Support for the poor. Support for the handicapped", because the community supports all of us to varying degrees, whether you are able to look after yourself, or whether you need a greater degree of assistance and propping up. We have to look after one another, both as a society, and also as individual human beings.

How do you do this? How do you help the needy and those who cannot look after themselves? That is a difficult problem in every society. The experience of many countries, both in the East and in the West, is that this should be done and organised on a mutual help basis, by volunteers and community groups. This is the way to keep the obligation personal, to channel the help sensitively and accurately to those individuals who needed most.

That is in fact the Singapore tradition - self-help, many helping hands. It is the Singapore way, shared by all our major communities. The Chinese clan associations have always played an active role in community affairs, especially in the early days of the colonial government. The Indians also have sub-ethnic organisations, like the Tamil Representatives Council and the Singapore Khalsa Association, and others. And the Malays have a tradition of gotong royong. It started in the kampungs, as the kampung spirit, but even when the Malays moved out of the kampungs and into HDB areas, they still organised welfare committees and Muslim benevolent associations.

So the spirit is alive. We should keep them alive, and we should avoid bringing in the State. Because when the State steps in, it brings in bureaucracy, it brings in rigid rules, and the support becomes depersonalised. You have to do according to what the book says. You cannot do according to what you, as a community leader on the spot, knows need to be done, which cannot necessarily be justified in dollars and cents according to exact formulas and procedures. As a result, the support misses those who needed most, and goes instead to those who are less in need. Eventually, there develops a psychology of entitlements, a crutch mentality. When that happens, the best-intentioned help becomes counter-productive.

It is not a hypothetical danger. It has happened in every developed society which has set up a welfare state. Invariably at the beginning they have set up welfare states with the best of intentions and with the most careful caveats that they are extending a helping hand, not giving alms, that they are equalizing opportunities, not results, that they want people to work, not to beg. But it is in the dynamic of the situation that once the State moves in, by degrees and imperceptibly, the trends grow and eventually all the ills of a welfare state develop. We must not repeat their mistake.

I come to the fourth value now - "Consensus instead of contention". It has been the most controversial one, but I suspect that is because it has been misunderstood. Promoting consensus does not mean suppressing dissent, or discouraging debate. It means that we should discuss issues widely, but in a spirit of give and take, so that we will find solutions which accommodate the views and concerns of as many Singaporeans as possible. I read in the papers that Mr Chiam See Tong talked about "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". That is dialectical materialism. It is a bit out of fashion, but it is still correct. That is precisely what we are looking for - a view, an opposing view, and a creative synthesis of the two, which would embody the best aspects of both.

But, of course, in the process of trying that, you may end up with argument, counter-argument, and impasse, then we are in trouble.

When 2.8 million people discuss a subject, unanimity will not happen very often. We cannot refrain from doing something which is in the interests of the vast majority, just because a small minority is not yet satisfied. But even when we cannot reach one common understanding, we should respect the opposing viewpoint, and agree to disagree amicably. We should not break up into feuding factions, which are unable to reconcile our differences. Because today we have this issue, tomorrow we remain Singaporeans together, and we have to discuss other issues. And while we disagree on one item, we may well find ourselves allies on another. Much less should we make enemies out of one another.

In every society there are disputes and differences of opinions, over private matters, over commercial affairs, over great issues of state. It is only natural and healthy. Without constructive debate, without a lively exchange of views, no society can hope to break new ground and make progress. But societies differ in the ways by which they seek to resolve differences of views. Some try to conciliate opposing views and smooth over the differences; others fight it out in adversarial proceedings in court. They believe that out of sound and fury will come sweetness and light. Again, the Japanese and the Americans present opposing examples. Just look at the number of lawyers each of these two countries has. The Americans have one lawyer for every 360 Americans. The Japanese have one lawyer for every 9,300 Japanese. That is, Americans have 26 times as many lawyers per capita as Japan. Are they 26 times happier? Should we follow the American, or the Japanese example?

That is what we mean by consensus instead of contention. This value refers generally to relationship within Singaporean society, not just the relation between the Government and the people. But consensus is also what the Government has been trying to achieve. I know that some people still feel the Government is too hard and unforgiving in its approach, intolerant, harsh. They would like the Government to be gentler and more consensual, smile more often, follow the heart rather than the head more often. We will try to be gentler and more consensual. So long as everybody accepts what the end objective is, and that is, to discover the best course for the country, then we can work together in order to achieve a common goal.

Some people have suggested that the phrasing of this value can be improved.

The problem is more with the wording of it than with the sentiment. There have not been any complaints about the Chinese or the Malay versions. The Chinese version says " " (Qiu Tong Cun Yi Xie Shang Gong Shi). The Malay version says "Permuafakatan bukan Pertikaian". The reservation has been over the word "contention". Some feel that it is too wide. Contention may be good, contention may be bad. It is not too late to amend the language, if MPs can come up with a better word than "contention". We can consider, eg. "Consensus instead of strife", or "Consensus instead of confrontation", or "Consensus instead of discord", or "Consensus not conflict". There are any number of bad words to express the idea. Let us find a suitable one. MPs should discuss this and perhaps we can decide the issue tomorrow. Somebody can move an amendment, and we can agree on a revised formulation of the five values.

The Shared Values leave out religious values, in order to keep the state and religion clearly separate. This does not mean that religion is unimportant, or that the Government has anything against religion. On the contrary, I believe that religion is a major factor for social cohesion and stability. All religions enjoin their followers to do good, and to care for their fellow human beings. But Singapore is a secular state. The state should not venture into the religious realm, and prescribe religious values for its citizens, no matter how generalised these may be. Because if the state is entitled to prescribe generalised religious values, then so too religious leaders must be entitled to prescribe generalised political values. And that way lies trouble.

Several people have argued that although Singapore is a secular state, we should nevertheless include religious values in the Shared Values and, particularly, "Belief in God". I do not think this is wise. In fact, all the religious leaders who have commented on the Shared Values have advised us against doing this. I will just quote one, Brother Joseph McNally, who wrote a letter to Mr Goh Chok Tong two years ago, in which he said:

"Religions themselves are agents of social harmony and valuable to Society so long as they recognise the right of other religions to coexist with them. Society encourages the practice of religion but retains the right to suppress any religion that preaches against another and thereby disrupts harmony.

What interests Society is not religion as such but rather the philosophy which derives from it. Society does not practise a religion; the individual does. So far as Society is concerned, religion is a private matter. It accepts the right of each individual to practise any religion or no religion. Society insists that positive respect be shown by each individual to the religion of the other person and takes action against individuals who seek to denigrate other religions or to force their religion on others.". I think that is a wise approach which we should follow.

We have also left out political items - good government, meritocracy, democracy, and so on - from these Shared Values. Again it is not because these are unimportant. All Singaporeans should absorb these values, whether or not they support the government of the day. But these values represent a separate set of ideas from those which are expressed in the five Shared Values. The five Shared Values presently deal with the relationship between the individual and the society. If we are going to cover political values adequately, we would have to add another four or five items to the list, at least - democracy, good government, meritocracy, equal opportunities, pursuit of excellence. We would lose focus, and end up dealing adequately with neither area.

Nevertheless, we must find other avenues to inculcate political values systematically among the population and especially among young Singaporeans. Every schoolboy and schoolgirl should grow up with a common understanding of the basic facts of political life - that Singapore is small, that it depends on exports to other countries to make a living, that it is through ceaseless endeavour in the pursuit of excellence that we can do well and get ahead. The Japanese do this in their schools. They make sure that every young Japanese grows up understanding Japan's place in the world.

There was recently a programme on Japan in the BBC entitled "Nippon", the first in a series. They showed a little bit of how the Japanese do this. A commentator who said this:

'Six thousand miles away, Japan's own agricultural heartland lies in the rice paddies of Nigata prefecture. Each spring school children are taken to the fields by the older people of the village to be taught the traditional method of planting rice by hand that has sustained the Japanese for thousands of years. Although most planting is by machine these days, this is a deliberate lesson in values and hard work. It's designed to pass on to the children the age-old view that the Japanese people have had of themselves.'

Then in a classroom, this is what the teacher said:

'Look at this map of the world, please. This is Japan. It's a small island country surrounded on all sides by sea. Japan has very few of its own natural resources. And so it imports resources from other countries. When we say we import natural resources, we mean that we buy them and bring them home.'

That is how they bring the lesson home. Then it quotes Kenichi Ohmae. He is a pundit who writes on these issues and he said:

'What they teach is, we are a small nation, lots of people to feed, no natural resources. This means that you have to borrow money to buy raw materials, add value and export. The difference in price is going to give you the money to buy food. Therefore those who do not work to that value shall not eat. So that's the raison d'etre of this country. And if you are taught like this, you keep exporting and hope that you earn money and then you eat well. That is the Japanism. And everything we do is related to this notion.' So we must find some ways to do that.

The Ministry of Education will be incorporating political values in its civics programme. It has asked Dr Goh Keng Swee who has agreed to write up a series of lectures, to put across these ideas in ways which school children can absorb. It cannot use the big words but simple, direct explanations, so it sinks in to the collective sub-conscious. If these efforts succeed, then democracy will take root in Singapore, and our democratic institutions can flourish.

These five Shared Values are not the only ones which Singaporeans should hold in common. Nor are they intended to be writ in stone, unchangeable for all time. They must reflect the circumstances and priorities of the times. Each generation must adapt them and interpret them to suit their circumstances. But the Shared Values will provide a guide to help us from going astray. They offer a basis from which a Singaporean identity can in time emerge. I think the key words are "in time". We do not want to rush this, we do not want to force this. Let the values trickle down, seep in, gradually be absorbed, transmuted and blossomed.

There have been some suggestions to form a Committee to implement these values. I have some reservations on this. I asked my colleague, the Minister for Community Development, what MCD does on this score. He told me that, in fact, it is already doing a number of projects which are consistent with the Shared Values. It runs a Family Week, Family Life Education Programmes, Community Week, Senior Citizens' Week, Volunteer Month, 25th Anniversary Charity Fund - $88 million was collected last year, totally voluntary efforts - and, of course, there is the Feedback Unit, helping to generate a consensus. We should continue with these piecemeal gradual approaches rather than establish a Committee, develop action plans, and push through what may not yet be fully cooked.

Dr Ong Chit Chung's motion asks the House to adopt the White Paper, not as The Shared Values for Singaporeans, but as the basis for developing a set of shared values for Singaporeans. There is a world of difference. I think Dr Ong has chosen the right approach - cautious rather than hasty, as guidelines rather than laws, and open-ended rather than final. I therefore urge Members to support the motion.