SHARED VALUES (Motion)

Debate resumed.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the new year has brought us a new beginning. On the 2nd of January this year, our leaders presented this White Paper to lay the foundation for a stable and harmonious society. "Nation before community and society above self" is a basic tenet. Without territorial integrity and sovereignty, no country can survive; its citizens will become refugees. During a SBC forum yesterday, the view was expressed that the Shared Values might be seen by some people as an attempt to discourage differing views. Moreover, the values seemed similar to communist slogans used by Eastern Europe to safeguard the interests of a few old men. In may view, the supremacy of nation is relevant to all countries. Even in Western democracies like the United States of America, the late President Kennedy once said: "Ask not what the country can do for you but ask first what you can do for the country." As regards the slogans of communist countries, they are not necessarily undesirable. Mao Zedong said, "Serve the People". I doubt any of my colleagues here will object to that.

In the 80s', political and economic changes occurred rapidly. The restructuring of the Soviet and the Eastern European economies proves that the pursuit of wealth and a better life is not a daydream of the Bourgeoisie only. In fact, hard work and the search for a better life is the motivating force for progress. Improvement comes with competition. The market economy is driven by the human propensity to move upwards. However, in achieving personal goals we should not use all means, fair or foul. Otherwise, social disorder and escalating crime rates will follow.

The pursuit of wealth is of course not wrong. But if people are obsessed by the desire to get rich quick and to get something for nothing, then we shall have to be very careful. In recent years, lucky draws have become very popular. Even statutory boards do not want to lag behind. In order to increase the usage of IDD, Telecom has also organised a lucky draw.

In a bustling metropolis, some young people tend to go for branded clothes and accessories, showing off to one another their latest acquisitions. But in a small country with no natural resources, facing a slowdown or even a recession in the world economy, should we encourage and publicize a life of luxury and extravagance? According to Mr Peh Chin Hua, junior college students spend several hundred dollars for an evening dress for their graduation dinner and dance, a sum which is probably greater than their monthly salary when they start work after leaving junior college.

The White Paper states that we should preserve the values that have helped Singapore to succeed. The diligence and thrift of the pioneers was one of the main reasons for our success. They laboured under extremely trying conditions, eking out a living. Parents and older brothers and sisters made sacrifices, saving every dollar, so that their children and their siblings would have a better life through higher education. We cannot be sure that our economy will always do well. In a recession, will our people accept a simple life and difficult work? Expensive tastes and high consumption could be habit-forming, a habit which is going to be difficult to get rid of. The White Paper should therefore stress the importance of hard work and thrift.

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

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): The Western societies have seen a lot of changes. Homosexuals can get married.

There are more single parents and their divorce rates have shot up, reaching 50% in USA and one in three in the UK. In September 1989, the Guardian published a report on "A National Survey on Health and Development". According to the report, children whose parents had divorced tended to suffer from negative emotions which subsequently had affected their school and work performance. Moreover, the proportion of children with symptoms of emotional disorders doubled that of normal families. The then Prime Minister Mrs Margaret Thatcher called upon her people to strengthen family ties.

The divorce rate in Singapore was 4.6% in 1989, which is not high compared to USA and UK. But we should be alert to current developments elsewhere and in Singapore. On TV, stories of casual relationships are common. A chance meeting and a couple of drinks turn the two parties into an instant couple. Many of our young citizens study, work or spend their holidays abroad. They too will be influenced to some extent. We must therefore stress the importance of family ties and lifelong commitment. The tradition of children reciprocating the care and concern given by their parents must be upheld. The Ministry of Education should reinforce teaching of moral values so that students will have a firm grasp of individual responsibility and sense of duty to their families. Grassroots organisations can carry out more activities for the whole family. In 1988, the Advisory Council on Family Life suggested a 5-day week to allow family members to spend more time together and share household responsibilities. I hope the Government will review this recommendation.

Regard and community support for the individual - it is the responsibility of the family members to look after their sick parents. However, in many cases, both husband and wife have to work and cannot look after the old folks. Private nursing homes are costly and of limited capacity. These families still need the support of Government and the community.

Since 1979, a large number of students have emerged from the extended and the monolingual streams. Have we done enough to give them the regard and support? Have they been able to develop self-respect and self-improvement to contribute their share to society?

"Knowledge without action is not true knowledge". After adopting the Shared Values, we should draw up concrete plans for implementation. We should guard against being mere critical by-standers. Instead, we need to set an example for others to follow. In facing problem together, Singaporeans should foster a sense of self-respect and with confidence build a society of distinction based on our own ideals.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a small country. It is prosperous and doing well. It does so despite the fact that it is a multi-lingual and multi-racial country.

Its people are split into three main language groups. Furthermore, they are also split in their religion. They had violent conflicts in the past over religion. Yet today, that country is harmonious and cohesive. It has a thriving economy based on banking, manufacturing and tourism, although not so long ago, it had unemployment and even poverty.

Sir, I could be describing our country, Singapore. But I am not. I am describing Switzerland, a country of 6(r) million people comprising German, French, Italian and Romansch speaking peoples. Half of the people are Calvinist Protestants. The other half are Roman Catholics.

On the face of it, Switzerland should not exist as a country. Its peoples have close racial, language and cultural links with their respective neighbouring countries. This should produce forces to pull them apart in three directions.

Indeed, during the 2nd World War, there was a risk that Nazi Germany might carry out another "Anschluss" on the German-speaking part of Switzerland. But Swiss cohesiveness held. Dr Jonathan Steinberg, a Swiss scholar in Cambridge, says that Switzerland is a puzzle. Switzerland poses the question: why does a country of such diversity in language and culture not pull apart and instead, is a very cohesive and successful one? He tried to give an answer in his book entitled "Why Switzerland?"

What is Switzerland's secret? Why do the Swiss people have a strong sense of "Swissness" despite their racial differences? It is their shared values. The Swiss feel Swiss because they consciously or unconsciously share the same set of values with other Swiss citizens. Dr Steinberg traces these values to the communal and cooperative economic organisation of the old Swiss mountain communities. They were fierce, independent and freedom loving communities. Yet they learnt that to survive, they had to cooperate with one another despite their differences. They had to agree to common pastures for their cattle. They had to cooperate to maintain passes and roads which were regularly washed away by avalanches. They had to unify to defend themselves against bigger outside foes.

Today, the shared values of the Swiss are embedded in their institutions. Their federal system of cantons guarantees that every racial and language group is represented. This is their version of the GRC system. They have a highly participatory and responsible form of democracy. They have town councils at the local level in which their citizens assume responsibility for most local affairs. They believe in a people's militia. They have compulsory national service even though they have been neutral for over 400 years.

Out of the severe constraints put upon them by their racial and language differences, they have through their rational genius created a harmonious and cohesive nation. Can we, with our diversity, also create a cohesive and prosperous nation in the long run?

This, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the essence of the Shared Values debate.

"Natural" nations usually have one race, one language and one common culture - something which may have taken them hundreds of years to evolve. We are trying to build a Singapore without these advantages. How can we do so?

Take a normal, successful family. What holds it together? It is their common bond based on the values that they share and experiences that they share. If there is no consensus in the family, if the interests of the individual members always take precedence over those of the family as a whole, such a family will surely break up. As with a family, so with a nation.

For us, the values we share, the bonds that bind us together, the common experience that we have, are not just a matter of intellectual debate. They are a matter of national survival in the long term.

Sir, I wish to bring out at this point two fears that have been expressed to me during this debate, not by Members in this House, but from people outside. The first is the fear by the minority communities that they will have less of a place in the Singapore of the future. It is true that the majority community, the Chinese, have done well. And elements of their culture and values have helped them in this.

The Chinese indeed have a strong sense of their culture. They like to recall their 3,000 years or more of unbroken history. But because of their success and because of the interplay of their values with their success, it may be taken that successful Chinese want to propagate and impose their values on others. This is how minority communities may see this. Therefore, there must never be cultural arrogance. Instead, we should always emphasise the common area that we all share.

Sir, since our independence, we have carefully avoided promoting any one culture but have always striven for a multi-racial, Singaporean approach. This goes right down to grassroots activities. In trying to encourage each group now to re-establish their cultural roots, we should be very careful that we will not reverse what we have taken 25 years to achieve.

The question that I and many others are asking is whether the shared values that we are adopting will help to make us more Singaporean and less communal in our outlook. I hope that emphasis on shared values will make all groups feel that there is space, there is room, for all.

The second anxiety is that the proposed shared values are loaded too much in favour of the group and will give little room for the individual. This is the hidden fear when people criticize "consensus instead of contention" and "society above self".

Dr Jonathan Sacks, the British Chief Rabbi elect, speaking on the dilemma of the individual and society in the West, put it this way. He says:

'We have lost our sense of being part of a single moral community in which different people are brought together under a canopy of shared values. We have reached the limits of individualism ... Without community and tradition, there is no self-expression beyond the inarticulate cry of a child.' This is how far the pendulum has swung towards individualism in the West. And as a religious leader, he has expressed great concern of this trend.

Sir, we do not want to go that way. The framers of our shared values, the authors of our shared values that we are debating, are right in assuming that the human tendency is always towards self - self before others, self before society, even when they pay lip-service to the greater good. Therefore, I agree with them that if they have to be loaded, the scales should be loaded in favour of community and society.

But neither do we want blind conformity and compliance in the name of nation or of consensus, a disease which is not unknown in the East. Tyranny of the majority may be even worse than individualism. Our shared values must never be an excuse to stamp out individual ideas and aspirations that can lead to new achievements. We must always encourage individual excellence. Even the Japanese are realising that excessive conformism stifles creativity.

Finally, Sir, spelling out a set of shared values is one thing. How do you get people to internalise them, and to take personal responsibility for them? Unless that takes place, it will all be lip-service. Fortunately, the five values are not new. They are already to some extent present in our collective psyche. Every group in Singapore, every community in Singapore, accepts and practises to some extent those five values. This is a good start. But implanting a value is not an easy task. Take, for example, the principle of advancement by merit. Today, this is generally accepted. But this was not so 25 to 30 years ago. Nepotism, special contacts and favours, guanxi, were then more the norm. This value is still widely practised in many Asian countries. But Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his generation of leaders decided to break the mould. They decided to go against an age-old tradition and chose the principle of meritocracy. They were strict in the implementation. Today, guanxi is not dead yet. But those who practise it do so in secret with a strong sense of guilt. But the point here is that advancement by merit has become accepted as a Singaporean value.

This example gives me hope that the five shared values will one day also "stick" and become accepted as Singapore values. But to achieve this, our leaders, perhaps more than anyone else, must be firm and consistent in applying the values. The example they themselves set will then be followed and in due course the values will become uniquely Singaporean.

Sir, I dislike to take the responsibility of inculcating values out of the hands of parents. I believe they have the most profound influence which we cannot easily substitute. However, as our schools are the next most influential body over our children, I want to assure the House that the Ministry of Education and our schools will be involved in some way in teaching shared values.

We have a polyglot young society with potential pulls in different directions, and we cannot take it for granted that the pulls will not grow stronger. The question before us is whether we can keep pulling together and one day perhaps become the Switzerland of the East, or go the other way, the way which so many other multi-racial societies have gone.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to adopt the White Paper as the basis for developing a set of shared values for Singapore.

I would just like to touch on two areas. First, how we should adopt all these five values. Second, there is no need for us to include other values, specifically those having ideological connotations, be they political or religious.

On the first, I congratulate the Government for recommending these five, generally inter-related values. More importantly, this set of values on the whole captures the values of our Singapore society, whatever may be our religion or race. I think all of us appreciate that no majority interest has been given emphasis over any minority interest. No belief, Confucianism or whatever, has been so highlighted as to push aside some other creed. What have been proposed is a set of five values that I reckon will lead to four important results if they are imbibed by everyone.

Firstly, these values will bring forth an individual who is responsible, an individual characterised by individualism, in the sense of being uniquely talented in his own right, but not individualistic. For, one of our values is regard and community support for the individual. This, in my view, refers not just to the less fortunate, the poor or the handicapped among us. More importantly, this refers to those with special talents, experience, knowledge, etc, but at the same time, are not individualistic. In other words, individuals who possess wealth, but are not possessed by wealth. Secondly, he will have a high sense of responsibility to the family, to society and to the nation. Thirdly, the society in turn will care for him and look after him in a respectful way and will give him support when needed. Fourthly, I am sure there will evolve a cohesiveness that will further our efforts towards evolving a Singaporean identity. History will show that these five values will act as a catalyst for the development of this identity. It will require time. Their total appreciation will require a lot of time, and mathematical considerations will not come within the scope.

As a start, I think it is sufficient for us to begin with the five proposed values. The choice has been made so carefully that I believe every community, every religion, will feel that the values proposed belong to them. I think this is one of their positive features and I think it is important we understand this. This identification is important, particularly in the context of our multi-racial, multi-religious society. Though we have to be realistic where there are voices to the contrary, I think I would consider this a healthy development in our process of nation-building. We need to be active listeners, to be able to accept what is sound. What is important is building a consensus. What must be avoided is contending just for the sake of it, or finding faults and excuses, in the spirit of one of the values, consensus instead of contention. I believe the shared values will result in a stronger, more cohesive, more caring, harmonious and tolerant Singapore society. To achieve this, to inculcate these values, we need to begin from young, in the schools, at home and at places of work.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my second observation is that I feel it is proper at this time not to include other values, ie, values with ideological connotations or tending to reflect an ideology, whether political or religious. I think ideology is a serious matter, an important matter, and should not be taken for granted. Ideologies have their own philosophies and characteristics. Often, their idiosyncracies rear their head. Looking at the history of ideologies, I notice they tend to give rise to two situations, regardless of whether the ideology comes before a country's independence or after.

First, the sentiment that one's national ideology is best. This is acceptable still, because such is the nature of human being. But then sometimes conflict occurs even among believers of the same ideology. Czechoslovakia is an interesting example. It started out having a national ideology that believed every political party should be able to espouse its own respective ideology. Then the Communist Party won power, communist ideology became the national ideology, and a new problem arose - other ideologies were banned. Thus we find Vaclav Havel, then just an ordinary citizen, launching his movement of peaceful revolution through the Civic Forum. The Civic Forum defeated the Communist government at the end of 1989 and Havel became President. Then we hear plans to turn Civic Forum into a political party professing the ideology that Havel and his supporters have long adopted. Suddenly we read in the Straits Times of 12th January 1991 of a split between President Havel and his Finance Minister Vaclav Klaus, who now heads the Civic Forum after having defeated Havel's candidate. And yesterday it was reported that Civic Forum has already become a political party.

The point I am trying to make is that conflicts like this can occur over the question of philosophy alone. Klaus wants the Civic Forum to be structured along the lines of the conservative parties of Western Europe. And I quote the Straits Times [in English]:

"Mr Klaus stands for capitalist reforms that may cause

social unrest, while Mr Havel and his allies symbolise

an intellectual approach alien to the can-do spirit

that some say is needed to transform Czechoslovak

business. - AP"

The same thing happened, between followers of the same ideology, in the case of Lenin versus Berenstein, Stalin versus Trotsky, and now Gorbachev versus the conservatives and Boris Yeltsin. And between adherents of the same ideology too, in Communist Russia versus China. This means that embracing the same ideology does not necessarily mean embracing the same philosophy. And the problem is worse within a society, especially a heterogeneous society.

Secondly, the sentiment that one's ideology is superior to the ideologies of other countries. This is no longer just within the same society. It is like saying one's ideology is superior to the Declaration of Independence, the Communist Manifesto, the Pancasila or the Rukun Negara. If one look at the four ideologies - Liberalism, Fascism-Nazism, Communism, and Socialism - one would be reminded of the concept of racial supremacy promoted by Fascism-Nazism, where even children at a young age in school were sown with belief in the superiority of the German race and the inferiority of others, in particular, the Jews. Germany later made a pact with Italy and Japan, and the world soon inherited the wounds of a terrible war. It prompted Daniel Bell to write "The End of Ideology", following the end of World War II, saying that ideology is no longer necessary; science and technology is all that is important; the technological society does not need ideology. But the world later came up against a new form of imperialism, imperialism by the communist countries through the medium of the communist ideology - Russia in Europe and Latin America, China in East Asia, and Cuba in Africa.

Mr Deputy Speaker, world political and religious developments and the latest events in the Middle-East bring me to the conclusion that both aspects - politics and religion - should not be included at this stage. I think these two deserve to be considered, analyzed and determined only by the international community, or better still, by the United Nations. No single nation will be able to adequately deal with them on its own. World political climate and the recent trend of religious revivalism demand new evaluations and new approaches, particularly as world bodies are now in the position to demonstrate their credibility and character in tackling problems such as the Gulf crisis.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to illustrate my point, I would like to quote an article by Mr Goenawan Muhamad, entitled "Prospects in 1991", published in the Indonesian magazine, TEMPO, on 29 December 1990. I quote [in translation]:

"The best caricature of 1990, by Billy Day, showed six armed men on their knees praying to God. [This is viewing it from the religious angle.] The first prayed to God that Jews be wiped out. The second prayed that Arabs be killed. The third prayed that Muslims be exterminated. The fourth pleaded that Hindus be exterminated. The fifth pleaded that Catholics be killed. The sixth called for Protestants to be destroyed. And, below, the caption by Billy Day said: 'All God's children have guns'".

All God's children have guns indeed and we know that they are going to destroy each other.

That is the situation the world is in now. And this is the only world man has. There is no other world. So we have to preserve it, protect it together. And we can begin with our own country, like what we are doing now, through the Shared Values.

I would like to bring another quote, a comedy from Russia, to underscore this point. The story goes that Ivan Ivanovich, a poet, went to the OVIR, the Russian Immigration Office, to get permission to migrate. So the officer said:

"Of course you can. Where do you want to go? Israel?"

"No", said Ivan, "I will be battered by war over there."

"How about United States?"

"Oh, no. Too much unemployment there."

"How about India?"

"No. There's going to be a lot more religious riots there."

"Indonesia?"

"What? Can I read poetry there?"

[We know the Russians have a penchance for poetry].

The officer looked at Ivan patiently and said: "Then you've got to have other alternatives. Here, I will give you a globe. You point out to me which country you like, and you tell me. Okay?"

So Ivan stared at the globe in front of him. Ten minutes, twenty minutes passed, and he still had not decided. At last, he looked at the OVIR officer and asked:

"Don't you have another globe?"

Mr Deputy Speaker, colleagues, I have taken these examples to emphasise what has been stated by Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, that we have to be very careful about these two areas. We must avoid getting into the syndrome of "more is good, new even better". In this respect, I think five is good enough, no new ones needed. Let us just work on these.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper on Shared Values is a well-defined document that must find favour with all Singaporeans.

Sir, I rise in full support of the five values the Government has spelt out. I can only hope to add to its fabric by suggesting a framework in which these values can be imbued in our society, and I propose to do that by seeking some clarifications.

On the first shared value - "Nation before community and society above self" - looking specifically at the second part of this pronouncement, no one can find fault with the sentiments found here, for it is quite acceptable to place society above the individual. But this is on the presumption that there is a just society. I hasten to add that only a just society deserves to place itself above the individual. If society is just, you can expect individuals to subjugate themselves to this just society, and only in such a state can there be legitimacy in these shared values.

On the other hand, if this society is corrupt in whatever manner or form, then it would be disastrous to put society above the individual. If indeed society is corrupt, the individual must be in a position to call that society corrupt and ask for an accounting.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would also like to suggest a more orderly manner of expressing the shared values. To my mind, as it stands at the moment, there does not seem to be a smooth flow and, as BG Lee said a moment ago, there was no intended order of the five values. A more logical sequence could be obtained if it reads this way: Nation before community and society above self; Regard and community support for the individual; Consensus instead of contention; Family as the basic unit of society; Racial and religious harmony. If it were to read in that order, then there is an intrinsic and logical connection which is amplified in the society's individual matrix, and as evident in the statement found in the White Paper, not to promote one to the exclusion of the other. Another reason why I would suggest that the present third shared value moves up to the second is that it qualifies and safeguards both society and the individual. A just society is placed above the individual for a just society also recognises the rights of the individual. Therefore, both the society and the individual can exist viably.

If a just society is placed above the individual and, furthermore, a just society recognizes the rights of individuals, then in this context one can affirm that consensus instead of contention logically should be the next shared value. I say this because we are still on the subject of society and individual and how they relate to each other. And still on this society's individual matrix, as families are made up of individuals in the society, then the family must be the basic unit of society. This shared value follows the above three. If the family is the basic unit of society, the well-being of all families is supremely significant. Then it makes sense to set up family service centres to right wrongs in families to ensure a balanced society. All concerned individuals and institutions should support family service centres and other such institutions to bring about healthy family units.

At this point, Sir, I would also like to make a suggestion to amend the wording of "Consensus instead of contention". I feel that in a document as important as this where values are expressed to motivate Singaporeans, there is no need to use the word "Contention", which in this context means "disagreement or argument". Since the style of the Government is consultation where issues are discussed openly, views sought and changes are made to suit as wide a spectrum of our society as is possible, I feel that we should re-word this value, as has been mentioned by Mr Chandra Das and Dr Hong Hai, to read as "Consensus through consultation". I think this does not in any way rob this value of its true meaning, rather it brings it into focus. And I can think of no finer example of this consensus reached through consultation than by reminding Members of the recently passed Elected President Bill. The Prime Minister himself sought feedback from the public, civic groups, and by convening Select Committees to accommodate views. We cannot expect our fellow Singaporeans to agree with everything we do or say. But we do not have to argue about it, rather we should discuss it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I may have appeared to have taken the extreme meaning of the word, "Contention", but I have done so because I believe Singaporeans are aware of the need to work for the common good, no matter what the private view may be.

Sir, everything that we are trying to create and build could come to nought if these shared values are expounded on Singaporeans who are not civic conscious enough. The ugly Singaporean is still around. Our public toilets are still dirty. There is still the problem of littering and the jumping of queues. It is important how the individual treats other individuals. We must get rid off this kiasu attitude. We cannot progress if Singaporeans lack concern for each other. We must be gracious in our lifestyles, in our behaviour, in defeat, in victory, and the manner in which we treat neighbours, not just next door, but neighbours across the borders as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the shared values have been spelt out to create the ideal Singaporean. How do we make him a reality? Sir, that debate has already started, and it must continue.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Aljunied): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, having attained Independence 25 years ago, our plural society is reaching maturity, though it still needs constant nurturing and tending before it fully matures. If we relate this maturing process with the Shared Values, we would find a close connection between the two, and I will try to illustrate this using the following personification.

Our maturing, plural society is like a young man who has just set up family and settled down in a certain village. The values of the village require him to make sacrifices, putting the interests of the village above his own. At the same time, the young man has to provide for and look after his family well. The values of the village also require its inhabitants to assist the less fortunate and the poor in their midst. The young man also has to absorb and practise the consensual and "gotong royong" spirit of his village. And in the village, he joins everyone in preserving racial and religious harmony amongst inhabitants of different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the young man is the plural society of Singapore. The village where he lives is Singapore, the nation. Just as the young man practises the values of the village where he lives, so must we, the plural society of Singapore practise these Shared Values. These are noble values drawn from the tri-cultural web of our society, which is why they are acceptable to all. Berita Harian of 12th January put it aptly when it said [in translation], "the Shared Values are appropriate, comprehensive and acceptable to all communities". Among the reasons why they are acceptable is that they can be identified with by every community. All of them reflect elements common to all communities. On this account, they can be a source of strength and unity, and not a source of weakness and disunity in the society.

Properly practised, they can act as a barrier protecting us from negative Wes- tern influences. They can also help mould our own unique Singaporean spirit and identity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that have been put across regarding the contents of the Shared Values, because all the reasons given are convincing. I wish to comment just on the form and presentation. I feel the Shared Values, if they are to be easily remembered, absorbed and imbibed by all, must not only be cogent and precise, but concise too. To give an example, some feel that the value "Nation before community, society above self" is rather lengthy, while "community" and "society" are terms of varying interpretations among the different ethnic groups in Singapore. To overcome this, I would suggest that the statement be shortened to "Nation above self". The spirit and interpretation of the value will remain unchanged, ie, in the final analysis, we have to sacrifice in the interests of the nation, which must take precedence over individual and communal interests.

In regard to the value "Family as the basic unit of society", I feel the Malay translation is more successful in conveying the true function of the family. I feel the English form is rather static, in that it fails to show how dynamic is the function of the family. The word "tunjang" used in the Malay translation aptly conveys the idea of support and strength-giving. I would like to suggest therefore that the English version be amended to "Family the pillar of society". The meaning remains, in essence, the same, ie, a strong family makes a strong society, and disintegration of the family means disintegration of society.

Next, Regard and community support for the individual. I think the word "Regard" is redundant, since it only repeats and reiterates the point. "Support" alone should do, as by itself, it already conveys regard and respect for the individual.

As for the other two values, I think they are cogent, precise and concise enough.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with reference to proposals on the value "Belief in God", I personally would like to see it included in the Shared Values. In my view, the argument that the country is secular and therefore this value should not be included fails to convince. Indonesia is a secular country, yet this counts as one of the values in the Pancasila. In Singapore, the number of people who believe in God and profess a religion, and this includes many Members in this House, is greater than the number of those who do not. Incorporating this value, in my opinion, will not in any way weaken or reduce the soundness of our Shared Values, indeed this will only strengthen them. We might say that without this additional value, our Shared Values will be just a soulless set of sentiments and aspirations of the people.

On their implementation and acceptance by the people, I think the Government should not rush into this. The successful application of these values will require a long time. What is more important is that the Government embarks on a proper publicity exercise, highlighting the positive aspects of these Shared Values, using concrete, factual examples. For instance, Singaporeans' readiness to serve in the National Service and to tighten their belts in the last recession are evidence of their observance of the value "Nation before self". The magnanimity shown by Singaporeans in supporting the 25th Anniversary Charity Fund is evidence of community support for the less fortunate. Similarly, by practising moderation in the teaching and propagation of one's religion among different communities, we show our acceptance of the value "Racial and religious harmony". Thus, with wide publicity and systematic implementation, I am confident that the Shared Values will have the potential to gain acceptance by the people. Besides, there are already signs of increasing social cohesion within our society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore has thus far succeeded economically. It is also enjoying political stability. The Shared Values now constitute a complementing element that will bring us to another level of success, ie, social well-being.

When these three achievements, ie, political, economic and social, are gained, Singapore can take pride in having successfully built a three-dimensional society, manifested in a harmonious social existence, material wealth and high moral standards. And if this is achieved, Long Live Singapore.

Mr Leong Chee Whye (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I urge hon Members to look carefully into the White Paper on Shared Values before deciding on the Motion. This important document calls on Singapore citizens to place "Nation before community and society above self". In return, citizens can expect regard and community support. I have no doubt that in the minds of many Singaporeans, they will be wondering: Is this a balanced statement of Shared Values? Can we persuade people to identify with and to truly commit to this set of Shared Values?

One way of looking at the issue before us is to consider a nation as a group of people living together under a tacit form of social contract within a geographic boundary. In coming together, they agree, tacitly, to give up some of their individual freedom and curb their behaviour in exchange for the benefits and protection in that society - the protection of the legal system and the benefits of the social order.

Some societies emphasise the preservation of individual freedom, and we know what these societies are. Sometimes they exercise this to the point of gross excess with laws that appear to favour criminals rather than victims of their crimes. Carried to the extreme, we have a state of anarchy. On the other hand, there are societies that make the individual extremely subservient to the state, to the point that military force can be used to obtain political obedience. It is clear that we do not want to be at either extremes. The question is: Where is the balance?

The Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee, has discussed and explored this question before me. But does the White Paper give us the right answer? Singaporeans have already demonstrated that under situations of national stress and where it concerns issues of national gravity, they are more than willing to answer the call to put society above self. A good example is the willingness of trade unions and workers to adopt wage restraint in the recession years in the mid-1980s.

Then what is the concern? The concern among many people is that the call to put society above self must not be over-used. This vital instrument of state must not be perceived to be an instrument used simply to achieve administrative expediency. For example, everyone of us wants clean public toilets. Yet sometimes, when burdened with the worries and cares of living, we can forget to flush. To use legislation to make such minor lapses in social behaviour an act to be condemned makes people wonder whether we have already over-extended the proper balance between individual rights and national interests. It is on this type of legislation that foreigners and emigrants judge us to be over-regulated. It is not my intention to revive an old issue, perhaps one that looks even frivolous in the light of the very weighty matters that are in front of us today. It is rather to point out that such legislations leave lingering fears and uneasiness that colour the perceptions of many citizens.

Many citizens would not even see the need for a national statement on Shared Values, but I disagree. As a nation, we are increasingly exposed to the global mass media. Unfortunately, it is always more entertaining to see handsome individuals and beautiful actresses having a party than to listen to exhortations from politicians on national issues. What I am trying to say is that the need to entertain creates an inherent bias in the mass media towards individualism and towards the enhancement of self-interest. And it is against this that we have to protect ourselves.

As a small island state with Asian values, I agree with the Prime Minister and those who support the preparation of a statement on Shared Values that our competitiveness and our survival is best served if we can crystallise the essence of our shared values for ourselves and for coming generations of Singaporeans.

Yet I find the White Paper inadequate in providing the proper balance between individual and national interests. The public concern that we have read about and Mr Chandra Das has spoken about today regarding "consensus instead of contention" is perhaps one aspect and perhaps only the shadow of this deeper question. The corresponding statement "Regard and community support for the individual" is too weak compared to the ringing call of "Nation before community and society above self". While the explanatory notes in the White Paper say very clearly that we as a nation do respect and care for the individual, yet somehow we appear to be reluctant to put this into a bold statement. Perhaps it is because we want to avoid any implication that Singapore is to be a welfare state. But surely such a clarification can be made elsewhere and it should not hamper the development of our core statement on Shared Values.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I share the concerns and I agree with the thrust of the White Paper. But let us strive for a better statement that would reach the people's heart, a statement that will integrate all the five values instead of prioritising them and show our deep concern for the citizens. It may do a better job. And I offer an example for your consideration:

"Singapore as a people will put Nation before community and society above self. The family will be the building block of our society.

We will respect and care for our fellow citizen, his work and his community. Together in consensus, we will decide our destiny, living in racial and religious harmony."