SHARED VALUES (Motion)

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [14th January, 1991],

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

Question again proposed.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Batok on developing a national ideology through a set of shared values.

The White Paper on Shared Values proposed by the Government is secular in nature; it does not include any religious or political values. It stresses the importance of "nation before community and society above self", which emphasizes that the existence of the family is possible only when the nation exists. Moreover, the concept of "family as the basic unit of society" would strengthen unity among family members, thereby resulting in social cohesiveness of the nation. This practice of discarding a narrow and self-centred outlook and putting the interests of society as a whole ahead of individual interests would ensure that all Singaporeans attach more importance to the interests of the community. The Chinese version of the White Paper which says, "Nation above all, society comes first" has in fact reflected the spirit of these shared values.

This set of Shared Values would also encourage each ethnic group to preserve and promote the cultural heritage of each of our communities and to uphold certain common values which capture the essence of being a Singaporean. These will also help to prevent us from losing our direction when confronted with undesirable foreign influences. These values, which transcend racial, religious and political confines, at the same time, do not allow any community to forcibly impose its philosophy and thinking on others. This would be crucial to our multi-racial society. In other words, we would be moving towards a more tolerant, respectful, understanding and harmonious society. Our cohesiveness will be more solid.

I believe that with the implementation of the shared values over a period of time, the following results will be met:

(1) Most of our Singapore families will be blissful and happy. Under the Shared Values, emphasis has been laid on the family as the basic unit of society. It advocates mutual respect and love between husband and wife and they shall remain devoted till the end of their lives. Caring and educating the young offsprings is the responsibility of parents. Paying due respect and taking care of the needs of our elders, such as parents and grandparents, will be the responsibility of the young. These make up the essence of a blissful and happy family.

(2) To build a compassionate and gracious society. By putting society above self and recognising the importance of the family unit and society, more Singaporeans will come forward to do community work and will contribute to community and welfare programmes. Those who are talented and have done well for themselves will assist the less fortunate ones. Such community support for individuals will ensure a more compassionate and gracious society.

(3) Our society and our country will be more prosperous and developed. The value of "nation before community and society before self" ensures that our multi-racial and multi-religious society would take a step further towards our nation building process in a more tolerant and harmonious manner. At the same time, it demonstrates the spirit of mutual regard and community spirit within a multi-racial and multi-religious society which, in turn, contributes greatly to the prosperity and progress of the country.

However, for the above ideals to bear fruit, it will take many years. The best way to inculcate these qualities would be through education. Students are taught these shared values in the schools so as to make them good pupils. Parents at home should also instil and help prepare their children to be good children, so their children will grow up to become good husbands and wives and good parents in due course. At a later stage, they will be able to guide their fellow countrymen to become good citizens through social education.

Education has a very major role to play. "Example is better than precept". It is only with this can education become effective. Cultivating the spirit of cooperation and teamwork among our children is something that should not be neglected. The school principals, teachers or parents should stress the importance of teamwork when they are educating their children, so that it becomes natural for these children to look after others and to be considerate to others. When they grow up, they will be able to sacrifice their own interests and take the initiative to care for others, for society and for the nation. At the same time, this will help to cultivate the spirit of unity, mutual help and love among the children. This will certainly help in countering individualism which our shared values seek to oppose.

If all ranks and files, from political and community leaders to school principals, teachers and parents, are to cooperate closely and impart these values by weaving them into their way of life, by practising and setting good examples, these will be living examples for the younger generation to emulate. In this way, the objectives of these shared values would be attained much sooner.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, so long as we can put in a concerted effort, we would be able to have good and happy families and our society will be compassionate and gracious, and more prosperous.

I support the motion.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the primary purpose of evolving shared values is to develop a Singapore identity. The White Paper has explained at length why there is a need to evolve a Singapore identity. The reason is that the openness of our society is affecting the attitudes and outlook of our young Singaporeans who are being exposed to external influences. These influences, which are often unfiltered, can lead to absorption of unsuitable and misguided values which will be detrimental to our society.

Some may criticise that pre-determining shared values is artificial, and it is another example of the paternalistic style of the Government. While these remarks are not entirely wrong, I feel there is strong justification for developing the Shared Values.

Let me address these two criticisms. First, unlike societies and nations with long histories and established cultures, Singapore is a very young country. In other countries, their long histories have enabled their distinct cultures, ethos and value systems to develop naturally and become sub-consciously accepted. In the course of their history, the great leaders, thinkers, philosophers and writers had expounded and propagated ideas, thoughts and teachings. A few notable names are John Mill, Karl Marx, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, Gandhi, Confucius, Sun Yat Sen and others. Their writings have helped to mould the value systems in their societies. These value systems are internalised by each citizen and become accepted values of the people.

For Singapore, we have a very limited pool of local thinkers, writers and philosophers to conceptualize and spread their ideas and teachings. In Singapore, I think our most notable philosopher is Mr S Rajaratnam. For him and others, they have to gain prominence and a following, and consequently for their ideas to be absorbed by the populace. This is a very time-consuming process. Due to the openness of our society, these people have to compete with other external philosophers and thinkers to win over the minds of our people. The process to naturally evolve a Singaporean identity and value system may take a few generations, probably one to two hundred years. The question is: can we wait one to two hundred years? Do we have one to two hundred years?

Hence, I believe that instead of being labelled as paternalistic, we should view the Government as forward-looking for proposing the Shared Values. We can concede that the approach could be a short-cut, as compared to letting the value system evolve slowly. However, the process is not artificial as we are developing the shared values not from thin air, but by distilling the essence of the major civilizations in the world, namely, Malay, Indian and Chinese.

Sir, on a Singaporean identity, is there any hope in creating a Singaporean identity? Many would ask, what is a Singaporean identity? Let me quote an anecdote to show that a Singaporean identity is in fact already taking shape.

I was recently in Tokyo. In a restaurant in a large hotel, I happened to chance upon a Singaporean couple who are friends of mine. After the usual pleasantries, one of the friends remarked that the two gentlemen at the next table must be Singaporeans. He noticed that they talked and behaved like Singaporeans. I told him that he was right. These two people at the next table were in fact my Singapore colleagues.

Sir, it is our common experience that when we travel overseas, we are more and more often being recognised as Singaporeans. There must be something in our behaviour, speech, tastes, mannerism or preferences that make us distinguishable from others.

Since we are already exhibiting these various external features, I think it is natural to add to the finishing touches by agreeing among ourselves the value system to adopt as the common internal traits of Singaporeans. This move is timely as left unattended, we see lately that the image of Singaporeans has been tarnished by some unfavourable characteristics. There are labels being used such as kiasu or materialistic. Hopefully, the shared values will assist in shaping the type of Singaporeans we want to project. Perhaps a Singaporean is one who believes in the well-being of his family and the nation and living harmoniously together in a small compact island.

For the five basic shared values proposed, I think I can agree with all, except perhaps for the fourth, which is the most contentious one. The fourth one is, "Consensus instead of contention". While the intention is valid, that is, a need to build consensus among our people, I feel that the expression can be subject to much argument. To call purely for consensus, without explanations and elaborations, can lead to misunderstanding of this proposed value. We cannot possibly have consensus in every issue. In any case, there should be room for differences in opinion. I feel that over-emphasis on consensus tends to create a people that are submissive and pliable. I also feel that promoting consensus is in conflict with the often quoted ideals of meritocracy, a society of excellence and a city of distinction. To achieve these latter objectives would mean encouraging competition and individual performance. We need some degree of free-play for individualism to reach out for excellence.

Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee Hsien Loong, had suggested in this House that this expression can be changed to something that is more popularly acceptable. I would urge the Government to consider modifying this fourth value to mesh with our desire to strive for social cohesion. Perhaps if I could be bold enough to venture one suggestion. Why not use: "Consensus building for social cohesion"?

Sir, I would like to touch on how to enshrine the shared values. It is right that the shared values have to be taught from young through the school, and by us as parents.

I concur with the view that these shared values should not be legislated. But I strongly feel that there must be some ways to enshrine these values so that they become basic tenets of the value system of Singaporeans.

The following are some ideas which can be considered. First, perhaps casting in concrete the Shared Values onto a monument which can be sited at an appropriate place, such as the grounds of our Parliament House; Second, to amend our Singapore Pledge so as to include elements of the five values; and third, to compose a Singapore song, or a few more Singapore songs, or even a new National Anthem, that can embody the Shared Values. Sir, we can tap the public for more ideas on how to enshrine the Shared Values.

To gain widespread acceptance of the Shared Values, it is obvious that further extensive propagation work at the ground should be conducted. Some of our best minds should be put to work to expound further on the values. The ultimate objective is that the Shared Values can be fully embraced by the people.

In my view, proposing and gaining national acceptance for the Shared Values will be a major step forward for our Government under the Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong.

Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate.

The Government wants the people of Singapore to accept the Shared Values as enunciated in the White Paper. Has the Government the moral right to initiate these Shared Values? I do not think so. It pays lip service to the virtues of the Shared Values but it does not seem to promote these values in many of its policies. In fact, many of the Government actions are inconsistent with all those Shared Values.

Take the first one, "Nation before community and society above self". Almost everyone in Singapore knows that the Government is mercenary and governs Singapore as if it were running a commercial enterprise. It makes money whenever it can and wherever possible. Under other circumstances, people still have reason to quarrel with the Government, when it acts in a very commercial way, when they have to pay, in their point of view, too much to the Government. Now the Government preaches a good social value, like society above self, but it is practising "charity begins at home". Then the people will have all the more reason to pick on the Government. The Government should set an example - take steps to lower some of its social services, show some charity, like lowering hospital charges, especially charges on kidney dialysis - then the people will believe what the Government preaches. Or else all the sanctimonious, pious talk on the part of the Government urging the people to accept the Shared Values will sound hollow.

What about the second value - "Family as the basic unit of society"? Sad to say, the Government's immigration policy has, on many occasions, broken up Singapore families. I am referring to families which have one spouse who is a foreigner. A Singaporean is given permission by the Controller of Immigration to enter into a contract of marriage with a foreigner. The foreign spouse is then allowed to reside in Singapore. The couple may have one or two children. Then suddenly the foreign spouse is served with a notice by the Controller of Immigration, asking her to leave Singapore. The foreign spouse is normally the wife. When she leaves, she usually brings the children along with her. In this way, the family unit is torn apart by the Government policy. This policy of separating a foreign spouse from her Singapore husband is still in force. So is it not hypocritical on the part of the Government to promote the value of the sanctity of the family unit when its policies dictate otherwise?

The governments of Western countries do not preach pious values. They just practise them. The citizens of Western countries can marry any person of their choice regardless of whether that person is a citizen of that country. Once a citizen of a Western country marries a non-citizen, the foreign spouse can apply for citizenship and get it as a matter of right. The two spouses can then stay in that country without any fear of being separated by the authorities. In that respect, Western values are better than the values of most Asian countries, including Singapore.

The third value is "Regard and community support for the individual". I think it is wrong for the Government to abrogate its duty to provide some measure of welfare. If the welfare services are properly administered, they will not be abused and a crutch mentality will not develop. It is important for the Government to support welfare because it is a demonstrative effect to show the people that the Government is a caring Government - it cares for the people. I, of course, do not support widespread welfare programmes but I do believe in a welfare programme for the less fortunate of our society, namely, the destitute, the aged sick and those workers, through no fault of their own, cannot work. I believe this was one of the original PAP ideals. What happens to all the idealism of the PAP which has brought it to power? If the Government abandons its ideals and, in their place, accepts and practises pure materialism, it may be good for a while. The Government may get rich in the short term but certainly it will not be good in the long term. We must have a vision. We must have ideals. If not, eventually, the society will tend to retrograde and be corrupted.

The fifth value is "Racial and religious harmony". Maintaining racial and religious harmony has been always a way of life of Singaporeans from the day Sir Stamford Raffles stepped foot on Singapore soil. It is the Government, by its recent policies, namely, the formation of group representation constituencies, racial enclaves, promoting separate cultural months, highlighting the clan associations, Speak Mandarin Campaigns, encouraging one racial group to solve its own problems instead of getting all Singaporeans to do so, that have, in fact, heightened racial awareness in Singapore. Many participants in the seminar organised by the Institute of Policy Studies held on 11th January have expressed their concern of this fact. It is not the Opposition that is doing so. It is the learned academics, professors, senior executives, civil servants who have made this observation. We have seen, therefore, that the Government does not wholly practise the Shared Values, yet it wants to commend these values to the people of Singapore.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry yesterday pointed out that all the five values are communitarian in nature, and so they are, ie, in terms of these values, the people have only duties to perform and there are no reciprocal rights conferred on them. How convenient for the Government - thrust a set of values on Singaporeans, tell them that these are the values upon which Singaporeans can identify themselves, make them feel obligated to perform those duties, and the Government hopes over time the majority of Singaporeans will accept and live up to those values. I wonder whether the Government can succeed.

Up to now, the Government has used either the stick or the carrot, or both, to make Singaporeans comply with its policies. The stick is used by way of legislation and the penalties thereto, and the carrot is effected by way of incentives, like the tax rebate given in respect of the procreation policy. In the present case of the Shared Values, I presume the Government shall be using only persuasion. I suppose the majority of Singaporeans, being reasonable people, can be persuaded to accept these Shared Values if they can be convinced that they are all for the long-term good of Singapore. Can the Opposition be persuaded? I, for one, think not, because there is at least one very controversial Shared Value.

It is observed that it is not coincidental that none of the advanced Western nations has shared values, core values or national ideology, promulgated by the Government. If they do have shared values, they are those values which have been transmitted to them, either by custom or tradition, over a long period of time. Those are well and truly tested values and accepted by the majority of the people. I do not think that Westerners will simply accept values which are thrust upon them by the government. Westerners, by their nature, are suspicious of the government. They will probably say that the government introduces values to the people for its own purpose and not for the good of the nation or people and they are probably right. Similarly, one suspects that the Govern- ment has brought forward these values for its own purpose.

The one value which is controversial and is hard to accept is the one on "Consensus instead of contention". This value has to be scrapped or, if not, it should be amended to read "Consensus through contention". The Opposition, of course, cannot accept this value as it is. Of course, if this value is accepted unchanged, then it would mean that there will be no contention and no dissent. When that day arrives in Singapore, it will be the beginning of the dark ages here. In old China, there was no progress because the Emperor forbade dissent and criticism of his government. If anyone was caught criticising the Emperor, of course, you know what happened, his head would be chopped off. Do we want that to happen in Singapore? I certainly hope not.

I do sincerely hope that the Singapore Government will allow criticisms of Government policies, alternative views, contention and dissent. Of course, contention must be for the good and for the improvement of Singapore and not contention for the destruction of our country. Therefore, as I said, contention must be preserved in these Shared Values and we should arrive at our consensus through contention. In fact, it is my sincere hope that there should be a two-party system eventually established in Singapore, where there is constant contention of how to improve and make Singapore a better place to live in.

The Singapore Government do realise that in fact the trend is towards a more open society. As our citizens get more educated, they become more vociferous, they want to be heard. There is already evidence that a seminar has been held by 130 very well-educated professional people. There will probably be more of those types of seminars. More and more learned people would want to have a say in the affairs of the state and I hope it is not the intention of the Government to stifle this group of people from speaking up by implementing this policy of "consensus instead of contention".

It was observed by the Deputy Prime Minister that we should follow Japan because they have got consensus there. But I think in Singapore's case, in fact, we have already got the ideal of consensus. In fact, many of the controversial and very harsh policies of the Government have been accepted by the people of Singapore without much contention. The people of Singapore have accepted the policy of doing national service, they have accepted the policy of Government acquiring their land, although they have made rightful claims to the law courts but eventually they surrendered their land peacefully to the Government. We do not see any extreme contention in our Parliament. Our Members of Parliament do not come to blows. But that happens in Japan. Only last month I had the opportunity of visiting Narita. I went in and out of Narita Airport and what did I see? The whole airport was fenced up with strong iron grilles of up to, I would estimate, 12 feet or more with barbed wires on the top. There were two gates you have to pass through before you get into the airport. At each of these gates, there were guards, not just guards, but they were well armed and well-dressed with battle gear.

I was curious. I asked our tour guide, "What is this all about? Why is the tight security?" And he told me that Narita Airport was built on land which had been acquired from farmers. Although many years have passed, up to today the farmers are still protesting, not only protesting but protesting vigorously. You see the high level of contention there. But in Singapore's case, you take their land, they peacefully give it up to the Government, although many of them have lost great sums of money.

In Singapore we already have a better state of consensus than even in Japan. So I do not think there is a fear that we should have too much contention. I think of the two, we have got too little contention and too much consensus already. We should bring up more contention and get people to speak up more. It was also reported in the IPS seminar that many of the very learned people are afraid to speak up in the open. Why is that so? People in the know refuse to speak up. That is a bad sign for our society. We should do something to rectify that situation. If people who are academics, who are professors, who are holding high positions, dare not speak up, who will speak up? Who will lead the country? The Government should pay attention to this point and try to correct it. Instead of trying to stifle contention, I urge the Government to try to encourage contention, encourage people to speak up, contribute more ideas, and make our society more vibrant. That is how our country is going to compete eventually with the other NICs and that is how we are going to get rich. 1.35 pm

The Minister of State for Community Development and Education (Dr Seet Ai Mee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion. I will be specific and wish to address two of the five issues: the first, regard and community support for the individual, and the second, the Family.

Sir, the White Paper has rightly addressed the important issue of balance between society and the individual. While as Singaporeans we place the nation and society above community, we must also respect the rights of the individual. Several hon. Members have touched on this important value and I do not wish to add to what has been said.

Community support and showing compassion for the less able were issues raised in many discussions on the shared values and shows the concern of many. The Member for Potong Pasir and others who have voiced concern fear that Singapore will be a hard headed meritocracy with the able rising to the top and the less able uncared for at the bottom. The inclusion of this value as one we in Singapore uphold addresses this concern. It is a value our forefathers practised: the strong helping the weak, the rich the poor, the talented, the less able.

While in the Netherlands, I saw a statue in the garden of the Zoetermeer Nursing Home. It showed four men - one standing tall at the top of the pedestal with his arms outstretched supporting two men in a stretched sitting position who each in turn had their free hands outstretched and pul- ling the fourth man who was standing at the foot of the pedestal on the very ground. It bore the simple caption "Help Each Other". Sculptured by a Dutch artist, Ad van den Brink, it symbolised people helping and supporting each other, the stronger helping the weak, the able the less able. Its message touched me deeply and it is relevant to our thinking on the shared value of community support for the less able.

It is useful to remind ourselves that the weakest point in a chain is the weakest link and we would do well as a society if we take pains to strengthen the weak links in our chain and re-establish the values practised by kampung, clan and ethnic groups of earlier days - the strong helping the weak, the rich the poor. It is a value practised in many families and one which I would like to see extended to peer groups in schools, colleges and universities and in the whole neighbourhood.

We have, many of us, experienced and heard of instances where important text and reference books are lost from libraries and articles cut out or torn from books or journals, either destroyed, stolen or secreted away by some who would deny the information to his peers who will be his competitors in the examinations. It is an ugly picture, but one which exists.

On the positive side, we also have in schools and colleges peer teaching being practised - the older helping the younger, the better the slower. We know the value we would like to have as a community. Community support thus is not only volunteering for community work or contributing time, money and personal commitment to community and welfare programmes, community support has to begin in the neighbourhood, the classroom and at home. It is good to remind ourselves that we are a meritocracy which believes in community support of and compassion for the less able individual.

The family as the basic unit of society - this is not an Asian value - it is a universal societal value. It is timely that we place emphasis on this, the building block on which all society is built.

There are some family values which we can call everlasting, eg, loving, caring, sharing, helping, values of relationships within the family which are precious and which hold the families together and members of families dear to each other. Values which begin within the inner circle of nuclear families extending to outer circles of the extended family, values which have been in our society from time immemorial and worthy of preservation for all in the future. But in the words of a song immortalised by Bob Dylan, "The times they are a-changing". And as times change, so families have to make changes with the times. In July 1990, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, addressing the PAP Women's Wing, asked mothers to bring up sons to accept changing roles of husbands and help their wives in today's family. I would like to add that fathers too have a part to play in bringing up sons to these roles and in changing themselves to changing times of economically active wives, less accessible house help and new family norms.

Some families however have difficulties coping with these changes. The setting up of Family Centres and Family Service Centres in the neighbourhood where families can go for assistance when they have problems, be these problems with child minding, parenting, marital, with the aged, or for family support and back up. I hope these family centres will meet this need of assisting families to cope.

But, Mr Speaker, Sir, there will always be instances where there will be seemingly irreconciliable problems and rifts, and couples will resort to divorce. All over the world families are breaking up. In some states in the United States, the rate is from 40% to 50%. This phenomenon of increasing divorce rates is not only a US and European problem. Divorce rates in Taiwan and Japan are also increasing and so are ours. In 1989, our divorce rate was 12.3%, almost double the rate a decade before at 7.4%.

Can we save these families? Can we slow the trend? We should try and our emphasis of the family as a national shared value and teaching it at school and with family care and family support systems, we will try.

Family break ups are painful events. The warring couples emerge from divorce bat- tle-scarred and often enemies for life. The children suffer the trauma often of being the tools in the battle and long after the event suffer from the effects of the destroyed secure nest and of lack of or over-parenting as the case may be. They too are often scarred for life as studies have shown that children from broken families tend themselves in adulthood to form less successful marriages and the vicious cycle goes on.

Divorce courts are necessarily adversarial - two hurting adults supported by lawyers fighting over rights, property, children - often the very process of divorce widens rifts and results in life enmity. The Committee on Family Life of the Advisory Council on Family and Community Life advocated the wider use of conciliation to alleviate the negative effects of divorce especially on children. I strongly support this recommendation. The conciliatory approach has been shown in other countries to bring about reconciliation and some marriages and families have been saved. If a conciliatory court approach can save some marriages and help save the pain and trauma for children involved and even if salvation of the marriage is not possible but more amicable separations are achieved, parenting roles continued, and children's protection and support ensured, I believe that such a conciliatory process will be a worthwhile societal investment.

The family is the basic unit of society. It has to be supported and promoted to remain strong and in times of problems and crisis it has to be assisted.

Yesterday, the hon. Members for Cheng San GRC and Bukit Batok suggested the setting up of a national council to oversee and keep alive the issues of Singapore's shared values. I do not believe that this is necessary. A single unit or council within the ambit of a Ministry, whether it be in MCD or any other Ministry, will not be able to coordinate the effort or act as a watchdog. Shared values will have to be taught, promoted and supported throughout the whole Government structure, through several Ministries including Education, Community Development, Information, Health, Labour, Defence, etc. The Ministry of Community Development has itself over the years coordinated and promoted various community and value programmes like family week, community week, feedback, children's and senior citizens' welfare and social programmes with the Singapore Council of Social Services and other voluntary and welfare organisations. Our deliberations and decision in this House on the Shared Values will set the tone for our Government. Hence, the suggestion for a new unit or council is not necessary.

Sir, the hon. Member of the Opposition has talked about responsible use of low-cost medicines and support in health programmes. Yesterday, I had the pleasant or unpleasant discussion with a member of the public on the cost of a certain anti-gastric medication called Zantac. This member of the public said that it costs half the amount in Australia as compared to Singapore and asked why. In our discussions, we discovered that in Australia the member of the public is supported by the Australian Government and in Australia some people are using the names of Australians to get the medicine at half the cost. This, I believe, is misuse of privilege by the public. I believe the Member of the Opposition is rather naive to think that when things are given and subsidized, similar misuses will not occur in our society.

He also brought up the issue of heightened racial awareness by Government urging communities to help members of their own community. In our recent tour of the United States, we found on the Western Coast of the United States, that Chinese community were helping the aged of the Chinese community, the Koreans were helping the aged in their own community, the Jewish were helping their own aged in their own community, and that the United States Government is supporting this issue because they found that it was both the most cost effective and socially the most effective form of support of the aged in the community. So, I wish to inform the Member of the Opposition, who is not here, and place it on record that this is not just a Singapore situation and that even in other countries where there are several racial community groups the Governments are encouraging racial community groups to support the needy and the aged in their own communities.

Mr Chiam has got a suspicious mind. He thinks that shared values were designed by the Government to fool the people of Singapore. This is a very unfair accusation and I hope that in his future deliberations he will be able to accept that this is something we in Singapore need. We need to have an identity, we need to have with that identity values which we can share and can call our own. He also fears that we do not have contention and confrontations and he speaks of people fearing to speak up their minds, Mr Chiam has in the last ten years spoken his mind not only within this House, but outside this House and openly. I am glad to say that his neck is still very intact, and his head is on it. I do not see why he fears and I do not understand why he says that Singaporeans fear to speak up their minds for fear of their necks. As for contention, I am sure he does not want us to come to blows in Parliament, as they do in Taiwan and Japan, because the odds here are very much against him in this House.

He has quoted several times from the seminar which he attended at the Institute of Policy Studies. It is needful to remind the House, and especially the Member of the Opposition, that the IPS was set up by the Government. At a meeting of a body set up by the Government, a member of the Opposition was invited and all the quoted contentious issues were raised. Is this not to support the situation of Government supporting the public to speak up their minds and supporting our people to say what they feel so that we can learn from feedback and from their experiences? After that meeting the participants have still got their necks intact and I am sure their necks will be intact for a long time because it is not the policy of Government to be against contention. What we are saying is that we would like to have consensus. This, I believe, is the desire of all in this House.

Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.

Sir, yesterday afternoon I heard with concern the point of view that there ought to be a balance between societal interest and the interest of the individual. I thought that the point made with regard to the term "balance" was really more a trade-off that the individual citizen expects from his stake in society. I thought that the balance should be tilted towards society because unless we have our society intact, unless there is the collective good, what good is there to us as individuals. If that was the position held by our founding fathers, Singapore will not be what she is today. Because our leaders did not expect anything from their contribution to the building of this country. I think it is also important for us to be reminded that whatever shared values that we speak of apply both to leaders and citizens alike.

Mr Chiam earlier mentioned about the advanced western countries without having shared values. I think he must have known that western advanced nations started with their religious beliefs. Many of them actually followed the religious beliefs. That is why we hear of things like Protestant ethics. And because Singapore is a secular state and we do not allow ourselves to be guided by any religious beliefs, it becomes important that we have something that binds us together. The western countries are facing deterioration in their life styles because of the waning beliefs they hold with regard to their religion.

When the Government first mooted the subject of a National Ideology in 1988, I thought that we would be having a formal, legalistic and uncompromising document that would govern the lives of Singaporeans. Alas, that was not to be. I am very pleased with the approach that the Government has finally taken. The White Paper on Shared Values which focuses on the relationship between the individual and his society spelt out the desirable core values for all Singaporeans to identify with and be unified under. It lays the foundation for Singaporeans to develop further the values and ethos appropriate for a Singaporean society.

In the first 25 years of our nationhood, we were battling for survival. We had to ward off the negative elements. We freed ourselves of inter-racial strife and conflicts. We have now arrived at the steady state. We can build on this firm foundation to evolve ourselves into a society of distinction with laudable virtues and characteristics. Sir, it is precisely because the time is right for us after 25 years of nation building that we need a framework today to guide us. If all Singaporeans were to practise these shared values faithfully in the way we live, it would become a binding force, then we will be united as "one people, one nation and one Singapore".

The first value is Nation before community and society above self. By presenting this, we recognise that individuals do form themselves into groups and they relate themselves to their own groups. The interests of each group differ from one another. However, the ultimate and highest priority of interests must belong to our country, our national interest. But concerns have been expressed as to the modus operandi under a corrupt and irresponsible government, a government that abuses its power and position, and how would the various communities and groups respond and act under such a situation?

Though the explanation has been given in the White Paper as to why we do not wish to include values that are political in nature, I still hold that it is necessary to include the value of a morally upright, honest and responsible Government, because this is paramount to our national interest - our survival as a nation. This is the key to our stability, peace and progress. I urge that Members consider this particular value seriously.

Dr Seet Ai Mee has earlier mentioned about the importance of the family. I fully endorse what she said and I think it is very, very important for us to pay particular attention to this issue because the breakdown of family will certainly lead to the breakdown of the social fabric. We all know that the family support system is crucial to the stability of our society.

The third value is "Regard and community support for the individual". To me, this shared value is particularly important to Singapore. It recognises the place of every individual in our society. Nobody is left out. Our society is only as good as the weakest member. As the lyric of the song goes, "He ain't heavy, he's my brother". If we show concern and extend a helping hand to others and make it a habit, we would not be labelled any more as "Ugly Singaporeans".

There is controversy with regard to "Consensus instead of contention". Sir, there is really nothing wrong with the choice of the word. It is simply that we choose not to understand the meaning of the term "contention". Consensus building does not preclude debate and the expression of dissenting views. We know that the synthesis of all points of views is likely to lead to consensus and, more importantly, to obtain the acceptance of policies for action. What I would like to emphasise is really the acceptance of those decisions and that we act on them, not so much of the process of agreeing, because after agreeing, and we do not agree to act, it still comes to nought. But I think what is intended to mean by the term "contention" is to avoid actions like violence, aggression, unrest, vandalism, to solve problems, and they have no place in our approach to resolving differences and conflicts. This is what I believe it is intended to mean.

Racial and religious harmony - we have an Act to promote and maintain racial and religious harmony, and we ought to build on it because it has proven to be beneficial to all of us, and knowing the benefits, I think we should sustain it.

I do not think it is necessary to trace the origin or source of any value. It does not really matter whether it is universal, western, Confucian, eastern. But I think what is important is whether they are right for us, whether they are good for us, and whether they are relevant and applicable to our Singaporean society. And I would like to underscore the point of a Singaporean society, because that must be the ultimate that we hope to achieve, if not in the next five, 10, maybe 25 years.

I am happy at the way that the discussions have taken place on this important subject. The debate in Parliament is a good way to round off the exercise that has taken us two years to work out.

I wish to support the motion standing in Dr Ong's name.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, after leaving the concept of National Ideology on the shelf for two years, the Government has now presented it to the people, varnished with a new coat of paint, as something desirable, called quite mistakenly "shared values". The word "shared", Sir, suggests that all, or if not all, almost all, people believe in them and agree with them. The question arises: Have we really found out what are the values that people hold dear? Has Government really taken measures to find out? The answer to both these questions is No.

The White Paper has identified five shared values. They are high sounding, very emotive words. But high sounding words are of no value unless it is agreed what these words really mean. The former Prime Minister had frequently quoted Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, saying that when he, that is, the former Prime Minister, used a word, it would mean just what he chose it to mean. So what does Government choose to mean with all those high-sounding words in the White Paper? How many people really agree with those words, and has Government lived up to those values faithfully and set an example to the people?

To answer some of these questions, let me touch briefly on the five values.

Nation before community and society above self

If the core value of "nation before community" means that we should place the common interests of the people above the private and selfish interests of the individual, then that is a very good value which most people will agree with. And to win popular support, many governments throughout the world, democratic or otherwise, profess that that is their goal of government.

In the context of a multi-racial society in Singapore, it is certainly important that no single community should impose its will on the others. But I also believe that every community should be allowed to develop culturally.

Mr Peh has said that "example is better than precept". Therefore, in the core value of "nation before community, society above self," Government should ensure that its policies are consistent with this principle. But as pointed out by Prof Jon Quah, in Government's promotion of uninhibited free enterprise and meritocracy and paper-chase in our education system, rewards have always accrued to the individual. This would also come about if Government pushes through its policy of privatisation of Government monopolies like the PUB, Telecom, PSA, which would only enrich some individuals who can afford to buy the shares at the expense of the vast majority in society.

Government clearly does not follow policies in keeping with this core value of "nation before community, society above self." If it intends that the people take these values seriously, then Government should first set an example, and live up to these principles and values in whatever it does.

It is also important that the nation be not confused with the Government of the day, or society be confused with the ruling party. It would be wrong, for example, to say that Government policies are policies in the interest of the nation, or label those who oppose the Government and its policies as "anti-national", a term very frequently used by the PAP in the past. It would also be wrong to say that any community must identify itself with the ruling party before it may benefit from policies of Government, as was done only recently.

Family as the basic unit of society

There should be no disagreement with such a core value. Mr Peh has put it well. Dr Seet has amplified on it. But in keeping with this value, it is important that Government policies do not split families or make it difficult for various members of the same family to live together or stay near to one another, as has already been referred to by Mr Chiam.

It is a well-known fact that hundreds of families have been broken up by Government policies. Husbands have been sent out, wives have been sent out, children have been sent out, causing great pain and anguish to all around, including friends and relatives. Guided by such a shared value, Government should amend immigration rules and regulations to allow children and foreign spouses to join Singapore citizens and to re-unite families.

Regard and community support for the individual

The White Paper has emphasized that, and I quote, "Singapore must offer every citizen equal opportunities, and give all of them a good start in life. The economy must not only generate wealth, but also distribute it fairly and widely."

Such sentiments and guidelines are most praiseworthy. Here again, the Government has not lived up to this praiseworthy value. Under the excuse that it does not want a welfare state, it has not shouldered its bounden responsibility to look after all the unfortunates in our society. I agree with Mr Chiam. For example, it has cut the public assistance to the barest minimum, to well below subsistence level. And despite repeated calls for help, it has refused to increase allowances to the low-paid pensioners. It has also refused to give adequate personal reliefs to help the low income groups in their payment of income tax. And it has cut down Class C beds for the poor in hospitals, and even raised the fees and charges. In addition to the disabled and destitute families, there are also those whose household incomes are less than $600 a month and are frequently in arrears in payment of rent, PUB and conservancy charges. And Government has spoken of the need for "kinder and gentler" policies, of compassion, and so on. But Government has done little, very little, to help these unfortunate people.

Government should not merely leave necessary community work to volunteers and charitable organisations. Constant emphasis on cliches like "Nothing is for free" is not in keeping with the spirit of the core value of "Regard for the individual".

Consensus instead of contention

To the PAP Government, contention would seem to be something not good, something to be avoided at all cost, if possible. Other PAP Members have said more or less the same thing. But contention is not a bad thing. Whatever synonyms they may want to use for the word, contention should not be avoided. Indeed, it cannot be avoided. Because contention and consensus may be said to be opposite sides of the same coin. They are no different from the ideas of competition and cooperation which the Prime Minister has spoken of. It is only through contention that we make progress and arrive at the truth. It is only through contention that we may finally reach consensus. And that is why it is so important that we need an Opposition in Parliament.

The Opposition offers the contention that Government speaks of. Unfortunately, the PAP does not like contention from the Opposition. Thus, it has seized on every opportunity to harass and belittle Opposition parties like the Workers' Party. It tried, for example, to ridicule a member of the Workers' Party when he gave oral evidence before a PAP-dominated Select Committee hearing recently.

If Government is serious about arriving at consensus and the truth, it must completely change its views on contention. Instead of fearing contention, it should encourage contention, and actually hold frequent dialogues with political opponents. It should accept and tolerate criticism and contention from the Opposition, so that together we may reach consensus. This, in essence, is what the Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee has himself said. That in fact also should be the very meaning and essence of the Prime Minster's new style of government with discussions, consultations and participatory democracy.

Naturally, this should mean that every person should have the freedom to express views without fear, and I emphas- ise, without fear. Mr Chiam has already mentioned the fact that many people among the university academics dare not speak up. Also, non-political organisations should be allowed, and even encouraged, to publicly comment on issues of national importance. It should also follow that we have an honest government, as has been suggested by MPs and people outside the House. Honest, not merely in the sense that the Government is upright and non-corrupt in financial matters. Honest also morally and politically, in that it regularly and truthfully places all essential and necessary information before the people, so that they may be able to comment intelligently on issues of national importance.

In other words, Government should pursue an open policy of glasnost. If Government did that, it would immediately improve the whole political climate in Singapore. Unfortunately, Government has done little to promote such a healthy political climate. It still abuses its powers under the ISA, continues to detain innocent people without trial, and continues to stifle criticism which it does not like. This has actually caused a large number of Singapore citizens to be politically alienated and to even emigrate, as has been pointed out by Dr Chiew Seen Kong, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Law, NUS. If Government is serious about the Shared Values, all this should be changed.

Racial and religious harmony

This is a must in any multi-racial and multi-religious society. But this should not be used as an excuse to clamp down on religious leaders when they critise unpopular, social and national policies of the Government. Thus, it can be seen that though the White Paper has set out five Shared Values, the Government itself has not really followed policies based on them as guidelines. This has already been emphasised by Mr Chiam. Indeed, it has often followed policies which are often based on values almost diametrically opposite.

And that brings me to a most important theme. That is, although Government has put forward five values, there is not a single word about justice. Justice and truth are the highest values amongst human beings. Yet not a single word has been said about either of them in the White Paper. If we are to counter undesirable lifestyles, attitudes and values, Western or Asian; if we are to preserve the cultural heritage of our various communities and inculcate these fundamental ideas in all Singaporeans, especially the young, and thus consciously to develop our own cultural values, so that over time a Singaporean identity will emerge, it is surprising indeed that justice and truth have been left out.

Or, perhaps, it is not such a surprise after all. Because it is difficult to deny that in Singapore today there is no justice. Let me give you a concrete example. As a result of injustice, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, the former MP for Anson, was wrongly kept out of this House to represent the people who elected him. He was again wrongly prevented from standing as a candidate in the 1988 elections. And all because he was convicted by the Singapore courts and sentenced to pay a fine of more than $2,000.

But may I remind the House, the Privy Council, the highest court of law for Singapore in 1988, has said that all the convictions were wrong, that the former MP for Anson was innocent of all the offences he was convicted, and that a grievous injustice had been done to him. In spite of this, the Government has refused to remove the convictions because it says that Mr Jeyaretnam has not shown any remorse. But how could one show remorse when the highest court of law says that one is not guilty? Now when Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam wishes to take the whole question back to the Privy Council, the Government has refused to agree. He has brought an action in the courts, I understand, for a declaration that he never ceased to be a Member of the Sixth Parliament on 10th November, 1986, when he was fined $5,000. The High Court has refused to grant the declaration. He has appealed to the Court of Appeal, and wishes to take his case to the Privy Council if he fails before the Court of Appeal.

But the law now is that he can go to the Privy Council only if the opposing party, ie, the Government in this case, agrees. And the Government has so far, from what I have been told, refused to agree. Why? It would appear that the Government is fearful that, if he is allowed to go to the Privy Council, the Privy Council would grant the declaration, on the ground that all his convictions were wrong and that he should never have been disqualified. There is no other possible explanation. Is that justice for an individual? And even now, Sir, I learn that the Government is trying to find another possible prosecution of him in the hope that he may be disqualified again for yet a further term.

I have spoken of the case of Mr Jeyaretnam, the former MP for Anson, because we are today discussing Shared Values for the people of Singapore. Because his is a glaring instance of injustice that disturbs the conscience of all Singaporeans in whose hearts the flame of justice burns. Because I wish to emphasise on the need for justice as a most important component of our core values. And because I wish to emphasise that the Government needs to set an example to the people, and especially the young, in what it does, so that they may all follow the correct guidelines as their way of life. Every person must know that without justice, all other values become meaningless. Yet Government seems to have omitted all the important essential values, political, moral, cultural, economic, values which are presently identified with the five stars on the State flag, and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government's arguments for not including these values identified with the State flag are unconvincing. It says that including these values "would significantly widen their scope". If that be so, then the same could be said for other core values which are also political in content, especially the first and fourth core values listed in the White Paper.

There is talk of communitarianism versus individualism. But these values are not antagonistic. Values like justice, honesty, and so on, may be said to be individualist values. But such individualist values, grouped together in a community, in the final analysis, become communitarian values, ie, national values. The Government proposes that such important and essential values be inculcated separately among the population, which means that they become less important than the Shared Values. Values like justice, truth, equality, are shared by all the people. Why then should these values be taught separately and not together with the Shared Values on which the Government has placed such importance? Has not the Government frequently called on the people to take part in the political affairs of the country? Dr Seet has spoken of the need for universal values. Therefore, should not our children be taught to uphold universal values, like justice and truth, at an early age? Values of human rights are not just political values alone. They are also moral values applicable to all people.

Today, the whole world is marching towards democracy. Even Communist countries have to keep in step. Government should not try to buck the world trend. Government wants to be eclectic, selecting only values that fit in with PAP policies and objectives to be included in our set of Shared Values. Since Government does not include such universally accepted values of justice and human rights, a question must then be asked: Is there some hidden reason why Government has pushed the programme of Shared Values which has not been divulged? We all know that a national ideology, or a set of Shared Values, is usually the creation of political leaders who hope to achieve certain political objectives, as has been pointed out by Leo Suryadinata, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, NUS. Dr Seet herself should know that.

What is our Government's unspoken aim in pushing a programme of Shared Values? In the debate on the President's Address two years ago, I had suggested that the Government's one-sided inculcation or indoctrination of certain values amongst the young would tend to lead to a process of thought control. Some speakers have spoken of fears that the Shared Values may be the Government's way of enforcing conformity. I believe that such fears and also dangers do exist if universal values of justice and human rights are not included in the Shared Values to be taught in our schools. As is well-known, National Ideologies, eg. in Malaysia and Indonesia and in other countries, are all intended to serve certain political purposes.

Similarly in Singapore, it can be seen that our Shared Values, as presently constituted, are also intended to serve a political purpose, that of thought control, namely, to condition the people to thinking along certain lines acceptable to the PAP, in the hope of assuring the PAP of popular support and continuing rule in Singapore. Will the PAP succeed in all this? Time will tell. But it does not appear likely, since the Shared Values as presently proposed are not values really shared by all the people; since these values represent different things to different people; and since the Government has not carried out policies in keeping with its own proposed values.

To conclude, Sir, we all agree that our people and future generations should be armed with attitudes and values that will help them to survive and succeed as a nation. But without the guidelines of the fundamental values of truth, honesty, equality, democracy, justice and human rights, the proposed "Shared Values" by themselves will not, and I stress, will not, be able to ensure that we do not lose our bearings in a society constantly subjected to all sorts of undesirable influences, both Western and Asian.

On the contrary, if our people and future generations should be inculcated with correct Singapore values, truly shared by all and enjoying mass support, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister, and encouraged by living examples of our Government to show that "they are not mere platitudes but values which convey something significant to all Singaporeans", (I quote again the Deputy Prime Minister) we should be able to hold our heads high, and become a people admired throughout the world, identified as "good Singaporeans", efficient, honest and just, warm and caring. Which should it be? The choice to me is clear. The Government will certainly push through the Shared Values, but the Government also has said it will be flex- ible. I do hope that the Government will be flexible enough to seriously consider and incorporate the good values I have proposed.

I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by MPs in support of the Motion before the House but, for the reasons I have given, I cannot support the Motion.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion moved by my parliamentary colleagues in this House.

Contrary to what Dr Lee Siew-Choh has said, I think the process of formulating these Shared Values in itself is a classic example of the consultation and consensus-building process in action. In the last two years or so, many organisations and many Singaporeans have come forward to take part in various forums and discussions to give their views and contributions towards the formulation of these Shared Values. I fully endorse the five core values proposed in the White Paper, as I believe they form the fundamental values upon which we will continue to strengthen our nation-building efforts as well as develop a Singapore identity.

Sir, many people have asked for one other value to be included and this is the value of a clean and honest Government. I cannot agree with them more. I feel strongly that these values deserve some mention again today. I know it was debated yesterday.

This sixth value, to me, is important in our nation-building effort. Our success in the last 30 years or so has been possible because we were able to preserve the tradition of a clean and honest government. Corruption is a serious problem in many countries. Here in Singapore we are unique. It is a non-issue. And it does not mean that we should ignore this value. To do so may indeed send a wrong signal to our younger Singaporeans, and we should not leave it to the PAP to remind the electorate every four or five years the need to preserve a clean and honest government. By continuously stressing this value as a national value, if not among the five shared values, Singaporeans, particularly the young ones' will constantly be aware that it is in their best interest to maintain a clean and honest government in power and they will continue to elect good candidates into Parliament.

Sir, I am heartened by what Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee Hsien Loong has said in the House yesterday. He mentioned that besides the five core values, the Government would look into how to inculcate political values among our young in schools. I suggest the Government also look into how to inculcate these values among our national servicemen in the SAF.

Sir, we have spent much time engaging in intellectual debate on what should be our shared values. Equally important is to discuss how these values are to be promoted and inculcated among Singaporeans. And I would like to touch briefly on this implementation process. This is not a simple process by all means. It is not something which could be done overnight. Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee Hsien Loong has said in the House yesterday that there is no need for a national council to be formed to draw up detailed implementation plan. Sir, I agree with him, but I believe that there is a need for a coordinating body. Some body, some Ministry, some organisation, must be made responsible for coordinating the implementation process. Many parties are involved in the promotion and inculcation process. Besides the Ministry of Community Development and the Education Ministry, I believe the clan associations, community organisations, religious institutions, private sector business organisations, the NTUC, the SAF and even the mass media, all have their role to play in imparting these values. No doubt the implementation has to be a piecemeal approach, but some body, some organisation, or some Ministry, must provide the leadership, the catalyst, the coordinating and the advisory role. Some body must draw up policy guidelines for implementation as well as provide interpretation and clarifications on the various shared values.

Sir, I believe the appropriate body is the Ministry of Community Development. I think this Ministry should be given this additional role or responsibility to coordinate the promotion and inculcation of shared values. And it should work closely with not just the Ministry of Education but also MINDEF. I believe the Ministry of Community Development is also the most appropriate Ministry to take on this responsibility because they are the best body to be able to reach out to non-Government bodies like the clan associations, religious institutions, community organisations, private sector business organisations, NTUC and also the mass media to seek their help to promote and inculcate shared values.

Finally, Sir, the inculcation process is a long-term one and we should not rush into it. Even if policy guidelines and plans have been drawn up, they should be constantly reviewed and updated. And we cannot expect to see immediate results, not in one or two years, not even in five years, maybe in 10 years or longer. I would like to urge all Singaporeans to play their part to make this whole exercise of inculcating shared values a worthwhile one and help us develop a unique Singapore identity by the turn of the century. 2.35 pm

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this motion together with my colleagues.

When I listened to the Opposition Member, I believe he was confused. He asked why we should have shared values. We know that in this highly commercialised and individualistic society, the general citizens and the community leaders are only concerned with problems related to themselves or to money, such as the three-quarter tank rule, the increase in television licence fees, the time-based telephone charges and so on and so forth. So when I discussed with these people, there were only a few intellectuals who showed interest in shared values. Yet when the people are having a good life and enjoying peace, our Government thinks ahead in anticipation of the dangers that may come, by presenting this White Paper to show the relationship between the people, the individuals, the society and the nation. I think it is timely and a good thing to do. Perhaps some of our elders may say that although we did not have such shared values in the past, we were still able to bring peace and prosperity to Singapore. But it was because we had this kind of values in the minds of our people that we have succeeded. So what the Government has done now is to synthesise and collate all these values and put them in a formal format. So as a mother, I have also considered it important for me to transmit such values to my children. In Singapore, we want to continue to prosper, live in peace, and to maintain the family as a unit of society. I think it is time now for us to work on spreading and propagating such values.

When I looked at the White Paper I felt that the five core values should not meet with any criticism or controversy from any quarters. We must congratulate the committee for having been able to work out such fine shared values transcending the various cultures, religions and races. These are the values that we can identify with and these are values of universal application. So we are already working on a correct foundation on these values. Now the question is whether we should have another value between voters and the Government. As a start we should consider the relationship between the individuals, the nation and the society.

On these five shared values, I just want to say something on the question of details and implementation. On racial and religious harmony and consensus instead of contention, we know that an ideology and a set of values cannot come about overnight. It is the result of many years of accumulation of experiences and the distillation of the essence. It is some kind of guidelines that we must follow and these guidelines, as I have said, have universal application. In other words, they are above the territorial boundaries. So we must have the confidence to absorb these values as something that we can all accept.

In one same plant of bougainvillaea, we can have flowers of different colours. We can see white, yellow, pink and red flowers blooming in the same bougainvillaea plant. So I hope that in our Singapore society we will also be able to take the best of all the cultures and philosophies from various communities to produce a very colourful culture for all of us. We must have confidence in our Asian cultural values. We must seek concord while maintaining differences and get consensus through consultation. It is only thus that we will be able to continue to enjoy our prosperity. When we try to maintain our own cultural heritage, we should not impose this on others. So when we pursue our own cultural heritage, we cannot be branded as chauvinistic so long as we are not arrogant. There are people who express the view that we must have concrete and vivid examples to express our cultural values. This should not be branded as chauvinism.

Mr Chiam See Tong, just now, criticised that the Speak Mandarin campaign was a mistake. When we had a dialogue session at the Feedback Unit, I was pleased to note that our Malay colleagues, our Malay compatriots and Indian compatriots, also understood that we should discard dialects in favour of Mandarin. But now as an ethnic Chinese, he does not seem to understand. So we must appreciate that when a community tries its efforts to retain its own cultures and traditions, we should not regard such behaviour as chauvinistic. I must also express my support for what is stated in the White Paper that the majority race should not impose pressure on the minority race. I fully support this point. We must not go into the wrong rut of Sri Lanka. But at the same time we must also stress that when a certain ethnic group tries to preserve its own culture and tradition, we should not have any misunderstanding or suspicion.

Another point is that many people have expressed a need to include "Belief in God" as one of the values. Singapore has never opposed "Belief in God". We are a secular state and we would also welcome people to believe in God. But because we are a secular state, it is not proper to include "Belief in God" as one of the values. There is no specific religion which we regard as the state religion and there is no religion which can represent all the communities. We must also respect the fact that everybody has got a free choice in terms of religion and we must also respect the right of an individual not to believe. And people who believe in God, they believe in different kinds of Gods. So it is right and proper for the committee on the White Paper not to include "Belief in God" as one of the values.

On the question of family as a basic unit of society, this perhaps is not a new concept. During our school days we have also learnt that we must look after the old of others as our own, we must look after our own children and extend our care to other's children. So the respect for our own elderly people and other elderly people and the care for our children and other children, is already something that we have learnt in our schools from young. The question now is: how do we transmit this value to our younger generation? When we talk about the old philosophy, we might ask whether this old philosophy is suitable to the modern society. When we stress the importance of the family, when we stress the importance of the relationship between brothers and sisters, will there be any nepotism involved? In the old Asian society, because it was basically an agricultural society, the head of the family was always the man in charge and in the village it was the village chief who dictated and ruled the village. So it was the rule of man rather than the rule of law in the old Asian society, in which nepotism could spread. But Singapore is a country which practises the rule of law and we have a clean and honest government. Therefore, under the enlightened leadership together with the sound system of the rule of law, I believe that when we encourage the strengthening of family relations we would not give rise to the plague of nepotism.

Yesterday I heard some colleagues saying that they were concerned about the emphasis given to the family as a unit because it might bring us backward to the philosophy of old Asia. But personally, I feel that nepotism is not a characteristic of Asia alone. It is a characteristic of human beings all over the world.

Now let me deal with "Nation before community and society above self". In the past few years, during the economic recession our workers sacrificed 15% of their CPF. At a time when the country required us to tighten our belts, our people have done so. So we have already done all this. The question now is: how do we make our people realise that the importance of the relationship between the family, the country and the society? When the country is broken, the family units would collapse. So this is a very important ideal. How do we tell our young citizens that in real life they must always think of their relationship with the family and the country? My colleagues have mentioned earlier on, that in Singapore, what they do and what they say in the Government departments and the private organisations, are closely related. So when we talk about reward according to merit, when we talk about meritocracy, when we talk about the individuals' expression of their talents, they must also think of other people's interests and the interest of the nation and society. So it is a question of balance.

I do not agree with the individualism belief that for the interest of the group we must follow the rule of "from each his best, and to each according to his needs". We should go for the rule of "from each his best and to each according to his worth". So the Government and various organisations should reward those who have contributed to society and the nation, irrespective of their qualifications. We must not go by their paper value. So long as an individual has contributed to society or an organisation, we must give him due regard and reward. More importantly, everybody must be given a chance to participate. I believe that sometime ago our Senior Minister also mentioned this. I think many people are interested in golf. If in playing golf you have only the first three prizes, then it would be difficult for you to get more people to take part in the golf game. So long as in our daily life we pay attention to the need for everybody to participate and get their due reward, then I believe gradually our younger people will be able to accept the proper relationship between the individual, the nation and the society. The more important thing is that we must practise what we preach.

I would like to congratulate our Government for being able, at a time of prosperity and stability, to think of the common shared values for building a better and stronger future. More importantly, the future stability and prosperity of Singapore will depend on the acceptance of the people of these shared values.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.50 pm until 3.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, following the suggestion by the Government to develop a national ideology two years ago, the subject has since been discussed extensively both in and outside Parliament. Many supported the rationale behind this proposal, and many views have been expressed as to what this national ideology should include.

The Government has now proposed, in the White Paper, five core shared values focusing on the relationship between the individual and society. Some Singaporeans wanted political values such as democracy, meritocracy and honest Government to be included. Some felt that religious values such as belief in God should not be left out. Others wanted to uphold individual virtues such as hard work and pursuit of excellence. It is therefore important for us to decide on whether we want to incorporate these other sets of values into the proposed set.

Sir, I support the Government's proposition not because the other sets of values are not important, but because it will allow us to be single-minded and concentrate on the most difficult and yet most important task of weaving a strong social fabric in our multi-racial society. On this fabric, I believe, must the other sets of values rest.

It is a difficult task because it deals with shaping people's attitude and behaviour towards other people, and in Singapore, the problem is compounded by the fact that we are not a homogenous people. It is also an extremely important task because the social culture of a people takes a long time to evolve and has profound consequences on whether that people can hold together during a crisis and whether they will not disintegrate during normal times. In the Singapore context, we have to ask ourselves whether present and succeeding generations of Singaporeans will stay and fight when there is an external threat, whether there will be unity among the various ethnic groups when there is a political agitation, and whether Singaporeans are prepared to tighten their belts in an economic crisis. We have also to ask ourselves whether the social values we embrace will gradually enhance the social and political stability of this country during normal times and contribute to improved peace, progress and prosperity.

Sir, I believe that the White Paper has successfully singled out and consolidated the core social values shared by Singaporeans of all races. These shared values have underpinned our success in the last 25 years. We have to ensure that succeeding generations of Singaporeans are also guided by these values so that we can continue to survive and succeed as a nation.

There are two points in the proposed values which have aroused much contention. First, the proposed values seek to strike a balance between the individual and the society. Nobody can disagree with that. The controversy is: where do you draw the line between the individual and the community? Striking the right balance is essential if a society is to progress and not decline. But I think it is not possible to draw the line and there is no need to, because we should not use the shared values to justify or criticise a Government policy. I therefore do not think Mr Leong Chee Whye should use the legislation regarding flushing in the public toilet to argue that perhaps the Government is lacking in its regard for the individual.

In my view, a right balance between the individual and the community would only come about and continue to exist if we unceasingly teach and remind our children that they are in fact a part of the society, and it is when they contribute to the society that they themselves will ultimately benefit from the society. On the other hand, the nation and the society must remember that they can only be strong if each of their members is respected and taken care of by the society. It is like a family relationship. You cannot draw the line for the behaviour of each person in the family. A happy family is one where there is true reciprocal respect and love.

The second point concerns the value on "Consensus instead of contention". We must make it clear that consensus does allow debates, arguments and contention before it is forged. But I see the merit of providing the contrast in the proposed phrase as it will help drive home the point that what we desire at the end of the day is consensus and not contention, confrontation or conflict as a result. Since the wording is unclear to most people, I would support a change to "consensus instead of conflict".

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join Members of this House and most Singaporeans in supporting our proposed shared values as detailed in the White Paper. However, I shall be very frank. It is not something which gets one all excited. I believe too that many other Singaporeans are not turned on by this White Paper. But then, being practical people, this paper has little or no immediate impact on Singaporeans.

This may be one reason. But the fault, I submit, lies not in the substance or essence of the values identified, but in the manner of their enunciation in the White Paper on our shared values. I am in support of the substance but it is possible that in drawing up these values, something got lost in the phrasing so much so that they seem to lack soul and feeling.

Granted, our shared values are not designed to galvanise our people into spirited action. But to be accepted successfully and widely, they must strike some common chord in our people and at least stir some emotions. If not inspirational, they should at least evoke some great sense of belief and participation in our people. This is absent in the reading of our shared values which are neither memorable nor easy to recite, or even to remember.

Many Singaporeans can recite the pledge, but it will be difficult to expect Singaporeans to remember the shared values. I must confess that having read the document more than once, I have to think very hard to remember each one of the values. One thing we can do is to rephrase the values in the language of the poets or encourage writers of good verse to breathe some flair and feeling into the shared values.

Another thing amiss is the title. The very name "Shared Values" sounds prosaic, more like the title of another academic dissertation. Let us invite ideas on re-naming our Shared Values. If possible, its name should make it sound an intrinsic part of our Singapore culture. The original name given by the Prime Minister, "National Ideology", is in my mind a better name than Shared Values. Even "Core Values" has a better ring to it. Indonesia's Pancasila is a case in point. I do not think that Pancasila will be as memorable if it had instead been called "Shared Values".

Sir, as to the proposed shared values, I venture to propose consideration of some amendments and additions.

Firstly, an addition that will be most appropriate is one concerning honest government. This has already been mentioned by a number of my colleagues and those outside this House. Although this is a political value, it is a rare virtue uniquely Singaporean and one that is instrumental in making Singapore what it is today. Honest government is made more critical due to our limited size and our limited resources. Somehow our core values will be incomplete without reference to this and it should be enshrined in our national ideology.

We cannot permit corruption to creep into our system whether in Government or in our private lives. I therefore propose in relation to honest government, consideration of this value: "National and individual integrity" which could be elaborated or translated as honesty of those in authority and individual citizens, that is, embracing not only Government but all others holding any public or community position, as well as private citizens.

Besides honest government, there are a number of very desirable political values which we all embrace inside this House and also for most Singaporeans. Perhaps we should group these and introduce a separate set of political values at a later date. I will welcome that change.

The last change I have in mind refers to the value "Consensus instead of contention". As mentioned by my colleagues, this has raised the most contention. It will not lessen the impact if we remove the word "contention" from it. This will not make this value any less important. On the contrary, Sir, to me, "consensus instead of contention" is a very important key value in our system.

Sir, contention in its extreme form has often been a most destructive element in Asian societies. Unlike the West, where two or more parties may engage in apparently "go for broke" contention and shake hands after that, Asians literally begin to sharpen their knives for the kill after contention. Very often, there is no search for middle ground. There is this inability to agree to disagree. To concede in our society is to lose face.

In the West they fight and forget. Witness the recent fight for leadership of the Conservative Party in the UK. What happened to the loser, Mr Michael Heseltine? He was appointed Minister in the Cabinet of the winner, Mr John Major. The Conservative Party and the country stand to gain when the strength of Mr Heseltine is brought into the Cabinet. This is in sharp contrast to the fight for the leadership of a major party in a neighbouring country. Victor and loser became mortal enemies, despite the fact that both are not ideologically different. Translated down the line, the country becomes divisive. There are many other examples. Suffice to say that at the highest level in the country, the way disagreements are resolved sets the tone for the country.

Since Asian societies lack the cultural and traditional capacity to kiss and make up, so to speak, contention is a zero-sum game. There will be winners and there will be losers and in the aftermath, I think the country and everyone else loses.

Hence the value of "Consensus instead of contention" is a very important and significant value. We have to inculcate in our young the importance of consensus which leads to teamwork. However, to make it widely accepted, we may perhaps amend it to read "deliberations leading to consensus" or some similar form, so long as the word "contention" is removed. I will support, Sir, a motion to amend the wording of this value.

Sir, after all is said and done, and our shared core values are agreed upon, where shall we file them?

On the subject of values and attitudes, I am all for a protected and careful approach. It will take time to sink our shared values into the people's consciousness. However, in the long run, to ensure that our core values, or national ideology, become writ in our nation's everyday life, and not end up as pious pontifications, these values should, like Pancasila, be enshrined in our Constitution. Otherwise, after the debate is over, they could be locked up in a cabinet to be resurrected only on special occasions or only when the nation is in danger of going adrift. By incorporating them into our Constitution, they should bind all Singaporeans all the time - Government, business and individuals, as well as community, social, professional, trade, business, political and any other interest groups.

Like Pancasila, they should form the philosophical underpinning of our nation, and all groups will play under some very basic and same ground rules.

The individuals' rights are enshrined in our Constitution. To balance these rights, our shared core values should become a responsibility statement binding all people in Singapore. Including the shared values in the Constitution will remind our people before they assert their rights that they have a responsibility as well; and enunciate clearly the guide for desirable Singa- porean behaviour, so that all Singaporeans, when they think of nation before community, family and self, will regard Singapore as their house and their home, and the Constitution, with the shared core values incorporated in it, as their very basic house rules.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Sikhs in Singapore agree wholeheartedly with the aims set out in the White Paper. As ideals to aspire to, the five shared values are highly commendable. In my view, while the White Paper should be used as a model for the development of our values, there are some questions which the White Paper throws up, but does not address. And I would like to take this opportunity to raise these questions because I believe that it is timely that they be answered.

The first question is: what form will these values take? Are they going to be the subject of legislation or is it intended that they be translated in one way or another in directives? If so, what kind of legislation or directives does the Government have in mind to entrench and transmit these values?

If legislation is intended, I would ask the Government to bear in mind that legislation is perhaps more consistent with imposing values, and it is not consistent with obtaining or securing a voluntary and widespread acceptance of these values.

However, if it is not the intention that there should be legislation or directives from the top, then the question remains, how are we going to transmit these values? The White Paper suggests that it will be done perhaps through the schools and parents as well will be responsible for doing it. But the White Paper stops short of explaining how exactly this will be done and what sanctions, if any, will follow if students, parents or school teachers refuse to abide by these values.

The second question is: how are we going to settle on these five values when one of them is consensus rather than contention? This, in my view, is a logical difficulty and again it turns on the meaning of the word "contention".

If contention is to mean debate and clashing of ideas, then I would suggest that unless we have that debate and differences in opinion, it is going to be very difficult to accommodate different viewpoints, opposing viewpoints, on the merits of the White Paper. It is essential that there be some form of contention, some form of a conflict of opinion if we are to obtain universal acceptance of the Shared Values. To that extent, I am in agreement with my fellow speakers that the word "contention" either has to be defined or changed altogether.

The third question is: Are we satisfied that by making contention a bad word we are not turning future generations of Singaporeans into "compromisers"? What we are trying to do here is to avoid clashes and disputes. If that is right and if down the line we lose the spirit to fight, to contend, do we also not stand the risk that in times of need, when the Government requires the people to take a strong stand and to support the Government in a strong stand on issues, the people will be more inclined to compromise because over the years, they have been inculcated with the idea that compromise is better than taking a strong issue on any particular point. I think that is worth considering.

Finally, the last question is: How will the implementation of this value system affect the lives of ordinary Singaporeans? This is uppermost in the minds of Singaporeans. They see the principles in the White Paper, they read about it, but I do not think that they appreciate how these values will over time translate into operation and how they will have effect on their lives. What sacrifices will Singaporeans, especially the young ones, have to make to their personal choices in abiding by these values? Will they still be able to choose the vocation of their choice? Will they be directed to any particular course of study in the common good? These questions are basic and have to be answered. For otherwise, there will be no basis upon which we can invite a debate on these values unless people are fully informed as to the values, their extent and their full operational implication, people are unable to determine the merits of these values, and to either say Yes or No to them, or to perhaps offer a third solution.

When the National Ideology was debated sometime in early 1989, I had suggested that it is very important for us to win the support of the people, especially the young. If the young do not accept the values and transmit them to the following generations, the entire plan will fail. So, I would urge the Government to undertake what in effect is a PR exercise to explain, by reference to real-life examples, how these values will affect them. Unless these questions are answered, I would suggest that it is premature to enter into a full-scale debate on whether these values are acceptable to us in the longer term.

Dr Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Singapore is developed from an immigrant society. In the early days, Singaporeans brought with them, from their native countries, traditional values which were essentially oriental values. They were hardworking and they attached great importance on family relations and morality, loyal to their nation and ever willing to help others. They were prepared to sacrifice themselves for their community. These values could be seen and they have played an important role in our early days when we were fighting the Japanese, when we were striving for independence, and in our nation-building process after independence.

After independence, we have been building our nation over the last 25 years. Our economic development has not been plain sailing all the way. In 1971, we had the early withdrawal of the British military forces and in 1985, we faced economic recession. Our people placed national interest above their own, and were prepared to respond to the Government's plea to tighten their belts and to put in a concerted effort to help our economy ride over the crisis. In 1985, particularly, our workers accepted a "pay-cut" which enabled Singapore to fully recover from the recession within the very short span of two years, and we recovered our international competitiveness. During our 25 years of nation building, we have also implemented many policies which have caused, to a certain extent, some temporary hardship to our people.

One of these policies worthy of mention is the land acquisition policy implemented in conjunction with our industrialization policy. For all these, our people are prepared to tacitly sacrifice their own interest for the long-term interest of our nation and this has resulted in the economic success and prosperity we enjoy today.

If what had happened during the last 25 years were to happen to the young people of Singapore today, then I am afraid all these effective measures taken during the last 25 years may not have been implemented as smoothly as they did. Otherwise, Prime Minister Mr Goh would not have to change the style of our Government to one of more consultative type. It would appear that our younger generation of Singaporeans are no longer having the type of traditional values that their forefathers had. Even if they do have the values, they do not observe them as fervently as their forefathers did. Without the traditional values left behind by the older generation, can our younger generation of Singaporeans survive the stormy world of today as smoothly as our older generations did in Singapore. When confronted with a national crisis, can our young Singaporeans act as their forefathers did by placing nation before self, and face the challenges with determination? This is something for us to think about. I feel that at this point of time, for the Government to propose this set of Shared Values which emphasises unity of our people, nation before self, and urge our people to help in our nation building with a positive attitude is a correct move, worthy of our support.

Of the five Shared Values proposed in the White Paper, three of them are relevant to my points above. Firstly, Nation above all; secondly, maintain racial and religious harmony; and thirdly, to settle problems through consultation. The first two items are easier for our people to accept. But the third item has aroused much criticism, mainly because some feel that this would result in opposing views to be suppressed. Personally I do not think so, because we have already come to a new era. In the early days of Singapore, we did have very different political ideologies which were entirely incompatible. But these are things of the past. The type of present or future conflicts that we may have in our domestic affairs are not really that explosive. If we can contain our emotion and always uphold the attitude of placing Nation above all, I think many, many problems can be solved. Taking all the major and minor events that happened in Singapore over the past few years, I cannot see any one of them which cannot be resolved through consultation. I have not seen any event in which any opposing view was being suppressed in the process of consultation.

On the value of consultation, the tripartite cooperation between the Government, the employers and the employees practised in Singapore in resolving industrial disputes is one clear example of the consultative way of solving problems. As we all know, consultation has brought about our economic prosperity. Singapore has a conducive environment to attract investments. The average income of our workers has doubled once every ten years. I feel that this consultative approach to resolving problems is absolutely correct, there is nothing wrong with it.

Perhaps if we make some minor amendment to the proposed statement by deleting the word "contention" and substituting it with some other suitable words, it would be more acceptable by the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.