SHARED VALUES (Motion)

Debate resumed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1988, discussions on having a National Ideology started. Many, at that time, were sceptical of the need for a National Ideology. The term "National Ideology" carries the connotation of something very doctrinal. This paper on Shared Values in many ways is much less rigid. It is an open-ended exercise. Dr Lee Siew-Choh is very sceptical about this change of terminology. I welcome it. Some think that it is better that we allow for time to develop what we would consider as the core values which will make the Singaporean identity. However, Singapore being such an open society, and having adopted English as the working language has made it more urgent for us to review this premise. Unless we are consciously aware of the fundamentals, unless we ask ourselves what we are and what we want to be, where we come from and where we are going both in spirit and in mind, we may well lose our sense of direction. Unless we start reminding ourselves, how will we ever know what values to embrace? The years ahead will be fast moving ones. We need a moral anchor for our souls to stand us in good stead.

We are a nation of diverse people. The Chinese, Malay and Indian communities are not homogenous communities. For example, we have Chinese from various dialects from all parts of China, Malays from Indonesia and what was at one time known as Malaya have now become a part of Singapore. The Indians have come from not only India and other parts of the Indian sub-continent but also from Sri Lanka. The Indians are also not homogenous in religion, language and cultural heritage. The riches of a cultural heritage can all too quickly explode if we do not have common shared values. The very diversity we wish to preserve calls for a large measure of tolerance, regard and mutual respect. The freedom to be what we want to be which we cherish will not last long if we do not have some fundamental principles to guide us.

To me, the White Paper reflects a refreshing sensitivity and tactfulness. The exercise has crystallised to the consciousness and to the five statements in the Shared Values. It has affirmed the core values which we can all subscribe to with minor amendments.

Sir, the White Paper has dispelled three misconceptions. One, that we are "anti-West" in our approach. The Paper has stated in no uncertain terms in paragraph 28 that "Westernisation has helped us to run a more rational government, and build a more efficient economy". In paragraph 29, it is also stated that "not everything Asian is good, just as not everything Western is bad". Why is it important to dispel these misconceptions? This is because many of us have been schooled on the western mindset. Some have had their tertiary education overseas. Singapore is a global city. To have others believe that we reject westernisation in totality will not be good for our international image. It may also make the concept of Shared Values unacceptable to Singaporeans who have studied or lived overseas for sometime.

Secondly, it is important to dispel the misconception that the Government was trying to impose Confucian values in totality, and even to the non-Chinese community. It has been stated in the White Paper in paragraphs 43 and 44 that there are Confucian concepts which are not acceptable. The most important of these are nepotism and the Confucian concept of family relationship.

The third misconception which has been exposed is that this exercise of discussing Shared Values is a political ploy, as mentioned Mr Chiam See Tong. It is something much more fundamental and much more important. It is about having to preserve that which is best in our society today so that this can be passed on to the next generation. Mr Chiam has said that the Government has no moral right to do this. Indeed, I believe it is the Government's moral obligation to do this.

Belief in God and Political Values

Sir, in this paper, it has been decided to leave out "Belief in God" and political values as a statement of the Shared Values. It is my belief that religious faith is indeed "a constructive social force", to quote the White Paper, and that all believers of whatever faith will welcome this statement as part of the shared values. Personally, I would prefer to see "Belief in God" as one of the shared values. However, realising that there are some people who do not believe in any God, I can understand why it is not possible to include this as part of the shared values.

The political system that we have, based on parliamentary democracy and meritocracy, is something very fundamental to us. We should not make any apology for the political culture that has led to good government in Singapore. We should include this as part of our value system. In a small way, yes, these values have been identified with the five stars of the State flag - democracy, harmony, peace, prosperity and justice. However, as this political culture has made progress, both social and economic, possible in Singapore, should we not include this as part of our value system? Perhaps we can re-examine this at a later date, if not now.

Regard and Community Support for the Individual

Sir, some people have expressed that in this document the weightage against the individual may have been somewhat overstressed. Several speakers, both yesterday and today, including the Chairman of the Feedback Unit, Mr Chandra Das, have mentioned this. DPM BG Lee has clarified on this yesterday. Indeed, in the spirit of consensus forging, he has stated that to clarify this point, he is prepared to accept an amendment to this statement. I will, with your permission, Sir, be making an amendment to this statement to read, "Community support and respect for the individual" to be substituted for "Regard and community support for the individual". This statement, when restructured, implies more than just a glancing "regard", but "respect" with the implication of treating the individual with TLC - tender, loving care. It also implies a commitment to the concept that everyone, every individual, every citizen of Singapore, has a place in his or her home here in Singapore. It is when we treat our citizens with respect and tender, loving care that we can bring out the very best in our citizens.

Consensus instead of contention

Sir, the basis of forging a consensus may be but is not always a smooth path. Clashes of deep convictions cannot but be contentious. Contention and debate may even be acrimonious. Sometimes, out of differences, a consensus is reached. What is more important is not so much "Consensus instead of contention" which can only conjure images of unquestioning conformity, but that all stand in unity for the common good once the differences have been aired and exchanged. Yesterday, DPM BG Lee Hsien Loong has clarified this, and I am in total agreement with him that we should "agree to disagree but amicably" and that in the process of reaching consensus, we must be careful that we "do not make enemies out of one another". In this connection, Sir, again with your permission, I will be moving another amendment to read, "Consensus not conflict" to substitute, "Consensus instead of contention".

Sir, the DPM has defined the end point and the end point of discussion is when it will arise in conflict. The grey area comes when conflict is on the horizon in a discussion. That is when contention ends and conflict comes by. So I believe that if we put it in this form about consensus and clearly state that not conflict is our final view, that should be something which will clarify the situation and that is a statement that will clarify any misunderstanding that we are trying to suppress debate.

Mr Chiam See Tong has said that all of the values are acceptable to him but not "Consensus instead of contention". And Dr Lee Siew-Choh has in other words said likewise. I hope that they will be able to accept this amendment.

Practising the Shared Values

Having shared values means we must now practise them. We must translate them into real working relationships. Here I believe the Government has an important role to play. We should now also begin to question Government policies not only in economic terms, but whether they conform with the shared values. If I may take what I believe to have been a successful model of this to explain what I mean.

Let us take national service and the defence of our nation. National service really means putting community, society, above self. National servicemen do not enjoy putting aside 2(r) years of their life to acquire military skills which they hope never to use. The Government has made compulsory military service universally applicable regardless of race, language or religion. Here, national need of an effective defence force comes before community, society and self. The family is that unit that gives the young man the support during his period of military service. The SAF has been mindful of this and has reached out to the families. Orientation visits are arranged for family members and employers. Regard and community support for the individual is given by way of recognition of the individual's performance during military service in both the private and public sectors. For families who face hardship because of national service, there are schemes available to alleviate these hardships. There was resistance to national service in the initial years, but consensus was built out of the initial contentions. The SAF has exemplified in parade procedures, eg, in commissioning parades, respect for race and religion. This, to me, is a model of applying shared values in formulating Government policies.

So it is that all present, past and future major policy decisions must pass the test of not contradicting our shared value system. Then and only then will having shared values be meaningful to us. I would go so far as to say that all political parties ought to first subscribe to these values before they can be registered. This can only reinforce the shared values which we want to preserve for the next generation.

To ensure that these shared values are understood by our young, families and parents of course have an important role to play. The media has an equally important role to play. In my mind, one of the major players must be the schools. It is my hope that our young will have the opportunity to learn these values by way of formal education and also through extracurricular activities such as visits to welfare homes and exposure to the problems of the handicapped. Through field visits, the young will learn many of these values and see them in action. DPM BG Lee Hsien Loong has given us an example of how this is done in Japan. I think we should learn from this. Like many earlier speakers, I believe that the final onus would be in the hands of parents of today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to move my amendment which I have handed in. With your permission, Sir, the Clerk can distribute it to Members.

Mr Speaker: Will you move your amendment first?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the Motion moved by Dr Ong Chit Chung,

At the end, to add - "and recommends that the five values shall be as follows: Nation before community and society above self Family as the basic unit of society Community support and respect for the individual Consensus not conflict Racial and religious harmony."

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the spirit of consensus building, I have discussed this amendment with the mover of the original motion, Dr Ong Chit Chung, the Chairman of the Feedback Unit, Mr Chandra Das, and the immediate past Chairman, Dr Tan Cheng Bock. Dr S. Vasoo has also given his support. We have reached consensus, Sir. I hope that DPM BG Lee will join us in enhancing this consensus.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was, "That this House adopts the White Paper (Paper Cmd. No. 1 of 1991) as the basis for developing Shared Values amongst Singaporeans."

It has been proposed as an amendment at the end to add - "and recommends that the five values shall be as follows: Nation before community and society above self Family as the basic unit of society Community support and respect for the individual Consensus not conflict Racial and religious harmony."

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give support to this amendment.

I remember the first time the issue was mooted in October 1988 by the then First Deputy Prime Minister, many questions were asked, amongst which was whether this was an attempt by the Government to come up with a set of rules for all to abide. There were also fears by the minority and a section of the educated elite that Confucianistic values will be imposed so that Singaporeans will be more obedient. Therefore, it was not surprising to read in the Straits Times of 9th January 1991 that the value "Consensus instead of contention" emerges as the most controversial issue. This, according to some Singaporeans including the hon. Opposition Member, Mr Chiam, can be used to put the Opposition down. It was also interpreted as Government's intolerance of dissent and their perception is based on historical reasons.

How do we get Singaporeans to understand our true intention? The new style government of Prime Minister Goh is one of consultation and persuasion and this has made Singaporeans more and more intolerant of sledgehammer politics. They like the process of deriving a common ground through discussions, debates and general consensus. And they also want to see those who advocate this style demonstrate this virtue.

Many have criticised the manner in which we conducted our Select Committee hearings. The style is predictable, as complained by some Singaporeans. They accused us of being contentious and interrogative. So what is all this talk about consensus seeking, they want to know.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not easy to handle these open discussions. You have to contend with strangers who want to take you on. So how do you react? In the beginning, it was combative. Then it became more interrogative. But now it is more accommodating. You can see the changes happening. Compare the first few Select Committees which were held and those held recently, there is a change happening. Our leaders learn fast from feedback received. They know that people are emotional creatures. You may have the substance but you still need the style. However, this new style of consultative process is winning, as our leaders become more personable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, contention implies a competition of ideas and ideology. If not contained or moderated, it may end in conflicts resulting in a cleavage of our society. In other words, put contention to the extreme, and you breed violence and conflict. I therefore support the amendment by Dr Arthur Beng that we rephrase the fourth value as mentioned in the amendment. This clearly implies that we do not want to end up fighting, but there will be free exchange of views, contentious ones too. But at the end of the day, good sense must prevail. An agreement is reached, even on the disagreements.

I go along with the other amendment. I think the word "respect" is a better choice than "regard". I have no strong feelings on this.

The other four values proposed, "Nation before community and society above self; Family as the basic unit of society; Regard and community support for the individual; Racial and religious harmony", are universal values with an Asian emphasis and I am in agreement with these values. The question is how to get these values internalised in us, as Dr Tay Eng Soon puts it. Should we go around the usual way with campaign slogans? I suggest we better not. I am not against campaigns. But these campaigns sometimes get carried too far by over enthusiastic bureaucrats. Let us have some sophisticated and subtle way of imparting these values. I call for a more cautious approach in the implementation of these values because these values impinge on the individual, the family, the community, race and religion. The interpretation and translation of these values into respective languages must be carried out carefully, bearing in mind the sensitive nature.

Even yesterday's Straits Times carried a report headlined, "Something lost in translations of Shared Values". In this article it was reported that participants detected different nuances and interpretations when the values were rendered in English and in the other languages. The example quoted referred to the first value in English, that is, "Nation before community and society above self". The Chinese translation, "Nation above all, Society comes first", leaves out the element of self or the individual. To many, nation above self is open to abuse by anyone in power. So with different translations resulting in different interpretations, we can get into serious problems.

I would therefore agree with Mr Chandra Das and Mr Chew Heng Ching that there should be a total approach to this, with a special team of writers and, in particular, historians, to bring out these values in simple stories and anecdotes. Although the Deputy Prime Minister and Dr Seet think otherwise, I would still want to propose a Shared Values Committee comprising officials from the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Community Development and some private sector representation. It should be formed to provide guidance, advice and strategy in carrying out this task.

Finally, there should be a review panel separate from this to yearly or twice-yearly to review the progress made.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will allow me to exercise my right to speak on the amendment which Dr Arthur Beng has made to the motion.

I support the amendment. It reaffirms the thrust of the Shared Values, and improves on the formulation and the expression of the ideas within them, to make them clearer and more acceptable. The thrust has not changed. The ideas in general are the same. We know these ideas command wide support. I say that, not only based on the discussions these last two days, but also because we know from our feedback from the grassroots and from straw polls. The sentiments in the Shared Values, and the individual values themselves, do command general support from the general public, from all racial groups. Even the item on "Consensus instead of contention" commands similar support. In fact, even Dr Lee and Mr Chiam today in their speeches could not object to these Shared Values. They could claim that the Government was unworthy in promoting them, because we did not live up to their promise, but they could not claim that these values were wrong or that Singaporeans should not adopt them. Which is right. We would like to have a set of values which even the Opposition will accept and try to live up to, because that is the way to strengthen the political system in Singapore.

I am not sure that we want to elaborate these five Shared Values into a complete code of conduct or a compendium of behaviour, which Mr Davinder Singh earlier suggested was necessary before he could know whether the implications were acceptable to him. These are principles. They are not totally alien to us. Singaporeans have lived by these principles for many years. We are not introducing them from scratch. Instead, we would like to strengthen these strands of our heritage which already exist, so that they will continue, in the next generation and be adapted to their new requirements. They are therefore not such strangers to us that we need a complete explanation before deciding whether to buy them.

On the values themselves, Dr Beng has not proposed to amend the first one - Nation before community and society above self. I think this is right. The discussions have made clear that it is not only necessary to talk about the society and the nation, but also to point out that the society is above the individual and the nation is above the community, so that the relative relationships are unambiguous. To reduce it to "love of country" or "patriotism" will be to distil it to such an extent that the essence will have evaporated away, leaving perhaps only half the idea.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh said that we are not supposed to promote this because we have abrogated socialism, and since we are privatizing statutory boards, we therefore cannot talk about society above self. I really do not see how this follows. Putting society above self is not equavalent to Fabian socialism, or to the ideals which were promoted in developed western countries 30, 40 years ago, to fit a particular phase and time of their history. We need to put society above self. Distributing ownership of statutory boards or other Government operations being privatized should be debated on its merits. The two in no way conflict with one another. So I support keeping this value as drafted.

The third value, "Community support and respect for the individual" makes it clearer that respect for the individual is one major component of the idea. It is not just regard, not just polite deference to a person, but respect, meaning that you acknowledge him, you value him, and you will defer to him. That is clear, and community support is also clear. It improves on the original drafting, although this whole idea of the individual versus the community is already a Western way of looking at things. When you put it in Mandarin [ ] (xisheng xiao wo wancheng da wo) there is no dichotomy or contradiction which needs to be resolved. You fulfil yourself, you project yourself, through the society you belong to. You achieve what you want to achieve because your society has done well. It is not that the society is oppressing you, it is not that you are going out to do your own thing, to pick up another Western vogue word. But by doing what you want to do, you are also fitting in with the requirements and imperatives of your society. That is the ideal. You do not always live up to it, but it is an ideal relevant to us, which we should strive for.

Then "Consensus not conflict" makes it clearer what we are striving for and what we are trying to avoid. Contention was intended to convey this, "consensus instead of contention." In fact, after yesterday's debate, I received some feedback from the public that "Consensus instead of contention" is the right sentiment because through discussions we will eventually generate a consensus which the majority will accept. But I accept that many Singaporeans find it difficult to interpret the word "contention" and find that it has some meanings which they do not wish to exclude. So perhaps "Consensus not conflict" would make the point more clearly, and would be an improvement.

The consensus is the end result. The process of reaching the consensus is the constructive discussion which all of us have to participate in, with sincerity and with a common basic objective, namely, the interest of the nation. We are not talking about consensus merely between the Government and the population which has been the focus of our discussions in the last couple of days, but also consensus in other areas, eg. between the unions and the employers. The Government does not have to come into this. But is it better for the unions and the employers to resolve their differences through amicable discussions which recognise that both share an interest in the prosperity of the firm, or for them to go on strike and fight it out at the expense of everybody? So too in other disputes, be it within families, be it between different communities, be it in commercial areas. Let us try to resolve differences, because differences there will be, in a constructive, non-confrontational way, wherever possible.

As Mr Chiam has pointed out, we have done this in many areas. On very major issues the Government has counted on consensus and has been able to muster support from the population for very strong policies. Mr Chiam mentioned the example of land acquisition where people have accepted that in the greater good of the country, it is necessary for individuals to give up their land in exchange for some compensation. He also pointed out that this does not happen even in Japan, where Narita Airport, although it is more than 10 years old now, still has pickets and riot police in full battle gear who fight it out. I presume that Mr Chiam thinks we are on to a good thing and the Narita example is not to be followed, which is correct. I think we should continue the way we have been going. The more we are able to put the national interest first, the more progress we will all make together.

The sequence of the five values is a logical one. Dr Koh Lam Son and a few others have suggested that it is difficult to remember, but you need not remember all the words. The sequence of ideas is not so unreasonable. You start with the nation - that is the largest group we belong to. You go on to the family, which brings it smaller, and then come to the individual, the basic digit from which a family and then the nation is formed. That is a logical sequence. Then what do you do? Promote consensus, and develop harmony. Those are simple ideas. You do not have to remember all the words, but if you can catch those five key concepts, you will grasp the gist of it.

The English version has been the main subject of our discussions, but of course we also need good Chinese, Malay and Tamil translations. Some Members have questioned some of the translations. Translations have been prepared after consulting as many people as possible. They are not ideal, but they are as fluent and as idiomatic we could make them. My preference is for translations which convey the gist of the meaning rather than literal word for word translations. If you want the precise version, go back to English. It is more important for the language, Chinese, Malay and Tamil versions, to convey the ideas in terms which are fluent and which resonate with native Chinese, Malay and Tamil speakers. The Government is still open to suggestions on translations. We can take them in and take a few weeks to decide.

Several Members have asked for additional values to be added to the list - justice, truth, democracy, honest government and so on. Dr Lee Siew-Choh argued for several of them eloquently. We have no objections to any of these. These are all virtues, and indeed universal virtues. But how many virtues do we want to add to the list? We have five. Should we throw out any? Nobody has seriously suggested that. So we must add. We can add five - justice, truth, democracy, etc. How many do we want to add? Will 10 fingers be sufficient? Or should we count toes as well?

I think we better have a small group which we can remember, which holds together cogently, and which focuses on one set of ideas, in this case, the relationship between the individual and the society he belongs to.

Justice - of course, we have it as a star on the state flag, as it is a virtue to be upheld. It is not related to Dr Lee's point about Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam and his case, and whether it goes to the Privy Council or not, which in fact is simply an example of justice at work. Justice demands that criminal actions be punished. Who is to decide? The courts. Which courts? The courts which have jurisdiction. Does the Privy Council have jurisdiction in this case involving Mr Jeyaretnam? No, it does not. Therefore, whatever the Privy Council may have to say has nothing to do with the outcome of Mr Jeyaretnam's trials and appeals. It is as simple as that. To bring it in and relate it to the shared values is beside the point.

The strongest arguments have been for one additional value to be added to this list: good, honest government. Many people have pointed out, including Members of the Opposition, that without good, honest government, everything will go awry. That is a valid point. So perhaps if there is such a general sentiment, we should work out and codify a separate set of these four or five ideas which are related to good government. We call them "political values". That may not be the best name - we have to think of a name for them - but we group them together to make another set of four or five which people can readily remember. They can also be taught to children, so that they will grow up with them as part of their psyche.

I mentioned yesterday "democracy", "pursuit of excellence", "meritocracy", "equal opportunities", in addition to "good government". I think we can consider these. The Government is reluctant to take the lead in doing this, because if we push it, immediately, everybody says, "What are your hidden motives?" Well, we have no hidden motives. But if the sentiment is that this is necessary, we can consider the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore support the amendment standing in the name of Dr Arthur Beng.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the amendment by the hon. Member for Fengshan.

The Opposition could go along with the first, second, third and fifth values, but it would find it very difficult to accept the fourth value. "Consensus not conflict" is not much different from its original form, "Consensus instead of contention". They are basically the same.

The Opposition of course has a great fear that the word "consensus" might be over-stressed, and Parliament will in time to come become not unlike the tripartite arrangement of the National Wages Council comprising the unions, the employers, and the Government. In that case, consensus for the need to have labour peace in the land grew out of historical necessity. I believe that when the Government first took over, there were problems from the workers. There were strikes and there were chaos and disruption of production. And I believe the Government got advice from a Dutchman, Dr Albert Winsemius. He advised the Government that in order to make Singapore prosperous it should accept these advices. Firstly, to get rid of the communist; secondly, to control the unions; and thirdly, to encourage foreign investments, set up good infrastructure, give plenty of tax incentives and get them to come and invest here.

I think the Government was a good student and carried out his advice dutifully. And I believe out of that advice, there was this tripartite arrangement, and it worked well for Singapore. So let us keep it to the unions, and do not bring the idea of consensus into Parliament. Parliament, since its very inception, or when Singapore became independent, has an adversarial type of procedures. In other words, there are always two conflicting views, and all points of views are aired. I think the best results can come from that.

In the words of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when you have Opposition, then you have this cut and thrust of lively parliamentary debates. If we are going to have consensus, and all of us sit here, what do we do? Debate will be out of the window, and no new ideas. So contention, debate, criticism become dirty words in time to come, and everybody will feel guilty to criticise the Government. We should not allow that situation to reach in Singapore's political stage.

Contention is important. But contention must be for the good of the nation. We have already expressed ourselves. We are loyal opposition. Loyal not to the PAP, but loyal to the Constitution, loyal to the progress of Singapore's advancement and improvement, and to the national good of Singapore. That is what we are loyal to. We have already stated our stand. Please do not throw the word "contention" out of the window. Of course, we want to have consensus. It is good to have consensus. We must all agree and then we can get things done. But there is a danger. In time to come, when the Government is threatened, it might over-emphasise this word "consensus", and it does not allow open debate - let us agree; let us talk behind closed doors; please, no open debate.

If the Government always wants to talk behind closed doors, it means that it is afraid to let people know its weak points. I think it is only publicity which is a good check on the Government. They have done that in America. Perhaps they have overdone it. The press is a watchdog of the government, watchdog of any public body. It is always publicising, giving notice to the people what local government, school boards, or some authorities are doing. And that is the way to check the government.

We have seen also, historically, societies which had stifled defence, which had refused open debate, and they would eventually retrogress and become corrupt and, finally, they would become the victim of other countries.

The example of Japan is given. Let us follow Japan. I am willing to follow Japan. They have consensus but, at the same time, they have got plenty of contention. I have attended a seminar where some Japanese MPs were there. My goodness! When they spoke, they really spoke, thumping their hands, and putting their points very strongly across.

Mr Chandra Das: You can do the same.

Mr Chiam See Tong: They were telling the Americans they should not have protectionist measures against Japan. In fact, the Americans thought that the Japanese were exporting too much to America and wanted to stop their exports; enough was enough. But the Japanese put their points across, and said that they must still continue to export. They did not agree meekly with the Americans. No! They put their points across very strongly. I think if we want to follow Japan, by all means, let's follow Japan. But of course I do not think we want to follow Japan and fight pitched battles whenever the land is acquired, and that is what they do.

We do not have that precedent in Singapore. In fact, I think most Singaporeans are amenable to consensus. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said, we are not fierce, intense people like the Japanese. I think we are more prone to agreeing than to disagreeing. So in order to make sure that people do speak up, the Government should not do away with contention. I do not think that if you have got this consensus idea across, it will strengthen our political system. I think it will weaken it. It will try to get rid of the Opposition, and very soon I think the word "Opposition" will also become a bad word.

If you always want to get your decisions across easily by consensus, it would be just like growing our vegetables in a greenhouse, too protected. We must have plenty of contention. Put the plants out in the open, let them be hit by the storms, the wind, and then they would be very strong plants. In the end, that should be what we want for Singaporeans. We must encourage Singaporeans to think, to talk, and not to stop them from thinking. If we carry this idea of consensus too far and bring it to the level of our union discussions, then I think it will be a bad day for Singapore. Please, let us have contention, debates, more debates, lively debates in Parliament, and not to emphasise too much on consensus.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify one point?

Mr Speaker: Okay. Make your clarification.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Yes, Sir. By moving this amendment, I am asking that "contention" be kept inside. So there can be contention, except that we do not go on to conflict. That is my point to Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Then you word it. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us word it in very clear terms. Because, as it stands now, "consensus not conflict" is exactly the same as "consensus instead of contention". There is basically no difference. If you want to make an amendment, I would move that "consensus through contention". That would be a better amendment.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, are you moving an amendment to the amendment?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, if I get a seconder.

Mr Speaker: You do not need a seconder to move an amendment to a motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I wish to amend it. I beg to move,

"That the words "not conflict" be left out and there to insert "through contention".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be there left out.", put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker: The Question is the amendment moved by the Member for Fengshan.

Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added.", put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Question now before the House is,

"That this House adopts the White Paper (Paper Cmd. No. 1 of 1991) as the basis for developing Shared Values amongst Singaporeans and recommends that the five values shall be as follows:

Nation before community and society above self

Family as the basic unit of society

Community support and respect for the individual

Consensus not conflict

Racial and religious harmony."

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues have spoken at length on the Shared Values and their importance to Singapore. I do not intend to delve into them. Instead, I would like to take a different perspective.

I would like to ask what are we going to do with these values after the House has adopted them? As indicated in the White Paper and also mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister, these values will be taught in our primary and secondary schools to inculcate them in our children. They will form the core curriculum of our Civics classes. Our children will recite them regularly and commit them to memory. Here, I will surmise that they will be taught these five values not in any random order but in the order as presented in the White Paper. I would like to ask what will be the effect of future generations of Singaporeans growing up with these five statements imprinted in their minds. As the Deputy Prime Minister had mentioned, having these values sunk into their subconscious.

That is the crux of the matter, Mr Speaker, Sir. These values are not meant so much for us adult Singaporeans but they are actually meant for future Singaporeans. With these values in their minds perhaps, in future, when our children are faced with the constraints of living in a small and resource-poor country, they will accept those limitations, namely, putting "Society above self". Perhaps this would reduce the tendency of throwing everything to the wind and choose emigration to a foreign land where they can live a more luxuriant lifestyle. Perhaps when they are faced with the challenge of the future that requires subjugating their individual rights, they will find it a natural thing to do. If so, these values will help them weather the crisis.

To achieve the desired results, our young people must accept these values and embrace them as their own. These values should be simple to explain and easy to understand. Furthermore, we cannot assume that young people will accept these values automatically just because they were taught in schools. In this modern world, after our children have grown up, they will be exposed to all kinds of values and their prioritization in other societies. The thinkers, amongst them, will ask all the questions that have been asked in this House. For the rebels amongst them, we run the risk of having them rejecting the whole lot of values, if they find reasons to reject just one. Hence, it is important that we should remove as much contentious issues from these value statements as possible. I am glad that those have been taken care of by the Motion standing before us. At this point, I would like to address the sequence of those value statements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a computer professional, I tend to look at concepts in a logical sequential manner. When I first read these five statements presented in the order they are listed, it struck me that the concepts do not flow smoothly. Dr Koh has also touched on this in his speech.

The statement on Family deals with the relation of the individual with his family. How he or she would treat the spouse and how he or she wants their children to be brought up, in a normal family or in a single parent family. To me, Sir, family is a social structure and the statement on Family reinforces our belief in social behaviour with blood relatives. To me, the family statement is a social behavioural concept. Whereas, the remaining four statements deal with the behavioural relations between the individual and the society at large as well as one group of people with other groups of people. In this sense, they could be considered as political behavioural concepts governing the priority of unrelated people living together in a society. I am not a social scientist nor a political scientist. So my classification may be wrong but I find that a useful one.

Mr Speaker, Sir, family transcends racial groups and religious belief. It forms the foundation stone of all stable human societies. The family structure has evolved over time together with human evolution. I believe it is not going to be replaced by other alternative social structures that are being experimented from time to time. As such, I think the statement on Family should be in a separate class by itself, very much like a preamble. Emphasising family is like emphasising motherhood. The most common reaction I got about this statement on Family is: What else is new?

Furthermore, by inserting Family between "Society above self" and "Respect for the individual", we did one thing. We break up the important pairing of "Society above self" and "Respect for the individual". Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has told us that the order these values are presented is not important. However, for those not having the benefit of listening to him in this House, and that will include all future generation Singaporeans, they will automatically assume that the order gives certain priority and importance of one set of values over the other set of values, just like any other lists.

"Society above self" and "Respect for the individual" put together would provide a balance between the demands of the society over the rights and freedom of the individual. At which point such a balance between society and individual should be struck, would depend on the circumstances faced by the nation at any given point in time. For instance, in war and other emergency situations, society must come before self and individual rights must be subjugated to the needs of the nation. At other times, the balance should shift towards the rights and freedom of the individual. The Deputy Prime Minister spent a significant amount of his time during his speech covering this balance. He recognizes that these two statements are closely intertwined and addresses the two ends of a continuous spectrum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as listed in the White Paper, "Society above self" is listed first and "Respect for the individual" is listed third. In between, we have this motherhood statement on Family. As a consequence, "Society above self" stands head and shoulder above the other values that follow, in importance and priority. Furthermore, as human beings, after some time, after we have learned these values in our schools, we tend to forget the items further down the list. I am concerned that after a while, what is left in the subconscious of our future generations would be just one value, ie. "Nation before community and society above self". It is possible that future decision makers and policy implementors, who are schooled in these values, when they come to making decisions that require a choice between society versus the individual will, consciously or sub-consciously, rank their decisions against this list of Shared Values. If that is the case, their decisions might bias too much in favour of the society to the detriment of the individuals.

I feel that as it is, "Respect for the individual" is not given sufficient importance. I would urge that it be paired together with "Society above self" to achieve the proper balance. I would like to point out that there is no way we are going to insulate our population from the Western influence on placing increasing importance on the rights and freedom of the individual; that individual civil liberties and civil rights should be safeguarded. I think if we do not place comparable importance between society and individual, we risk traumatic soul-searching amongst our young people in the future.

Hence, I would prefer to see the list of value statements, when they are taught to our children, be changed to the following:

1. Nation before community and society above self

2. Community support and respect for the individual

3. Consensus

4. Racial and religious harmony

5. Family as the basic unit.

To me, Mr Speaker, Sir, this order is a more logical arrangement, putting all the political behavioural relations together. It would also avoid the pitfalls of placing too much priority on "Nation before community and society above self". If the order is not important, then there should be no objection to changing the order. However, if the order is important, then it is all the more important that the values between the society and individual be paired, with society ranking just above the individual.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe for a small country like Singapore, the inculcation of these Shared Values in our future generations would be important to our continued prosperity.

I support the Motion before the House.

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

4.40 pm

Assoc. Prof. Maurice Choo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, colleagues, after two days and two dozen speeches, I now fully understand what is meant by the words: Say your peace or forever be silent.

15th January, 1991, is a miserable moment in history to make a maiden speech. Today, when we are deafened by the drums of war, can we really hear a tune so plain as Shared Values? We can and we should. What does the Gulf teach us? It reminds me that each nation must be self-reliant, well-prepared, at peace with itself, and then the world. Small nations must learn this especially well, for their continued well-being requires much greater concentration and effort.

In the natural world, some smaller animals such as bees and termites, beavers and wild dogs, successfully compete with larger adversaries by closely sharing a common purpose, working and complementing one another with uncanny understanding. When a worker bee launches a self-destructive attack to repel an intruder, the hive and its queen bee - the repository of their genetic pool - both have a better chance of survival and continuity. But human beings are not bees. If human behaviour were automated by genetic calculations, "I would give my life for two brothers and eight cousins," said the eminent geneticist J.B.S. Haldane. But it apparently is not. For although humans are gregarious creatures, with strong instincts for preservation of their society as a whole, they have, with civilization and greater self-consciousness, accorded each individual human life a very high intrinsic value, surpassing that of society in some respects.

Many have already argued about the relative positions of the individual and his society. Their divide is the root of contention between different social systems. I can only suggest that we turn to biology for some of the clues. If animals can organize themselves in so many ways, depending on their given attributes and present surroundings, why should humans be any less adaptive? Which brings us to our attributes and our surroundings. In a breath, we have no natural wealth, little history, a few tiny islands, and a small variegated population. We live close to bigger countries, most better endowed. Yet Singapore has managed to prosper. This may be largely attributed to our prudent application of useful bee hive principles.

Seen in a socio-biological light, the overarching purpose of imbuing our citizens with shared values is to retain and refine these principles. Whether it is nation before community, society over self, the family as the basic unit, consensus instead of contention, racial and religious harmony, the thrust is this - in Singapore, the interests of larger groupings should, as a rule, come before those of smaller groupings, or a single individual.

The argument is that when these shared values evolve into behavioural genes, when we swarm together in search, our national competitiveness will be maximized.

The danger of employing this corporate principle unthinkingly or unfailingly is that the individual may feel digitized or diminished. Excessive group emphasis will reduce curiosity and creativity, and even economic inventiveness and zest for life. If the interests of the individual are systematically subsumed, we may extinguish a Socrates here, a Copernicus there, and Sakharovs everywhere. There are enough instances in history where society suffered for sweeping away the conscience or claims of a single individual.

By including the shared value "Regard and community support for the individual" this time, the authors of the White Paper have recognized this danger. This value is the only counterweight to all the other group-oriented values. After amendment of the word "regard" to "respect", the weightage is improved but, as I will argue shortly, can still be further improved.

Support for the weak - the poor, the sick, the old, and the lonely - is based on respect for human life. When the strong carry the weak up, both are strengthened. But support for the weak should preferably be attracted from the state as a whole, rather than be drawn narrowly from the particular community - our code word for race - where the weakness is found.

The strong and talented also require our support if they are to bear a greater share of leadership and contribution. They need space for their work, and recognition for their pains. Expressing this through the word "regard" whose root meaning in French is "to look at" seems to me too laid-back. A much better choice is "esteem" whose root meaning from Old French is "to value". The etymology of the word "respect", which I have checked, is closer to "regard" than "esteem", and does not fully express the value of the individual which we seek to preserve.

If we think it is simply a case of esteem for the strong and support for the weak, we are limited. The weak need esteem for their true support. The strong need support to win their esteem.

So more than supporting Dr Arthur Beng, I will go further and suggest that the only shared value put forward which safeguards the individual from potential corporate excesses be rephrased simply "Esteem and support for the individual."

Finally, a few words about words. In the diplomatic frenzy over the Gulf crisis, words may only be temporary conveniences. But for our shared values, if we believe they are important, then the words must be exactly right, so that we can focus on the right sentiments. In 25 years time, they may still be just words. But if they get into our corporate brain, the words and, far more important, the behavioural genes underlying them, may help keep our small united nation alive and well. And I hope they do.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the subject of Shared Values was first made public by the then First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in October 1988 in what was then known as National Ideology, the debate on this subject had taken various paths.

Years of deliberation and consensus-building process that ensued had seen re-examination, review and change resulting with crystallisation of the idea in the White Paper on Shared Values. The debate on this subject in Parliament is the culmination of consensus building effort involving the people, thinkers, the academia and educationists.

Sir, the subject in focus is the relationship between man, society and nation. The objective is to find a cluster of widely accepted values that could bind together our citizens. This in turn will set in motion basic guidance in behaviour towards each other. The ultimate expected result is to create a cohesive society consisting of kinder, more caring and community-oriented Singaporeans. The ultimate test is how we behave towards each other in times of strife.

Sir, it is a well-accepted fact that the relationship between man and society is a complex one. Prof. Maurice Choo uses biology to find a solution and to learn from the richness of nature. While history, customs and traditions, demographic composition and culture can collectively help in forging social cohesiveness for other societies, for Singapore a deliberate and innovative attempt on our part of the leadership to achieve similar objective through identifying and promoting some of the existing values among us is a crucial factor.

To illustrate my point, some countries with relatively well-developed social and political institutions choose to rely on their racial homogeneity, historical and traditional landmarks as signposts or benchmark for their citizens' conduct in relation to the society. They work on the established principle that men act within the framework of the complex of antecedent ideas and customs handed down through successive generations; and in relation to this framework, men see and understand themselves.

But Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is different. We have a short history. Our society is heterogeneous, so are our customs, traditions and culture, language and religion. More important, Sir, is the fact that Singapore is an open society. The world, especially the West, becomes our media catchment area with all of its influences, both desirable and undesirable.

Arising from these realities, there are two factors that I would like to highlight. First, a clear shift in our values from communitarianism to individualism, especially among our younger Singaporeans. Second, in our attempt to minimise the negative effect of the Western media influence, we embark upon an effort to inculcate greater awareness on our cultural roots with its own ramifications to our future social cohesiveness.

Sir, the Shared Values may not be able to provide a solution to all these. But it does help to overcome part of the problem. More important, it gives us both concrete premises and time for more effective solution.

Singapore has two other equally strong anchors to rely on. They are our economic success with its relatively fair distribution of wealth and our political stability. The two had, so far, helped us from facing political strife and poverty which had rocked and even destroyed many societies and countries.

Taken together the Shared Values in this respect could act as invaluable "social cement" for Singapore. Besides, the Shared Values must be taken as part of our continuous effort to create our national identity.

While our policies on the development of a national identity in Singapore have been viewed as a success, a greater effort in the form of promoting shared values must be made to ensure the continued success of nation-building.

Sir, I fully subscribe to the view expressed by the Chairman of the Feedback Unit, Mr Chandra Das, that the five shared values are the minimum common denominations worth working at. We can expand and fine-tune them later.

As Singapore is a rapidly changing society, changes to our Shared Values are necessary to enable us to provide a satisfactory orientation to the new age. The question whether these values provide us with a satisfactory orientation to the new age leads us to examine some of the five values. As other Members had given their views on some, I would like to confine my comment on three of the values.

To me, the first value, "Nation before community and society above self" need to be viewed as a long-term objective. Why do I say so? To enable such value to be both implementable and acceptable, there must exist conducive political and social environment. While there is general acceptance that our own Eastern tradition places society above self, and our education system has been quite successful in reinforcing it, the question of nation before community calls for closer examination.

Sir, in order for this value to be achieved, there must be a climate of mutual acceptance and trust between the country and the communities that exist in Singapore. Each community must be made to feel that they are not only wanted by the country, but are also needed to participate and contribute in every aspect of the nation's life, be it economic, political, cultural, social or defence.

If for reasons of history or others this climate of mutual trust is not there yet, a positive step-by-step effort must be made. Let us create an appropriate "weather" that would slowly, but finally, coalesce into a desirous climate.

As the saying goes, "It takes two hands to clap". The country and the community must make serious and calculated move towards this endeavour. After this end result is achieved, only then will the value "Nation before community and society above self" bears its real and deep meaning.

Sir, the second value that I would like to comment is the one noted by Members as the most controversial one: "Consensus instead of Contention" which has been amended to "Consensus not conflict". The question of contention is not new, but this is also an area where a lot of inputs, some of them extremely valuable, have been heard before this House. This value can only be achieved if the Government of the day is clean and honest and is capable of delivering political goods to the broadest section of the society and policies introduced are intended to better every section of the society.

In an educated and enlightened society, diverging views must be a reality which we must face. Consensus is the end result of a process in which the diverging viewpoints were brought together through whatever way, to the Opposition it is a contention, but ultimately there is common acceptance after multiple inputs by those participating in the process.

Sir, on racial and religious harmony, I am indeed most happy that this pillar of our national policy is included. As the future of Singapore depends, to a larger extent, on creating a harmonious relationship among the multi-racial society, and as I too agree that religion, at least for the time being, should not be part of the Shared Values because of its possible inherent dangers to the nation's stability, a clear expression of our desire for racial and religious harmony is most desirous. Within this framework, it ensures religious freedom for Singaporeans and calls for commitment of the people of various religions to preserve a cooperative attitude in conducting their relationship with one another.

On the third value, "Regard and support for the individual", which has also been amended, the emphasis should be given on creating a society which is more caring and placing value on individuals. I believe that this is one of the things that is upper- most in the mind of the Government in including this value. As Singapore develops towards a higher standard of living, there will be a gap that exists between those who excel and a group of people who are not very successful. The problem of social underclass must be tackled immediately and urgently.

Indications of social disparity has already been seen and efforts towards closing the gap had already been made. However, with a faster tempo of progress, an increasing number of the aged and the inability of the lower income group and the less educated to catch up with the rest, a clear manifestation of our intention to create a more caring and kinder society must be shown.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir, by looking at the western societies as an example to illustrate his point that there is actually no need for us to evolve our own Shared Values, had failed to comprehend a basic difference that exists between our society and theirs. America takes 200 years to evolve from the Calvinism Protestant Ethic into what they are today. Europe had taken centuries, initially having ethnically based values which were later institutionalised to become their tradition, and that needs time. If we are to follow the western way by allowing time to be the main agent of solution to our own problems, it will take 200, 300, perhaps 400 years, given the different backgrounds that all of us come from.

I think choosing the NWC as an example to drive home the fear that consensus building will mean suppression of one's idea may not be a good one. The NWC was introduced in the midst of a climate of strong adversarial relationship between the union and the management. The fact is that through the creation of NWC, those contending and conflicting groups were able to sit together and agree on mutually beneficial arrangements that would ultimately guide their future. It is a good example where consensus through such relationship could finally come up with the expected result.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion before the House.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, having carefully studied the White Paper on Shared Values, I feel that this White Paper has indeed provided a framework to guide our nation and society towards stability, prosperity and progress. It can be said to be the most important document since the independence of Singapore.

Sir, more than 2,000 years ago the Confucian scholars in China had promoted the philosophy of "unity between heaven and man" with the aim of establishing a society whereby there is "unity between the group and the people". The special feature of this society, where there is unity between the group and the people, is that the individuals and the society are closely knitted. The individuals are blended into the society and the society embodies the individuals. The two cannot be separated and they complement each other for the happiness of all mankind.

The Confucian scholars in China believed that in order to attain this goal it would be necessary to have a set of complete theory or ideology as a basis and for that they introduced propriety. Propriety was to be the rule to maintain social peace and order. The Confucian scholars believed that so long as everybody abided by propriety, that is, everybody behaved in society in such a way as to conform with the rules of society, people would be able to live together harmoniously and there would be harmony and stability in society.

How are we going to make people behave in conformity with the rules of society? The Confucian scholars in China believed in starting with moral cultivation of the individuals. They stressed that the morality of the people was the standard to judge and distinguish a gentleman from a villain. For this reason, they proposed the well-known philosophy of "cultivating the individuals, building the family, ruling the country and eventually to bring peace to the world." For many thousand years, the intellectuals in China have been pursuing this objective in order to set themselves up above the others. However, moral cultivation is just an individualistic concept. Not everyone who tries to cultivate himself would be able to do so.

From the history of China there were indeed many people who were morally cultivated. They were loyal to the nation, they loved the people and they have distinguished themselves as great characters for us to emulate. But in the history of China there were also many villains who betrayed to the people, and caused harm to their country and society. So from here we can see that cultivation of the individual alone would not be able to build up a harmonious society where there is "unity between the group and the people".

The White Paper on Shared Values stresses the sort of values which are quite similar to the ideology proposed by the Confucian scholars in China. That is, everyone would have to cultivate himself and then to put in a concerted effort to build up a just, equal, prosperous and progressive nation, and also a harmonious and stable society. In the unique circumstances of Singapore, all the more we have to emphasis religious tolerance and racial harmony in order to have stability and prosperity for our society. In this aspect, the importance of moral culture appears to be even more important. However, to found a state and to stabilise a nation, we have not only to emphasis on the cultivation of individuals, but also to depend on the laws and legislation of society to provide guidance for the individuals, because not everybody can be guided by his own moral standard. For those who choose to indulge in illegal activities, they will be constrained by the law and they will be guided by the rules of society so that they will not undermine the harmony and stability of society.

Sir, this White Paper is proposed by the Government. It is a document for the Government to rule our nation. In the past, our Government has organised many nation-wide campaigns with very good results. I am confident that with the leadership of the Government and the concerted effort of our people, we will be able to gradually fulfil the goals which this White Paper seeks to accomplish, that is, to have a society where there is "unity between the group and the people".

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion before the House.

Singapore is an immigrant nation. Our forefathers came from different parts of the world - from China, India and South-east Asia - bringing with them different religions, cultures, traditions and values. Despite their diversity, they worked hard to build a nation with their blood, sweat and tears. We have succeeded after 25 years. Success had not been easy in the past, neither can it be guaranteed for the future. However, if we examine the ingredients of our success and write them into a recipe for future generations to follow, then we increase the probability of continued success in the years to come.

The White Paper before us is an excellent attempt to formalise the common ingredients of this recipe. At this stage, most of us see the need for such a recipe. Even those who do not see this need would not object strongly if we were to have one. It is the agreement on what should be the main ingredients of this recipe that is a little harder to come by.

As we can expect, being from different racial and cultural backgrounds, we grew up with very different taste buds. Some of us take a lot of chilli, while others prefer soya sauce. Some like noodles, while others prefer rice. But today, however, we should be looking not at chilli or soya sauce, noodles or rice, but at common ingredients like salt, cooking oil, water and fire which we all use, no matter what race we belong to and what food we cook. Without these common ingredients in the recipe, whatever food we cook will not be edible.

I support the shared value of racial and religious harmony. But we all know that without it, investors will hesitate to come, and our economic growth will suffer. Enough examples in the world of what racial and religious strife can do to a country would convince us that this value should be institutionalised and systematically transmitted to our descendants if we want to continue to prosper. Racial and religious tolerance - this shared value is like the cooking oil in our recipe. It lubri- cates and smoothens relations between people, so that nothing gets burnt.

Next, I also support the shared value of nation before community and society above self. Our national service law, for example, is precipitated upon this shared value. It is critical to the survival of small states. This value is like the fire in our recipe. We need some fire in our souls to put the larger interests of the nation and society above self. Otherwise, we become selfish, materialistic, lukewarm individuals.

The family as the basic unit of society is also a value I think most of us can subscribe to, irrespective of our race or religion. It is like the salt in the recipe. The family influences greatly our children's values and attitudes in life. Therefore, the family unit, like salt, must not lose its saltiness, otherwise the basic structure of our society will be weakened.

I can also support the shared value of community support and respect for the individual. As the White Paper says, we should not promote the community to the exclusion of the individual. Individuals should be respected and rewarded for their enterprise and labour. At the same time, those who are handicapped, disadvantaged or underprivileged should be shown compassion and assistance. This ingredient is like the water in the recipe. It softens our character and personality and helps us to reach out to those who are less able.

However, there seems to be less agreement on the shared value of consensus instead of contention, which has just been amended to "consensus not conflict". Some have misinterpreted this as an attempt by the Government to discourage debate of ideas and discussions of opposing points of view. However, if you read carefully the White Paper, it states quite clearly that it means accommodating different views of the way the society should develop. I think the key word here is "accommodation", not "contention" which has a negative connotation. "Accommodation" implies the existence of different ideas and viewpoints in the decision process. And the Government must continue to encourage such free flow of ideas and views. However, some accommodation may be necessary before the final decision is made. Using the same analogy, this shared value of accommodation is like agreeing to eat rice on some occasions and noodles on some other, even though one may not like one or the other very much. I support the substance and spirit of this shared value.

There have been suggestions made to include "religious and political values" into the Shared Values. I suggest we defer these more controversial values to a later date. As in our recipe we can always add the hot spices later.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, having heard the speeches of my parliamentary colleagues in this House, I would like to express my own views.

What sort of country do we want? What kind of future do we want? And what kind of people do we want? This will determine the destiny of our children and our country. On the five shared values that we are talking about, basically many points have already been raised yesterday and today, but most of them were trying to find the right formulation and choice of words. It is like choosing a flower pot. We have already decided on the type of plant and the kind of soil to use. Just which flower pot to use! As such, I think the most important thing is the contents.

To me, the five shared values are just a framework, in caption form. How do we make the people get the feel of such values? Maybe the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Information and the Arts, the newspapers, the mass media, the teachers, the parents, all these resources may be mobilized to propagate and publicise these values so as to ensure their appreciation, acceptance and implementation among the people. So basically I fully agree with the contents of this White Paper.

In these two days, we have been talking so much. Many of us are quite tired. But outside this House, Singaporeans are worried and very concerned about the crisis in the Middle-east. But I also hope that Singa- poreans outside this House will also show similar concern to this White Paper. This is a very important document that will have far-reaching effect on the future of our nation.

As a matter of fact, looking at these five shared values, I can see that they have already embraced the relationship and the responsibilities as between the people, the individuals, the nation and society. They have been very vividly expressed in those terms. So if we expect our Singaporeans to accept these five values and show that they accept these values, then the Singapore nationals must have some basic virtues like showing respect for our National Anthem and the pledge that we recite in schools, and Confucian values as mentioned by Mr Chin Harn Tong, like self-confidence, self-love, self-respect, loyalty, justice, and so on and so forth.

Mencius had said that the world has its foundation in the nation. The nation has its foundation in the family, and the family has its foundation in the individual. He also said that if the individual is upright, it will work in spite of imperfections. If the individual is not upright, it will not work notwithstanding perfection. So education is very important, especially in the inculcation of these five shared values. We hope to see the people of Singapore acting on their own initiative without having to be told what to do, manifesting their love and their responsibility towards the family, the individuals, and the nation.

When we talk about shared values, we must also talk about the personal cultivation of virtues. We must pay attention to the culture and the upbringing of the individual. If we do not have a correct outlook in life and a good quality, then it will have aseat effect on society and the country. If the cultivation and upbringing of an individual are poor, then we will not be able to build up these five shared values. So undoubtedly, we all believe that education is very important. It is a life-long process and it takes a hundred years to build up a man. We must not only teach the children literacy, teach our young people how to earn a living, we must also teach our young people how to be a man, how to love the country, and how to love the society. In the long run, the shared values will determine the rise and fall of a country. This is very important.

Shared values are a form of national education for our nationals. So we cannot just blindly coin some slogans and promote them in the form of slogans. In January 1989 when the President addressed this House, he said that we must inculcate the national consciousness among our people, especially the young people. The Government shall propagate national consciousness through all means, including the encouragement of the use of mother tongue when teaching moral education in school and enhancing the inculcation of values. I appreciate and fully agree with the President.

The Lianhe Zaobao in its editorial on 7th January this year, said that we must effectively explain and interpret our shared values. It also mentioned that the Indian, the Malay, and the Chinese communities must make use of their native languages, their traditional cultural characteristics to inculcate our shared values. The Federation of Clan Associations had also expressed the view that although the various communities can have common shared values, their respective community must also strive to preserve and propagate the cream of their own mother tongue, culture and heritage. I agree with their view. I feel that through the mother tongue, we can better transmit and inculcate the common values. It will make it more personal and easier to feel for and understand the meaning of these values with a good flavour.

In the past, some people and some friends said that I "wang ba" (forgot the eight virtues). I only knew that it had a bad connotation but I did not know the meaning (or origin of the expression:) "forgetting the eight virtues". Now, a friend of mine has mentioned again you "forget the eight virtues". So I made a study to find out the origin of this expression. According to the Lang Ying's "Qi Xiu Lei Gao" of the Ming Dynasty, to forget the eight virtues means forgetting "filial piety, brotherhood, loyalty, trustworthiness, propriety, righteousness, integrity and self-respect". How it gets twisted to become "wang ba" (cuckold), I do not know. The point is if we are to express this term in English, the literal translation will be "forgotten eight". If you tell somebody, in English, you have "forgotten eight", it loses its intimate meaning. Of course I do not want people to call me "wang ba", despite its intimate feeling. What I am trying to highlight is that it is much easier for us to transmit our culture, traditions and the proposed five shared values, using our own native language.

Inculcation of the shared values is a very important task. How do we make use of our existing cultural heritage to inculcate such values. This is a very important step. The Ministry of Education, as I mentioned earlier, also the Ministry of Information and the Arts, the Federation of Clan Associations, parents etc must all discuss, at all levels, how to ensure that our common shared values can be applied more generally and accepted widely and extensively in our daily life.

I can give you an example. In "The Book of Rites", it is clearly stated the various kinds of profound respect that one should give to the elderly. There is a passage which says, "60 shall sit, 50 shall stand while listening to the policy speeches, as a form of respect for the elders." In other words, those who are 60 years old may sit down, while those who are in their 50s shall stand at a side when attending the political meetings. This is a way of showing your respect to those who are older than you. There is also another passage which talks about drinking. "3 cups for the 60s (that is, those who are 60 years old shall drink 3 cups), 4 cups for the 70s, 5 cups for the 80s and 6 cups for the 90s." This is to show that you respect the elders.

From today's point of view, it may not be appropriate for us to say that those who are 60 years old may sit and those who are 50 years old will have to stand when listening to others. Am I right? If this is the case, then it will not be possible for me to get into Parliament as I am not even 40 years of age, and I should be standing outside the door. There are not many among us in Parliament who are 50 or 60 years old. This is not possible. However, we must look at the essence of this teaching, that is to say, we must respect the elders and recognize the able.

These five shared values will surely have a great effect on our society. As such, we must ensure that they can be disseminated and spread throughout our daily life, in our relationship with others, in our customs and habits. We must go through the process of education and the mass media to spread these values so as to make them the core values of our culture in Singapore. Then, the future of Singapore will be bright.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. Hearing my young colleague espousing on the wisdom of the Chinese philosophy, and especially on age, I rather thought that he might allow me to speak first.

Many people have spoken on this and shared their views on the subject. Reading through the Command Paper, I observe that there are two significant improvements over the original proposal. Firstly, we have originally talked about National Ideology, now this Paper is titled "Shared Values". Secondly, there are now five principles instead of four previously. The Government has added a new principle which is the amended one of "Community support and respect for the individual". These are significant improvements. It is a good example that the contention of ideas is not necessarily a bad thing and these improvements and additions show that the Government leaders do deliberately seek views from the people and improve on them. Why do I say that these are significant improvements from the original position first propounded?

A statement on Shared Values differs from a National Ideology. An ideology must imply not just specific relationship of individuals and the community and the ultimate purpose, but also ownership and rights to properties, incorporating the role of the State. Putting a cap on "Nation before community and society above self" in the context of a National Ideology could generate uncertainty and confusion to citizens and foreign investors alike. A statement on Shared Values is definitely more amenable and more consonant with what the Government hopes to achieve, as can be deduced from the many statements made and the introduction to the White Paper.

Sir, I wish to point out the obvious. A statement on Shared Values may not necessarily lead to a Singaporean identity. The working out and the imbibing of these values and the practice of these values will be buffeted by the pressures of the modernistic cultures in an information age, in the telecommunication centre, where we find news, views and entertainment from all over the world. It will require quite deliberate attempts in policies and education to bring up these values. And in so doing, I have no doubt the Government will get consensus from the people.

The new shared value which is "Community support and respect for the individual", as first propounded by Dr Vasoo and Prof Choo, is a good suggestion and I hope the House will adopt this. Here, I would like to add that in all these debates on communitarianism and shared values, we should remember that communitarianism is not a subterfuge for Confucianism. Germany has always been a relatively communitarian state since its birth in the Hegelian Prussian state, although aspects of its communitarian values have changed since the 19th Century till today. And ever since the early 19th Century, communitarian principles in the policies of Andrew Jackson have always been a torturous facet of the ongoing debate on the American value system. Compared to them, the Japanese and the East Asian NICs experiences are relatively late starters. Yet I should add that we should not undervalue the individual, his capacity and his right to choose and his free will, his capacity to differentiate between good and bad, right and wrong, truth and falsehood and to articulate them. This will enrich further our world view and creativity and give more balance to the search for a more communitarian culture, which can answer to the changing political and economic conditions of international competition, globalisation and the borderless economy.

For in the final analysis, the experts of communitarian studies, including Prof. Lodge, have never said that communitarianism is preferred to individualism. We should be aware that each approach exacts a price in the social calculus and the art is to find a balance to answer to the changing economic and political challenges of the times.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this has been a marathon debate and I wish to thank Members of the House as well as members of the public for their views and suggestions on the Shared Values.

I think we have gained new insights and deepened our understanding of the issues before this House. And contrary to Dr Lee Siew-Choh's belief, it is not with a hidden motive. It is an open book, an open debate and that is why we are here, bringing our minds to bear on the issues before us. This debate, as well as the amendment, are stirring examples of consensus building and democracy at work. I am glad to note that it has been a very fruitful and meaningful debate. Many have come to accept the basic essence of this set of Shared Values. Even Mr Chiam, I am glad to note, has accepted four out of five of the values and I think it is very good. It shows that we are becoming more and more Singaporeans in our approach, have more and more common ground, and more and more we have come to agree on certain issues of nationhood. I hope eventually Mr Chiam will accept all the five values, because this is an issue that is non-partisan, it is beyond politics, it is for the nation, it is for the long-term good and development of all Singaporeans.

Sir, we have openly shared the joy and fear, the appreciation and the apprehension, all this together as fellow Singaporeans, out of our love and concern for our nation. We want all to make this a better place to live in and to bring up our children. Whatever our race, religion or background, we are proud to be identified as Singaporeans. This feeling is unmistakable. Whenever we return from overseas and touch down at our very own Changi Airport, there is a sense of pride, a sense of exhilaration and a sense of identity. We are Singaporeans and this is our home.

Singaporeans sometimes have to go overseas to discover ourselves, to know how much we share together as Singaporeans. It is like a voyage of discovery. Exactly a year ago, Mr S. Rajaratnam, in a talk to the Alpha Society, declared that Singaporean Malays, Chinese and Indians were well on the road to becoming Singaporeans. He talked about the American Black novelist, Mr James Baldwin, who wrote the autobiography "Nobody Knows My Name". Baldwin thought that he was a nobody black man in white America. So he went into exile in Europe and there he discovered, to his astonishment, how much alike Americans were, be they white or black. He found out that he had more in common with white Americans than with European blacks or even African blacks. He had to live abroad to discover himself and to know his American national identity. So with Singaporeans. We may not realise it. We may underestimate it. But we have much in common and share common values as Singaporeans.

I lived for about four years in London with my family when I was doing my research. We attended a number of Chinese New Year functions. I can tell you that, from my experience, we could single out Chinese Singaporeans with very little effort. By our mannerism, by our speech, by our inclination, we stand apart from the Chinese from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China. One of my grassroots leaders visited his ancestral village in China. He came back and he told me this. He tried very hard to identify his clansman in his own village. But according to him, it was not the same. He felt very uncomfortable when he was over there. They did not really understand him, he told me. He brought some money with him but decided to bring it back with him and donate it to a worthy cause in Singapore, maybe to the Bukit Batok Community Centre.

The village clansmen, according to him, would not understand him if he were to say, alamak or sayang or shiok, words that are common to us. They do not understand if you were to ask for rojak. They considered him to be strange to them too. So you could see then that a Singaporean ethos, a Singaporean identity, a Singaporean way of life, is slowly but surely evolving and emerging. We definitely share certain common values. So let us build upon this and deepen our bonds as a nation. We are Singaporeans. We are one people, one nation, one Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House adopts the White Paper (Paper Cmd. No. 1 of 1991) as the basis for developing Shared Values amongst Singaporeans and recommends that the five values shall be as follows:

Nation before community and society above self

Family as the basic unit of society

Community support and respect for the individual

Consensus not conflict

Racial and religious harmony.