PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (First Allotted Day)

Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Third Session of this Parliament.".

This Session opens with a new Prime Minister in charge. The transition from the older generation to the younger team was handed in such a manner that it was effectively a non-event. To that extent, the former and present Prime Ministers have achieved their objective. Life in Singapore goes on despite the change and I think it is fair to say that Singaporeans are comfortable with the new team.

What, however, is more significant than the fact of the handing-over of power is the result of that hand-over. Mr Lee's philosophy, put briefly, suggests that unfettered political freedom and choice is inconsistent with peace and prosperity. That for there to be peace and prosperity, there must be a core of leaders who are intelligent, honest, tough, and fair and that the people must be prepared to leave most decisions affect- ing their lives to a select few. And that if the people were to take their cue from the Government things would work for the common good.

It is a philosophy which has worked for us. Its acceptance and support by the people has been the reason for our growth and stability. Mr Lee and his team were able to apply this philosophy in this country because of the circumstances under which his team came into power, and because Singapore was in such a state that it needed people like them to get things going. They transformed Singapore and our lives for the better. As a result, the older generation did not therefore see any purpose in questioning the policies or the mode and style of implementation.

As we succeeded, so too our self-confidence grew and developed. We are quite happy, when we travel, to tell people where we come from, and what we have achieved. In fact, we have begun to tell others how they should order their lives, re-think their politics, and sort out their economic woes.

With this confidence comes a feeling that if we can run our own lives, why should anyone run our lives for us? If we can, through our own intelligence and industry, comfortably sustain a family, own a home, a car, perhaps a membership in a club, have the means to travel, things which were not all so easily within the reach of our parents, who has the right to tell us what to do and how to do it?

The young of Singapore are confident people. They know that they have the ability and the determination to pass examinations, get a job and do well. They read books, magazines, listen to the news, have intellectual discussions and hold strong opinions on a variety of subjects. The new Government may be highly talented but why, the young ask, should they listen to the Government when they can think for themselves? Who, they ask, is the Government to run their lives?

Every move the Government makes is watched and scrutinised carefully. Every time a decision is taken, Singaporeans, especially the young, ask a series of questions. Why is this done? Is it for political gain? Do we have to make any sacrifices because of this decision? If so, what is the extent of our sacrifices and how will it impact on our ability and the ability of our children to live the lives they want to, even if no sacrifices are involved? Is it intellectually acceptable that the Government is making a decision which all my years of education tell me is wrong? And if it is wrong in my mind, can I say something about it? Can I change things? If I can't, what are my options? Do I stay here? Do I leave the country? If I leave the country, do I stand a chance of coming back if things do not work out abroad?

For a while, it seemed like the Government was either not fully aware of or was not willing to accommodate this change in thinking. That led to unfortunate intellectual clashes which, while it demonstrated the no-nonsense attitude of the Government, did not address the underlying causes of this shift in outlook. In the process, quite a number of basically supportive citizens were alienated. Not because they did not support the Government but because they wanted the respect of having their views considered. But we are, I am happy to say, changing. And I believe we are changing in a big way.

The President's Address is a re-affirmation of the Prime Minister's promise to open and maintain a dialogue with the people. The Address, if you look at it carefully, together with the Addendum, ie, the book, "The Next Lap", is couched not as a dictate but as an invitation to Singaporeans to work together towards certain goals. "Participation" and "cooperation" are the key words. Government has promised to widen public participation in national issues and the entire tone and approach is changing.

The book "The Next Lap" is concrete evidence of this change. It contains noble aims and objectives, goals that we should all aspire to. But more important than that is the method by which the book came into being. It is a book produced by the people for the people. It is very difficult to find fault with the aims and objectives contained in the book. It reflects the wishes of the man-in-the-street. That by itself surely deserves support.

Look at the Acknowledgments page - seven pages of people who took time off to help the Government conceptualize a vision for this country. If your name is in there, then you have every reason to feel proud that you have had a say in what Singapore is likely to be in the next 15-20 years. And if your name is not there, then the way things are going, it is more likely than not that you will in due course have a say, either a big or a small say, in the way this place is run.

I am confident that this process of letting the people have a say will continue and expand. There is no turning back. Government has involved the private sector. We cannot now ignore it.

In my view, Government is vastly improved by the wealth of talent outside Government. We do not have a monopoly on smarts. There are many people in Singapore who love this place, who want to see it grow, but would like the opportunity of having their views aired, and the respect of having their views considered. The Next Lap goes a long way in accommodating this aspiration. I think we are on the right track.

As the Government continues to encourage policy making and participation by the public in this exercise, we should also study how else we can accommodate the aspirations of Singaporeans, especially the young. For example, we must be willing to accommodate public criticism of our policies. We must be ready for it. In a way, it is of our own making. The Government has created the conditions in Singapore for the development of an educated and critical mind. The young in Singapore are becoming more self-assured and demanding in their needs. Let us be a bit more thick-skinned to criticism. Let there by more channels for airing legitimate grievances and differences of opinion.

If some disagree and openly say so, then let us convince our voters that we are right. That, after all, is our job. But let us not engage in open confrontation to the point where citizens who are basically loyal to this country are disenchanted and think of leaving us.

If we are proven wrong, let us be gracious enough to accept our errors. We have often changed policies. I think we are becoming more comfortable about acknowledging that certain policies may not have been as effective as we would have liked them to be. It is my view that the people of Singapore, knowing that this is an honest and effective Government, will respect us. If we do come up-front and say, "We make a mistake and we are changing course as a result of what the people of Singapore have said", and if our errors are openly acknowledged, I think Singaporeans will not easily tolerate opportunists who wish to take advantage of our mistakes.

I would also like to see more open Government and not just honest and effective Government. There is no doubt that our civil service is one of the most effective and honest in the world. But the question is: Is it the most satisfactory given the rising expectations of Singaporeans? We want to know why our applications have not been successful. The civil service makes decisions which affect us every day. They decide where we live, whether our family members living abroad can come back and rejoin us, what is our access to domestic help. The question really is this: Do we anticipate this change or do we wait for there to be an outcry for more open Government? There are two options. With open Government, we explain the reasons for rejection of certain applications. I accept that there are some which public security demands that no explanation is required or is necessary. But in most cases, explanations will help people address the problem, come back again, having addressed the problem, and apply afresh.

I see that the Government is setting up a Service Quality Improvement Unit to monitor and improve the standard of public administration. It is significant that it will be under the Prime Minister's Office. I eagerly await further details of this Unit and of what Singaporeans can do to obtain redress for legitimate grievances as opposed to having to go through lengthy and costly legal disputes in courts.

Let us also actively remove the "One-Mistake Society" label that we have. Singaporeans are talented. The younger more so. They have the ability to scale great heights. But they are being conditioned, in my view, to suppress their desire to do so because of the fear of failure, what one Minister has called the "Risk Averse Syndrome". We are so oriented to success and excellence that there is no place in Singapore for moral, intellectual, political, or social failings. This fear, in my view, restrains enterprise, engenders unhappiness and encourages people to look elsewhere. How can we expect to persuade Singaporeans to stay in this country and talented foreigners to come in when there is this constant concern that one mistake will render them social outcasts? Sure, there will be some talented people who will come because the living conditions in their country are far inferior to the living conditions in this country. But there are others with a choice and it is these people that we want. They are not coming because this country is culturally sterile. We can address that problem. It is not a difficult problem. But they fear that failure may be devastating to them and their children. Not many people are comfortable with that prospect.

I would also like to see in the years to come less Government. Government runs virtually every aspect of our lives - from the types of homes we live in to the values we are to share to the amount of petrol we have to fill in to cross the Causeway. I believe that the way forward is less legislation to regulate our lives and less visibility of the Government. As we mature, we should rely more on persuasion than on sanctions to order the lives of Singaporeans. Too much legislation, in my view, gives grounds for all sorts of suspicion and criticism. It sometimes reflects a lack of confidence in the very people who voted us in. I accept that there are still many areas where only legislation can work and sanctions are required because of human frailties. But the less time we spend in Parliament regulating the minor aspects of the lives of Singaporeans, the better.

Government should be less visible. We read too much about Government and Government policies in the newspapers. In my view, it is not necessary. The people in Singapore do not need to be convinced that they have a good Government and an effective one. They can see it all around them. I am not saying that there should be less coverage of Government policies and more of opposing views. I am saying keep domestic politics in the media to a minimum. Instead, and for example, give us more access to international news and commentaries. CNN is a welcome move. I thank the Ministry of Information and the Arts for it. I ask they consider extending it and include access to satellite broadcasting if you want Singaporeans to have a global view of matters. We have begun to think in terms of the world and can only continue to do so if our understanding of the globe increases.

It is because of our growing appreciation of our place and role in international affairs that Singaporeans have been generally very supportive of our decision to send a medical team to the Gulf. In the context of the allied effort, it is only a token contribution, but it is important in other ways. It is a signal to the international community that Singapore is willing to take concrete steps to back its belief in the rule of law. I do not think that it will be easily forgotten by the United States and its allies. It, together with our contribution in Namibia, will also slowly and steadily bring Singaporeans to terms with the fact that to be a beneficiary of peace, one must contribute to that peace. There will be many more occasions when our boys and girls will be called upon to leave our shores to aid international efforts. I hope to see us doing more, for example, for the people of Ethiopia. Some day maybe, we will send a relief team. This cannot but increase our sense of pride in being Singaporeans. I would like to see the media focusing on Singapore's role in the international context.

The media really mirrors the state of our society. The Gulf War is a good example. It is not only a dramatic event, it is a very sad one. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are fighting for a principle more importantly to them and to their families, they are fighting for their lives. There are millions of innocent people in the war zone, many will die. They did not start the war, they do not want it. But the young and the aged are helpless, as the war consumes them. It is very tragic because many parents will lose children, and many children will lose their parents. Unfortunately, the coverage in Singapore in one newspaper has, at times, been less than serious. I think it does not reflect very well on us as Singaporeans. War is a serious matter. It deserves grave reporting.

While we work to extend our vision and compassion internationally, we should constantly think of ways of increasing our international profile. One way, which in my view has received little attention, is sports. Singapore never figures in any major sporting event. We are always left to root for participants with whom we have no bond. I do not for one moment suggest that we can overnight transform ourselves into a major sporting force to be reckoned with. But steps should be implemented to add on to the present policy of sports for all. We should actively encourage selected students to excel in sports. Disincentives ought to be removed. We should select the best athletes in school, nurture and develop their talent, give them incentives to concentrate and excel in their chosen field. Over time, we may not have a world class soccer or hockey team. But we may have teams who will do us proud in Asian competitions. That gives us a profile and an added reason to be proud.

Government should not underestimate the power of sports to bring people together. I suggest that a crowd of 50,000 rooting for our soccer team has probably more patriotic feelings in their veins than the same crowd singing national songs. Why do we contrive of ways to evoke patriotism when sports bring them out instinctively?

Sir, I have not touched on the details of the President's Address. I am sure Members will have much to say about them. I have no doubt in my mind that given the chance, Mr Goh's Government will achieve what has been promised in the Address. Singaporeans should work with him because these are everybody's goals and they will benefit all of us. But as we work towards that end, I hope that this Government will continue to keep pace with the changing moods and aspirations of Singaporeans, especially the young, and continuously review its policies, approach and style to accommodate these changes.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, the increasingly consultative and open style of the Government shows that it is caring, that it is appreciative of feedback and that it listens to the voice of the people. It is a people's government; it reflects the aspirations of the people. This does not, of course, mean that the Government should abrogate its leadership role. It should continue to lead, set broad directions and steer the ship of state.

On the consultative style, it is particularly encouraging to note that the GPCs will be playing a more prominent role and that a Service Quality Improvement Unit will be set up under the Prime Minister's Office.

The GPC on Education welcomes this enlarged role. However, we would like to ask if the Government will give the GPCs more "teeth", for example, powers to call upon officials to appear before the GPCs, and whether secretarial and legislative expertise will be made available to the GPCs.

Our civil service, without exaggeration, is one of the best in the world. It is efficient and untainted by corruption. But as they always say in our report cards, when we were in schools, there is always room for improvement. Therefore, it is timely to set up this particular Unit.

The civil service must change with the times and be even more responsive and customer-orientated in its service to the people. Otherwise, it would neither be civil nor be servants of the people.

It may also fall into the trap of over-bureaucratization, and suffer what Professor C.N. Parkinson has warned in his Parkinson's Law: That "Work expands to fill the time available for completion" and "Staff increases at a fixed rate irregardless of the amount of work produced".

I must say that the philosophy and programmes outlined by the Government go far beyond the premise of consultation. The message to all Singaporeans is that we are all joint owners of this nation or shareholders of Singapore Incorporated. All of us have a stake and a claim to this place.

As Singapore develops further and prospers, each and every Singaporean will also prosper and enjoy the benefits of success equally. Hence, the multi-billion dollar housing refurbishment programme, Edusave and schemes to help lower-income families.

In my view, therefore, the twin philosophy for governance in Singapore is consultation as well as joint ownership of Singapore. This is rightly so, as we move beyond building the infrastructures to a higher level of development, we need even more the whole-hearted support and involved participation of the people.

Whether it is the development of business enterprises, training the troops in the SAF or educating our children in the schools, we need to imbue the spirit of participation and joint ownership, and thereby enthuse the people and bring out the best in them. There should not be a divide between the Government or the civil service and the people: no "them" and "us" attitude. We are all joint owners and shareholders, and we work together as a team.

Take the case of educating our children. We have reached the stage whereby further improvements in education cannot be done simply by renovating or rebuilding the school premises. That will be easy enough. But, more importantly, the parents have to play a larger role in educating the children at home, as well as participating in the management and programmes of the schools. Some parents may be also willing to help in some school projects or share their expertise, or give their time. The teachers on their part of course must be encouraging and positive about such input and work closely with the parents.

Sir, on education, my GPC and I are particularly glad that the Government is devoting so much resources and energy to education. My colleagues and I on the GPC support the Day School Programme in the primary schools. It is a good programme. It meets the needs of our people, especially when more and more families have both parents working. The new school hours will allow the children to spend time with their parents in the morning before they go to school, and to return home about the same time as their parents. This will help promote interaction between family members and strengthen the family unit, which we as a nation cherish as the basic building block of society.

Children in Day Schools will be in the care of their teachers for a good part of the day when their parents are at work, instead of being left on their own and unsupervised. This arrangement, Sir, will enable them to develop their potential to the fullest, keep them out of harm's way, and especially encouraging to those children from lower-income group or those without adequate home support. Therefore, it is a very worthy project to support.

My colleagues and I on the GPC hope that there will be at least some schools taking up this new scheme and implement the Day School programme. We are certain that they will find the programme immensely beneficial. No expenditure is too large for education. As Benjamin Disraeli, the British statesman, said: "Upon the education of the people of this country, the fate of this country depends".

Sir, in conclusion, I would say that without a vision, the people will perish. There is no doubt in my mind that as Singaporeans, we do have a vision, we have the goals and we have a mission. Let us therefore run the next lap together in tandem and in unison, and forge ahead together into the 21st Century.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion thanking the President for his Address at the Opening of the Third Session of this Parliament.

Sir, the future Singapore has been clearly spelt out in the Presidential Address, and I welcome the fact that it seeks to make our citizens feel and care for the nation while addressing the needs of all Singaporeans. No nation can hope to achieve progress, be it economic, social, or even political, if its citizens do not have a stake in the country. And, Sir, I am convinced that most Singaporeans are aware of the share in this country, which perhaps explains why many who left are now returning to resume their stay and rebuild their careers here.

Sir, if the next lap maps out the Government's vision of the future, I see wisdom in widening participation in policy making and in softening the hard edges of the meritocratic system. I welcome the more active participation of the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) in the formulation of Bills. However, I would also like to ask what status would public hearings or forums conducted and the feedback collected on certain Bills by the GPCs have. Would it be equated to the status of the Select Committee? It is also important to clarify at what stage the GPC should begin its function - before a Bill is presented to Parliament, after its First Reading, or after its Second Reading?

For the GPC to play this new role, it must also have access to information and the services of the secretariat. If this is what the Government has in mind, then the higher profile of the GPCs must be seen as a positive step in widening people participation in decision-making. The GPC will also be able to get feedback in a less formal way than the Select Committee to allow more people to come forward with their representations.

I laud the fact that the Service Quality Improvement Unit will be under the Prime Minister's Office. Far too often in the past have we seen the ugly head of the civil service mentality raised in the way some Government departments deal with the public. How does an MP explain to his constituents why an application, say, in a contract marriage, has been turned down after five years of repeated trying, when the replies come in the standard format: "After careful consideration, your application has been rejected.".

There must be better human and public relations in dealing with these problems of the public. The Service Quality Improvement Unit should not only monitor but also play a substantial role in organising a formal training of all the front-line staff so that all public employees are fully conversant with Government policies, for explanation can be offered at the counter itself. Senior officers, perhaps even the Head of Department, should make themselves available at the shop floor to deal with public queries.

Mr Speaker, if we are to assure all our citizens that they have a major stake in this country, attention must be focused on a number of issues. Once again, I can only commend the Government for paying a premium to education. It must be every parent's hope to see his child's potential be reached, even if it may not be in the academic manner. We must begin to tap the rich resource of the non-academic talents of our young, so that we can create a pool of professional designers, builders, carpenters, boat builders and even, say, footballers.

Our education system has undergone many changes. We have introduced new schemes, changed some in mid-stream, and continually attempted to find the right formula. In that, the Education Ministry must be patted on the back. But, Sir, I fear that the child may have inadvertently fallen prey to the very many adaptations. The slow learner has really been left behind as the normal stream is almost a neglected one. Too little attention is paid to the students in this stream.

Sir, this must not be the case any more in the next lap. We must improve on the teacher-pupil ratio and the education system streamlined to bring out the full potential in each child, academic or otherwise.

I welcome too the move to ensure that each child will receive at least 10 years of primary and secondary education. There is also merit in the full day school scheme which will relieve some of the pressures on parents who have difficulty in obtaining proper supervision for their children because both parents are working.

The other issue that matters most to Singaporeans is housing. The Government has already announced its plans for the refurbishing of older HDB estates. In that respect, we see what the Government means by increasing the assets of Singaporeans. However, the refurbishing programme thus far has been slow to take off, and I urge the Government to speed up progress.

On the other hand, I welcome the aim of making even the lower-income group home owners before the age of 45. This would be a mammoth task and one which this Government may well be judged for having been caring enough to make even the lower-income group home owners.

Of equal importance is the quality of our medical care. Upgrading of hospitals has certainly improved all round medical and nursing care. Yet, we still face the problem of not having enough trained nurses and paramedical staff. With modern techniques available and better equipment, medical care has also become more expensive. At present, almost all Singaporeans have Medisave to fall back on. But a ceiling of $15,000 is grossly inadequate, and this sum can be eroded quite quickly in the case of long and complicated illnesses.

I urge the authorities concerned to re-look into this ceiling level and increase it to an appropriate level. Sir, I would also like to see improved Class C wards in the restructured hospitals, so that the quality of medical care is not confined to only those patients who pay high fees in the other classes.

Mr Speaker, we will never be able to prevent the determined from migrating. Many will still believe that the grass is greener somewhere else. But we must encourage the rest to consider Singapore as amongst the best place to be in. The next lap is crucial in ensuring that we are a vibrant society of caring individuals where redress is found, where opportunities are plentiful and where everyone has a say in national issues. That kind of Singapore is not utopia but a goal that we all can reach if we are determined to build on the successes of the Independence generation.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Toa Payoh GRC.

Last Friday, when the President outlined the policy directions of the Government, he referred to a new chapter in our young history. He said, "A new generation of leaders is in place." Few countries, if any, have managed a change in leadership at the highest level as smoothly as Singapore. It is a testimony to the selflessness of both the old and the new leaders. The greatest indictment of a leader is to leave the country without an effective leader as had happened in Russia, the moment Stalin died.

Some commentators in the foreign press have described our new Prime Minister as a consensus-seeker lacking in charisma. But is charisma necessary for an effective leadership? Eisenhower, George Marshall and Harry Truman were known to be exceptionally effective leaders but none of them was known to possess charisma. Neither was Konrad Adenauer who remained the Chancellor of West Germany after the War till the age of 90. Other examples include Lincoln in 1860 and even Churchill during the inter-war years.

In fact, charisma may become the undoing of leaders. It makes them unfeeling and unsympathetic, convinced of their own righteousness, certain in their knowledge that they are never wrong, unable to adapt to new circumstances and oblivious to the suffering of others. Stalin, Hitler and Mao Zedong were truly charismatic leaders. But look at the suffering they inflicted upon humanity, including their own countrymen. Historians tell us that only Alexander the Great's early death saved him from being an ineffectual failure.

True leadership is concerned with thinking through the basics of survival in a complex world characterised by dramatic shifts in power, in knowledge and in wealth. A leader must have a vision of the future, creating and channelling the people's energies towards reaching it. The leader sets the objectives and maintains the standards, motivating and encouraging his followers. He understands their concerns and shares their aspirations.

Leadership means responsibility, as Truman said, "The buck stops here". A true leader is not afraid of strength in his associates and subordinates. It is because he holds himself ultimately responsible for the failure of his associates. And also because he sees their triumphs as his own triumph. Therefore, he encourages them and pushes them to greater heights. A leader must earn the trust of the people. If there is no trust, they will not follow him for long. To trust a leader, it is not necessary to agree with everything he says or all the policies of the day. Trust is the belief that the leader is honest and effective. Trust is the conviction that the leader is committed to the long-term interest of the country.

One of the most significant elements in the President's Address is the series of measures to strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility. Every Singaporean must play a role and contribute to the progress of Singapore. It is necessary to increase the value of his assets, to make Singapore as attractive a place as possible.

But more importantly, the sense of belonging must be emphasised. The national spirit has been mentioned in the Addendum on the Ministry of Information and the Arts. How do we develop this from young is a subject of vital importance, especially for a generation of young Singaporeans brought up on a diet of hamburgers and fried chicken and using English most of the time, and, in some cases, learning the mother tongue with the greatest of reluctance.

"Singapore is our home." The concept of home should extend beyond our flats or houses. We cannot keep our own flats clean and turn a blind eye to dirty lifts and staircases. Selfish or inconsiderate acts are still common. Heavy penalties are necessary short term measures. Greater emphasis on moral values and civic-mindedness must be given in schools and at home.

In the Addendum on the Ministry of Trade and Industry, it has been stressed that our competitive advantage must continue to be a competent and hardworking workforce and excellent infrastructure. The question of why a particular country has been able to create and sustain competitive advantage in a particular field has fascinated economists and planners for some years. Some see the issues in terms of exchange rates, interest rates and government deficits. But Italy and Korea have enjoyed rising standards of living despite high interest rates and government deficits. Others believe that competitiveness is a function of cheap labour and natural resources. But Sweden, Germany and Switzerland have done very well indeed despite high wages and labour shortage. Japan, of course, has limited resources, expensive labour and high overheads.

Fundamentally, productivity is the main determinant of how well a country performs. The productivity of our workers would determine the wage levels and the productivity with which capital is employed affects the returns it earns. High productivity means high national income from which higher tax revenue would be generated to finance better public services.

As has been pointed out by Michael Porter, some countries have succeeded in international competition in certain segments or industries largely because their workforce possesses specialised skills. These skills were not the result of a general educational system but of a process closely connected to competition in that particular field. As it is said, "It is the outcome of thousands of struggles for competitive advantage against foreign rivals in particular segments and industries." Examples are German high performance cars, Korean compact cars and Japanese general purpose machines. They have succeeded because they actively seek out, in a never-ending process, new advantages and struggle with rivals to protect the advantages.

On the Ministry of Community Development, I welcome the plan to do more for the disadvantaged, in particular, the scheme to pay for HDB rental and public utility bills. The revised public assistance rates would help, in some way, those who are in financial difficulties. It used to be said, "We have no time for those who fall by the wayside." Surely, we have passed the stage where economic growth was of over-riding concern. We can afford and should do more to help those who have lost their sole breadwinners or those with chronic illnesses even as we continue to stress community and family support. Caring for the less fortunate is a measure of the maturity of our society and in keeping with all the religious faiths.

On the Ministry of Information and the Arts, a more vibrant and dynamic cultural scene has been promised. Censorship policy review, cable TV and a re-vitalised SBC are new developments which many Singaporeans are looking forward to. It is recognised that to inform, educate and entertain all at the same time is extremely difficult, if not impossible. What is required is more good sense and balance and less bureaucracy and regulations. With a more highly educated and sophisticated population, obsolete rules and policies should be discarded.

I welcome the fact that the book "The Next Lap" has been translated in all the official languages of Singapore. However, I regret that the decision to translate them into the other languages seems to have been taken at the last minute, in response to requests from the press. This is far too important a book to have it only in the English language and we have precedents in the Government where other important documents are in four languages - the income tax returns, the Mindef invitations to parents to visit their sons in national service camps - and I venture to suggest that this book is no less important than either of the two documents. If we want our CCC members, our taxi drivers, our shopkeepers, our trade union members, many of whom have had not much of an English education, to discuss the concepts and ideas, then surely the book should be in all languages. I would urge the grassroots organisations, professional bodies, trade unions, clan associations, tertiary institutions and schools to discuss the topics extensively and contribute their ideas. Performance measures and check-points should be defined so that collectively we can track our progress and make appropriate and timely adjustments.

Sir, the next century will be characterised by dramatic shifts in knowledge and wealth. Economies should "rev up or drop out". With the improved infrastructure, greater productivity and a greater sense of collective responsibility, we shall be ready for it.

Mr Leong Chee Whye (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to join Mr Davinder Singh and my parliamentary colleagues in thanking the President for his Speech. I applaud the breadth and the scope of the vision in "The Next Lap" as it was presented by the President.

Singaporeans have much to look forward to in the next decade. In his Speech, the President affirmed Government's intention to widen public participation on national issues. I strongly support this aim. However, when a new Bill is proposed today, it is accompanied only by a short explanatory note. Consideration of its legislative impact is hampered by the absence of substantial data. Furthermore, as it is often an enabling instrument, the underlying issues are also unclear until the Second Reading. There is a need for more timely and useful information. One way is to release the ministerial rationale and the supporting data for each proposed Bill at its First Reading rather than the Second Reading. Availability of relevant data on the issues involved would encourage more in-depth public discussion and would provide opportunities for Parliament to offer meaningful improvements and amendments to the proposed legislation.

The Presidential statement also dwells substantially on the development of human resources. Much of what is good in our education policies is often forgotten in the heated emotional discussions because these policies affect our children, our most precious assets. In the past, education was a tool of population policies. This was as unjustifiable as it was unpopular. Today, we spend one-third more national resources on our slower children to make them pass the Primary 6 level. But neither parents nor pupils are happy because they have to spend eight years in the primary school, two years more than their peers. Many feel branded as monolingual or extended course students. I warmly welcome the changes announced by the President and the Minister for Education. The changes proposed are courageous and farsighted and they merit our support. While we treat education as an investment in human resources for the national good, let us not forget that these resources we talk about are our children, with different paces in learning, different capabilities and eventually different roles to play in our society. Academic competence does not equate to success and we should allow sufficient flexibility in our education policies to cater to differences among children. I believe the changes proposed will improve such flexibility.

Over the years, our Government has transferred an increasing share of the cost of the health care system to the population and has successfully buffered much of this impact by the Medisave scheme. However, rising health cost is becoming a matter of concern, particularly to those who have old folks in their families. People are increasingly and unpleasantly being surprised by the high cost of medical bills which are not subsidised or only partially subsidised.

I note that the Ministry of Health will be paying particular attention to control increases in health care cost through productivity improvements. The blow can be further softened if we educate the public on health care cost and show patients an estimate of the cost whenever they are admitted into the hospital. Counsel them on ways to reduce their bills. Educate people about the funds that they have to set aside for health care and medication when they grow old. This would serve to warn younger people not to use their Medisave funds indiscriminately or too early.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is rapidly advancing towards the 21st century with a great sense of confidence. We have a first class business environment with well-developed infrastructure, global communication links and a regional environment geared for growth. Yet, while we have business enterprises who are major players on world markets, there are local Singapore companies, especially the smaller ones, which operate under difficult conditions. Our domestic market is small and our open door policies mean that companies have to meet up to the high standards of international competition. Success in some economic sectors can even bring hardship to other sectors. For instance, the competitive edge of our export enterprise today is being eroded by high wage cost and rapid increases in the strength of our Singapore dollar.

For the next lap, Singapore companies need the understanding and the support of all Government departments and agencies, not just the agencies involved in business promotion. The proposed Service Quality Improvement Unit to be set up under the Prime Minister's Office is a major step forward. We recognise that Government departments and agencies have to carry out regulatory responsibilities. But even as they do so, it can be made a part of their mission to help Singapore companies adapt, survive and prosper. All of us can play a part in helping the economy grow together.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC.

We have embarked on a new chapter in our history. As we enter the 1990s, we have at the helm a new Prime Minister and a new generation of leaders. We have built up a solid foundation. The fundamental factors for success are in place. In the next lap, we need to continue to strengthen and fine-tune these factors. By and large, our society has matured. This is exemplified by the positive response of Singaporeans to the call to raise funds for the needy at our 25th Anniversary Celebrations. The overwhelming response by Singaporeans resulted in $88 million being raised, well beyond the targeted $25 million. This shows that Singaporeans do care for the less fortunate in our society.

The recent Gulf war is another development that demonstrates that we have matured. Without the usual call by Ministers, Singaporeans exercise thriftiness and prudence in their spending in response to the economic uncertainty in the months ahead. All these actions augur well for us in the future. They tell us one thing. They tell us that our society has come of age.

In line with this transformation to a mature society, the Government has rightly adopted a more consultative style of government. And with this move, more Singaporeans will have a chance to participate in the nation-building process and when they do that, they would identify more closely with the Government and with the success of Singapore.

Sir, a more consultative style of government, however, has its cost. The pace of legislation will be slower since there is now a need to consult a wider cross-section of Singaporeans on various national issues. In the process, there will be compromise. There will be amendments to proposed Bills tabled in Parliament. At the extreme, certain Bills may even have to be withdrawn. With this more tedious process of consultation and legislation, the Government will be slow to react to problems. Solutions compromised as a result of this consultation process may not be in the long-term interest of Singapore. This is the price we have to pay with a more consultative style of government.

But, Sir, I believe the benefits of a more consultative style of government far outweigh the cost. A more mature society is more demanding today. Singaporeans want to be consulted. They want their views heard. They want their inputs in the policy formation process. We have to accommodate this desire. And by getting more Singaporeans involved in the nation-building process, they will understand better the problems and issues confronting us. Only then will they appreciate the need for policy changes and support the new laws being passed, and only then will they identify themselves more closely with the Government and ultimately the success of Singapore.

We have reached a stage of our development where doing the right thing alone is not good enough. We have to do the right thing right. This we can only do if we get more and more Singaporeans involved in the nation-building process. This is a tedious process, but it has got to be done if the government of the day is to continue to enjoy the support of the majority of Singaporeans.

Sir, as we move to the next phase of our economic development, we are likely to continue to experience an increasingly tight labour market situation. To me, the biggest constraint to our growth in the 1990s is not the lack of vision or planning, capital or land, it is our scarce labour resources. In recent years, various measures have been introduced to try to overcome this problem. Increasing productivity growth, the globalisation of Singapore companies, the import of talents from abroad, allowing a controlled number of foreign workers into Singapore, encouraging housewives to work, increasing our population growth, these are but some of the measures. We have reached a stage of our development where we need to take stock of the outcome of these measures, review them and make them relevant in the 1990s. We have to be bold to introduce new measures. In particular, we may have to review our laws to allow existing workers to work longer overtime hours if they choose to, increase retirement age, even review our policy of discouraging civil servants, especially those in Divisions 3 and 4, to take on part-time jobs during the weekends. Allow them to work over the weekend in, say, the retail industry which is badly in need of workers.

Sir, I believe the setting up of a Singapore International Foundation is most timely. It comes at a time of our economic development where we need to build up a positive image of Singapore internationally. It comes at a time when more Singaporeans are going abroad to work as Singapore companies spread their wings overseas. This Foundation will enable a network of friends of Singapore to be set up and it will help nurture a Singaporean consciousness among overseas Singaporeans. What is more important, it will help train them to be ambassadors of Singapore.

While I agree this Foundation should be a non-government organisation, I think it should not be left purely to the private sector. The Government should take the lead by providing the necessary guidance and the basic finance to set up this organisation. The running of the Foundation could be left to private sector initiative.

Sir, I welcome the idea of setting up a Service Quality Improvement Unit under the Prime Minister's Office. In my mind, I think this is long overdue. This Unit should not just be a complaint bureau for the quality of public services. It should be a channel where the public could give feedback on bureaucratic processes or red tapes practised by various Government departments. And to be entirely objective, I think this Unit should be led by a supervisory panel consisting of Members of Parliament. Its role, however, must be distinguished from that of the Feedback Unit. Whilst the Feedback Unit concentrates on gathering feedback on the substance of Government policies, this Service Quality Improvement Unit should be concerned with getting feedback on the form or the implementation of these policies.

In conclusion, Sir, the Government has done its part for the country. The necessary infrastructure has been laid and it will continue to be strengthened in the years ahead. It is now up to Singaporeans to come forward to play a more active role in the nation building process. Achieving Success for Singapore must be the collective efforts of everyone - all Singaporeans. Let us therefore work together to build, to expand and to upgrade Singapore in the next lap.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC.

Sir, the President in his speech mentioned how and why we should move forward in the next lap, ie, we must work closely together. And we do so because we have to build a common home. Sir, such an expression as "Singapore is our home" is in line with one of the Shared Values which the Government has agreed upon and which has been adopted by this Parliament, ie, the value of "Nation above community and society before self".

Sir, if the attachment of Singaporeans towards nation and society complements or is even greater than that towards community and self, then we will be making progress towards building a common home in Singapore. We will have taken a significant step towards becoming a nation.

Sir, another reference to the Shared Values in the President's Speech is the need to build a consensus on national policies. Towards achieving wider consensus, the Government has created many opportunities for Singaporeans to express their views. These include the Feedback Unit forums, Select Committee hearings, discussions of grassroots organisations, discussions during Ministerial walkabouts, and so on. Now, the Government proposes to widen the role of the GPCs and create the Service Quality Improvement Unit. The latter will give Singaporeans the channel to comment on the services provided by Government departments and statutory boards.

Sir, Singaporeans must take full advantage of the opportunities to contribute towards reaching a consensus on national policy. More Singaporeans should speak out on national issues at various public forums and when they have the occasion to speak to Members of Parliament. They should write to various journals, including daily newspapers, to express their views. Singaporeans should not be passive people, leaving the Government to do all the thinking for them. They must contribute towards this important aspect of Shared Values.

Sir, the President's Speech has dealt briefly with two of the Shared Values. But a very important value which has not been mentioned is that of "Racial and religious harmony". I think this subject is very important and it should have been a point of focus in the President's Speech. I expected it, especially after the Prime Minister had highlighted the problem of nation building in his speech on the eve of the Lunar New Year. The Prime Minister in his opening statement in that speech said, and I quote:

'We must press on with our work to build a nation by gradually increasing the common ground among Singaporeans.' He stated that the acceptance and practice of Shared Values would speed up the process of nation building.

Sir, nation building must be a top priority in the next lap. The new Government should focus on it. Yes, of course, we should continue with the development of material assets like better houses, education, roads, hospitals, and so on. But what will be a distinctive contribution of the Goh Chok Tong's Government will not be these. It will be the construction of a more cohesive and united people of Singaporeans. If in the future I am asked: what have been the achievements of the Goh Government, I hope to be able to say: the most significant is that we have a more united people.

Specifically, Sir, the Government must give more attention to this Shared Value: racial and religious harmony. If I may suggest towards the promotion of this, the Government should adopt an appropriate approach towards various issues.

The elements of this appropriate approach could include the following: equal treatment of all languages and cultures; Government's promotion of and involvement in multi-racial activities; and a low profile in dealing with sensitive issues related to race and religion.

Sir, the first element has to do with the equality of treatment of the various communities, especially their languages and cultures. Can we say that one culture is dominant than others in our society? Should we allow for the dominant exposure of one language or one culture and overshadow the others in our society? If the Government's answer is "No" to both questions, then it must ensure that in practice, Government ministries and statutory boards do not allow themselves to be so money-minded that they succumb to activities which do not promote nation building.

I need only bring up the example of SBC again. Why should Channel 8 be a Mandarin Channel? Someone told me, "That's because SBC is money-minded. Advertisements bring in money and since they want to advertise for a Mandarin-speaking audience, they go to Channel 8." Now my question is; what is the result? Well, on a certain day, and if you check up, you will find that you have all Mandarin programmes over Channel 8 except for a small slot for the Tamil news. What will be the impression of a tourist or foreigner when he turns on to Channel 8? Is that the impression the Government wants to create upon the minds of others outside Singapore?

Another more important element of this approach towards racial and religious harmony is the focus on the part of Government on multi-racialism. Government must encourage and promote multi-racial activities. After all, are we or are we not a multi-racial society?

Sir, in the Addenda to the President's Speech, I notice that both the Ministries of Community Development and Information and the Arts are still promoting the path of separate development of the communities. The Ministry of Community Development stated that it would, and I quote:

' ... encourage ethnic communities to preserve their cultural identities while fostering a greater sense of being Singaporean amongst all races.'

The Ministry of Information and the Arts stated that it would, and I quote,

'help the different communities develop their own heritage centres in ways which promote mutual understanding and national unity.' This is what I call the path of separate development.

Why will not both Ministries promote multi-racial and multi-cultural activities? For example, the Ministry of Community Development can organise multi-racial clubs and multi-cultural groups in the community centres and clubs instead of having separate cultural groups. The Ministry of Information and the Arts should have a Singaporean or multi-racial heritage centre, a national heritage centre, not separate heritage centres. Do we want to unite or continue to be divided?

I would suggest that the Government should organise a Singaporean or multi-racial and multi-cultural month during which social, cultural and recreational activities representing all communities - Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian and others - can come together and be displayed all at the same time in the same venue. This is what we should encourage if we are serious about nation building.

Finally, Sir, there is the question of how sensitive issues should be handled in Singapore. My view is that we must be concerned about the sensitive issues. For example, when assessing the response of a community towards an issue related to its religion, the question is; is it obvious what the response is going to be? If so, then it should not become a matter of public discussion. The publication of such a view can only lead to dissatisfaction of the community. This does not promote racial harmony in any way. The recent Straits Times survey concerning Malays' response to the Gulf War is a case in point.

The discussion of sensitive issues should be low profile and controlled. I think if the discussion takes place among community leaders who understand the issue, then it may not result in dissatisfaction. But, I would not support such issues being aired in public for the impact of this will be a wider rift between the communities.

Sir, we know that the new Government has much to deal with in the next lap. But I would suggest that for the long term peace and development of our country, nothing is more important than building a nation-state. Twenty-five years have passed since Independence; must we allow another 25 years to pass before tackling this problem?

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Toa Payoh GRC): Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, for the first time in the President's Address, the addendum is published in a very comprehensive document "The Next Lap". This book maps out the long term plans which will bring Singapore into the 21st century. But, Sir, unfortunately, for such an important document, accessibility is limited to an English edition. The different newspapers tried to give a comprehensive summary of this book, but even this effort could only reach out to those who are literate. I would like to suggest to the Government to commission the SBC to produce a special feature explaining the direction and the goals of "The Next Lap" in the four major languages. In this way, the entire nation, irrespective of language and education level, will get to know the roles each will have to play in the next lap.

The President's Address to this House on 22nd February emphasised on measures to make Singaporeans feel and care for Singaporeans. The Address gave us much food for thought.

Over the last 25 years we have proved that with proper education, training and proper deployment of our scarce man- power, a prosperous and secure nation can be created. It is therefore necessary to continue investment on the next generation so that we can build upon the foundations laid in the last 25 years. The Prime Minister, about two months ago, announced the establishment of the Edusave scheme. It generated much interest, excitement and discussion among the people. But a small number of people initially misunderstood Edusave as a welfare scheme. However, following the Prime Minister's dialogue session with the community leaders, the aims of Edusave became better understood. Sir, I strongly support the Edusave scheme, but I believe the Government should not be the only contributor to the scheme. Parents and close relatives who are interested to contribute should be encouraged. This will help to reinforce the concept of the family as a unit and the unity of a family. Maybe the Government can encourage this by allowing some form of tax relief for contributions made. But, however, Sir, care must be taken to ensure that this scheme is not exploited as a tax escape route. So the Government should allow any amount of contribution to a child's Edusave, but put a ceiling on the amount of tax relief allowed, maybe based on a percentage of the contributor's tax bracket. Employers with good staff welfare are nowadays providing scholarships and bursaries to assist school-going children of their employees. Maybe the Edusave scheme can be extended to employers who want to contribute a share, as part of a wider staff welfare scheme.

Sir, while the Edusave scheme will do much to help the school children between the age of six and 16, I believe there is another big group of people who will need help from the Government. This is the group of National Service reservists who in the past 25 years have contributed much to our defence. The lessons of Kuwait strengthened our support for national defence. Singaporeans as a whole are now committed to National Service. National Service reservists make a vital contribution to our security. National Servicemen are well trained and disciplined. The organisational skills and leadership ability learned during National Service can be adapted to their civilian life. They therefore have a competitive edge over those who did not go through National Service. But, unfortunately, their relatively long reservist duties tend to erode their competitive advantage. While it is impossible to compensate them fully for their heavy responsibilities and sacrifices, we must recognise their contributions and try to make sure that their financial losses are kept to a minimum. Sir, I therefore fully support the recommendations of the RECORD Committee (Recognition of Contribution of Reservists to Total Defence). The RECORD Report is a historical document that sets out, for the first time, a systematic way to help the National Service reservists. I congratulate the RECORD Committee on a job well done.

The RECORD Committee called on employers to give National Service reservists greater support, with public sector organisation taking the lead. The RECORD Report gave an interesting example of reservist academicians in tertiary institutions who have the same teaching workload as non-reservists, many of whom are non-citizens. Reservist duties take away time for research. Without sufficient research, reservist academicians cannot produce enough good papers for publication and hence lose out in promotion. I was told by some young academics that some of their non-citizen heads of departments are not supportive when they have to go for reservist duties. I feel that the Government should take the lead in helping reservists in the public sector and statutory bodies. Maybe a points system can be used. All reservists on completion of their reservist duties can be given a certain number of points based on the duration of duty and nature of duty. These points will then be taken into consideration for promotions. Non-citizen heads of departments will also have to be educated on the importance of National Service and the responsibilities of reservist duties.

Sir, National Service is a national issue and has a great impact on our domestic economy and the health of the private sector. When a reservist in the private sector is called up for reservist duties, sometimes it may last as long as 40 days in a stretch. Such disruption can cause expensive loss of opportunity and operational difficulties to the employer, particularly to employers with a small number of staff. Private sector employers are therefore happier to employ permanent residents (PRs) and non-citizens because they do not have reservist duties. Many of our reservists therefore feel that PRs and non-citizens residing in Singapore are more privileged and have a competitive edge over them. We therefore need a mechanism to help the reservists in the private sector and also help their employers to offset some of the losses due to absenteeism caused by reservist duties.

Sir, let me go back to the points system I have suggested earlier. Every reservist going for duty can be given points. But this time the private sector reservists collect the points of behalf of their employers. Employers can then use the accumulated points to exchange for a tax relief. The relief will not be able to offset the loss incurred by the company, but will serve as a small token by the Government to acknowledge the employer's contribution. It will help to remove some disadvantage from having reservists in employment.

Sir, serious consideration must be given to private sector employers to help them strike a correct balance between the will to support Total Defence and the harsh realities of managing an on-going concern that determines their survival and well-being. Striking the right balance will go a long way to promote "real" support for Total Defence and reservist training, and not just "lip service".

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, with the recent change of leadership, Singapore has entered into a new phase of its history. The ensuing period is appropriately called "The Next Lap". The name, I feel, is well chosen, as it connotates a few important facets. One is that we are in a race that has not terminated, but continuing. Second is that there is a handing-over of the torch to a new leader and his team. And third is that it is a race. In a race, we have to plan ahead, evaluate strategy, assess the competition, know our weaknesses, and implement a game plan for success, and there will be ample rewards for winning the race.

Our Achievements

Sir, it is remarkable that over the past 26 years of our Independence, Singapore has achieved signal progress. We have attained a per capita income of over US$10,000. We have an official foreign reserve of over $38 billion. The inflation rate is low. The Singapore dollar is strong. The roads are free flowing. Every home gets clean running water. Practically everything ticks like clockwork in Singapore.

Keeping Pace

We can literally rattle on the long list of our achievements. The danger is that as we wallow and bask in our success, we can become very smug, soft and complacent. This is particularly crucial with regard to our younger generation. As they grow up in a state of overall affluence and well-being, they may lose that mean and lean cutting edge of our earlier generations. They are the beneficiaries of the efforts of their parents. Can they remain as driven as their parents, and maintain the pace of the race that they are running? I believe herein lies the nub of the challenges our new leaders will have to face in future. How to ensure that young Singaporeans remain committed to Singapore and how can they stay keen and alert so that they can keep pace with the world.

Challenges Ahead

Taking a broad scan of the landscape ahead, we must ask ourselves what are the challenges ahead. I can categorise the future challenges into three main areas, namely, in the areas of social, economic and political.

On the social front, as we get more affluent and well-fed, the risk is for our people to become soft and complacent, as I said earlier, with a tendency towards materialism and self-centredness. Education of the young will play an important role in moulding our people. The recent adoption of the five core values will help to inculcate common values in our children.

Second, on the economic front, the challenge I see is how to achieve continuing economic success in the face of limiting resources. In economic planning, there are three main factors of production, namely, capital, land and manpower resources. We can assess that, of these three main factors, the most critical and limiting is our shortage of manpower. The next factor is land. Capital is not a limiting factor as yet, but it can be used as a multiplier in enhancing our labour productivity. We have to maximise the utilisation of these three resources, particularly our very limited human resources, to provide sustaining economic growth.

In the political front, if we leave aside the unpredictability of international political developments, I believe that the key issue in the domestic environment will be the increasing need for the Government to strike a balance between bureaucratic control and central government versus devolvement of the decision-making process and more freedom of choice for the people. In the recent years, the new leaders have encouraged a more participative form of government. There is some contradiction in the objective between evolving a gentler environment on one hand, and honing the competitive spirit of the people on the other. This is translated into the conflicting aims of promoting a more caring and refined people versus exhorting our people to keep ahead in the race of "The Next Lap", and therefore striving for excellence and personal achievements. This is a fine balancing act that requires much skill and total concentration.

I have very briefly outlined in very broad brushes the future challenges, as I see it, in the three areas of social, economic and political. It is not practical for me to do a full discourse on all the complex inter-linking issues. They definitely require in-depth analysis. However, I am certain that with the very forward-looking Government and the efficient administration that we have, these issues will be studied extensively.

Establish Think Tank Groups

The Government has regularly relied on appointing ad hoc study groups to consider and review important current issues. We can see the listing of many committees and groups in the book: "The Next Lap". To ensure that the future challenges and problem areas are identified and tackled well in advance, I would like to suggest that the Government establishes appropriate Think Tank groups to constantly review and brainstorm long range issues well before they surface. I believe that there are already some Think Tank groups (such as the Institute of Policy Studies and the Institute of South-East Asian Studies) which generally examine geo-political issues. Similarly, there may be a need to set up Think Tank groups to consider long-term economic and social issues. These groups can tap on knowledgeable persons from the Government, from the civil service, the academia, industry and the public. They can act as a focal point to gather considered opinion and help the Government to look, think and plan ahead.

We need to keep pace with our competitors to stay ahead in the race, and enter the uncharted waters of the next lap. Naturally, even if we have Think Tank groups, the political leadership will have to make the final judgment and decision on what directions to take. It would help greatly if we can have these groups to act as beacons guiding our path ahead.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to remind my hon. friend, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, that we are still a multi-lingual and multi-cultural society, let me speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) Mr Speaker, Sir, the older generation of political leaders and the people of all races in Singapore have already completed their duty in nation-building. They have completed the first lap of the race. Now, the younger generation, the younger leaders have taken over the baton. The new Prime Minister has urged our people to join in the next lap. I earnestly hope that all the people of Singapore will respond positively to this call by the Prime Minister.

It is often said, "It is difficult to start a business and even more so to maintain it." We can see that the younger generation of leaders are attaching much importance to maintaining the prosperity that our older generations have achieved for us.

This book entitled "The Next Lap" serves as a blueprint for our future development. It is indeed a very important document. It is something which everyone of us should examine and study carefully. In this blueprint, we can see the plans for our future. It is also a goal which we should support and strive to attain. In order to attain this new target, the Government is determined to enlarge the participation of our people in decision making, to make bigger investment in our people and to increase the common and private assets of our people. These are positive approaches towards our nation building.

In enlarging participation, I am glad to see that the Government will be setting up a Service Quality Improvement Unit. Mr Speaker, Sir, our civil servants generally are honest and effective. The efficiency of our public sector is well known throughout the world. However, I believe there are still some "black sheep" among us. By "black sheep", I mean some corrupt civil servants who assert their authority to bully the people or to abuse their power, thus causing our people to be frustrated and disappointed with the Government. For these "black sheep", I think the Government should take immediate steps to identify them and expel them from the service. This Service Quality Improvement Unit, I feel, should also serve as an effective channel for the public to complain against some inadequate service in our public service so that quick action can be taken to deal with the complaints from the public, and to study their recommendations for remedy. This Unit will come under the control of the Prime Minister's Office. It is of great significance because this will avoid the defect of bureaucrats shielding one another.

Investment on our people, I believe, is very important and it is particularly so in education. Recently, the Ministry of Education has announced plans to improve our secondary and primary schools. This is something of great interest to our people, ie, to allow some pupils to take only one language in their PSLE and to continue taking the second language in their secondary schools. This is a very bold attempt. Some people feel that this will be a deviation from our bilingual policy but this deviation is based on a presumption that learning the mother tongue would hinder the learning of other subjects. As I said, this is only a presumption. Whether or not it is true, only time can tell.

Mr Speaker, Sir, learning the mother tongue is very important now, much more than it was before. Over the past 10 years, we have been promoting the Speak Mandarin Campaign. It has been a successful campaign. It has successfully eradicated the dialect roots of our younger generation. In the past, those who were English-educated would maintain their dialect roots in their family - Teochew, Cantonese, Hokkien, Hainanese, Hakka, etc. In their family, the prevailing language was their dialect. They had a dialect or language which they could communicate with their parents and their grandparents. The grandparents or other elder people in the family could also use dialect to inculcate the traditional values to their grandchildren. But as a result of this Speak Mandarin Campaign, there is a new environment in our society. We notice that in many Chinese families, either English or Mandarin is used as a means of communication. This gives rise to a situation whereby grandparents who can only speak dialects and grandchildren who can only speak English and Mandarin have lost the means of communication between them. This, I believe, is a very serious matter.

But looking from another perspective, the learning of the mother tongue is even more important now because the grandparents could not play the role that they used to play in the past, ie, to inculcate the traditional values to their grandchildren. They are now unable to inculcate these values or their traditional cultures through the use of dialects as they did in the past. So if we do not enhance the teaching of the mother tongue, then they would not be able to do this job. This is something which we must attach great importance to.

Now, let me talk about infrastructure. Mr Speaker, Sir, the MRT system has become part of life among our people now. The provision of this service is also an example of the long-term planning of our Government. Yesterday, the Ministry of Communications announced that they will be extending the MRT network to Woodlands New Town. It is indeed good news to our people. This enlarged service will benefit the 130,000 people in the northern part of our island. However, I am disappointed that the Ministry of Communications did not announce that they would also extend the service to the north-eastern part of Singapore. Last year, during our debate in Parliament, I requested the Minister for Communications to study the possibility of extending the MRT to the north-eastern part of our country. I presented some statistics. There are about 300,000 people in the north-eastern part of Singapore and these 300,000 people are eagerly waiting for the MRT service to be extended to them. 300,000 is certainly much more as compared to 130,000. By extending the service to the northern part, I believe the Government is trying to attract more people to move to Woodlands New Town. But I would urge the Government to consider extending the MRT system also to the north-eastern part of Singapore because the development in the north-eastern part of Singapore is now in a matured stage. I sincerely hope that the people living in the north-eastern part of Singapore will not be disappointed.

Finally, let me talk about our cultural problems. Last year, in June, during a debate in Parliament, I called upon the Government to re-establish the Ministry of Culture. The Government has not re-established the Ministry of Culture but it has set up a new Ministry of Information and the Arts. This Ministry will be responsible for the development of culture in Singapore. I believe, under the able leadership of the Acting Minister, BG Yeo, I am sure this Ministry will contribute greatly to our cultural development. However, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens. It does not mean that we have to get rid of our traditional cultures in order to establish a common culture for Singapore. Although we want to seek common ground we must not eliminate our own traditions. I believe what we need to do is to seek common ground while reserving our differences. So when we promote cultural activities, when we have individual cultural months for the Chinese, Malay or Indian, I think this would not have any adverse effect in developing our common culture. Because to have a Singaporean culture is not something that we can do overnight. If we analyse our so-called Singapore culture, it is an integration of Chinese, Malay and Indian cultures. Maybe in 100 or 200 years later, we may evolve a Singaporean culture. But I think this could not be achieved in the next 25 years or so. Our Singaporean culture is actually a combination of Chinese, Malay and Indian cultures. So we must, at this stage, maintain our individual cultures and traditions and eliminating individual cultures, I think, is not something that we should do.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.30 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Seet Ai Mee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

The Chairman of the Education GPC, Dr Ong Chit Chung, has mentioned the Day School Programme in his speech earlier, and as many people are asking about the programme, I wish to flesh out the concept as introduced by the President in his Speech.

The Day School Programme evolved from considerable study and recommendations from various quarters. Since 1987, we have been looking into excellence in education through the single-session school concept after the visit of 12 of our principals to schools in the United States and England. In 1989, 20 of our primary school principals visited schools in Taiwan and Japan. In their report, Building a Firm Foundation, they recommended that our primary schools function as single-session schools, so that there would be sufficient time to provide for the total development of our pupils.

Subsequent to that, I chaired the Committee on Single-Session Primary Schools to look into the concept. We looked at the single-session school concept from a historical perspective. We saw how it was practised in foreign schools at home and abroad. We assessed the current situation in Singapore in terms of educational and social needs. We even weighed the advantages of a programme that runs from 7.30 am to 1.00 pm against that which runs from 8.30 am to 3.30 pm.

Based on a series of meetings with principals, teachers, Ministry officials and representatives from various unions, the Committee recommended that a single-session school programme called the "Day School Programme" be piloted.

The Day School Programme addresses two basic concerns. The first is educational and the second social. The tight schedule in double-session primary schools has made schooling very rushed for primary school children. Facilities have to be shared in these schools. Pupils are not free to remain after school to make use of them. Because of the early school hour, some children have to wake up as early as 5.30 am to get ready for school in the dark. Others go without breakfast. Those in the afternoon session sometimes get home as late as 7.30 pm. In double-session primary schools, pupils have little time to interact among themselves, much less with their teachers. With Day Schools they will definitely have more time to interact because the school day will be less hectic. With the intended short breaks between lessons as well as a long lunch break, students will be able to study, acquire social skills, rest and play together. Their education will be enriched and their school life made more enjoyable. More importantly, children involved in the after-school care component of the Day School programme will be cared for as they participate in the educational and recreational programmes supervised by qualified personnel.

There is another complaint, ie, that young children have to lug heavy bags to school since there are no lockers in school for them to keep their things. With Day Schools, children will have their own chairs and desks with locks to store their dictionary, stationery and textbooks. Because the classroom now belongs to them, they can create little pleasure corners like a fish tank or library to enhance their learning environment. Walls can be decorated with children's own art work and exhibits put up for display.

The Day School Primary Programme also meets a social need. As more and more women enter or stay in the workforce, and as the female labour participation rate increases, many children return to empty homes after 1.00 pm, some to inadequate care and others to the television sets as their companions. Being in school from 8.30 am to 3.30 pm and 3.30 pm to 6.00 pm will provide children with the company of their peers and their activities, be they in the classroom or on stage or in the playing fields, and will help in children's development and act as strong social buttresses.

Day Schools will begin from 8.30 am and end at 3.30 pm with no change in curriculum time. Our aim is not to cram lessons and extend content-based learning, but allow schools to function in a more relaxed pace. Short breaks in between lessons will be included for teachers and pupils to rest. Teachers and pupils will also eat lunch together during the lunch break. Let me assure parents that nutritious meals will be provided in schools at affordable cost.

The normal teaching day will end at 3.30 pm. However, for the sake of some children, an optional after-school care programme will function from 3.30 pm to 6.00 pm. The content of this programme will vary from school to school. It will be conducted by separate staff. Relevant organisations could be approached or contracted for the programme. Retired teachers can also team up with sports, arts and music professionals to organise the programme which can include activities such as music, art and supervised homework for children. There is really no limit to the range of programmes which can be provided. Children can have special lessons such as coaching in tennis or even home-making activities if parents are interested in having their children learn them. While these programmes are optional they will come under the supervision of the principal. Let me, however, underline the fact that these programmes will have to be fully paid for by the parents. The fees would depend on the type of activity as well as the instructor-student ratio.

The Day Schools, being in a special category of schools, will be given certain benefits in terms of resources and facilities. The Ministry's aim is to provide a conducive teaching and learning environment and we will direct our efforts to make sure that teachers and students are sufficiently comfortable in the longer hours they have to remain in the school. For a start, Day Schools will be provided with more classrooms to accommodate all pupils in one session. These classrooms will be equipped with multi-media resources to enhance learning. Special rooms such as staff room, offices, music room and art room will be airconditioned. Toilets too will be extended and shower facilities provided.

The Ministry will also make provisions for an additional complement of staff to assist the Day Schools. Each Day School will have an additional Vice Principal and an additional Head of Department. They will also be given an additional clerk to help in the administrative work. We will also secure for each school three specialist teachers - one each for physical education, music and art and craft, a library technician as well as an AVA-cum-laboratory technician.

The current miscellaneous fee in primary schools is $5. Whilst the Government will meet the capital costs and fund the facilities in Day Schools, pupils in Day Schools will have to pay $25 in miscellaneous fees to cover the additional operating costs. The Day School Programme steers towards quality education in Singapore. It is an improvement to the non-formal aspects of education and to education in general. Hence, the additional provisions over and above what is normally provided for all children in current primary schools will have to be paid for. The basic miscellaneous fee of $5 the parents will have to pay in cash. The balance they can use their Edusave funds and top up.

With new school hours, new transport arrangements will have to be made. Schools will hence be working with parents and transport companies to ensure adequate transport arrangements for students who require them. As children in neighbourhood schools can walk to school in the brightness of day and not in the darkness of 6.00 am to 6.30 am, a walk-to-school scheme can be introduced by the community to help to see to the safety of our children.

The main difference between single-session and Day Schools lies in the lunch session for the purpose of teaching children social graces and good eating habits. Teachers have to be in school to eat with their pupils and to teach and show them table manners and other meal courtesies and also the responsibilities of serving the meal as well as clearing up afterwards.

The Ministry intends to introduce an allowance of $200 per month for teachers in the pilot Day Schools. This allowance is given for the extra work of supervising the lunch programme and lunch-time activities.

We will start the Day School Programme as and when the schools feel the need and are ready for it. Because of the amount of planning and organisation involved, the programme can only be first piloted in a few schools. The Ministry is discussing with some schools regarding their participation in the programme. We are planning for the pilot project to be implemented in a few schools in 1992.

We are aware that the Day School Programme will affect the lifestyle of many people - principals, teachers, parents and pupils as well as administrative and support staff in the schools. The Government is ready to support it because people have asked for it and primary school children have a need for it. We believe it will enrich the education of our children and provide them with a firm foundation in their early school years. Furthermore, it will serve the needs of an evolving Singaporean society whose workforce consists of a growing number of working mothers with young children.

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC.

We are going through exciting, eventful times, both internationally and domestically. Internationally, the war in the Middle East, the internal problems in the Soviet Union, the sudden change in leadership in Thailand, to name but a few current events, are of great interest to Singaporeans because they have great impact on us, on our daily lives. The outcome of the conflict in the Persian Gulf will determine the long-term stability of the Gulf region and, of course, the price of oil at our petrol pumps. It also holds important lessons for Singapore on the security of small states, and perhaps also on how we should conduct our foreign policy.

Singapore is small and vulnerable with limited resources. These limitations demand that we be outward looking in order to thrive and progress economically. As we progress and become a developed nation, we should also take a higher profile in international affairs. As we have benefited much from the global community, we should now be prepared to discharge our obligations to them. In this respect, I am pleased to note that we have started on a modest scale with a small peace-keeping force in Namibia, a rescue mission to the Philippines after an earthquake, and currently a medical group to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf war. These missions may not cost very much, but the gestures of support may mean a lot to our international friends. The goodwill generated will have multiplier effects on our commerce and industry. It enhances our international image and national spirit. It makes Singaporeans proud to be Singaporeans.

Honouring and discharging our obligations should not be just confined to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Government level. Our Parliament should begin to offer to host international parliamentary conferences, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conferences in addition to regional conferences such as the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) conferences which we are already hosting. Our Telecom Authority, for example, should also play a more active role in hosting international telecommunication and postal conferences and exhibitions. Our Port of Singapore Authority, Science and Computer Boards, etc. should do likewise within their respective world communities. We should also increase our technical assistance programmes to developing countries. At the national level, it is time that we stopped asking ourselves all the time, what concrete benefits we will get out of all these activities, but start asking ourselves how, as a responsible member of the international community, we can contribute our share to promoting friendship and greater understanding among our friends and neighbours. Friendship is not easily measurable in dollars and cents, unlike the spin-offs from the tourism industry. But it is equally important and should be reflected as a desirable asset or goodwill in our books.

Moreover, the attitude and the way in which our country conducts its relations with its friends and its neighbours will filter down to our people and influence the way individuals conduct their relations with one another, with society and the nation. Therefore, to be consistent with our set of Shared Values adopted by Parliament recently, the State should set a good example for the people to follow.

In this context, therefore, I congratulate the Government for initiating the setting up of a Singapore International Foundation (SIF) to build an overseas network of friends of Singapore. It is proposed to be a non-governmental organisation with an international advisory committee. However, in the initial stages, it may be necessary for the Government to take the lead both in helping to establish the network as well as financially. The Government already has a ready network of embassies, as well as offices under the Trade Development Board, Economic Development Board and the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board which the Foundation could use. Financially, the Government could also help to get the Foundation off the ground with a contribution or grant. There is also a case for an annual grant too as some of the functions of the Foundation, such as encouraging foreign talents to work in Singapore are, in my view, governmental.

Domestically, the ideas and plans the Government has in the pipeline for all Singaporeans are also making Singaporeans proud of being Singaporeans. We are proud of our MRT and look forward to its extension to Woodlands, and eventually to Hougang and Punggol. We appreciate our congestion-free city. Thus far, the vehicle quota system has turned out to be much more successful than most people imagined. We hope the weekend car scheme, and later, the Electronic Road Pricing System will turn out to be equally successful.

On the education front, the people wel- come the establishment of the Edusave Scheme. It signifies the importance the Government places on equal educational opportunities for all children, rich or poor. The schools must now follow up with tuition and other programmes to provide these opportunities.

The introduction of single-session schools will require major adjustments in the schedules of working parents. However, parents look forward to the fuller and more varied education their children will get under the new system.

Singaporeans are also looking forward to the relaxation of censorship policies and the introduction of film classification this year. I also support the formation of public advisory groups to recommend standards for adoption by the community. It is consistent with the declared desire of the Government to have more participation by the people in the affairs of running the country. In the area of broadcasting, the Government should view satellite dishes and cable television networks favourably, especially in view of our objective of being a financial and business hub in this part of the world.

Similarly, the progress we have made in the development of the Growth Triangle covering Johor, Singapore, Batam and the Riau Islands are exciting and welcome by both business and ordinary people. Singaporeans are looking forward to visiting these tourist resorts when they are ready.

Sir, with the change in leadership at the helm of the Government in November last year, Singaporeans were looking forward to a more accommodating, consultative and participative style of Government. However, with so many exciting programmes planned for the next 20-30 years, in addition to the refreshing style of the new Government, the people are also not disappointed with the substance of the new Government. May I take this opportunity to commend the Government for a comprehensive, ambitious and exciting plan of action contained in the book entitled "Singapore: The Next Lap". The eight pages of acknowledgments in the book is clear testimony to the consultative and participa- tive style of the new Government that is already in place. Our response, to help translate all these ideas and programmes into reality, is to rally together and run the next lap with our Prime Minister.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, it is heartening that under the Government's plan, efforts will be made to provide every Singaporean a stake in our society and make every Singaporean more prepared to stand up for Singapore. Sir, this is particularly important in our case, especially with our multi-racial background where primordial needs, whether religious or racial, may surge out from time to time. We cannot allow these primordial needs to surface, at least to try and suppress or reduce it. If it does, it can fracture our society and it will be difficult for us to galvanize and mobilise our community.

Sir, in order that our future plans can be realised, there are a number of issues that we need to pay specific attention so that our efforts would not be thwarted. Sir, I am primarily concerned about the views of the average Singaporeans.

Sir, in the last few years we have rapidly restructured some of our major public services such as housing, education and health. More public services are also expected to be restructured in the near future. Sir, the principle of restructuring is good. The idea is to provide efficient services. Whether the services are going to be efficient, it is to be assessed, and whether the consumer gets quality services is to be ascertained. However, Sir, this restructuring has also caused increased costs in most of our public services. The general public, particularly the working class and those in the lower middle income group, have become concerned about the effects of these changes and increases. They have associated restructuring to mean increase in cost. There is a dilemma here, and I think we need to clarify. Although it is accepted that some increase in cost of services is inevitable, it must be borne in mind that too many increases at any one time can be burdensome. Sir, may I urge that there should be more coordinated efforts and approach among different Government departments to ensure that future increases in costs of public services do not come all together but within reasonable limits.

Sir, in the last 25 years, most public services have remained more or less accessible to all families. It is hoped that in the next lap social services will remain accessible if we are continuing to make good economic progress. It is important to ensure that the average working class would not be priced out by steep increase in various services. This will give people, particularly the working class, the feeling of worth being citizens and enable them to feel that Singapore cares for them.

Sir, our Government departments have grown in size and operation. There is a danger that the services provided by the various departments may become less personal. This can lead to a communication gap between those who decide for the department and the service users. This can subsequently lead to misunderstanding.

In this direction, Sir, I am pleased to note that the Government is setting up the Service Quality Improvement Unit under the Prime Minister's Office. This is a step in the right direction. But I think more should be done towards ensuring that services are delivered efficiently.

Sir, there is an urgent need for Government departments to set up their own internal monitoring system on the services they provide. Sir, it is particularly important that the bureaucrats who manage our governmental departments should ensure that they are delivering the governmental services without any biases and on the basis of merits. This is crucial, especially in our multi-racial context, to be seen that decisions made by bureaucrats are above board. When governmental departments conduct themselves with public interest in mind, then can we promote more cohesion amongst our different communities.

Finally, Sir, we should carefully examine the various future policies we would be implementing, to see that if these policies help to build a more cohesive community. Sir, social policies should strive to build an identity around a person. It should not be divisive but be more universal. In this process, we will be able to drive home the message that all Singaporeans have a stake in Singapore and Singapore's future is in our hands and not the Government alone.

Encik Abdul Nasser bin Kamaruddin (Hong Kah GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh.

I welcome the Speech by the President at the opening of Parliament. The Address reflects the spirit of close relationship between the Government and the people. The people's vision is the Government's inspiration to move into the next lap of Singapore's success, while the Government's vision, as manifested in its various policies, is endorsed by the majority of the people. I propose that we thank the President for this.

Mr Speaker, the success of a nation does not depend on its economic excellence alone. Any improvement in productivity will not have the full desired results without a good working environment and supporting elements of work culture. We have successfully instilled in our workers the spirit of diligence and determination to increase productivity. But will this spirit remain strong in future years? I have my reservations, for our success is not determined by development programmes alone, but is also subject to events in our immediate surroundings, in the region and the world. Just to cite an example, the Gulf War has to some extent affected us, not only economically but socially too, though the impact has so far been minimal.

The Gulf War reminds us how we are always a diversity in unity. We cannot avoid diversity of opinions, but at the same time we cannot let differences of opinion erode the unity we have built so far. In this regard, the Government has to be circumspect. The Government need not be hasty in stating its position, as this may to some extent affect our cohesiveness and sense of belonging.

So it is when we seek to carry out a public survey, as we could easily create an uproar by being too hasty. People must have the time and opportunity to understand events and their underlying issues. This is indeed a difficult matter, but it is something we cannot ignore.

Here lies our diversity. We are a diversity of religions, races and cultures that want at the same time to build a united people, a strong nation that will not be swayed or jeopardised by external forces. This diversity in unity is what we must build upon. Thus far, we have enjoyed prosperity arising from this diversity. We have been able to counter sensitive issues relating to race, language, culture and religion, issues capable of hampering our survival and progress. A strong sense of unity built upon this background of ethnic and cultural diversity will be the guarantee of our success in the next lap.

One important aspect of building a sense of belonging and unity through this diversity of cultural backgrounds is the promotion of ethnic cultures. The cultural and linguistic heritage of each community is a sensitive issue, a point which has been emphasised time and again, and should continue to be emphasised, by the Government. The Malay, Indian and Chinese Cultural Months celebrated on a grand scale in conjunction with our Silver Jubilee Celebrations last year is evidence of the Government's attention to the preservation and promotion of ethnic cultures in the country. But not enough has been done so far. We should have more such multi-cultural presentations, just like the cultural displays representing the various communities in the country, that we had in the previous National Day celebration. Or we can encourage the inclusion of cultural elements of one community in the celebrations of another.

The setting up of the Ministry of Information and the Arts is also a sign of the Government's recognition of the importance of the arts - another cultural element that must be promoted in our life. And I am confident that one of the approaches to be taken by the new Ministry is the promotion of traditional arts, the pride of each community, besides giving a new breath of life to artistic expression in our country. Through the arts, too, we can encourage the inclusion of elements of ethnic culture in every presentation. And when we preserve and further promote the cultural features of the various communities, we are really laying the channels for promoting unity and cohesiveness among our people. This will be the realisation of our aim, as reflected in the Shared Values, to build a Singaporean image and identity, a long challenging process though it might be.

Unity among people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds is a key towards building a nation based on a common vision and common interest. This is as envisaged in the first of our Shared Values, Nation before Community and Society above Self, whose message is that, whatever the situation, we must put the nation above everything and together protect its interest, together ensure its progress, together defend it, together live and die for Singapore. It is the thrust of our Shared Values, something everyone must be mindful of, something that must be etched in the heart of every citizen of the country.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion to thank the President.

Sir, life is a marathon and not a 100-metre sprint. In Singapore, we have completed the first lap, and we are now preparing for the next lap of the marathon.

As we set our goals and objectives for the next lap, as have been done in the addendum book "Singapore: The Next Lap", we must also reassess at this time our achievements and our mistakes, whether they be of omission or commission. With this as our base, we then plunge forward. As the Prime Minister has put it:

"This book suggests ways to capitalise on the physical and social assets that our earlier generation of Singaporeans has built over the last 25 years, and improve them to match our new needs and aspirations. It represents both change and continuity."

3.36 pm

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

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): The most important and fundamental achievement of the first lap is to have set for Singapore a sound infrastructure that provided for economic and social growth: Infrastructure that provides for a sound political system, an independent judiciary, a policy of meritocracy and equal opportunity, and a respect for every individual, regardless of race, language and religion.

In the zest and sometimes haste to achieve these goals, the Government has been perceived by some to have been: impatient, autocratic, intolerant of criticism, materialistic, and paternalistic - having a "government knows best" attitude. I have used the word "perceived", for I do not agree with all of these criticisms. To me, it is not so much defending ourselves against these criticisms that count, but to keep in mind that there are some negative perceptions of Government that are present today. The leadership, I am sure, is aware of these perceptions, and the best way that we can dispel these in the "next lap" is not to argue and debate whether these are legitimate or not, but to show by our actions that these actions are mere perceptions and not truths. This is the challenge to all of us. The Prime Minister has said:

"To succeed, this programme needs the support of all Singaporeans."

Sir, as the world becomes smaller, as the population becomes better educated and more mobile, we can no longer ignore these negative perceptions. Emigration will "snowball" as a problem if we do not address these. This reminds me of an incident in my earlier years as a medical officer in the Ministry of Health. One senior civil servant from the Ministry very proudly told us: "You can all resign, even emigrate if you are not happy with your posting. We can fly in one plane load of doctors to replace all of you tomorrow." This sort of arrogance did exist. The impression sticks on. However, I believe we can gradually eradicate this disease. Singapore is our home, and it is here that we belong!

People: Our Most Precious Resource

Sir, the declining population has been highlighted in the addendum. There is a strong sense of urgency in trying to resolve this problem, and rightly so. The problem is analysed in page 21 of the book in this way:

"Young adults today put their careers, leisure and personal interests above marriage and parenthood. So a sizable number of Singaporeans remain unmarried." This I feel is to put the problem in too simplistic a language, and is an unfair indictment on all those in Singapore whom we regard as "young adults". I presume that this would refer to all those of reproductive age. And I feel that there are other facets to look into.

Firstly, why are young Singaporeans not marrying? If one were to have a private talk with them, not a survey form, you find that Singaporeans - be they male or female - are very much normal human beings. Their desire to have a normal family life is also very great. Their problem is not having met the right mate. Thus, one of our approaches, that of having the SDU and other organisations and allowing for opportunities to mix is right. However, the observation that there is a fair amount of inhibition in the first encounter especially is worrying. Here, I believe that a change in the education system is required.

We should encourage co-educational education from pre-school to tertiary levels to rectify this situation. We cannot have an in-between situation whereby primary schools and secondary schools are just unisex. I know the educationist will give us a whole list of reasons why we should not do this. The change to co-educational education is important for two reasons: As we move into Day School (all the details just announced today) and Single Session School, what it will mean is mixing with one sex for the major part of one's life and in the most important formative years. Secondly, for the male Singaporean, the 2(r) years of National Service is another artificial barrier. Practically all the colleagues are male, and so of course the male feels more comfortable in an all-male environment. Furthermore, common bonds, and a strong sense of camaraderie are built during our National Service years.

Why are young Singaporeans not having more children? Here to attribute this to putting "careers, leisure and personal interests above marriage and parenthood", to me, is extremely unfair. The young adult is exhorted to achieve in his career. He is exhorted to excel in all aspects of his life - many have brought down their golf handicap. He is responding to Government's call. Yet, why does he not excel in the bedroom? Why is he or she not producing more babies? This is multifactorial.

Firstly, the question of affordability - the cost of bringing up a child. If both parents were to be working, the cost of fostering out a baby would be in the region of $200 to $300 per month. If one were to employ a maid (which the Government of course discourages), the maid levy is another stumbling block. Now if the number one child is, say, 3 years old, the problem would be to find a place in a day care centre. There are just not enough places. If one cannot find a child care centre very near home, one has to look further. The young couple who probably cannot afford a car - also Government's policy - will have to make arrangement to send the child by public transport, but also have to ensure that he or she reaches work on time. In the evening, the child again has to be picked up on time, if not the child care centre will be unhappy.

Now, what about overtime work and excellence at the work place which sometimes means working longer hours? Do we now feel that the young couple has enough stamina left after the long day to enjoy "nuptial bliss" and to be encouraged to have more children? If you add on to this the stress of having to help the child cope with school work, I believe that the last traces of libido and the desire of wanting to have another child will simply evaporate. This is more so in the case of the working mother, with a less than participative husband for reasons sometimes beyond his control, eg. travelling overseas for work, reservist training, and community and welfare work.

How do we resolve or even alleviate this problem? More day care centres? More single session or day schools? Yes, of course, day schools should be of immense help to the family. More "latch key" (before and after school) programmes? Scrap the maid levy? I do not know. Whatever the solution, let us be more sympathetic to the plight of the young couple, and not put the blame on them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I focus on this problem of the young couple because in this next lap we must not make the mistake of putting undue pressure on the young couple to have a child or children before they are ready to shoulder the responsibilities of parenthood. We know that many of the problems of society, such as drug addiction, juvenile delinquency and poor academic performance have its roots in the family structure. In our haste to replenish our population, we should not unwittingly create a new set of problems in the years to come.

Singapore My Home - A Role for Everyone

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in our search for excellence, having arrived is often taken to have a university degree. Even more pressure is now felt in the public sector. Some graduates feel that there are two classes of graduates: scholars and non-scholars or ordinary graduates. The ordinary graduates feel discriminated against. Is this perception or truth? If the graduates feel this pressure, what more the non-graduates? One analogy that is used is that of the "farmer". The non-graduates refer to themselves as "farmers". They then distinguish themselves as "high-tech farmers" or "low-tech farmers". The "high-tech farmers" are the non-graduates who are doing desk jobs or doing better in life, while the "low-tech farmers" are those who are doing less well or so-called mundane jobs. When I heard this during my in-camp training, I was very much saddened. This, I am sure, is not a concept which the establishment chose to promote, but somehow this is a perception that was present in the non-graduates. I feel that we should now re-assert in this House that there is a part for everyone in Singapore. We each are what we are, and in Singapore, there must always be a meaningful role for each and every citizen. If we allow our self-esteem to be eroded, the self-fulfilling prophecy of failure will come true. In addition, with continuing education and adult education at tertiary level now becoming more widely available with this new plan in the next lap, none should despair.

Role of GPCs

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the role of GPCs has increased tremendously since its inception in 1987. GPC work is now taking up more and more time of an MP's duties. The GPCs are ready to shoulder more responsibility. Parliament has assisted by providing MPs with allowances for a legislative assistant and a secretary (total $750). However, we should note that, in addition to the GPC, in this term of Parliament, MPs are also taking on the role of managing town councils. At the end of the day, the MP also has to earn his living, and carry out his role as a father or mother, and as a husband or wife. How much more responsibility can we realistically carry? How much more can we contribute effectively as "part-time politicians", doing practically a "full-time job"? Perhaps it is now time for us to consider two alternatives:

a) the need for some full-time MPs; or

b) the provision of secretariats to help MPs shoulder the added responsibility. To this day, the MP has been effective only because each of us is backed by a whole team of volunteer community leaders who have indeed sacrificed much and to whom we indeed owe much.

As we prepare to run the next lap, the role and expectation of the political leadership have to be realistically re-evaluated if we hope to enthuse the next generation into politics.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I join my other colleagues in supporting the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, many Singaporeans I have spoken to or who gave feedback fully endorse and support the plans and directions set out in the President's Address for the next lap of Singapore's development. It is an Address that reflects the happy state of affairs that Singapore is now in; unlike many other countries which are actually living on a day-to-day basis. Some governments work from Parliament to Parliament, elections to elections. In one country, at this point of time, the ruling party would not even convene a sitting of Parliament because there is a good chance of it being even thrown out. Sir, it is worthwhile, at this juncture, to remind ourselves that this state of affairs in Singapore did not dawn upon us. But rather it is due to the vision, wisdom and hard work of our political leaders that we are in this present situation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the plans and programmes spelt out that the new generation of leaders are ambitious but also realistic. They reflect the confidence of the Government on the future of Singapore and the commitment it has for Singapore's continued progress. Although 25 years is a long time down the road, the plans provide a clear focus or target for the populace to aim towards.

Sir, while the long-term plans spelt out in the President's Address are generally bold and imaginative, a few areas have been singled out for further improvements or fine-tuning.

Sir, the proposed establishment of the Service Quality Improvement Unit is well-received and supported. The name chosen for the Unit is particularly apt since the approach is to be one of improvement and not futile criticisms. The latter approach would only put the civil service on the defensive. To ensure that the Unit would be truly effective, it is suggested that a supervisory panel of non-civil servants be set up to guide the work of the Unit and study the suggestions offered by the public. This would give the Unit more moral clout. The Unit itself could still be staffed by civil servants to provide the administrative support.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the area of education, it is felt that our education system should not only emphasise academic excellence but excellence in other areas. Mr Davinder Singh mentioned this afternoon about excellence in sports. The current emphasis, unfortunately, weighs too heavily on what is termed as "bread and butter" excellence, or academic achievements for the sake of career advancement. Our universities produce very good engineers and doctors, but not necessarily good leaders or good thinkers. There should be more opportunities for self-improvement through higher education. Moral, social and attitudinal developments are probably more important in the next phase of our education system. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, some reservations have been expressed about the aim of having 40% of each age group qualifying for university or polytechnic. This could lead to more frustration arising from unfulfilled job expectations. A graduate engineer could end up in a job much lower than the status would allow. The idea of setting up a third university is lauded but care should be taken that it does not end up into a third class university.

Sir, the next idea of setting up an International Foundation is also well supported. The network of overseas Singaporeans and friends of Singapore should extend beyond social contacts to business, trade and commercial contacts. There could be Singapore Chambers of Commerce set up in foreign capitals. The networking could also be promoted in the spirit of ASEAN co-operation through the establishment of ASEAN clubs or associations.

Whilst Singaporeans agree that we should attract as many foreign talents to Singapore as possible, we must also be careful that this should not be done at the expense of our own local talent. It would be useful time and again to recognise our own talent at home. We should give equal, if not more, attention to our own local talent and find ways and means to help them develop their potential to the fullest. Again the emphasis of talent should not only be in the area of academic achievements but also in other areas as well, eg, the arts.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am confident that Singaporeans on the whole are firmly behind the vision and goals spelt out in the President's Address. What we need to do now is to transmit this vision fully to the people so that all Singaporeans will work in one accord towards fulfilling it.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the President's Address last week spells out the country's vision under the new leadership. The Government has outlined long-term plans to bring Singapore to the status of a developed nation. The people of Singapore are urged to work together and mobilise all efforts, to increase our productivity towards a higher standard of living.

The emphasis on education is a wise move. We want to be able to tap the talents of our people, who are our only natural resource, to give Singapore the push into the next lap. The people are thus to be given all opportunities to upgrade themselves through formal education, from primary right up to university level, as well as through part-time education. Adult citizens who have missed the opportunity of an education in their younger days are encouraged to take part-time courses in order to succeed in their chosen vocations. Efforts to upgrade the skills of our workers must also be given priority. If necessary, workers can be given paid study leave to further their studies in the various institutions, like the vocational and technical institutes. Investment to upgrade the skills of our workers will benefit our industries, especially high-tech industries.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the people of Singapore welcome the Government's move to ensure that every child gets at least ten years of education. The new school system to be introduced next year will allow every student the chance to study in a secondary school before going on to the vocational and technical institutes, junior colleges or the polytechnics.

One important feature of our school system is the Preparatory Year Programme. The Ministry of Education intends to expand it by increasing the number of SAP schools offering this programme to 15. At the same time, 10 to 20 other schools are envisaged to accommodate students learning Malay or Tamil as their mother tongue. This programme, to be launched next year, has long been awaited by the Malay and Indian communities. They are pleased by the move as their children will now have equal opportunity to study in these classes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, education at the age of four or five forms the foundation for the ten or more years of formal education that follow. It is at this age that children are most receptive to the basics of their mother tongues, English and Mathematics. It is easier for them at this age to absorb the fundamental values of their communities and accept moral education based on Eastern ethics. We must therefore encourage parents to send their children to the two-year preparatory programme when their children are four years old.

The responsibility for conducting pre-primary courses has been shouldered by the PAP Community Foundation, People's Association, social and community organisations and private sector kindergartens. The Government can assist by providing these organisations subsidies for conducting pre-primary classes, in the form of grants for every pupil. We can take the example of nurseries where, as we know, children of working parents receive a per capita subsidy of $100 from the Ministry of Community Development. It would benefit parents if the scheme could be extended to pre-primary students as well.

The Ministry of Education could also assist in ensuring quality teaching in the preparatory year courses by (a) planning and implementing a proper curriculum for all pupils; (b) producing suitable textbooks; (c) providing adequate training for kindergarten teachers; and (d) providing proper facilities at kindergartens. In this way, the quality of private sector kindergartens would improve, to match the preparatory programmes run by Government schools. Since the Ministry of Education would not be able to accommodate all pre-primary students in its own schools, these measures are appropriate and ought to have the full support of the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Government's move to establish the Edusave Scheme. Considering the importance of pre-primary education, I would suggest that the Scheme starts to operate when the child is four years old. The Government can allow parents to use Edusave funds to pay kindergarten fees, which usually range from $15 to $30 a month. I raise this point because, as we are aware, there is a small number of parents who do not send their children to the two-year kindergarten classes, or even if they do, send them for one year only. Financial constraints could be the problem here.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now move on to MENDAKI. The President's Address touched on efforts to improve the status of the Malays. The Government has committed itself to providing assistance to MENDAKI and Malay/Muslim organisations in their efforts to uplift the community. It is also offering assistance to Malay/Muslim organisations to embark on their own five-year programmes to assist the Malays to improve themselves. Malay/Muslim organisations must take this golden opportunity to coordinate their five-year programmes. In this regard, I think we need to focus on three main areas: education, economy and socio-cultural aspects. We know that the Malays want to progress along with the other communities. They want to stand on equal footing with the other communities. They want to be a part of the national mainstream.

When considering assistance for Muslim organisations, the Government should scrutinise their programmes. They must be in line with the corporate plan of MENDAKI, outlined last year. The Government's assistance should also not be just monetary. If possible, assistance could take the form of the expertise available in the civil service. Administrative officers could be seconded to MENDAKI or the Malay/Muslim organisations to run approved five-year programmes. I would appreciate the Government's assistance in this regard.

On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Sir, I rise to fully support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC.

The President in his opening remarks emphasised on long-term plans to secure Singapore's future as described in proposals contained in the book "The Next Lap" which is attached to the Presidential Address. I would like to comment on some of these proposals.

As explained in the Presidential Address, in the next lap we must strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans. We should instil into every Singaporean the concept that he should treat Singapore as he would treat his own home. In order to achieve this objective, the Government will (a) widen participation in policy making; (b) invest more in Singaporeans; and (c) increase the public and private assets of Singaporeans.

These are realistic policies. To a certain extent, these policies have begun to be implemented. Let me comment on some of the progress made.

(a) Widening Participation

The Government has promoted greater public consultation through Feedback Unit forums and Select Committee hearings. Government Ministries have also formed many advisory groups with selected citizens participating as members. Town Councils are good examples of concerned citizens taking over functions previously performed by HDB officials. Ever since the introduction of Town Councils, many HDB estates have been improved as a result of recommendations made by Town Councillors, who are mainly representatives of the Constituency Consultative Committees, the Community Centre Management Commit- tees and the Residents Committees.

Town Councils show that Singaporeans are able to perform and to take on responsibilities if given the right motivation. The Government should therefore extend this concept of widening participation in policy making, not just to speaking out at Feedback Unit forums, Select Committee meetings, advisory committee meetings of Government Ministries, or even at Town Council meetings. This concept of widening participation by Singaporeans should extend to all aspects of life, from the social to the economic, in order that Singaporeans would treat Singapore as he would treat his own home.

Singaporeans should be encouraged to make greater contributions to the economic development of Singapore. In the 1989/90 Annual Report of the Economic Development Board, it was reported that local enterprises play an important role in the Singapore economy and account for over 50% of our value-added and over 70% of employment. However, the EDB defined "local enterprises" as companies with more than 30% local equity. If we use the more conventional definition of local enterprises as companies with more than 50% local equity, then the role played by local enterprises in the Singapore economy will be significantly reduced. In the book "The Singapore Economy Reconsidered" by Lawrence B. Krause, Koh Ai Tee and Lee Tsao Yuan and published in 1987 by the Institute of South East Asian Studies, it was shown that Singapore's economic growth over the last 20 years has been dependent very much on foreigners playing an important role on the growth front. For example, in Singapore's manufacturing sector, foreign owned companies, ie, more than 50% foreign equity owned, in the years 1975 to 1984 contributed on average 65.1% to the value-added and 54.6% to the number of workers.

In order to widen participation in the economic development of Singapore, I would like to appeal once again to the Government to seriously consider setting up a statutory board for the promotion and development of local enterprises and encourage more Singaporeans to join the Government to run the next lap together as local entrepreneurs and not just as employees of Government Ministries, Government-related companies or as employees of multi-national corporations.

(b) Investing more in Singaporeans

The President in his Address indicated that the Government will improve on educational facilities and devote a larger percentage of our GDP to education. This is reflected in the Addendum to the Presidential Address by the Minister for Education and I quote:

'These improvements require more investment by Government in education. We will raise the percentage of GDP devoted to education from the present 4% to 5%.' This is heartening news. With better financial resources, we will have more schools and more trained teachers. Our children will be able to attend single-session secondary or even single-session primary schools. What is more important is the emphasis on tertiary education, and I quote from the Presidential Address:

'We will invest in tertiary education. Eventually, 40% of each age group should qualify for university or polytechnic, without compromising academic standards.'

With such a highly educated population, we will have a highly productive workforce. However, the quality and productivity of our workforce depends not just on the education they receive in their youth, but also on the education that they receive while they are still working. This is continual education and training (CET), and the Government should continue to encourage our workers to participate in CET programmes through proper CET facilities and financial grants. At present, we have the Skills Development Fund (SDF), but this is insufficient as indicated by the Minister for Trade and Industry in the Addendum to the Presidential Address and I quote:

'People are our key resource. We will develop a culture for quality in our workers. We will encourage companies to increase spending on training to 4% of payroll with the help of the Skills Development Fund. The NPB will create more training opportunities for our people to continually upgrade their knowledge and capabilities.'

Most companies provide training to their employees, but not many can afford to spend up to 4% of payroll on training. The Government must take up some of the financial burdens of training, as a highly trained workforce is not just an asset to the company but to the whole nation.

May I suggest that the Government extend the Edusave Scheme for school children to workers. Each worker can also have an Edusave account, and each year the accounts can receive money from an Endowment Fund. Workers can then use Edusave for part of their CET expenses. If such a scheme can be developed, workers will be strongly motivated to upgrade themselves through relevant CET programmes and join the Government to run the next lap together as highly qualified and trained workers.

(c) Increasing Assets

The policy to increase the physical assets of Singaporeans is very clear. The President in his Address said, and I quote:

'My Government will work to increase the assets of Singaporeans. The best way is to generate economic growth and invest in our infrastructure.' This policy is echoed by the Minister for National Development in the Addendum to the Presidential Address and I quote:

'MND will improve the quality of housing, roads, infrastructure and recreational facilities in Singapore. This will require judicious planning and fresh ideas for using our limited land resources.'

This is a good policy and will be welcomed by all Singaporeans, as they can look forward to better homes to go to and a better Singapore to live in. Singaporeans will work hard to build a better tomorrow and join the Government to run the next lap together as proud Singaporeans.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh.

It may be said that the Presidential Address reflects the hopes and aspirations of the future of all the leaders and Singaporeans. It also enables us to complete the next lap and find the next goal so that all the people in Singapore will confidently be able to build Singapore into a more excellent international city and a more caring society.

In the Presidential Address, it was mentioned that the Government proposed to set up a new scheme to enable the poorer families to own their own homes before the age of 45. I welcome this proposal. This commitment of the Government will enable the people in the lower income group who have worked and saved for a long time to have a new hope of owning their own home. I would appeal to the Government that in implementing this new scheme, consideration will be given to granting lower interest rate for the housing loans for these people so that they will be able to bear the commitment for housing without affecting their already simple life. As far as possible, the loan repayment instalment should be as close to their rental as possible.

I would also propose that consideration be given to a "two-generation relay" scheme of repayment for their housing loan over a period of 30 years. This will lighten their financial burden. So when their children are young, the parents can pay for their housing loan over a period of 30 years. After they have retired, and their children have started working, then their children will be able to pay for the rest of the loan in five to 15 years. In other words, the instalments are spread over two generations. In this way, we will be able to inculcate, among the children, the sense of responsibility for them to look after their parents when they are old. This will enhance the sense of cohesion of the family which is the basic unit of our society.

In his Speech, the President also stressed the sense of collective ownership and responsibility to turn Singapore into a better place to live in. The President has also pointed out that we should change the attitude of our people. We must enhance the sense of pride among our people to make sure that every citizen of Singapore will regard Singapore as his own home. To achieve this objective, if we only widen participation in decision making, we only increase our investment in our citizens and enhance our public and private assets. This is not enough. I feel that the Government should also change the attitude of some people.

Many people regard the construction of infrastructure as a government matter and has nothing to do with them. They should change their attitude because some of these people appear to be over-enthusiastic in contributing or raising funds for the construction of infrastructure, like bridges and roads in foreign countries with which they have ancestral ties. As such, I suggest that the Government should also encourage civic organisations or clan associations to participate in the construction of infrastructure like building of roads and bridges here. For example, if we allow the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or the clan association to pay for the construction of a bridge, we can name the bridge after them. For example, the "Wee Cho Yaw Bridge" or "Tan Eng Joo Bridge" or the "Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry Park" if they contribute to their construction. If other associations like the Chin Kang Huay Kuan or the Tung Ann District Guild contribute financially to the construction of some roads, then the roads can also be named after them. This will enhance the sense of pride of our people. In the Presidential Address, it is also stressed that every Singaporean should know two languages - their mother tongue and English. The President also indicates that the Government will improve the teaching of Chinese to help those Chinese students who have difficulty in learning Chinese and to lighten their pressure so that they will be able to attain a certain standard in Chinese. I would suggest that the Government set up a special committee on the improvement of teaching of Chinese. The committee can consist of specialists, educationists, teachers and also Members of the GPC on Education, Chinese newspaper editors and so on, so that it will help to make the learning and teaching of Chinese more interesting. But this is not a job that can be done by just a few educationists or a few Chinese radicals or those who do not even know Chinese. So Chinese must be learnt from various angles. It cannot be learnt just as a language. We must make sure that Chinese becomes a subject that the students will like. We should also review the list of vocabulary for Chinese. We must also institute vocabulary control and the application of the Chinese vocabulary in a simple way so that the materials can be made more readable and easier to learn in simple language through which we can inculcate oriental values. This is in fact the main objective of learning Chinese.

Sir, I would like to refer to the remarks made by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. He already launched a "Scud Missile" of a composite culture in this House. He suggested that the Government should integrate the various cultures together. I think I have to use a "Patriot Missile" to hit his composite Scud missile. The kind of culture that he has proposed is the Lau Teik Soon culture. For our three meals everyday, do we need to have one with Malay food, one with Chinese food and the third with Indian food, or do we have a mixture of all the three kinds of food? How are we going to integrate the various cultures? Will they turn out to be non-Malay, non-Indian and non-Chinese? What about our language, our habit, our dress, and our attire? Must we wear a songkok on our head, a Chinese long gown and a "pottu" between our eye-brow? The argument put forward by Dr Lau Teik Soon has caused me to lament over the loss of our cultural roots. The only things that remain behind are the colour of our skin and our names. If we force this kind of so-called integrated culture upon our people, then when foreigners look at this integrated culture of ours, they will feel that this is ridiculous.

Sir, I support this motion.