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

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [26th February, 1991],

'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.".' -[Mr Davinder Singh].

Question again proposed.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Address given in this House last week. It was an inspiring speech, bold in vision and comprehensive in scope which, when implemented, will bring this country to a new and higher phase of development.

Sir, the following statements, to my mind, encapsulate the ideals and aspirations contained in the agenda:

'In the next lap, we must strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans. We want to change attitudes and develop civic pride. Every citizen should treat Singapore as he would treat his own home. ... We must work together to build, expand, and upgrade it.'

In one sense, we have arrived. We are, by most standards, rich materially. There are few things that we cannot find here that are found elsewhere in the world. We devour new products and fashion with ferocity. Objects have become to be assessed by the status or prestige in their ownership rather than their intrinsic value or necessity. In other words, we have become rather blase, about our material comforts and begin to take them for granted.

Things work in this country. Our garbage is cleared every day, our streets are swept clean. Water and electricity flow as if they are free and unlimited in supply. Our system of rewards favours the capable, the daring, the high achiever. People are measured by the kind and amount of rewards that they can amass for themselves.

In sum, Sir, we risk ending up a country with a lot of glitter, like a well-appointed hotel, but with little soul; with many travellers, but no owners who are emotionally attached to this place and to call it home.

Someone I know, Sir, who has since migrated, once told me that he was merely treated and felt like a tenant here in Singapore. He was judged by his economic worth and contribution, by what he could pay. So, as a tenant, he argued, he expected good and proper service and good facilities to be provided by the Government. It was purely an economic arrangement that he did not feel compelled to harbour any feeling or attachment to this place.

While we may disagree with his sentiments, I cannot but feel uncomfortable by the symptoms that he and perhaps many others like him have begun to show on their relationship with Singapore. While Government has good and valid reasons for emphasising excellence and achievement, we may not be totally guiltless in creating the kind of environment which has led to such feelings among some Singaporeans here.

So we have to change attitudes, as the President has asserted. We have to create an environment where Singaporeans would be inclined to have deep attachments to this country. The methods outlined in the Presidential Address would help us create this environment. Government has to set the tone.

But apart from the methods and measures mentioned, Sir, we could perhaps do more in creating a softer and gentler environment for those who do not excel, those who are less capable and those who do not make the grade at the first try, either in school or at the workplace. The slow developers or the disinterested school leavers who later realise the error of their ways have little opportunities to re-enter into the education mainstream.

Then, we appear to be too unforgiving to those who have erred, but later repented. We are rather reluctant to give them a second chance, to redeem themselves and be given the opportunity to contribute to society later in life.

If Singapore is to be a place for everybody, then we cannot ignore the aspirations and hopes of these people. If we want them to feel at home in Singapore and feel attached to this place, then we must not make them feel unwanted and discounted.

The avenues and opportunities to be recognised must therefore be widened. The emphasis on paper qualification is understandable, but not when it becomes all-consuming and all-determining. We often blame parents for pushing their children and ask them to exert less pressure when we ourselves have stressed the primacy of a good paper qualification in the assessment of a person's ability and potential and in rewarding him or her.

Then there are those who had erred some time in the past. It appears that their transgressions follow them well into their future, blocking further opportunities for them to lead a normal and useful life. Our attitude seems to be that if one has muddied one's feet, he or she should forever be banned from entering into the house even when those feet have been wiped clean. But, Sir, to do so would leave them little or no choice but to remain in the mud outside the house.

We must create as wide an environment as possible to include as many of our citizens as possible, so long as we do not compromise our ideals and fundamentals. We need to bring as many of our citizens as possible on board for unless we do so there may be more and more who will find it difficult to identify emotionally with Singapore.

Let me now come to racial and religious harmony. I agree with the Member for Serangoon Gardens yesterday when he mentioned that these fundamental issues had not been dealt with in the Presidential Address. Granted that the issues had been dealt with before, it bears repeating and discussion, if not, review. What do we expect 25 years from now? What do we see happening in terms of inter-racial, inter-religious relations in time to come? How do we retain our differences and yet remain united? While these will have to be discussed more openly, it will have to be done more dispassionately. We will still have to tread carefully and unhastily, always cognisant of the sensitivities involved and the readiness of our people to do so.

Just yesterday, Sir, in this House, two MPs lost no time in responding to Dr Lau Teik Soon when the latter expressed his views on how the different cultures should evolve and should be presented. I would suggest that this issue be addressed and an agreement as to how we would proceed be reached. The defensiveness and the enthusiasm with which Messrs Goh Choon Kang and Peh Chin Hua pushed their arguments went to show that the issue evoked strong and deep feelings which we in this House cannot ignore. If MPs can display such feelings, imagine the emotions that could be evoked in a free-for-all discussion in the market-place. So while a freer and open discussion of issues is laudable and even inevitable, sensitive issues which touch the heart will have to be consciously dealt with, and with care.

In this connection, I would also like to inquire the progress in implementing the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act which we passed last year, more specifically, on the setting up of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.

Sir, let me conclude by hailing the President's Address as a significant milestone in the history of this country as it attempts to bring us into a new era in Government-citizen relationship and a qualitative change in our non-material environment. We have reason to be expectant but before we become too euphoric of the exciting prospects that lie ahead of us, we should always remind ourselves of the constraints that we have to face and the fundamentals that have brought us to where we are today, and to make the vision laid out in the President's Address possible in the first place.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, while so many newly independent countries are still struggling to give substance to their independence by providing basic facilities for their people, Singapore has succeeded well in this area and, indeed, has achieved way beyond providing basic necessities for almost all its people. No doubt, an honest, dedicated and farsighted leadership and a hardworking citizenry, along with pragmatic policies, have brought results in terms of prosperity and progress. Our people have achieved a high standard of living and we are now poised to run the next lap with a new agenda for action.

The Presidential Address clearly outlines the objectives we have to achieve. We are seeking not only to keep up the success we have achieved, but also to build stronger foundations for our people to attain even better progress and higher distinction.

Mr Speaker, I would like to focus my attention on one aspect, building a new socio-cultural environment, something which has recently aroused heated discussion and even led to the debate we saw yesterday and today. We need to look into this aspect because, firstly, we are shifting our style and approach to resolving problems and issues, through open participation by the people. We are emphasising consultation, the readiness to listen to public views and consider their proposals in formulating our national policies. Secondly, realising the aspirations and desires of our younger generation and the trend towards evolving a new political culture, we want more young people to come forward and join us in building and shaping our future. Thirdly, the new phase that we are moving into makes new demands on us, requiring far more than economic pragmatism, social discipline, political stability and hard work. It requires a spiritual strength capable of lifting and transforming us into a society of even higher distinction. Mr Speaker, we are now on a new path. Unless we act wisely, this path could lead to bigger problems for us.

What we are seeking now, Sir, is a new strength that could propel us effectively into a new era of progress. I call this new element a 'new propellant', something capable of sparking a new dynamism and at the same time keep us on a steady course. We want to find the formula for this 'new propellant' in the wealth that we possess, the wealth I am sure still exists in the treasury of our cultures. If the American spirit of free enterprise was launched by Calvinism; if the Japanese could overtake United States through a new perspective on Shintoism; if the Koreans could give new meaning to their culture of survival; if the Swiss could formulate their own unique philosophy, we must find our inner strength in the elements existing in our own multi-racial culture.

Why our culture? Why not Western culture, when we have committed ourselves to making English our administrative language, our language of learning, technology and progress?

Mr Speaker, natural order does not allow this in Singapore. Western culture puts priority on the individual. And this idea has been sown, nurtured and nourished in a socio-cultural environment alien to us. While it has successfully brought Western societies to their glory, this culture now runs into problems in carrying the West into a new phase. People might see it as natural for a culture to grow and mature and then decline before dying out, but this theory of civilisation cycle has certain elements of fatalism. Every culture and civilisation really contains the seeds for a new civilisation, which must be identified, nurtured and developed scientifically in order that they could bring forth a new, even more glorious civilisation.

Singapore is fortunate in having cultures originating from some great civilisations, spanning hundreds, even thousands of years. I am of course refering to the Chinese, Indian, Malay and Western cultures that, individually, possess such enormous potentials. We must seek the strength for our 'new propellant' in the meeting of these cultures and civilisations. Promoting consciousness of our Malay, Indian, Chinese or other roots is the right start.

However, Mr Speaker, we should not limit ourselves to only the external aspects of our cultures, such as the ceremonies and the celebrations. More important is selecting and developing the mental and intellectual aspects of these cultures. These are like the roots of a tree, that spread through the soil seeking minerals and nourishment so that the tree could grow strong and flourish. The ceremonies, celebrations and artistic aspects of each culture are but the leaves and the flowers, the manifestations of the flourishing of the plant. We must look into the mental and intellectual aspects existing in the cultures of Singapore and identify elements that we can turn into the foundations of an even more dynamic, potent future.

Would we by doing so become more conscious of our differences and thus create stumbling blocks in the way of a cohesive society? More to the point, Mr Speaker, would the concern about this approach result in divisions among us? I think no new undertaking or endeavour can be free of problems. If we emphasise the differences, of course, division would be the result. But if we try our level best to seek this new dynamism by stressing the similarities existing in our various cultures, we would overcome the initial problems that might arise as a result and continue to use this new discovery for our common objectives and benefit. Efforts in this direction will necessarily be a long process and must be handled carefully and sensitively. I think the hon. Member for Siglap has just emphasised the importance of handling this issue with circumspection.

We must realise that every culture possesses enormous latent strength. Simply pushing it into the ground will not eliminate it, for it would re-surface the moment the situation changes. Just look at developments in Europe and other parts of the world. The recent resurgence of racial differences in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, Northern Mediterranean, even Canada, and some African countries, is a reality we cannot ignore. For centuries, race and ethnicity have been de-emphasised in the interest of ideology and the policy of assimilation, yet the menace of racial difference has now reappeared to threaten the integrity of the nations concerned.

This does not mean, however, Mr Speaker, that there is no formula we can look for. We can still identify existing similarities. To me, it is better to take a hard look at our various cultures and try to find elements of similarities among them, than try to de-emphasise them or assimilate them or otherwise let the different cultures grow untendedly along their own separate paths, for there remain a lot of common grounds that we can identify in our multi-cultural society, that we can develop to create a new synthesis for Singapore. These elements can then be a source of strength for all of us.

I support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC, thanking the President for his Address to this Parliament last Friday evening.

Building on the Foundation

Singaporeans have every reason to be hopeful and confident of the future. The change in the Prime Ministership has been smooth and orderly. Though the future is uncertain, our foundations are strong, secure and sound. We have worked hard. We have been thrifty. We have managed our public funds well. We have accumulated our savings and wealth from the surpluses of the years of high economic growth. The Government's commitment has always been to invest in the future for the long-term benefit of our citizens.

It is only right that all Singaporeans share in Singapore's prosperity. However, all benefits cannot be distributed and shared equally. The manner in which resources are being allocated reflects our priority. The question is whether we agree with the priorities set in this country. There might be distortions with inequities created by market forces. Then intervention and assistance from the Government is needed to smooth out the edges, especially in the subjective and less quantifiable areas.

Participation and Involvement

Sir, I am all for wider participation and free and open consultation. The difficulty is when people look from their narrow individual perspective and they do not give regard to others. They only want their interests to be served and met. These people could not accept decisions and policies that do not meet with their own desires and expectations. There is no doubt that the Government should pay heed to all shades of opinions and views. But if the Government whose intentions and objectives have been noble and sincere, Singaporeans must support the Government in carrying out these policies. Singaporeans need to understand the process involved in decision-making rather than just looking at the policy alone.

40% with Tertiary Education

The aim of having 40% of each age group qualifying for polytechnic and university is to be welcomed. Having more graduates is better than having less. They will only improve our national averages in knowledge and skills. I hope that with more graduates from the polytechnic and the university, we would be able to groom more Singaporean entrepreneurs in the process. I think the dearth of Singaporean entrepreneurs may be the result of fewer graduates than needed in Singapore to provide the competition and the impetus for them to succeed rather than just in the profession and in salaried careers. However, parents and students ought to understand that with a larger pool of university and polytechnic graduates, the rewards and remuneration will not be comparable to earlier days when the number of graduates in employment were not as many. Higher education is not for higher career achievement and reward alone. It brings with it intrinsic value that makes for better individuals.

Rather than just focusing the young and those who are coming out from schools, the Government should also consider providing opportunities to many working adults who have missed the polytechnic and university education. For those who are able to continue to further their studies, every effort and opportunity should be given to allow these working adults to pursue their diplomas and degrees in adult life.

Ageing Population and Retirement Age

I feel strongly that we should not hesitate any longer to extend the retirement age of the Singaporean workers. We should immediately make it compulsory to extend the retirement age to 60 and, maybe, sometime in the future, to 65. Our population is ageing. Many retire from working when they are still able to continue employment. We also see many foreign workers being employed. We have to make the necessary internal adjustments in the employing organisations to employ our Singaporean staff for as long as possible. Our people have the education and experience to contribute to our economy. We should all recognise that foreign workers are not the long-term solution for Singapore.

Learning the Mother Tongue

I am glad that there is no let-up in the teaching and learning of the mother tongue in schools, particularly the Chinese language. I am pleased that the Government has recognised and accommodated this difficulty experienced by some Chinese children. Because of the differing linguistic ability, some may need many more years learning the language, even into adult life. What is needed is to encourage and not deter the learning of the mother tongue. What the Ministry of Education is doing is laudable.

Poor Families Owning HDB Apartments

Sir, the plan to help many of the poorer families to own their own homes is welcomed. Many of such families live in the 1-room and 2-room rented flats. They have been paying rent all this while that they have been staying in the rented flats. They do not benefit from the appreciation of property value of these HDB flats even though they have been staying in them for many years and, most probably, the Government will benefit much by tearing these old HDB rented flats down and build new ones in its place and sell them at higher prices. As a concession, I wonder if the Government could favourably consider allowing the rents that have been previously paid by these tenants to be treated as mortgage payments and to be credited to the HDB flats that they would be buying later on. Maybe the Government would like to clarify the schemes that they wish to introduce.

I wish to support the suggestion by the Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua, that if the parents could not pay in full the mortgage for the HDB flats, they could allow the children to continue with the payments subsequently. Account ought also to be taken into the location and convenience to these poor families who certainly could not afford to spend more money on transportation. And maybe that is the reason why many of the rented flats are concentrated in the city area. These are also people who do not have CPF savings to pay for the flat on a long-term basis. Maybe something could be done to encourage them to have CPF accounts and to have savings not only for the HDB flats but also for Medisave.

Singaporeans Working Overseas

We have spoken much about the need for Singaporeans to diversify overseas and, particularly, in the international arena and we also want to encourage more Singaporeans to take up job postings overseas. But there are real practical difficulties faced by our executives working and based overseas. We know that there are more two-income families, with both husband and wife working. The children of school-going age are of concern to parents, especially when the posting requires the children to resume their studies back in Singapore after the posting. We should have schools in Singapore catering to children of such families where the parents are working and based abroad.

The older executives whose children have grown up and are independent of the parents, they are the ones who ought to offer their services to work overseas and the employers should give them the opportunities and chance to do so. We seem to have more younger and less older ones working overseas. Employers should recognise the seniority and status of overseas offices so that the older executives do not deem that they are "being sent to Siberia" when they are posted overseas.

It is important that the vision spelt out in "The Next Lap" be disseminated to all segments of our population to enthuse them of our common goals for the future. Let our citizens have no doubt that they are co-owners of these objectives and aspirations. With the unity of purpose, I am sure that all Singaporeans will rally together to bring Singapore forward to the next phase of our growth and development. Like the generation before us who has accomplished much, this generation can take similar pride with their success and achievements and hand over to the succeeding generation of Singaporeans with value-added what we have received from the previous generation.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion standing in the name of my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, to thank the President for his Address.

No one reading the outline of the Government's vision in "The Next Lap" can fail to be excited. Singapore and Singaporeans are fortunate. They have a Government which plans for the next generation instead of merely worrying about the next General Election or worse, as we have seen happen in some countries now, worrying about whether the Government can survive the next Parliamentary sitting. That must be the ultimate travesty of democracy.

Happily, so far, we have been spared these experiences. For us, the task ahead is to realize, achieve, the vision that has been outlined. There are two aspects to this. The first is the physical - the creation of the infrastructure - building of a third university, fourth polytechnic, better transportation, marinas, museums and so on. The infrastructure will help in the qualitative improvement of life in Singapore. However, while infrastructure is a necessary condition for the development of a culturally vibrant, dynamic Singapore, it alone is not a sufficient condition. The creation of a hub city is not possible without public motivation and participation in the process. Singaporeans cannot be made interesting. They must want to be interesting.

The key to the creation of a hub city, a city which will attract the brightest and the most talented from the region and, hopefully beyond, will lie in how successfully the Government motivates the public, how successfully the Government sets about creating an environment conducive to intellectual ferment and creative expression.

From the President's Address and Addenda, this task appears to fall squarely within the purview of the newly established Ministry of Information and the Arts (MITA). That is a heavy responsibility. In 2 1/2 pages of double spaced print, MITA has set for itself a vast array of tasks - promotion of the arts, development of our culture, preservation of our heritage, building and management of museums and libraries and, most importantly, the handling of the media and broadcasting services.

Sir, this last aspect will play an important part in how successfully the Government is able to motivate the people of Singapore and convince them to share its vision. We all know the power and influence of the media. How does the Government view its relationship with the media? What is the role of the media in Singapore?

There are few answers in the President's Speech to these key questions. It is touched in paragraph 8 of MITA's Addendum. MITA states and I quote:

"The Government will pay more attention to public and media relations to better explain public policies to Singaporeans and foreigners." There is recognition that something needs to be done to improve the Government's presentation of policies. If I may say so, that is a correct identification of what perhaps is an existing problem. I am less sure about the prescription - that the solution lies in better explanation of public policies.

I say this for two reasons. Whatever the media in Singapore can be accused of, it cannot be accused of being anti-Government. It cannot be accused of presenting a distorted picture of the Government. Neither can the media be accused of not giving adequate coverage of Government policies.

In short, I do not think that the media can be blamed for any problems of image or perception that the people may have of the Government. If there is a problem of image and perception, then the Government has to take a long hard look at itself and its policies - and in this, I include MPs and what we say both in this House and outside.

The media in Singapore, by and large, presents an accurate picture. It is merely the messenger. It is true that in many countries the messenger distorts the message but surely that is not the case in Singapore. Here, it is the message that matters rather than the messenger.

There is, however, one important area relating to the media that should be of concern to the Government. That is the credibility of the media. The Government has to accept that the media will continue to be an imperfect medium for the Government until the media's credibility in the public eye is improved.

The second aspect of MITA's statement which I wish to touch on is that it appears to have a one-dimensional approach to the relationship between the Government and the media - the media is seen only as a channel for the Government to inform the public. Should there be a wider role for the media?

I would advocate a wider role. But in case I be misunderstood, let me make one point clear. I do not advocate that the media should, on its own accord, be an active participant in politics. It is my view that the media, motivated as it is by considerations of profit, readership and viewership, cannot effectively perform that role.

However, it can perhaps provide a more active forum for expression of public views. We should consider whether the media, in addition to being a means for the Government to express its views, should also be a means for the public to express their views on policies. The media already does that now, in a limited way.

Why is this wider role for the media necessary? We talk about a hub city. A city of excellence. An environment which promotes intellectual creativity. A city which will attract the talented. Talented and creative people are not usually reticent. They will seek out an environment which allows them to express themselves with as few restrictions as possible. And there must be the means to express themselves. In the modern age, the media provides the means. If the media performs only the role of explaining Government policies, then we will have difficulty attracting and creating the right intellectual environment.

In this context, one area worth thinking about is whether we need another newspaper - perhaps a quality newspaper which deals with issues at a level different from that of the Straits Times. The Straits Times has to cater for such a broad market that it may simply not be able to deal with public issues at a deeper level.

There is already recognition of the need to cater to different segments of our population with the setting up of Channel 12 as a quality channel - even though occasionally, in what appears to be a move to increase viewership, Channel 12 has to include, for example, wrestling programmes.

Again, of course, when we talk about a freer flow of ideas, and so on, this must be subject to an acceptance that, given the make-up of our society, some issues cannot be discussed. The theory of the market place of ideas cannot yet, in my view, be put into practice in Singapore. There are too many sensitive issues. Logical discussion of such issues is simply not possible because experience shows that many in our society approach these issues from preconceived emotional standpoints rather than on logic. But within acceptable parameters, the Government should give thought to a possible wider role for the media.

This issue of parameters brings me to the next and last point on the President's Speech. One parameter will be inter-racial relationship. Anything that might affect inter-racial relationship has to be off limits, regardless of how logically necessary discussion of such issues might be. This is because social cohesion and internal unity are a pre-condition if Singapore is to continue to succeed. The Government's vision will be a mere dream if there is no racial harmony within our society. Racial har- mony and the promotion of multi-racialism must continue to be the cornerstone of the Government.

It was thus quite surprising to note the absence of any mention of these key concepts in the text of the Speech outlining the Government's programme. Perhaps it was because these concepts are taken so much for granted that they need no substantive reaffirmation. If so, I would suggest that the Government is being a trifle optimistic about the state of our inter-racial harmony. Societies much older than ours still experience inter-ethnic tensions. Racial harmony and multi-racialism require constant effort. They have to be at the fore and not at the back of our mind. The Government needs to give this careful and, I would add, constant thought. They require constant affirmation until these principles are internalised within our citizens.

The debate between my colleagues, Dr Lau Teik Soon, Mr Peh Chin Hua and Mr Goh Choon Kang, needs also to be seen in this context. The debate appears to proceed on the assumption that somehow, promotion of the growth of a Singapore culture is, in the long term, inimical to the growth of individual cultures of the separate races. I accept that it will be a very long time before a common Singapore culture emerges - and it may never emerge, given the differences between our races. We must accept that. However, that does not mean that we should not at least try and promote, at this stage, acceptance and understanding of each other's culture and hope that some basis for a common culture is established. If I may say so, without intending a pun, the often used food analogy in this context has become stale. It was an interesting analogy when first used. But continued usage of the food analogy may well give the impression that we can only think through our stomachs. The issue requires a dispassionate and practical approach. We must promote our individual cultures. That helps us keep a sense of bearing in this world. But at the same time, in pursuit of racial harmony and multi-racialism, we must also promote the appreciation, understanding and acceptance of each other's culture.

With that, Sir, I end my speech. I support the motion.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC and to congratulate the President on his Address which gives a very detailed analysis of the state of the nation and directions for the future.

The transition of office to Mr Goh Chok Tong has been smooth and due in no small way to the confidence that the people of Singapore had in him. The many channels that he had established for the people to communicate their views to the Government is, I think, one of his significant achievements. The GPCs, the Feedback Unit, the many committees on population, health, education and economy are all structured to draw widely on the views of private citizens, be they experts or men in the street. The intention of the GPCs and Select Committees to broaden their roles will enhance this consultative process. This clearly shows that consultation is not detrimental to the process of effective government. We can and should debate on the major issues. But at the end of the day, we must take appropriate decisions and get on with implementation.

Singaporeans want to be heard. They want to know how they will fit in with the goals in the next lap that the Government has set out to achieve. They are worried that the cost of gracious living, restructured and privatised hospitals and schools may be out of the reach of their pockets. While the aim of upgrading should go on, Government must continue to provide choices in the basic services of housing, education and health, especially to households with total incomes of less than $2,000. For example, while Government aims for the majority of homes to be 4-room flats or better, it must continue to have 3-room flats for those who prefer to have smaller living spaces. These could be families who have to choose between a larger house or better education for their children. Or they could be families in sudden financial distress. And the public amenities and environment of these homes should be even better provided, as the disadvantaged residents need them more than ever.

Similarly, Government needs to maintain well-run and well-equipped state schools and hospitals. While the Ministry of Health has assured that all hospitals will have B2 and C class beds, I would like the Ministry of Health to study whether the total number of these beds is commensurate with the percentage of the population which needs them.

Taken all together, the total cost of living has greatly increased for the middle class, if only because the Government's ambitious schemes have raised expectations so high. Every parent now wants the best for his children. In the end, it could undermine our efforts to increase population growth. The Government's stated aim is more children for those who can afford it. But the increase in the number of children from the higher income sector may not be enough. This can be seen by the fact that the auspicious Dragon year plus all the tax incentives failed to achieve the 2.1% growth we targeted. If the broad middle class feel they cannot give that quality of living to more than one or two children, they might decide still to limit their families. Increasingly, when asked if they would consider having a third child, young couples reply, "We can't afford it."

The total cost of having a child in terms of birth expenses, child care, housing and education may be the prohibitive factor in the population equation and this needs looking into. This Government has always reiterated that for the lower income group it will provide the safety net for housing, education and health costs. But as costs escalate, so the level at which help is given must be regularly reviewed and adjusted.

Our attempt to increase our talent pool by selective immigration will inevitably bring problems. One problem is the cultural gap that exists between overseas and local people, even within the same ethnic background. Another often voiced complaint is that young immigrants have no obligation to do national service. This should be partially redressed by encouraging immigrants to volunteer in part-time paramilitary service, eg, our civil defence. This will also bond them closer to the local community. Those who want to take advantage of our excellent national service training and want to volunteer should be made most welcome. Indeed, as the numbers of immigrants increase, their impact on our local population would be felt most acutely, especially in terms of the young competing for quality jobs, housing, schools and other services. We need to minimise any such tendencies towards resentment.

The education of our young is the key to our future prosperity. Thus the Edusave Scheme, revamping of the education system and plans for the new university and polytechnic are exciting developments. These opportunities are open to all races. In particular, I would urge Malay Singaporeans through the help of MENDAKI to grasp these opportunities fully in order to improve their economic position. Being a small community, their human resources are limited. It will be better for them to sink their personal differences, curb their tendencies to form rival organisations and work wholeheartedly through MENDAKI for the overall benefit of their community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to wholeheartedly support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC, to thank the President for his Address to the House on 22nd February.

The President in his Address said that we have started a new chapter in our young history with a new generation of leaders in place. Indeed we have reached a watershed. Chapter One of our history began precariously, with precious little, whereas Chapter Two begins with prosperity and security. Singaporeans are now rallying to run the second lap which will take us to greater heights, realising our vision of 1999 and attaining a standard of living which equals to that of the Swiss of today.

All Singaporeans should feel rightly proud. In the history of nations, it is difficult to find another nation starting with so little and achieving so much in so little time. The President said, "Today we can plan ahead for the next 25 years and marshall the resources needed to turn bold ideas into reality." Again, not many countries today are able or willing to commit themselves to plan so far ahead. And in how many countries can one find the transfer of political power from one leadership to another in so smooth a manner that it has been described as a non-event?

So Singaporeans have completed a record-breaking first lap without any mishaps, thanks to the Independence generation leaders, the people and our good fortune. The basic strategies required to successfully run the second lap are no different from those required for the first. However, the runners are different, the coaches and the team manager are different and the time is different. Can we perform as well as the first team or better still, out-perform them? This is the question many older Singaporeans are asking themselves. Do the second lap runners, albeit better-fed, better-schooled, better-trained and better-equipped have the guts, grit, determination and stamina to keep up the good track record or even to break it? My answer is yes if the weather remains favourable and the runners keep themselves trim and fit. We, however, cannot become conceited, complacent or careless.

A well-known Chinese adage says: Chuang ye nan, shou ye geng nan ( ) Sir, loosely translated, it means to embark on an undertaking, or an enterprise is not easy; to maintain what has been achieved by one's forefathers or predecessors, or to safeguard one's heritage may be even more difficult. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to remind ourselves and all Singaporeans that we got to where we are today because our Independence generation leaders and the people were prepared to make personal sacrifices for the good of the country, or as the Chinese would say, xisheng xiao wo, wanchen da wo. ( ). Sir, I know I am stating the obvious and that some people may be revolted by being reminded too frequently of our success story. However, I still feel that we should not be apologetic or self-defacing when it comes to discussing important issues like charting our long term future. Singaporeans must never forget the lessons of history, otherwise, we may lose our bearing and land ourselves where we do not want to be, especially when we are riding on the waves of material comfort and basking in affluence.

Sir, pardon me for the long preamble. But I feel that there is some urgency to remind ourselves, in particular the younger Singaporeans, that what we are enjoying today is not godsend, but is the fruit of years of sweat and toil.

I am indeed gratified to note that the Government will be spending more on education - 4-5% of our GDP. The conversion of all schools to single session institutions eventually, and the provision of places in institutions of higher learning to cater for 40-50% of each cohort of our students is indeed a welcome piece of news to all Singaporeans. Investment in education never fails to pay handsome dividends. And in Singapore where human resource is the only resource, the importance of developing every individual to his or her potential cannot be over-emphasized. I am particularly happy to note that working adults, who missed the opportunity to receive higher education in their younger days, will now be given a second chance to do so by pursuing part-time courses in their spare time. The need for such a provision has been keenly felt for quite some time now. In the context of Singapore, every opportunity should be made available to mature students who can benefit from higher academic and professional courses. The setting up of a third university to satisfy the urge of many young Singaporeans, who otherwise may have to go overseas to further their studies, is another step in the right direction. Here, we have to ensure that standards are not compromised in our eagerness to satisfy the demand of the students to obtain degrees. We do not want graduates of the third university to be third class graduates.

Sir, still on the topic of education, I am very pleased indeed to learn that moral and civics lessons and the teaching of the mother tongue will be given the weightage they deserve. Allowing and encouraging schools to teach moral and civics lessons in the mother tongue is another laudable move. It is through moral and civics lessons taught meaningfully that strong characters are moulded; and it is through the use of the mother tongue that cultural values are best imparted to the young. Some have argued that cultural values need not be distilled through the mother tongue. However, most experienced scholars and educationists in the field think that the mother tongue is the most effective medium to do the job. In fact, absorbing one's culture through a second language has been aptly described by some Chinese educationists as scratching an itching foot without removing the shoe, or what the Chinese would say Ge xie saoyang ( ).

Sir, many foreign visitors to our shore have remarked how westernised Singaporeans are. And many innocent young and the not so young Singaporeans take pride in hearing such remarks. They forget that we are Asians living in Asia, that many Western ways of life may not be suitable for a young nation like ours. Therefore, schools play a very important role in keeping alive good Asian values and traditions which have helped to make Singapore what it is today. Because all our students are English-educated today, undesirable western values, fads and fetishes are being transmitted to them incessantly through the printed word and the television. Every effort must be made by the school and the home to ensure that we retain the essence of our ethnic cultures, lest we become totally deculturalised. If that day comes, the younger generation will hold us, the older generation, responsible for their plight and loss.

Sir, to illustrate my point, allow me to quote what Prof. Wolfgang Franck, a renowned visiting Professor of Chinese Studies at the then University of Malaya, said about the Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia in 1965. I quote:

'The main result of English education in Singapore and Malaysia, if not compensated with a thorough Chinese education at home or elsewhere, is the uprooting of the Chinese humanistic tradition. The education usually remains superficial. Only a very small number of outstanding students in a few eminent schools are able to penetrate to the basic values of Western culture and to acquire a genuine Western humanistic education to replace the lost Chinese one. The majority will be adrift spiritually on the waves of material comfort without having any fixed cultural or moral standards. Sooner or later many of these people will realise their lack of cultural identification. Physically and emotionally, these people are Chinese, but culturally they are neither Chinese, nor Malay nor English. They do not know themselves what they are.'

The Professor's observation was made 25 years ago. In the interim period, many changes have taken place in our education system. Today, English is our main language used by Singaporeans at work and at play, and many Chinese students seem to experience difficulty in learning their mother tongue. The danger of deculturalisation therefore is much more serious today than 25 years ago. We therefore have to be more vigilant than before.

Sir, and a 33-page task force report, commissioned by the Senate of the Philippines, quoted in the Straits Times of 14th August, 1988 ascribed much of the social ills in the Philippines today to westernisation and deculturalisation of her people. So let us take heed before it is too late.

Sir, may I now briefly touch on one or two other aspects of the President's Address.

The setting up of a Service Quality Improvement Unit under the Prime Minister's Office is timely and most appropriate. For some time now, it has been felt that such a unit will help maintain the highest possible standards in our public services. It is a well-known fact that our public service is the most efficient in this part of the world. But the best for others may not be the best for Singaporeans today. And, moreover, there is always room for improvement. Of late, some unhappiness has often been aired by the public in the press and, in particular, at Members of Parliament's meet-the-people sessions. The usual complaints are: civil servants are not very helpful, bureaucratic, uncaring and brusque in their dealings with the public. With better education, people's expectations have gone up and they will not accept services which are less than of the highest quality. As we progress, this is as it should be. However, I hope that the Unit when set up will not become a complaints bureau. A complaints bureau has a negative connotation, giving the public a feeling that many things are wrong. This is, of course, not the case with our public service. What we need is fine-tuning to make our public service not only efficient, but also humane, courteous and polite. Such a service will not only make the public happy but will also boost productivity.

Sir, the promotion of greater consultation by the Government in the last few years has worked well. There is a need to involve more people in this process as the population becomes better educated, more cosmopolitan and mature politically. However, when we look back we will notice that participation at feedback sessions and at Select Committees tended to be dominated by the English-educated. The voice of those educated in Chinese, Malay and Tamil is seldom heard. It cannot be said that these people have no views or are less interested in policies affecting their lives. Their reticence should be studied and remedied if we want all Singaporeans to treat Singapore as they would treat their own homes. If certain segments of the population feel unwanted or unimportant, we cannot expect them to have a strong sense of belonging or patriotism for Singapore.

Sir, I read with great interest that the two off-shore islands within my constituency, namely, Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong, will be developed for industry and high density housing. I also read with greater excitement that a proposed MRT line from mainland Singapore will be extended to serve the two islands. Sir, development will be good for Singapore in general and for Changi in particular. However, one major factor must be seriously considered by the relevant Ministry and department concerned. They must not turn the island into large industrial complexes and HDB estates similar to those on the mainland. As much as possible of the natural habitat should be preserved for our future generations. We have a duty to see to it that the flora and fauna on the islands are not destroyed. As it is, many young children think that the chickens their mother buys are naked creatures coming from supermarkets. Any modern development will, of course, encroach on the natural habitat of the flora and fauna of the locality affected. But care should be taken to minimise the destruction so that the next generation will not be deprived of the pleasure that nature offers.

Sir, I support the motion.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate in thanking the President for his Address made on behalf of the Government sometime last week. To me, the Speech has great significance for future generations of Singaporeans.

Having perused the main proposals contained in the book "The Next Lap", one cannot but have a good grasp of the Government's long-term plans and vision under Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that will take Singapore through the next decade and beyond. It gives an insight into the collective thinking of our new set of younger leaders, their philosophy and their approaches to resolve difficult problems and face unforeseen challenges that lie ahead in the 21st Century.

Mr Speaker, Sir, present day Singaporeans have been clamouring for a consultative style of government. Since 1985, they have experienced this and no one can deny that the Government today is less sensitive and has accommodated alternative views and accepted criticisms on a broad range of issues, including that which were once considered taboo, such as the gut issues of race, language and religion.

By now Singaporeans would have realised that the common belief of being persecuted if they open up is mere hearsay. They should have no fear for so long as it is done in a frank, sincere and responsible manner. Only those who worked against the State or against national interests need to worry about the big stick of the Government coming down heavy on them.

Hence, I consider the call for wider public participation from the Government on national issues farsighted. It requires a positive response from better endowed Singaporeans for an active participation in voicing their views and putting forth new ideas to issues and matters that affect their daily lives. Participation should not be confined to forums, discussions or making representations to Select Committees, but should go beyond that.

The higher-income earners must be prepared, in bigger numbers, to commit their time to grassroots or community-based organisations outside their career and professional associations. In this way, they can better feel the pulse of the nation and understand the constraints of the political leadership. In short, my appeal is for our better educated citizens to assume a higher profile in reshaping the path our nation will take as we chart through the uncertain future. We must proceed in this direction because, to quote the President:

"Singapore is our home. It belongs to us, all of us. Each one shares in Singapore's security and future. Each has a stake in its wealth and prosperity."

Next, Sir, I would like to touch on the Service Quality Improvement Unit under the Prime Minister's Office. In this regard, I concur with the view that its establishment is long, long overdue. To me, it is a most welcome development for I sincerely believe that it will go a long way to assuage public grievances against the bureaucracy which today they perceive has become too powerful. We have reached a stage in our nation's development whereby the man-in-the-street deserves to be accorded his due respect as fellow citizens when they come face-to-face with the large government machinery.

Therefore, I back the suggestion for the setting up of a supervisory panel comprising MPs and perhaps private sector representatives as this would be a step in the right direction to achieve the desired objective of monitoring and improving upon the standard of public service. It would not be an exaggeration to say that a good number of middle-management and senior civil servants are detached from real life situations confronting the layman. The time has come for the bureaucrats to be good listeners (by not interpreting things in clear-cut "Yes" or "No"), to be more sensitive to people's feelings and be made more accountable to the public for their actions.

On the question of increasing individual assets, Mr Speaker, Sir, the plan to enable poor families to own their own homes must be given top marks. It is indeed heartening to note that the Government has accepted the harsh reality that there is a segment of our community, albeit small, that cannot keep pace with the rest of the population because they are handicapped by adverse family circumstances. This benign gesture on the part of the Government reflects well that we are for the ordinary man and our deeds and actions manifest so.

In this connection, like my colleague, Mr Loh Meng See, I support the proposal by the Member for Jalan Besar GRC for a "two-generation home loan scheme" which merits further study.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that in the President's Speech, no direct reference is made to the physically and mentally handicapped. Therefore, permit me to say a few words on this subject. We need to remind ourselves constantly of the need to show care and concern to this category of disadvantaged members of our society in line with our long-term goal of becoming a compassionate society. What is lacking in this area is that not many able-bodied citizens are coming forward to volunteer their services to residents who are housed in welfare institutions. A 1990 survey of volunteer manpower revealed that the participation rate of Singaporeans in welfare activities is still low when compared to other developed countries. We have only a 6% participation rate whereas in the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States of America, the rate is much higher at 12%, 25% and 39% respectively. It is obvious therefore that more attention needs to be focused in this direction, bearing in mind that the well-being of any community depends largely on the participation of people and community organisations working together with the Government.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to mention that one guiding principle stands out clearly in the process of nation building over the past 25 years. This guiding principle has been, and will continue to be, how to motivate and help Singaporeans from all walks of life, regardless of race, religion or culture to work together as a people, participating in and contributing towards our progress, and in creating a secure, prosperous and vibrant nation where each and every Singaporean can find fulfilment in life.

On this note, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Toa Payoh GRC.

Dr Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC.

In the Presidential Address, it is stated that our people are our best resource. So we must give full play to every potential of every Singaporean. It is also stated that through providing our people with better education, we will achieve these objectives. Unlike other countries which are fortunate to have rich natural resources, Singapore has only human resources. In order to remain an important communication, transport and financial centre in this highly competitive world, we must continuously enhance the quality of our people. It is only thus will we be able to stay ahead of other countries.

As a result of enhancing the quality of our people, more Singaporeans will engage in more value-added and productive activities so as to raise our standard of living. The Addendum to the President's Speech has made very comprehensive proposals for the improvement of our education through the improvement to the quality of our teachers, teaching methods and better facilities, and the establishment of single-session schools. The Government's great determination to improve the quality of our education with such comprehensive proposals certainly deserves our full support.

I particularly support the concept of a full day school in primary and secondary schools. As pointed out by Dr Ong, it will be more in keeping with the needs and requirements of the working parents and give the children more time to be with their schoolmates. It will also give our schools the opportunity to maximise their potentials. The children who do well in their studies will then have a more comprehensive and enriched education. Full day schools will also provide students who have not been doing well with better facilities and more time to catch up in their studies, thus, directly improving the effect of school education. I feel that the implementation of full day schools will be very meaningful to those slower learners. It is also stated in the Addendum that about half of the schools will eventually be converted into full day schools by 1995. In the debate yesterday, the Ministry of Education also announced that by next year, 10 primary schools will be converted into full day, single- sessions schools.

The Ministry of Education has in the past been selecting the better schools for their new projects. I feel that, since the full day schools will be particulary effective in helping students who are not doing so well, the Ministry of Education should also select some schools whose results are not so good to take part in the pilot project of conversion into full day schools. In this way, we will be able to make sure that students who are not doing so well will be able to benefit under the new scheme earlier.

The preparatory course was originated from the former pre-primary course. It is gradually becoming part and parcel of our primary school education. The free education measure has also benefited the students in the preparatory class. But it is pointed out in the Addendum that the preparatory class is not part and parcel of the formal education system. Not long ago, the Ministry of Education indicated that about $20-odd nominal fees will be charged for pupils of the preparatory class. This may be a small amount, but it may not be affordable to every family. On the principle that if everyone, rich or poor, shall be entitled to at least primary school education, I hope that the Ministry of Education will continue to provide free education in the preparatory classes.

The Government wants to give more opportunities to enable students to go into polytechnics from the VITB. It will also set aside more places in the University for graduates of polytechnics. This is a very praiseworthy measure. This system, which deviates from the past practice, is in keeping with our philosophy of giving full play to the potential of every Singapore citizen. It merits our support. Presently, in the university, only engineering courses are taking in a good number of polytechnic students. I hope that other disciplines, such as computer courses, science and business administration will also follow the footstep of the Engineering Department to open their doors to absorb more polytechnic graduates.

The announcement of running part-time undergraduate courses and the introduction of mature student scheme give those people who had missed their university education an opportunity to obtain tertiary education. Presently, there are many people in Singapore who are studying, on a part-time basis, for external degrees from overseas universities. They are doing quite a wide range of courses, such as engineering, law, accountancy, business administration and so on. As these degrees are conferred by overseas university, apart from the difficulties in getting instructions for their studies, the cost is also exorbitant. Once the part-time courses in our universities are started, we should allow the present part-time students to be admitted into our university courses in accordance with their current level. It would be a great benefit to them.

The proposed Edusave scheme will give some subsidy to every student between the age of 6 and 16. A few hundred dollars per year will be granted as part of each child's educational cost. To the lower income group, a few hundred dollars is quite a handsome sum of money. So I feel that this Edusave scheme is of particular significance to the lower income group. It will not only cut down the cost of educating their children, it will also give children from the poorer families the opportunity to improve on their academic results and take up some courses which they hitherto could not afford. In order that the scheme may be successful, we should encourage and advise the lower income group to make use of the Edusave scheme. I hope that the authorities concerned will avoid imposing unnecessary conditions and cumbersome procedures for the use of the Edusave scheme because if this is so, then those parents who are less educated will not come forward to make use of the Edusave scheme and it will defeat our objectives. Maybe we should, as far as possible, simplify the procedures for the application of the Edusave fund. We may even think of adopting some procedure which is as simple and convenient as the use of credit card. Then, I am sure both the parents and teachers will give full support to the scheme. At the moment, the Ministry of Education is studying the concept of the preparatory course for primary education. If the result of the study is that the preparatory course is to be considered an important part and a necessary link in our primary education, then the Edusave scheme should be extended to include pupils of the preparatory course so that they can also benefit from this scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion.

The strong message of the President's Address and the Addenda is that the next lap is for everyone - including the ordinary man-in-the-street, and especially the ordinary man-in-the-street. Who is this ordinary man-in-the-street? Typically, he is the Singapore worker.

Our workers are highly rated. BERI has consistently rated the Singapore workforce as the best workforce in the world for the past decade. So if there is economic growth, a fair share must go to our workers. That is what the next lap must hold for the ordinary man-in-the-street. But progress cannot be taken for granted. We can set targets. We can set goals. But unless certain fundamentals exist, unless the climate is right, we will not make progress. These fundamentals include political stability, an honest Government, communal harmony, religious tolerance, healthy industrial relations, good relations with our neighbours and a credible defence force. We accept these fundamentals as necessary conditions for growth. There is a danger that we take these now as a matter of course. We must be mindful to tend these fundamentals. They require constant nurturing.

Yesterday, Dr Lau Teik Soon spoke of the importance of maintaining racial and religious harmony. And he would like Singaporeans to pursue the same path of development. Today, Mr Shanmugam has also stressed the importance of racial and religious harmony.

I wish to speak on the maintenance of industrial peace. We have enjoyed healthy industrial relations for many years. This is the result of years of nurturing. Good industrial relations are the result of good leadership in our unions, and a fair distribution of wealth to our workers. But years of industrial peace has led many to forget its importance or to take it for granted. Today, there are still people who ask: "Would we have done better without unions?" This is despite the fact that we have a very responsible and cooperative trade union movement. When such questions are asked, and when some employers take tactical measures to prevent the formation of unions, I think we have good reason to feel that industrial peace is taken for granted.

Today, a more basic question is: "Are unions relevant? Would unions be an asset? Do we want unions as partners in progress in the next lap?" Recently, I posed this set of questions to leaders of employer groups. They agreed that our unions are relevant, and they expected unions to continue to play the positive role that they have played in the past. If our unions are to continue to play a positive role and, at the same time, to carry the ground, then our unions must have capable leaders. Today, with good education, more and more of each cohort of students make it to post-secondary and tertiary education. They move straight into executive and managerial positions.

Take, for example, in 1970, professional, managerial and executive workers made up 11% of our workforce. In 1989, they made up almost 20% - or nearly double the proportion. This means that in 1970, a higher proportion of workers were eligible to join unions than in 1989. Now project into the future. Our goal is that 40% of each cohort of students will make it to the polytechnics or to the universities. Where is this taking us? The proportion of workers traditionally classified as "bargainable employees" eligible to join unions will shrink further. Younger workers are better educated. But the spread of talent of each generation should be more or less the same. I have no reason to think that the older generations of workers have less brain power than the new generation. If we accept this to be true, then our unions had access to a wider spread of talent in the past than today. Because there were fewer managerial and executive positions, there were more people who fell into the "bargainable" category. Therefore, older generations of union members threw up better and more talent for leadership positions. We have to be concerned for the future.

Unless something is done, leadership talent from the rank and file of the unions will be scarcer. If we continue with our traditional classification of "bargainable" employees, it will mean that the balance of brain power will be too much tilted in favour of the management, to the disadvantage of our workers. Yet, in the next lap, we will require union leaders capable of taking a wider view of issues, able to deal with more complex problems, to seek the correct courses of action. We need leaders who can negotiate effectively with management. If the unions are starved of leadership talent, it is probable that narrower vision will lead to a return to conventional methods of collective bargaining, that of collective strength and industrial action. Industrial relations, as we have come to expect, will not be the same. If we do not want our unions to regress, then we must ensure that our unions have a fair share of talent.

Talent is required at all levels. At the national level, talent can be recruited from among professionals, including people of ability and integrity such as Members of Parliament. In the earlier days, the political and trade union leadership came from the same core group of people who shared the same vision for Singapore. In more recent years, the PAP asked some of its leaders to offer their services to the unions. This relationship has allowed Government and unions to progress along the same path together.

If we want to run the next lap together, then we must see to it that there will be PAP MPs willing to serve in our unions. And likewise, grassroots union leaders who are capable should be encouraged to enter the political fray so as to voice workers' views in Parliament. In previous Parliaments, we have had people like Mr Seah Mui Kok, Mr Ho See Beng, Mr Eric Cheong and the late Govindasamy. Today, we have Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon and Mr Charles Chong. So we hope that more of our rank and file will rise to these high positions.

The labour movement will also require high calibre personnel in staff positions and they will have to come from two sources: administrative officers on secondment, and from direct recruitment. Administrative officers on secondment must regard their period of secondment as a positive chapter in their career development. Their contributions to maintaining industrial peace and harmony and obtaining fair deals for workers should be highly regarded. Direct recruitment by the unions has been done, and must continue. In a tight labour market, and with rising expectations, the unions must be able to match the wages and benefits offered by the private sector. Recently, the NTUC has revised its wages and terms of employment, to match those in the private sector. Whether they are seconded officers or direct recruits, these officers must possess one quality - an ability to mix well with the rank and file and to earn their respect and support.

As I said, leaders must also come from the ground, from among the rank and file. We want to see as many as possible rising from the ranks, and they will be trained. But as I have pointed out earlier, the spread of talent available to unions is shrinking because of changes in education, and the greater opportunities now available at the managerial and executive level. Good leaders are needed not only at the national level, but also at the branch level. The lack of good leaders will not be in the interests of the unions, nor the employers of Singapore. Therefore, it is unwise of employers to give nice sounding titles to employees in order to prevent them from joining unions. The number of such cases may be few. But it indicates the reluctance of employers to have good, strong unions. Their attitudes are, unfortunately, based on their experiences with unions elsewhere. We need to change the attitude of employers. They must understand that the scope of union membership should be widened.

At present, the law does not allow executives to join the same union as non-executives. The law, however, allows executives to form their own unions. Six executive unions exist. Supervisors and executives want to join unions as they feel they need an organisation to represent their interests. This is not unexpected. With better education, there is a desire for greater participation. The desire for participation in the political process has its counterpart at the workplace. Many supervisors and junior executives therefore want to join unions. But it is far better for supervisors and junior executives to join the same union, in order to forge better teamwork.

Talks have taken place between employer's representatives and union leaders. The dialogue will continue. Hopefully, some agreement will be reached soon. Otherwise, unions will be left with no choice, but to form unions for executives as allowed by the law.

But it is better that employers recognise the need to redefine "bargainable" employees, to widen the scope of union representation. It is important also that employers recognise the work done by union leaders. It is a wise employer who allows employees with potential to join unions, take up leadership positions, and in due course continue their career development in senior managerial positions.

I said earlier that industrial peace also depends on a fair share of the rewards of progress being given to our workers. We learnt from the last recession to provide a linkage between rewards and performance. Most companies now have flexible wage systems that pay more in good times, and less in bad times. In any review of such formula, there must be fair play.

We have also reduced wage costs through reducing the employer's CPF contribution from 25% to 10%. It has been agreed that this will be gradually restored to 20%. At present, the employer's contribution to CPF is 16.5%. There is still 3.5% more to go. The rate of restoration of the employer's contribution to CPF has been, with the benefit of hindsight, slower than the economy could afford.

We should now complete the process as soon as possible. I know some employers will be hoping that their contribution will stay at 16.5% for the coming year. They are known to have lobbied for this. They argue that costs have been rising, and the economy is projected to grow by only 3-6%. Mr Mah Bow Tan is reported in this morning's papers to predict that it would be closer to 6%.

The Government's forecasts were rather cautious because of the uncertainties caused by the Gulf War. And Mr Mah was quoted as saying that the Government expects to revise the forecast at the end of the Gulf War. Today, with an early conclusion to the conflict in sight, I believe the economy will grow by more than 6%. So such growth is hardly a recession scenario.

Today, some sectors are doing very well. The oil industry is reaping windfall gains. The shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry, the construction industry, and the manufacturing sector in general, are all doing well. Of course, with lower tourist arrivals, hotels, restaurants and retailers are not doing so well. But the uneven performance should not be reason to hold back the restoration of employer's contribution to CPF. I think a 1% restoration should be the minimum. In my opinion, a 1.5% restoration would be more appropriate. And for sectors that may be doing poorly, other means of helping them should be sought, eg, the trimming of other statutory charges. At the same time, let us not forget that tourism will get underway again once the Gulf War is ended.

So apart from what we have already built into the flexible wage system, we should not attack wages whenever there is poorer economic performance. It is incumbent on management to come out with other ways of remaining competitive.

Mr Charles Chong (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this motion.

Sir, I would like to comment on several issues in the President's Address relating to defence and foreign affairs. Over the last few months, many speeches have been made about the Gulf conflict and the lessons that can be learnt from it. The most obvious lessons for us are the need to ensure that we have a credible defence force, the need to take national service and reservist training seriously and the need to be prepared to face any eventuality through a policy of total defence.

Singapore is indeed very fortunate to be surrounded by friendly neighbours whose leaders share the vision of cooperation for mutual benefit, so that our people can continue to live in peace and strive for prosperity. However, the lessons of Kuwait also show that good relations cannot always be taken for granted. During the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait spent billions of dollars financing Saddam Hussein's war machine against Iran. Kuwait's support for Iraq was so strong and so open that Kuwaiti shipping in the Gulf came under Iranian missile attacks and had to seek protection under the US flag.

Not very long after hostilities between Iran and Iraq ceased, Iraq invaded Kuwait and annexed its former ally and moved troops up to the border of Saudi Arabia, a country which also heavily supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. It must have been tragically ironic for the Kuwaitis on 2nd August last year to see Iraqi tanks and armour, many of which had been paid for by the Kuwaitis, roll across the border and occupy their country.

The lesson that should be learnt from this is that despite treaties, declarations and non-aggressive pacts, in reality, circumstances can change dramatically and today's allies may emerge as tomorrow's adversaries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps President Saddam Hussein may not be the ideal example of a rational leader, because rational leaders are not expected to invade and occupy countries that supported them in their hour of need. Let me stress again that we in Singapore should count our blessings at being surrounded by friendly countries with rational leaders. Comforting as this situation may be, Singaporeans cannot afford to be complacent about defence and must still be prepared to face any eventuality, because recent events in neighbouring countries have clearly brought home the fact that leadership changes in this region can still occur suddenly and unexpectedly.

In developing total defence and keeping our defence forces in a state of preparedness, we should of course be sensitive to the apprehensions of our neighbours, as much as we expect them to be sensitive to our fears as a small nation in the midst of much bigger countries. Whilst we perceive ourselves as a tiny and inherently vulnerable country that has to constantly take measures to ensure its survival, other countries in this region may not necessarily perceive us the way we perceive ourselves.

During discussions with other Parliamentarians at an ASEAN meeting, I was rather surprised to hear them refer to Singapore as a strong economic and military regional power. Therefore, in our dealings with our neighbours, we should always make a conscious effort to project our non-aggressive intentions despite our military preparedness. Hopefully, our neighbours too will come to realise that making unhelpful statements on issues relating to our security would only heighten our apprehensions and cause us to take even greater preparations to meet any eventuality, whether real or imaginary. The more secure Singaporeans feel, the more likely it will be for us to divert resources away from defence expenditure and towards economic development such as investment in the growth triangle.

I therefore support the call in the President's Address to continue military cooperation with friendly neighbouring countries, both bilaterally and through the Five-Power Defence Pact. I also support the proposal made some time ago to allow open inspections for each other's military facilities in order to reduce the possibility of misunderstandings. Hopefully, such military cooperation would also convince all parties concerned that an armed conflict would just not be a viable proposition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your kind permission, I would also like to comment briefly on the subject of multi-racialism and ethnic identity, a topic which a number of speakers before me had already spoken about passionately. I support the call in the Addendum to the President's Address for us to strengthen our national identity and national consciousness. Whether we continue to survive and progress in this uncertain world during the next lap and beyond depends very much on whether we will be able to stand united as one people and one nation. It appears that we have chosen to strengthen national identity as well as ethnic identity through a concept of one people, many races. This concept, it is hoped, will enable multi-racial Singaporeans to develop their individual ethnic identity whilst strengthening national identity through shared values.

Sir, this concept will succeed only if the various ethnic groups in Singapore are more or less agreed on the fundamental principles such as what is right and what is wrong. On the non-fundamental issues, there can of course be disagreement and wide diversity of views. And I agree with what was said yesterday by Mr Nasser Kamaruddin, Member for Hong Kah GRC, on the issue of unity in diversity. However, there can be little diversity on the basic principles. If Singaporeans do not have consensus on the fundamental issues, this is reason for concern. And if these differences are manifested along ethnic and religious lines, then there is cause for even greater concern. I would therefore like to see the Government actively promote and continue to expand the number of shared values for all Singaporeans. The alternative to this is of course the promotion of a national identity with less emphasis on individual ethnic identity, as was suggested by the Member for Serangoon Gardens yesterday.

Some of us obviously believe that this alternative may be too difficult or too painful to contemplate at this stage of our development. Whatever the case and despite our diversity of views, we will have to resolve this issue during the next lap if we are to enhance our chances of survival as a nation.

I would like to believe that the first generation leadership got us through the first lap by never being faint-hearted when it came to making difficult and painful decisions if these were absolutely necessary. And I do not advocate that we change this basic attitude during the next lap.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Ho Kah Leong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh, thanking the President for his Speech in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's speech, the Addendum and "The Next Lap" clearly spell out the Government's agenda for the next few years. It has painted a rosy picture, one which every Singaporean would look forward to. It certainly motivates everyone of us to work hard, to mobilise all available resources and strength to build Singapore into a country of distinction and a city of excellence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Gulf War is approaching its end, it is nevertheless a disaster to mankind. Apart from the many deaths and casualties, it has a far-reaching effect on the world economy and the ecological environment. Although Singapore is far away from the Persian Gulf, it cannot avoid the effect of the war. The originally flourishing tourist industry is the first to suffer its effect. There is a drastic reduction in tourist arrivals, hotel occupancy rate has gone down rapidly, and restaurants and tourist shops saw great decrease in the volume of their business. Fortunately, our economy is diversified and it is at the same time very resilient. We have managed to avoid going into recession.

In this matter, the resolute stand adopted by Singapore is very appropriate. Our people can learn a very precious lesson from this Gulf War. We have learnt not only to treat our national defence and civil defence matters seriously, but also to understand as to why our Ministry of Defence has to spend great sums of money in purchasing the most advanced and most sophisticated weapons to enhance our defence capability. We also see that the invaders would certainly come to no good end.

Sir, it is only with strong defence and stable society that we can talk about construction in our nation building, be it tangible or intangible.

With regard to tangible construction, we saw great achievements over the past 10 years. Many skyscrapers have sprung up like mushrooms. Our water front has changed substantially but with it come a lot of concrete jungles. In order to dilute this image of concrete jungles, apart from setting aside some green belts in our city area, we should add in more outdoor art works such as murals and sculptures. In fact, in this aspect, we have done very little. In our busy city, there is hardly any mural that is representative. As for sculptures, there are far too little. We can hardly see any in our city area. I hope the Government and the private sector, particularly the big corporations, would set aside more money to instal some sculptures so that we could create more artistic atmosphere in our city.

I heard that in some countries in Europe, there are legislations providing for a certain percentage of the total building cost, say, 1% or 2% to be set aside for the purchase of arts works when buildings are to be erected. I feel this is something we can consider in order to make our city more artistic.

With regard to intangible construction, of course, the most important thing is culture. Our Government has appreciated this point and it has set up the Ministry of Information and the Arts to actively promote culture and arts. Of course, culture and arts is a form of investment. It is also a form of consumption. I hope that the Government will allocate more funds to improve and enhance the infrastructure for artistic and cultural activities. Because it is only with appropriate and adequate infrastructure that we are able to effectively mobilize our people to participate in cultural development. It is also with basic financial aid and basic facilities provided by the Government that we can undertake various artistic activities.

Yesterday, the Member for Serangoon Gardens presented his views on cultural development. Like the Member for Braddell Heights, I do not agree with him. Because his "melting pot" type of culture will not necessarily bring about a culture which is peculiar or unique to Singapore. We are a multi-racial country and we cannot deny the fact that each race has its own cultural characteristics. We want our people to appreciate and to be proud of their own traditions. At the same time, we want to enhance the recognition in our oriental values so that we could resist the influence of the decadent western cultures. We want our people to be united and we want our Singaporeans to be proud of the fact that they are Singaporeans.

As to Dr Lau Teik Soon's question on why SBC Channel 8 has become a Mandarin Channel, I hope he understands that SBC has the duty to provide educational, recreational and information programmes for people of various races in Singapore. At the same time, it has to face external competition and also to meet the increasingly higher demands of its viewers. It has to produce better programmes to attract more viewers. Of course, to produce better programmes, it means higher cost of production. SBC has, to a great extent, depended on revenue from advertisements to pay for its expenses. Of course, advertisers would only advertise in programmes which command good viewership. Furthermore, I think it is not a fair comment to say that SBC is money-minded. Its Channel 12 has been telecasting cultural programmes and programmes for the minority groups on other channels. Of course, the advertisement revenue derived from these programmes is very limited. Yet, SBC has not shirked its duty in telecasting such programmes.

Yesterday, Mr Goh Choon Kang said that the success of the Speak Mandarin Campaign has cut off our dialect group. I think he has exaggerated the point. Allow me to clarify. The objective of the Speak Mandarin Campaign is to encourage the use of Mandarin instead of dialects. We have not, and it is impossible to ban the use of dialects. In fact, we have also promoted, as a form of art, some provincial operas where dialects are used. It is not true that there is a big communication gap between grandchildren and grandparents in the family. In the past, we often pictured grandfathers as people in their 70s. In fact, nowadays we have many grandfathers who are in their 50s and 60s. They were educated in the Chinese school in their younger days, and they speak Mandarin. Even some grandfathers who could not speak Mandarin are willing to learn Mandarin in order to communicate with their grandchildren. I give them my respect for that.

Sir, for a city to become a city of excellence, it must be complete in both tangible and intangible construction. In this society, everyone is willing to contribute his or her share. Everyone should be proud to be part of this city. So we should rally behind the Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and put in a concerted effort to build an ideal society.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, a few words about the war in the Gulf. It does sound odd and incongruous that we should be discussing comparatively parochial issues today when world attention is focused on the war in the Gulf. It is disconcerting indeed that our Government Ministers should make strong partisan statements, as if Singapore was an active participant in the war itself. These statements are especially upsetting, as they are completely inconsonant with sentiments expressed by a good section of our people as well as sentiments expressed by our neighbours.

Though we are far removed from the fighting in the Gulf, I strongly believe that in the interest of peace and tranquillity in Singapore and Southeast Asia, our Ministers should be more circumspect in what they say on issues that may tend to divide our people.

Let me now deal with the President's Address. The Government has outlined a programme in the Next Lap in preparation for the next election. It has painted a rosy picture for the future, like the PAP Vision of 1999. But promises have often been made by the PAP which are never carried out. For example, the early promise of a more equal and just society has long been forgotten. In 1988, the PAP promised Singaporeans "more good years". But more and more people today have found the years more and more difficult.

Today, the PAP wants to take us on the Next Lap. Many people have said that it wants to make the people run around in circles. That is what a lap is, a mere circle. However the PAP at times is also self-contradictory. For example, it says, and I quote: It wants to "strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans." But at the same time, it also wants to sell off our common property with privatisation of Telecom. Government wants, and I quote, "to increase the public and private assets of Singaporeans." Privatisation, Sir, would certainly increase the assets of those who have enough money to buy the shares. These shares, as we know, will ultimately fall into the hands of the rich and the very rich. If Government wishes to increase the public assets of Singaporeans, then it should not privatise our publicly-owned statutory boards which are well run, and continue to turn in good surpluses year after year. But if these assets should be privatised, then they become private property, and all benefits will accrue, not to the public, but to those lucky enough to own shares and especially the rich. Therefore, if we wish to, and I quote, "strengthen our sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans", then obviously Telecom must not be privatised. It should instead remain under total Government control. Government should not contradict itself in its proposals.

The Government also says, "Singapore is our home. It belongs to us, to all of us." And the Straits Times gives big headlines to this. Many will ask: Under PAP rule, does Singapore really belong to us, to all of us? It would appear, Sir, from what the PAP Government has done, that Singapore belongs not to the people, not to all of us, but to only a small select group of people, to only a small select group of PAP Ministers, in fact. [Laughter]. They laugh. I will give you an example. Under the amended Constitution, only a small select group of former PAP Ministers and PAP supporters will be eligible to stand as candidates for the high office of the Elected President. The rest of the people are not eligible. Even if they may qualify to be elected as MPs, they still may not qualify as candidates to be the Elected President. They may only vote, nothing more. Does this not show that Singapore does not belong to all of us, but only to a few PAP Ministers? Need I quote more examples?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: But there is not enough time for that, I am afraid. I do not mind, if you give me more time, Sir. Would you?

Mr Speaker: You have 30 minutes.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Let me now touch on education. I am very glad that the Government will now devote more funds to education and soon institute changes to improve primary and secondary education. I congratulate the Minister. Government has at last, unfortunately for the PAP, indirectly admitted its past errors in the policy of streaming at Primary 3, (it never admits mistakes directly) a system which has caused such great frustration and unhappiness among our people. But as explained by Dr Lau Wai Har in an article in Lianhe Zaobao in December 1990, (whose many suggestions the Government has adopted, I am sure) Government's proposed streaming in Primary 4, though an improvement on streaming in Primary 3, is still not good enough. Much better would be to start streaming only at the secondary level.

Based on her long-time educationist experience, Dr Lau has analyzed the issue of streaming clearly and scientifically, emphasizing that, in addition to all the other ills enumerated in the article, early streaming denies many of our youths even an opportunity to secondary and higher education, which incidentally completely exposes the hollowness of the PAP slogan of so-called equal opportunities for our people. And I am glad, Sir, that Government has accepted many of the recommendations of Dr Lau in the proposed new changes. All students will in future be given at least 10 years of general education. But I must ask: Why the delay in implementingall the proposed changes? Why not institute the proposed changes as soon as possible, or even straightaway? There is nothing to stop the Government going ahead with the new system.

I also ask: Since more and more of our young men and women are going overseas for higher education, why does Government still delay in making immediate preparations for a third university in Singapore? A third university, Sir, in Singapore would certainly help to cut down emigration with consequent loss of talents from Singapore in the years to come.

Government has touted Edusave as an instance of PAP magnanimity. It is even supposed to help "equalise opportunities for every generation". I agree that the extra $500 every year will certainly help a student over the years. But careful reading tells us that the scheme is more PAP propaganda intended to buy votes than a real help to those who are most in need of Government assistance. At the end of 10 years, each student only gets $5,000. How is that going to help him in paying for education at tertiary level when university fees keep mounting every few years?

If the intention is indeed to help students, would not the funds be better channelled to improve education in general and to better equip and update all schools, so that every student will be better served with a more rounded education?

The Government has said something about helping the poor to own their own homes. With all the wealth and riches in the country, it is difficult to know whether to cry or to laugh - the Chinese phrase is ( ) Ti xiao jie fei - when Government admits that there are still "poorer families living in rental flats (who) still cannot afford to own their own homes, sometimes after working and saving for many years".

How come such a state of affairs, since we are supposed to be so affluent? They cannot answer it. And has not Government repeatedly said that its priority, Sir, is to help those poorer families? Obviously nothing much has been done in the matter. New schemes are now supposed to be introduced "to enable as many of them as possible to own their homes before they are 45 years old". What schemes are not revealed. But whatever schemes Government may propose, it has to be remembered that these poor families are those who have helped to build Singapore into what it is today. They are poor because of their poor education and lack of skills and have thus not been able to earn enough. Although Government says that its "philosophy is to provide many helping hands to those in need", nevertheless it is obvious that all these years no real helping hand has been extended to these poor families.

If it is intended to try to "give every citizen a more direct sense of ownership, so that he will feel that he in fact owns a part of Singapore", then I suggest that one way to help achieve this is to allow their monthly rentals, and I hope the Minister will listen carefully, paid to the HDB to be deemed as instalment payments for the flats in which they are presently staying. This appears generous. But Government does not lose anything in such a scheme. Those who have paid rentals for 15 to 20 years have in fact already paid, with their monthly rentals, sums large enough to cover the actual original (I emphasise the word "original") price of the flats. Would Government consider this simple plan to help the poorer families own their own homes?

Now, I come to a most important subject, Sir. It is about the widening of participation in policy-making. Government says that "it will widen participation in policy-making". And I say this is most praiseworthy. This is supposed to represent the new style of Government of participatory democracy. The question is: How does Government "widen participation in policy-making"?

True, there have been ministerial walkabouts, feedback forums, and Select Committee hearings, and now GPCs. But these are more propaganda exercises than real attempts to truly seek the views of the people as to whether or not to carry out certain policy proposals. Although Government has sometimes accepted suggestions made by those who attended such discussions, in no instances, Sir, (for example, on the issues of the GRCs and the Elected President) has Government allowed the main principle behind the issue to be challenged.

One would have thought that controversial matters of national importance, especially of drastic proposed changes to the Constitution, the people would have been given an opportunity to really participate in policy-making by being given a chance to vote in a referendum. But no. All sorts of excuses have been given to explain why referendums cannot be held. But all this cannot cover up the fact that decisions have already been made by the PAP leadership, and that the PAP simply fears that it might not succeed in getting the people's support in a fair and democratic referendum. And that is why the people have not been allowed to participate in a referendum to give expression to their viewpoints in a vote of "Yes" or "No". The decision is made only by the PAP itself.

How then does the PAP "widen participation in policy-making" when it simply is not willing to accept viewpoints, however reasonable, logical and popular from the public, if such viewpoints should challenge a decision the PAP leadership has already made in the matter?

Participation, Sir, in policy-making must mean more than mere opportunities to express views. This has been touched on by a few speakers. It must mean that all the people, each and everyone, must actually be given the opportunity to take part in decision-making itself on all important national issues. And the way in which the people may do that is to be allowed to vote in a referendum.

I would suggest, Sir, as Mr Davinder Singh has done, that even in non-national issues, the people who are interested should be encouraged to express their concerns and be given the opportunity to air their views publicly. There is already too much of behind-the-scene hush-hush debate on issues that concern the people. Even university dons dare not speak their minds openly. Therefore, many things will have to be done concerning widening of policy making.

To widen the participation in policy-making, Sir, of course means also that the people must be better informed with facts provided by Government. It means also that the tight control of radio and TV by Government must be relaxed. Radio and TV should not be spouting PAP propaganda all the time. Opportunities must be given to the people and the Opposition to ventilate their views. Similarly, the local press should be encouraged to publish more non-Government viewpoints. Many people have called the local newspapers "PAP newspapers". That is not good for Singapore. And even the foreign press should be given, I think, some freedom to comment on local events. Mr Shanmugam has touched on that. The people need variety. They want to read what other people think of us and of what the Government policies are like.

Most important of all, Sir, Government should revoke the ISA, if not in toto, then at least all the provisions which give Government the powers of arbitrary arrest of political opponents. That would certainly encourage more and more people to participate freely and without fear (that is the main thing - without fear; quite a number of speakers today and yesterday have touched on the "fear" that the people have, and even the Prime Minister himself has admitted that) in the political affairs of the country.

Political detainee, Chia Thye Poh, arbitrarily detained without charge or trial for 26 1/2 years, should also be immediately and unconditionally released, and not be further confined to Sentosa island. I wonder how our Ministers will feel if they should only be confined for 26 weeks, not to say 26 1/2 years. Let them have a taste of what it means to be incarcerated. They do not know what it means. I have, and I know.

Since Government has spoken of a new beginning, it is only appropriate, Sir, that the Goh Chok Tong administration start with a completely new slate with all political detainees released. That is the way ahead with "change and continuity". Already all the restrictions on well-known and prominent Communists have been lifted. Many political opponents have been allowed to return and live in Singapore. It is therefore time that all political detainees be given their freedom.

Revocation of the ISA would certainly be the most important step towards creating a favourable and genial political climate for wider participation in the political affairs in Singapore. It would also help remove some of the fears that have caused the skilled and professional Singaporeans to emigrate to other countries.

Finally, Sir, in connection with wider participation in policy-making, there is yet another very important issue that has been neglected and not been touched upon by Government. I refer to the issue of unequal representation in Parliament. In the 1988 elections, the Opposition parties together won nearly 40% of total popular votes. Yet only one Opposition MP was elected in the first past-the-post electoral system. The Government with only 61% of the votes won 80 out of 81 seats. This blatantly unfair, unequal representation explains why so many people who voted for the Opposition became so frustrated.

The Government has instituted the system of NCMPs, and more recently of NMPs, in an attempt to meet the demands of the people for more Opposition Members, and to show that the PAP is so-called democratic and would wish to have more Opposition Members in Parliament. But that is no solution to the problem of unequal representation. It is time, therefore, that Government seriously considered instituting changes to the present electoral system. Another opportunity for the Prime Minister, if he should be here, to institute "change and continuity."

I suggest that the Government seriously consider instituting a system of Proportional Representation (PR) in Singapore. As a start, we could have combinations of first-past-the-post plus PR. That is the only way to put right the unequal representation in Parliament. Today, almost all European countries have some form of PR. Japan is seriously considering instituting PR. Even in UK, there is a growing agitation for incorporating PR in the electoral system, all in order to better represent the will of the voters in Parliament. The first-past-the-post electoral system has too many flaws and inequalities which should be put right. PR should be incorporated in the Next Lap. Unfortunately, although the Government speaks of a new style of open, consultative and participatory Government, it has neglected this important aspect of wider participation in policy-making.

I, therefore, make an amendment to the Motion before the House as follows:

"That, at the end, to add:

but regret that several important aspects of wider participation in policy-making, including the institution of holding referendums on issues of national importance, and consideration of Proportional Representation to rectify Singapore's presently unequal and unfair electoral system, have not been incorporated and seriously considered".

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed, as an amendment, at the end, to add:

'but regret that several important aspects of wider participation in policy-making, including the institution of holding referendums on issues of national importance, and consideration of Proportional Representation to rectify Singapore's presently unequal and unfair electoral system, have not been incorporated and seriously considered'.

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

Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.03 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment.

First, let me comment on Dr Lee Siew-Choh's statement about the Gulf War. He questions why Singapore, a small nation, should make such strong statements and take a position on the Gulf War. To me, as a citizen of this world, we have to state what is right and what is wrong. We are a member of the United Nations. When one country does wrong to another country, we in the fraternity of nations must raise our voice to object to such wrong act. So it is only right and proper in the case of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for Singapore to make known its views and to condemn the attempted annexation of one country by another. If we keep quiet, then do we condone every time one big country tries to annex another country?

Turning to his other points, it seems to me that every time the PAP does something right, according to Dr Lee Siew-Choh, the PAP is buying votes. And everything he does not like, there is some sinister connotation of whatever kind. The Non-Constituency Member should learn from the Opposition MP, the Member for Potong Pasir, give credit where credit is due, if he wants us to listen to him and take him seriously.

Turning to his amendment, first, he says that we are not taking into account the possibility of holding a referendum. This is not a new point that he has raised. It has been raised in previous sessions of Parliament and it has been explained. Holding a referendum is an expensive exercise. So the question is: when does a country hold a referendum on important national issues? How does one define "important national issues"?

We held a referendum on the question of merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. On such fundamental matters, it is only right and proper that the people decide whether they want to change their political identity and therefore participate in a referendum. But for other matters of State, we have to be very clear that we have a representative system of government. At every general election, we elect a government and we give the mandate to the government to govern Singapore. So we should not be governing by straw polls every time an issue comes up before the people.

There are dangers in holding referendums on every issue, because on matters of State it is very important that we have the opportunity to discuss the subject in depth. To me, the proper way of dealing with such issues is to debate them through the processes which we have adopted, the Select Committee hearings, and now perhaps we can open it up for GPC hearings as well. This is the correct way to deal with serious issues of State and not to decide things on the basis of a poll of the people.

On his suggestion of proportional representation, again this is a subject which has been discussed before. In the current context of Singapore, would proportional representation be the right thing to do? We have a multi-racial, multi-religious society. So whoever wants to gain political power would find it very expedient to form a party that would cater to the majority interest. In our context, anyone who wants to win in a general election would form a Chinese party, and stress Chinese culture, Chinese values and do all things possible to favour the Chinese in Singapore. Is this what we want? We must also take care of the minorities, the Malays, Indians, Eurasians and others. Let us not open up the Pandora's box and fuel the fires of ethnic tension.

Proportional representation is today existing in many countries, in Europe with a homogeneous population, but still with a lot of problems. Because of sectional interests, the different parties cater to different sectoral needs in order to win seats in Parliament. The result is that coalition governments fall every time there is a conflict among the parties in the coalition. Italy, for example, changes government like fashion. They have so many governments ever since the 2nd World War. Do we think that a small country like Singapore can afford to have that kind of change of government, even if we assume that the ethnic issue would not come up?

Let me conclude by saying that I have read about proportional representation and the debate about whether the first-past-the-post system, which we have adopted from the British, and which has been adopted by many Commonwealth countries, is an unfair system. Even in the United Kingdom, who are the people who ask for proportional representation? It is always the people in the Opposition who have got less seats because of the first-past-the-post system. They say that the system is unfair and therefore proportional representation would be a fairer system for the people. And yet when the same Opposition party wins a general election and comes into power, all this talk about proportional representation is forgotten. I am not sure about what Dr Lee Siew-Choh's motives are. But assuming that his party wins a general election - I do not believe this will happen - I doubt that he would be talking about proportional representation then.

Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC): Sir, I likewise oppose the amendment.

Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh started off by giving us his views on the Gulf War and Singapore's position on the Gulf War. To me, it is a very simple issue. You either take a stand or you dodge the question. Singapore has always taken the stand that the rule of law must be upheld, and that is consistent with our position at the United Nations. If all countries were to remain quiet on account of perceived sensitivities, then Iraq would be sitting in Kuwait today.

As I said earlier, we have benefited from peace derived from the maintenance of the rule of law, and certainly as the beneficiary of peace, we have a corresponding and ever increasing obligation to contribute to that peace, both by statements that we make in support of the rule of law and by active contributions towards that end. And in this regard, not only has Singapore done right, in my view, in taking a stand, it has also done right by sending a medical team to the Gulf.

On the amendment, I am glad to note that Dr Lee does not take issue with the goals set out in the President's Address or in the Addendum and "The Next Lap". He appears, as I understand him, to be fully in support of them, and I think that is probably right because the goals are highly admirable and something that we should all aspire to achieve. What we are really concerned with today is the best way to reach those goals, and that is why we have all come to this House to give our suggestions, so that the Government is assisted in that exercise. But to withhold unconditional and unqualified thanks and support to the President for his Speech, I find it unable to accept or understand.

He refers, in the first instance, to the institution of holding referendums. One thing has to be made clear today. While we talk about participation and while we talk about increasing participation in Singapore, there is no running away from the fact that there is one body which makes decisions, and that is the Government. And that is the way the people voted. While everybody will continually and increasingly have a say in the way things are run, everybody must accept that at the end of the day, like it or not, there are a few people who must decide and everybody should abide by it. And that is the way the system is. Once you start talking about referendums and once you say that referendums should be held, in his words "on issues of national importance", then we run into difficulties. Because not only then are we extending the concept of referendums to areas outside the Constitution, we are also going to run into difficulties of what are issues of national importance. Are we to have referendums on what are issues of national importance before deciding on referendums on the decision of these issues?

The Government has to take a decision. In my view, holding referendums on national issues is an abdication of the Government's role in making a decision, a decision which the people have vested in the Government the power to make.

As far as consideration of proportional representation is concerned, I adopt and agree with what my colleague, Mr Lim Boon Heng, has said. It has been canvassed in great detail and I see no purpose in covering the same ground. If he continues to insist that he has valid arguments to make for proportional representation, so be it. He can make it as a suggestion. But why withhold the thanks and support for the goals that we are trying to achieve? And I ask him to consider this. He says it is presently an unequal and unfair system. It appears to me that it is only unequal and unfair to those whom the majority of Singaporeans do not want as their leaders. Does that merit change?

Sir, I oppose the amendment.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment proposed by Dr Lee, since he has given me the honourable mention in his speech.

There are two aspects of his speech which require mention. The first is that the PAP Government, he says, has gone back on its promise of an equal and just society. Sir, let us start by asking what is meant by an "equal and just society". In Dr Lee's philosophy, as expounded by the now defunct Barisan Sosialis, "equal and just society" means that everyone is rewarded equally regardless of merit and regardless of their contribution. We have seen the application of that principle in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China. The result? Former Communists who advocated that creed in Singapore and fought for that are now applying to be allowed to leave their Communist safe haven and come and live in Singapore. That is the complete answer.

The PAP's creed of an equal and just society means providing equality of opportunity, rewards based on merits and, at the same time, recognising that there will be some who cannot compete effectively, and treating them compassionately. That policy has ensured one of the most remarkable successes of the post World War era. Over 90% home ownership, one of the highest per capita incomes in Asia, one of the highest rates of savings in the world, and excellent infrastructure and facilities for the people to achieve their full potential.

I have no doubt at all that the PAP Government will be happy to compare and match its record against any country, and I repeat, any country, that Dr Lee might care to give as an example which has practised the ideology that he preaches in this House. He talks about home ownership in Singapore. Compare Singapore's home ownership rate with any self-styled socialist or communist country. It is the reality, not words, which count. Dr Lee has been on Government trips to both Russia and China. He should know.

His second point is on proportional representation. Sir, at the commencement of my speech, I commented on governments which cannot look beyond the next general elections, or even the next parliamentary sitting. Sir, proportional representation equals chaos. The purest form of proportional representation is found in Israel. Dr Lee will no doubt recall that Israel has not been able to hold a majority government since the last elections. The Labour and Likud parties had been forced to form a coalition. When that broke down, both had to engage in unseemly horse-trading with extremist minority parties. The horse-trading was so bad that in the days after the coalition fell, over a hundred thousand Israelis marched through the streets of Tel Aviv demanding a change in the system.

Sir, proportional representation leads not to democracy but to the disproportionate influence of minority parties. The will of the majority is then held to a ransom by the minority. It turns upside down the very concept of democracy. Because of the opposition of extremist groups, until now, Israel has not been able to formulate and implement a coherent policy on the West Bank. Sir, proportional representation may work, given the conditions that prevail in some West European states, Germany, the Scandinavian states, and so on. Those conditions do not prevail here. We do not have a homogeneous state. Our geo-political situation is different. We cannot afford the luxury of experimenting with this system which, even in countries where it has been implemented, does not receive unqualified support. If he wants it, the Workers Party can make it an election issue in the next general elections, and he can fight the next general elections on that basis. And if the Workers Party comes to power, they can implement the system of proportional representation. We have a system which works here. Let us not change that.

Sir, I oppose the amendment.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, I oppose the amendment put forward by Dr Lee Siew-Choh.

In his statement, he mentioned that the Government has used the ISA to detain political opponents. This is a very mischievous and wrong statement. May I ask him to cite a case where the Government has detained anyone under the ISA on the ground that he is a political opponent of the Government.

Sir, as we all know, the ISA is an essential instrument used by Government to maintain political stability, especially to detain subversives and anti-national elements, for example, those who advocate communism, those who are involved in pro-communist activities or united front activities which are regarded as subversive. Also, it has been used against language and religious extremists. I do not need to cite cases of persons who have used communism or Marxist ideology to mobilise support, either overtly or covertly. I also do not need to cite cases of those who have used language and religion to gain political support. Such actions on the part of communist, pro-communist, racial and religious extremists, undermine our national unity. The Government must always be vigilant against such advocates.

So Dr Lee should not bring forth an argument which is fallacious. After all, he is a political opponent of the Government. Has he been detained on that ground?

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

Mr Speaker: The Question now is the Motion moved by the Member for Toa Payoh GRC.