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

12.36 pm

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am greatly honoured to be given this opportunity to move the motion of thanks to the President.

Sir, I beg to move,

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

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

Singapore has made impressive socio-economic progress over the last 25 years. We have succeeded because under the PAP Government, we have got our fundamentals right. What are these fundamentals? They are meritocracy, a free-market economy, racial harmony and industrial peace, maximising our human resources and equal opportunities instead of equal rewards.

The PAP Government has also ensured that every Singaporean is guaranteed certain rights, such as subsidised education and health care. Most Singaporeans enjoy subsidised housing as well. And the Government builds public facilities and infrastructure for the common good.

Our market-oriented economic policies and the ability to attract foreign investments have created many new jobs - and better paid ones. Every Singaporean, therefore, has the opportunity to earn a decent income. A free-market economy is necessary for economic development. As we have seen from the historic events of the past few years, with the collapse of communist and even socialist governments, no nation can afford to isolate itself from market forces any longer and hope to survive, let alone prosper. It is like a marathon. The result of the communist system is a levelling down, causing people to plod along at an equal pace. The free-market system enables everyone to run as fast as they can, and reap the rewards accordingly. Obviously, when that happens, the nation's competitiveness reaches its maximum. In Hong Kong, for example, everyone knows that they have to fend for themselves. That is why Hong Kong is so competitive. Singapore has, therefore, increasingly adopted market-oriented policies. And this gradual re-direction has not been made so much out of choice, as out of necessity. The only way for a small nation like Singapore to prosper is to compete with the rest of the world to produce the goods and services that people want. That means we have to do better than them.

A friend from the shipyard industry, who just came back from Hong Kong, told me that the shipping companies there are now going to China for ship-repair. Their prices, compared to ours, are dollar for dollar. That means more than three times cheaper. And if they time the arrival of spare parts well, the repair will not take much longer than ours. So if China is catching up with us, we better run faster.

This is not to say that we are advocating an everyone-for-themselves society, like Hong Kong, and that we have abandoned the practice of providing certain social guarantees. That would bring about many social ills. Using the analogy of a marathon again, in the free-market situation, there will be those who run much faster and those who run slower and find it difficult to catch up. What we do is to help the slower runners run faster without holding back the faster runners. The result is then a levelling up. This is not easy. We certainly cannot do it by redistributing income. That will cause us to lose talented people and undermine their will to achieve.

Singapore is perhaps unique among nations in its ability to fuse market-oriented strategies with fundamental social assurances. Despite its growing market orientation, the measures to help those who are falling behind remain very much in place, if not expanded. As has been the case since independence, no Singaporean today will be deprived of the basics of life, in terms of housing, health care, education or equal employment opportunities.

But at the same time, the Singapore Government does not believe in giving handouts. If an able-bodied person chooses to remain unemployed when jobs are readily available to him, the Government will not resort to giving him welfare handouts as in other countries. This would not only demean his dignity by depriving him of the right to employ himself usefully and make a contribution to society, but, even worse, it would weaken his will to work.

The result of all these sound policies has been a rapid increase in standards of living for Singaporeans in every sphere of our lives, a visible transformation of our society. Even President Yang Shangkun of China marvelled at the quality of our HDB flats. And yet Mr Chiam claimed that the average Singaporean is not as well-off now as he was in the 70s.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the key question as we enter the Next Lap is to what extent we wish to manage the various spheres of human activity based on free-market forces and meritocracy, and to what extent we should help those falling behind to level up so that the gap between the top and bottom will not be ever increasing.

Ideally, as a society progresses, one would hope that the need for ever present safety nets will eventually disappear. Superficially, one might be naive enough to think that this need is far less in Singapore than it was, say, 20 years ago. But we do not live in an ideal world, and such an assumption is dangerous and ultimately quite incorrect. While many Singaporeans have become increasingly affluent over many years of economic prosperity, it is equally true that there is still a segment of our society that lives below a level compatible with the level of prosperity experienced by so many Singaporeans. And it is to this group of people in particular that we must cater; for if we fail to do this, the Next Lap will not be run by all. Some may just give up the ghost and become social 'dropouts'. And that can only work to Singapore's detriment in the long term.

The President's Address was thus timely and appropriate as much of it addressed the needs of the less socially mobile, of those who are increasingly concerned about the rising costs of living, and to help them level up to progress. The Edusave scheme, the new Housing and Health Care programmes are more than 'expanded safety nets'; they are investments in our people. If one examines these measures carefully, the underlying principle is always one that will generate returns rather than incur losses for the nation. That is why the Government has stated categorically that it will only subsidise investments such as education and infrastructure, but not consumption expenditure, which will not be sustainable in the long run.

Let us look at the simple example of the cost of water. We can either make people pay in full for what they use, or subsidise. But if we subsidise, the money still has to come from the people - in the form of taxes. If the consumption is the same in either circumstance, then it does not matter whether we subsidise or not. But will consumption actually be the same? I think not. It is obvious that when water is subsidised at lower rates, people tend to use more. That in turn means that more taxes would be needed because of the increase in consumption. And that means we are actually less well-off. Subsidising consumption will encourage spending and waste. It will also create demand for more. That is not good for us.

I was therefore surprised to read recently that a writer to the Forum page actually called on Singaporeans to spend, spend and spend to prime the economy. That is precisely what the Americans have been doing. Look at where they are now. Do we want to deplete our savings and reserves unnecessarily?

However, many Singaporeans are fearful of the Government's intention to privatise statutory boards such as the PUB and Telecom. They fear that these companies will want to make profits and that therefore prices will escalate. These fears are not totally unfounded. If the intention of the Government is to enable these statutory boards to be subject to market forces and function as efficiently as possible, then perhaps corporatisation is sufficient. Why do I say that? In privatising, it is natural that shareholders expect the company to make profits. Otherwise, why would they want to buy the shares? In corporatising, the ownership is still with the Government, which owes it to the people to keep prices low, while not incurring any losses. When the provision of these services is monopolistic, this is all the more crucial. This is especially important when the functions of these statutory boards are to provide basic necessities of living. Any savings that can be passed on to the people may not mean much to the higher income group, but to those in the low income group, it means a substantial amount.

Sir, privatisation and the introduction of a consumption tax can help us to develop a more efficient economy. There is no denying that. Privatisation generates competition and hopefully brings prices down. Consumption tax, with a corresponding reduction of income tax, encourages production and discourages over-spending. But these measures may result in greater income disparities. We must be careful that this is not allowed to occur to such an extent that the resulting social tensions become a destabilising factor.

At this point, I would like to quote from a 1975 Confederation of British Industry report entitled "The Responsibility of the British Public Company". It reads as follows:

"While law establishes the minimum standards of conduct with which a company must comply ..., a company like a person must be recognised as having functions, duties and moral obligations that go beyond the pursuit of profit and the specific requirements of legisation."

This code of conduct should be embraced by all enterprises and individuals. In this way, social tensions will be minimised and our society will become more closely knit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the various measures contained in the President's Address.

On education, I am glad to note that we are now helping students in the non-independent schools to level up without pulling back the development of the independent schools. The modifications in the Edusave scheme are the manifestation and result of Government consulting and obtaining feedback from the people. For instance, in a Feedback Unit dialogue I attended sometime ago, some suggested giving scholarships to independent school students because some families might not want to apply for financial assistance due to their pride. I think awarding scholarships is significant because we will then be sending a strong signal to all students that if they do well, they will be honoured. I am glad that scholarships are also extended to non-independent school students.

Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, the former NCMP in this House, in his speech on the debate on the last President's Address, commented on the Edusave scheme, and I quote from Hansard [Vol. 57, Col. 168]:

"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?".

Similar views have also been expressed by others. The Edusave scheme will now make annual grants to Government and Government-aided schools.

These examples, plus many others, show that the Government is indeed interested in people's views, even if they are from the Opposition, and will incorporate them if they help. How then can some people accuse the Government of insincerity? Why should they be angry when the Government does not adopt their suggestions? This is simply not fair to the Government.

Sir, the fast pace of change in our economic development has left behind a large number of mature workers who have missed the opportunity of a good education in earlier days. They find it very hard to adjust to new circumstances. Independent schools and Edusave cater only to their children's future. But they need help now to earn a better living. We must step up our assistance to them in upgrading their skills.

There is also an urgency in constantly training and retraining our workers. The rapid shifts in technology will dictate that all products, be they high-tech or low-tech, be increasingly produced with high-tech processes. Unless our workers are constantly trained and retrained, new high-tech processes cannot be adopted.

However, many employers are not interested in training their workers because they take a short-term view of the immediate costs. Some workers may not want to attend training during working hours because of loss of income. In view of the urgency of skills upgrading, and the fact that both the companies and the workers will benefit from it, perhaps the National Wages Council, being a high-level tripartite body, should widen its scope and make specific recommendations on training such as the average number of days for training per employee per year and employer's expenditure on training.

Sir, HDB is doing a good job in building better and better flats in the newer housing estates. The upgrading programme will also give an all-round improvement in the living environment for many HDB residents. I have seen the pilot upgrading project and am confident that the programme is workable. HDB residents should seize this opportunity to increase the value of their flats.

Many shopkeepers, however, are unhappy over the increase in rentals for HDB shop premises. They are against using the highest successful bid as a yardstick for determining rental in a particular town. Some areas, such as those closer to an MRT line or a bus stop, could attract business more successfully than those that are a distance away. In fact, in my constituency, Hong Kah North, and within the same neighbourhood, some shops in a particular sector have changed hands three or four times in a period of 5 to 6 years. A 30% across-the-board increase without consideration of such factors is therefore unfair. Many shopkeepers find it very difficult to make ends meet as rentals already account for 30% to 50% of their operating expenditure. The rent increases will thus erode their profit margins, thus hindering their efforts to modernise.

Fearing further rental hikes in future, many shopowners also express their desire to purchase their shops as soon as possible. It is excellent that HDB has decided to sell most of the shophouses to the tenants at market values with a discount. HDB should determine the market values fairly and provide loans at affordable terms to shopowners.

Sir, the subject of Health Care is close to everybody's heart. No nation in the world has found the solution for containing ever increasing health care costs. If they have, it is most likely to be at the expense of health care quality. Many developed countries are experiencing serious difficulties in meeting health care demand. We are trying our best to tackle our problems without falling into the pitfalls which others have experienced.

We should ensure that the subsidised rates for Class B2 and C wards continue to be affordable to the low income group. Perhaps the level of subsidy for treatment in these wards should not be fixed and should vary according to the income level of the patients so that the poorer patients will pay even less. That will be a great relief to them.

The Medifund scheme is an additional safety net, to help the older Singaporeans who may not have Medisave and those who do not have sufficient Medisave. Obviously, it should only be used to provide for subsidised patients.

When welfare schemes are directly administered by civil servants, they often become impersonal. Getting the community leaders involved in a committee to assess applications to Medifund is therefore a good idea. It will certainly improve the image and standing of community leaders and help build a more caring and closely knit community.

The promotion of healthy lifestyles is an important recommendation of the Review Committee on National Health Policies, headed by Dr Aline Wong. It will greatly help us in our search for a long-term solution for our health care problems. A healthy nation maximises the potential of its people. The best way to keep medical costs in check is to get people to stay healthy. A healthy lifestyle would also increase people's chances of leading longer, happier lives for their own sake and that of their families.

The policies to support this major national effort must necessarily be multi-faceted, affecting people's lives at school, in National Service, at the workplace, and even at home. It would require the cooperation of teachers, parents, Government officers, employers and unions.

To motivate an individual to keep fit and stay healthy, knowledge about how one's own lifestyle will affect one's own health is absolutely necessary. Therefore, awareness must first be created. The role of the mass media in this is essential. The Government should also ensure that regularly updated health information be made easily accessible to all.

The Ministry of Education has announced its Trim and Fit (or 'TAF') scheme for students in schools and tertiary institutions. I am sure we will continue to hear from more Ministries and organisations on their health promotion programmes. The achievement of all these goals will not be easy. It will require many years of constant effort. As a nation, we have managed to overcome obstacles more daunting than these before. It is crucial that we also succeed in this most worthwhile endeavour.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, can I clarify something with Dr Chen?

Mr Speaker: No, it is not possible to clarify at this stage. You can make your clarification when you deliver your speech.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Dr John Chen thanking the President for his Address delivered on behalf of the Government.

The main theme of the Address was under the conditions of continuous econmic growth, how to redistribute wealth through various social service schemes for the benefit of the lower and middle income groups, and at the same time, through further investment in human resources to pave the way for further economic development and growth.

Dr Chen is an engineer, and he has spoken eloquently on economic principles. Let me also talk about economic issues.

In the next stage of our economic development, we will be facing two major challenges:

1. With our economy becoming more mature, and with the ever intensifying global competition and in the face of growing protectionism, how do we continue to achieve stable economic growth, and how do we build on the past achievement?

2. How do we continue to satisfy our people's rising expectations and their diversified and personalized demands as a result of increasing incomes?

Dr Chen mentioned the benefits of the free market and market economy. Here, my views may be somewhat different from his. Over the past 30 years, we have undeniably achieved quite a great deal in the economic field, and to a large extent this is attributable to our market economy operation and our strategy of striving for greater efficiency. We must believe in market forces but we cannot have blind faith in its function. Market can sometimes fail. In economics, there is such a concept known as Market Failure. So there is a need for the Government to intervene in the market to supplement the deficiency of market forces. We can emphasize on efficiency, but we must not forget equity. We must strike a balance between the two.

When we implement a certain policy, we must pay attention to its economic benefits but we cannot at the same time neglect its social cost. Let me give you an example: recently, Telecom introduced the time-based telephone charges. This has given rise to great controversy among our people. The Ministry of Communications and Telecom have been arguing their case from the point of view of economic benefit, but those who oppose this are arguing on the basis of social cost. Everyone insists that his reasoning is the correct one. With different starting points, the controversy becomes very heated.

Furthermore, over the past few years or even decades, the Government has been emphasising on efficiency, while meeting the more diverse demand for social services. During the past few years, programmes like independent schools, hospital restructuring, etc. were introduced. However, after these plans were implemented, their disadvantages become apparent before their benefits can be seen. The increases in independent school fees and medical costs have created a psychological barrier in our people, so much so that whenever the Government talks about restructuring or privatisation, they will naturally think that this is just an excuse for the Government to increase its charges. This may be a misconception, but the psychological barrier has brought about a strong resistance and protest against the time-based telephone charging system by Telecom.

As a matter of fact, I believe most people can accept the principle of "Use More Pay More, Use Less Pay Less". This is a market principle. Perhaps, the Ministry of Communications and Telecom can consider a compromise and, that is, to give telephone subscribers a certain amount of toll-free time for the use of the telephone and only in excess of such free time within a certain period of, say, three months, will the time-based charges apply. This will not only be in keeping with the market principle of "Use More Pay More" but it will also cater for the social needs of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to Government intervention in the market. In order to supplement market forces, the Government has built infrastructure through the statutory boards. It has also participated in direct production activities through Government-linked companies and redistributed wealth through progressive taxation and provision of social services, for the benefit of the middle and lower income groups. In the next stage of our economic development, the Government will gradually reduce its participation in direct production activities so as to provide more investment opportunities for the private sector, through the privatisation of Government-linked companies, and allow the private enterprises to play a leading role. This is the correct strategy.

Although we are still depending on multinational corporations and foreign companies to link with the overseas markets, to upgrade our technology and increase the competitiveness of our economy, we must not neglect the contributions of our local small and medium-size enterprises to the Singapore economy and their potential to develop. The Government should give more assistance to the local small and medium enterprises by organising them and helping them to explore the regional and overseas markets, to expand their scales of operation, and to strengthen their links with the multinational corporations so as to improve their technological level and their management efficiency. At the same time, the Government should also render special financial, technical and other forms of assistance and incentives to selected local enterprises which have special potential, so that they can become our very own locally born and bred multi-national companies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now deal with the pros and cons of consumption tax. In the Ministry of Finance's Addendum to the President's Address, there is one sentence which has attracted much attention, that is, the Ministry of Finance will soon present to this House a White Paper on consumption tax. Consumption tax is a very important taxation which may have far-reaching effects on our people and we should examine it very cautiously. Theoretically, indirect consumption tax is more in line with economic efficiency than direct production tax. It will also achieve the principle of wide-based taxation and encourage frugality and saving. But the more controversial aspect of consumption tax is its regressiveness. In other words, whether you are rich or poor, you will pay the same consumption tax rate. To the lower income groups, this will be a relatively heavier burden on them. This is against the principle of equity. Therefore, I suggest that the Ministry of Finance take into account the following points in the White Paper on consumption tax:

(1) The daily necessities - basic, medical and educational goods - should be exempted from consumption tax;

(2) After the implementation of the consumption tax, the income tax burden of the middle and lower income groups should be correspondingly reduced. Consumption tax should be a tax transfer and it should not be an increase of tax burden over and above the existing tax. This transfer is consistent with the taxation principle of encouraging enterprise and saving, and this would be more acceptable to the people.

After the publication of the White Paper, I hope that Parliament will set up a Select Committee on the Bill and gather the views of the people through the Feedback Unit, the grassroots organisations, etc, so that we can draw on collective wisdom and absorb all useful ideas and views from the masses in order to find a good balance between efficiency and equity in the implementation of consumption tax.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now talk about social services and the redistribution of wealth. The best effect of the Government's intervention in market economy is the redistribution of wealth through social services. Without the Government's intervention, market forces will make it impossible for the great majority of our people in this land-scarce island-republic to own and buy their own flats. Our "Home for Everyone" scheme has been widely acclaimed throughout the world. Our children are given equal opportunity by the Government to attend school and to receive further education, irrespective of whether their parents are rich or poor.

In his Speech, the President further mentioned about specific schemes to improve education, medical and health care, upgrading of flats, etc. These schemes further reaffirm the Government's commitment to social services and put into practice the realisation of the promise made by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong before the General Election. The implementation of these schemes will benefit the middle and lower income groups, and it may perhaps remove the misconception of some people that independent schools are "aristocratic" schools, the people's gibe against the Government which says, "Don't fall sick if you have no money!"

However, there are certain details in these schemes which may give rise to some doubt among our people: Will the revised provision on the use of Edusave result in a reduction in the rate of increase of the Government's annual allocation of funds to the Ministry of Education? Whetthe increase in contribution to the Medisave Account will lead to more people abusing the savings in their Medisave account? Whether the increase in Medisave contribution rate will make it more difficult for CPF members in the lower income group to afford the purchase of their HDB flats? I hope the Ministries concerned will clarify the points I have raised to remove the doubts of the people.

Now, let me talk about assistance to the lower-income families. There are poor people in every society. Poverty is relative, it is not absolute. Apart from various schemes to improve education, medical and health care and public housing, the Government also encourages every community to set up its own organisation to help those lower-income families. I personally feel that to help the lower-income families, it is not so simple as merely giving away welfare and relief funds to them. We must use more positive methods, such as education and training to help them improve their skills and their means to earn a living. The bringing up of a better educated next generation is of paramount importance. The poverty of one generation is perhaps a sorrow. But the continuing poverty of generation after generation is a sin. Even in some cases where the parents are not able to upgrade their skills in order to improve their standard of living, due to illness, old age, or any other reasons, I think we should help their younger generation to secure better and more favourable opportunities, through education and training, so as to get out of the rut of poverty.

As a matter of fact, many poor people do not like to live on charity. Helping them to cultivate their children, building up their confidence and their sense of dignity and self-reliance so that they will have the means to support themselves, is a better way to help these families. So I would appeal to the Chinese community, whether they are community leaders, businessmen, professionals, white collar workers or blue collar workers, to support the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC). The leaders in the industrial and commercial sector can immediately set up an endowment fund to raise funds, only then that they will build up their prestige and moral authority to persuade the general working people to accept the idea of contributing to the CDAC through CPF deductions. Professionals, intellectuals, managers, executives and civil servants, whether English educated or Chinese educated, should all work together to implement this meaningful project which is of great significance. At the same time, through the CDAC, they can all work together in such a way that the gap between Chinese Singaporeans of different language and educational backgrounds can be bridged.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me comment on culture and values. Let me quote the President's Address, paragraph 30, which says:

"While we constantly upgrade and adjust to changing world conditions, we must not unthinkingly cut ourselves off from our cultural roots. Government policies must always enjoy the broad support of the major social groups, including the less vocal non-English speaking part of our society."

To me, economic development is only a means, the object of which is to continuously improve the standard of living of our people. The standard of living of the people should not be confined to material life but should also cover spiritual standard. As such, both material construction and spiritual construction must complement each other. Consolidating our national consciousness, inculcating the correct values, enhancing our people's identification with their own culture, and building of a gracious society, constitute yet another challenge we have to face in our next stage of nation building, apart from economic matters. To the Chinese community, apart from bread and butter issues, the Government should not neglect the feelings of the silent majority with regard to their language and culture. For example, the adjustment to the Primary 4 streaming system last year had been widely endorsed and supported by the parents and educationists. However, the Ministry of Education's recent change in policy regarding the use of Hanyu Pinyin names in schools has not only caused disorientation among the teachers and Itudents, but also given rise to confusion and arguments. I hope that the new Minister for Education will reconsider this matter and avoid giving out confusing signals.

As the President has said, the Government's policy must have the support of every community. In the years to come, apart from improving the standard of living of our people, the Government must also spare no effort in bringing the silent majority, including those who do not know English, into the political maintstream. The progress of a country requires balanced development of the whole. 1.21 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I rise to thank the President for his Speech.

Before I go on to my speech proper, I would like to reply to what Dr John Chen, hon. Member for Hong Kah GRC, has said in regard to the standard of living in the 70s as compared to today. In 1972, I was told that an engineer with an MSc who returned to Singapore was paid $1,600. With that salary, he could afford to rent a flat, buy a car, have a maid and still go night-clubbing, after which he still had some pocket money left in his pocket. I am sure any returned engineer from abroad with a salary of $1,600 today cannot enjoy such a standard of living. I am sure the 1972 engineer was better off than his contemporary of today. So even for the same income in the 70s, people were definitely better off than today.

We are here to debate on the President's Speech. We are here to discuss on what we want Singapore to be in the next generation. What is glaringly missing in the Government's long-term goals for Singapore is that it has not clearly spelt out what sort of nation it wants Singapore to be. Does it want Singapore to be a homogeneous society, ie, to strive for a Singaporean Singapore, or does it want Singapore to have the races compartmentalised, each ethnic group coexisting only with each other? Any serious Singapore citizen who cares for the long-term good of our country must opt for the former. It is only having one political type of Singaporeans that we can truly be a united nation. I cannot see how we can be united as one nation if each ethnic group has its own language, culture and way of life. If we are to be separated in this way, each ethnic group will entrench their positions even stronger for fear of being swamped by the other group's culture, language and way of life.

This is not new. It has happened in the province of Quebec in Canada. The French-speaking population there wants the French language and way of life to be accepted as the official norm in that province. The French-speaking population's feelings in that province are so strong that they are in fact asking and clamouring for a separate state. We do not want that to happen to Singapore. In fact, we are too small for that.

We in Singapore must learn this lesson from the French experience in Canada. We are still young. If we pick the wrong choice, we are creating trouble for the future generations. If we settle for a compartmentalised and separate culture, language and way of life for the Malay, Chinese and the Indian population in Singapore, this kind of set-up which will eventually crystallise or ossify, then each ethnic group definitely, when that time arrives, will demand more and more rights for themselves. And we can never have peace and stability in Singapore in the future. This is not a new issue. It has been discussed before. But it has been obviously and glaringly left out in the President's Speech.

In the past five years, the PAP Government has tended to move away from their earlier stand of a Singaporean Singapore. We all remember that PAP fought hard for a Malaysian Malaysia and I believe that it also definitely wanted a Singaporean Singapore. But the PAP has now a change of mind in regard to this policy. Even the PAP's former party theoretician and former Senior Minister, Mr S. Rajaratnam, and I believe many other non-Chinese PAP members are also worried about the trend that the Government is taking. Singaporeans have been made more aware of their own race. Singaporeans are beginning to talk of being a Chinese, a Malay or an Indian rather than identifying themselves as being Singaporeans. The Government seems to be introducing more Chineseness into our Chinese population, rather than telling them that they are Singaporeans. Our roots are in Singapore and this is where we belong, not China. This kind of Government policy has made non-Chinese Singaporeans rather uncomfortable. They begin to think that they no longer belong here. Some of them, I am sure, have migrated, citing this as one of the reasons. I am not saying that the Government must immediately change its policy because some Singaporeans have migrated.

But the more important issue is whether such a policy, which decides what Singapore will eventually be, will be detrimental to us as a nation. I believe that if we are to separate and compartmentalize our different ethnic groups, we are only sowing problems for the future generations of Singaporeans. In the Canadian case, it was the generosity of General Wolfe at the Battle of Quebec. He was the British General who beat the French. But after conquering his adversaries, he was gentleman enough to allow the French to continue their language, their culture and way of life. And that sowed the seed for separation. We must not sow the seed for separation of the different ethnic groups now.

I know that this is a sensitive and difficult problem, but I believe we can solve it. We have a long history of multi-racialism and racial harmony and I am sure we can solve it. Lest I be misunderstood, I have always supported the bilingual policy. I think it is good that each of us learn another language and I would support even the teaching of the second languages, the so-called mother tongue, in all our primary schools. And I hope there are good teaching methods and not because of poor teaching methods that there are too many drop-outs.

The other important issue which has not been touched in the President's Speech, and which I consider to be important for Singapore's future, is the question of democracy and freedom. Does the Government intend to introduce more democracy in our society in the near future? Is the Government going to relax a little its political grip on the people of Singapore? Are we going to see more democracy and freedom? Despite what the Prime Minister has said about his consultative style, it would seem that the Government is not loosening up its grip. ISD and other harsh laws are all still present. The authoritarian rule of the Government is still continuing.

I was just reading yesterday's Straits Times and there was a headline somewhere in the middle of the paper, and I quote: "Give students and alumni more say in running NUS." Dr Vivian Balakrishnan was quoted as saying "that students and alumni should be given more say in running the university if they are to identify with it". Our universities still have no autonomy, as we know it in the West. I think it is high time the Government loosened up a bit and take note of what the students and alumni of the NUS are saying and start to consider giving some form of autonomy to our local universities. Students and alumni should be given more say. It is only right. How long are we going to hold our university administrators, lecturers and students on the leash? The students in our university must not be controlled like school kids. University students are our future leaders. How can they develop to be leaders when they are not given the environment to do so? I say that we should have more democracy in our university, not just for the sake of having democracy. We do need a more open, more free, more democratic society, for our future survival. Our population is our main resource. Therefore, they can only be trained to their utmost potential to become leaders in business and in their professions, to become dynamic entrepreneurs, industrialists, showing great initiative, creativity and innovativeness, only if they have the right environment. A free democratic environment is the correct one, and not a stifling authoritarian like environment.

In the same report, Dr Balakrishnan has complained that there were no great men or leaders produced by the universities, and it is not surprising that no great man or leader has come out of such universities. Why? Because they have no freedom in our campus. There is only fear. They dare not to speak out. They go there, they are lectured: Study hard, pass your examinations and do not be involved in any other activities, especially political ones. Therefore, for the sake of the long-term survival, I would like to call on the Government, as part of its programme for this term, to introduce more freedom and more democracy in our two universities and also in our polytechnics.

Another incident which was reported in the press, and which I would like now to quote, is the taking over of a local well-known golf club, the Singapore Island Country Club (SICC). I am not a member of that Club. I am not interested in the details, but I am interested in the principle involved. It would appear to me that the Government has been rather blatant and has disregarded the opinions of others. It just came down and did a coup. Apparently, the land in which the clubhouse is situated belongs to the PUB, and it is on a monthly lease. The Government would like to convert it to a 30-year lease. The members have to pay something like $154 million so that they could get a longer lease. I think they have no quarrel in that regard. But what they are quarrelling is that after having paid the rental the landlord comes down and does not give them the peaceful possession of the place. The Government insists that they have control of the Club. This is a different case from the taking over of the Turf Club. I was in this House when the Bill was suddenly passed. It was also a sudden coup d'etat, in which with one swoop something like $300 million was taken by the Government from the officials of that Club.

In this particular SICC case, the Government, of course, cleverly gave the members an offer which they could not refuse, ie, they could transfer their membership for a hefty fee and, of course, members took the bait. But the point is: why should the Government in its deal have control of the Club? These club members are all well-known people - judges, high Government officials, people in the profession. They are certainly honest men of integrity and they have knowledge of running a club. The question is: why should the Government have control of the Club? As it is, the Government has control of almost every public organization, every facet of life in Singapore. So if we are really going to have democracy in Singapore, please let the people do things themselves, especially honest, well-meaning people of Singapore. I think we should not continue the trend of control and supervision from the top. It would be unhealthy for the long-term survival of Singapore.

The other more troubling matter is that once we have got four Opposition Members in the House, the Government sees it fit to immediately react by not providing MPs with offices at the void decks any more. I have been told that I have to vacate my office at the void deck by September of this year. I do not know what is the rationale. There are plenty of void decks, plenty of room for the MPs to use, and yet this petty little annoyance is handed down which, I think, is meant for Opposition MPs. It would appear that the Government intends to put every little obstacle in the way of the Opposition MPs. Of course, it would not succeed.

But the more important point is the attitude of the Government. Does the Government not recognize Opposition MPs? Does the Government not recognize that the Opposition has a rightful place in Singapore? Is the Government intent in ruling the country forever? And therefore, with that in mind, all the implications follow. The Government should be fair and should recognize that the Opposition can play a constructive role in Singapore and should not place too many obstacles in its way. I have difficulties in getting a tuition centre, a swimming pool and a creche off the ground at Potong Pasir. Somehow or other, it passes from one department to another department, but nothing seems to move.

We are all for Singapore and, therefore, I think it is high time that the Government should recognize that. We are not asking for favours or anything of that sort to be handed down on a silver spoon, but please give us a fighting chance. It would be good for democracy and good for Singapore.

This leaves me only to say that we have now four Opposition Members in Parliament and I am certain that it would be good for Singapore, and it should be for the benefit of not only Singaporeans but also Members - I cannot say for both sides of the House - and I think for everyone.

Mr Peter Sung (Buona Vista): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Dr John Chen.

The principles embodied in the Presidential Address are well-founded, well-tested and are worthy of our continued support. The programmes outlined in the Presidential Address, when fully implemented, will take the country to the first few steps in the Next Lap. There are, however, one or two statements in this Presidential Address which may raise concerns and members of the various GPCs will voice them in the course of the next few days. Whatever these concerns may be, the Government's programmes have been and will continue to be of benefit to the people. It has been this way for the last 30 years. However, if there are unintended effects of some policies or programmes, I am sure the Government will introduce modifications to make them more palatable and more suitable for the people. The various GPCs will draw the attention of the Ministers to the people's problems and their difficulties. We will also bring out the aspirations and feelings of the people by expressing the people's views in Parliament. We hope the Government will have a better understanding of such views and problems, and for the Ministers to take them into consideration when they formulate policies for Singapore. In fact, members of the public are encouraged to write to the various GPC Chairmen to tell us their concerns so that we can bring them forward. In so doing, of course, they should not raise their very personal concerns. Those should be raised with their own Members of Parliament during the "meet-the-people" sessions. But problems that concern a section of Singapore or, better still, the whole of Singapore, could be addressed to us so that these can be brought forward for the consideration of this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last lap, the development of Singapore has been based on an international approach. We have international trade, we have investment from international sources and we have international companies coming in to set up businesses here. In the Next Lap, I believe we need to be even more international. And many ingredients are required for success in the further internationalisation of Singapore. I would like to raise one for discussion today. Before doing so, I would like to declare my interest, Mr Speaker, Sir.

What I am going to suggest will be of benefit to the private sector, and being a member of the private sector, I would also be in that category.

In the further internationalisation of Singapore, information will be required by Singapore companies. The collection, collation and preparation of such information require time, effort and a lot of resources. Small and medium-sized companies may not have enough resources to do this, and perhaps the Government can come in to help in a small way. This could be done by the establishment of a business library. This business library can, to begin with, pool together information that already exists in various Government departments or statutory boards such as the Economic Development Board, the Trade Development Board, the Statistics Department, maybe also the Stock Exchange of Singapore, the Chambers of Commerce, and so on.

The business library can also network with other information sources in other countries. It would be useful to study information and facilities available in, for example, the London Business Library, or Companies House in London, and similar establishments in New York, in Germany, in Tokyo, in Hong Kong, Seoul and Taipei. The business library may also consider publishing information about countries, industries and products. These publications will enable small and medium-sized companies, and perhaps even the larger ones, to look at industries that may be of concern or interest to them. Even the larger companies may find such publications useful.

One may ask, who will benefit from such a business library? I would say that Singapore companies intending to go overseas to expand their operations will certainly benefit. Even Singapore companies not in that league will benefit if they will provide support services, products or components to those companies that are going abroad. Foreign companies looking for partners in Singapore or looking for expansion plans or looking for new opportunities here or in the region would also find such a library useful.

In the end, when these facilities are developed, Singapore can become a reliable centre for corporate and business information for businessmen intending to do business in this part of the world. I hope the Minister in charge of Information will give some consideration to this suggestion.

Sir, with that, I support the motion.

The Minister of State for Information and the Arts and Education (Dr Ker Sin Tze): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of thanks to the President.

As the President has said, we are half-way up to becoming a developed country. Although the remaining half is difficult, reaching there is a matter of time if we keep up with our rate of progress. We should have a vision of what the final destination will be.

The term "developed country" refers to a country in which its economy, institutions and infrastructure have been adequately developed. It also implies that its income per capita and living standards of the people are high. Besides modern buildings and facilities, one of the things which strikes a visitor is that labour cost is high and services are expensive. In general, wages and salaries are much higher in developed countries than those in the developing world. Will the same phenomenon exist in Singapore once we reach the stage of a developed country?

With the continued rise in income, people will normally prefer more leisure to more work. According to a well-known economic interpretation, the supply of labour will not increase but decrease when wage rates rise beyond a certain critical point. The curve of labour supply will not be positively sloped but bending backward. People may ask for a four-day work week, instead of the five-and-a-half day we are having now. Wages will be high and the wage differential in our favour compared with other developed countries will be reduced. Manpower will be in short supply and expensive that further investments, foreign as well as local, may be discouraged. The consequence will not be helpful to the efforts to sustain steady economic growth in Singapore.

There are, however, two factors which may delay the operation of the backward-bending labour supply curve here, namely, the less progressiveness of personal income tax and family bonding. The steep progressive income tax rate in the West is an important factor which makes people to opt for more leisure than work. Individualism is another factor which creates disincentive to more work as the individual takes care of his own needs only. The incentive to earn more in order to help his family members is not strong. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should therefore avoid the pitfall in this regard in our deliberation on policy options which may affect the supply of labour in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the term "developed country" also conveys the image of the existence of many big and successful business corporations. With continued economic growth in the last two decades, many local companies have grown and a few of them have expanded their activities to regional and international markets. However, the bulk of local businesses are still small and medium-sized enterprises and the larger companies are mostly foreign or Government-owned corporations. The Government has been trying to help small and medium-sized enterprises to grow further and to encourage the development of local entrepreneurship. The critics have always attributed the slow success in this respect to over-regulation by the Government. Hong Kong has been cited as a classic example that entrepreneurship flourishes with minimum government regulation. Should the Government minimise regulations and turn Singapore into a "Paradise of Adventurers"? The answer is clearly 'no' as regulations are necessary to weed out undesirable and unethical business practices. However, the regulations should be periodically reviewed to update them with the development in the business world so that a healthy business environment conducive to further growth can be maintained.

Mr Speaker, Sir, besides the claim that the Singapore Government over-regulates business activities, some people also complain that the Government has widely encroached upon business domain through quasi and wholly-owned Government corporations. The implication is that Government companies compete unfairly with private companies. It is true that there are many Government-owned companies which are active in the business arena. They have helped shape the development of the Singapore economy through their various activities. As a way to improve performance and to increase the degree of competition, the Government has decided to privatise a number of statutory boards. The newly created companies will be run by professional managers after privatisation although its equity will still be held by the Government and private investors. The reward to management personnel should be tied to the performance of the company. Professional managers will then manage the company on the same basis as private enterprises. An "arm's length" approach where no special advantages or favours should be expected by those newly privatised companies so that no accusation of unfair competition can be made.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to privatise is to show confidence in the efficacy of the market system. It is widely accepted that market mechanism can bring about the best allocation of resources. At the national level, the comparison of economic performance between the former Soviet Union and the United States has clearly illustrated the point. Within a country, market mechanism is believed to be the best guide to what, how much, and for whom to produce. Hence, as we have seen, a number of policy options have been left to market mechanism to find their own way. But market mechanism works well only when no imperfection is present or is at its minimum level in the system. When imperfection such as monopolistic influence exists, market mechanism may not produce the best result unless it is properly "managed" to offset the effect of imperfection. Moreover, there are other factors, socio-economic and cultural, which may also have bearing on the performance of the system. If we compare the overall performance of the two free enterprise economies, namely, Japan and the United States, one realises that other factors such as team spirit and positive cultural value, besides market mechanism, are responsible for making the difference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the privatisation of statutory boards and Government-owned companies represents a significant aspect of decentralising decision-making power. For companies, decisions will largely be made by the professional managers after privatisation instead of Government officials. The setting up of town councils is another important aspect of decentralising decision-making power. The management of properties within the boundary of a town is now vested in the hands of town councillors instead of HDB officials. Decentralisation will lead to a greater variety of views and choices which will create greater stability for the system. The greater decentralisation of decision-making power and the resultant greater stability are helpful towards the perfection of the market economy system, which in turn helps to smooth out the process in the transition to become a developed country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while we have to place more emphasis on market mechanism and the free enterprise system to mature as a developed country, we also have to counter-balance the effect of individualism and mercenary attitude which are by-products of the system. The success of Japan over the United States can be partly attributed to the spirit of team work and their positive cultural value. We can draw useful conclusion from the Japanese experience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are confident that we can achieve a developed nation status in the not so distant future, but we have also to ensure that our society develops and retains the values of concern for one another and a strong civic pride in our country instead of descending into coldness and ruthless competition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to thank the President.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by quoting from the Address of the President, delivered on the 6th of January:

"We must encourage the more able to do their best for themselves and for Singapore. But the more able also need to show concern for the others and help them to catch up."

This, Sir, is a crucial principle that has put us to where we are and will guarantee our progress in the future. It is unrealistic, Sir, if not, entirely hypocritical for us to withhold reward from those who are able, those who are talented, or those who make the effort in the name of equality. The question is: are we therefore being elitist as some have accused us to be?

Elitism, Sir, presumes the enhancement and preservation of the status, position and privilege of a few who consider themselves, and make sure that they remain, superior to the rest in the country. How can we be elitist when our policies are not devoid of compassion, not devoid of charity and, more importantly, filled with schemes that maximise the opportunity for everyone to move up in life, if only they make the effort?

I passionately subscribe, Sir, to the principle that opportunities must be made available to enable as many of our citizens to better themselves and to enjoy the fruits of their labour. And much as we like to, Sir, it is impossible to equalise society by ensuring that everyone is equal in terms of rewards, status and material well-being. Communism has attempted this, and it failed dismally. Many well-meaning non-Communist countries too have tried, but instead create other and bigger problems that threaten the fabric of their societies. But we must equalise opportunities and I am glad that continuous and earnest attempts are being made, as illustrated in the President's Address.

I am particularly heartened by the opportunities that are to be created in education. As a minority, Sir, and as one who has seen, time and again, the levelling-up effects of education, I cannot over-stress the importance of education in our lives. I am pleased to know of the proposed investments that Government intends to make in our promising students and to those who have the promise, but not the means, to pursue better and higher education.

I agree that admission to the better schools must be made on merit and not on the ability to pay. This we cannot compromise. Nevertheless, I would strongly urge those who are able to pay to be charitable enough to forgo their scholarships so that more can be given to those who need the funds.

We must continue to expand and we must continue to multiply the opportunities in education, especially to the lower income groups, for this is central to our levelling-up process. We should, to my mind, go even further and consider schemes and projects that go into eliminating the causes that hinder children from these groups to avail themselves of the opportunities existing. This would mean taking into account their family circumstances for, often, the root of a child's problems lies within the familial surroundings and his environment rather than from his own inherent weaknesses.

Let me now, Sir, touch on the proposals by the Ministry of Community Development. In its Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry promises to devote more attention to the needs of the lower income groups as well as of the disabled and the aged. As GPC Chairman for Community Development, Sir, I fully support and encourage this intent, and I await the announcement of programmes to fulfil it. Government will have to be proactive in this area by initiating projects and schemes to help these groups. I agree they must be helped to upgrade themselves and to be more self-reliant. Indeed my association and contact with disabled people and groups indicate that they too do not wish for handouts but for assistance to make themselves more self-reliant for this means more lasting results and also giving them the dignity and the self-worth that they hope for. Still, there will be those who are helpless, no matter how much they try, and we must be more charitable and compassionate to them.

Before I close, Sir, I would like to comment on what Mr Chiam said just now. There are two points. First, on his reference to the engineer drawing $1,700 in 1970. Is it right, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong: $1,600.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: $1,600. Yes, I agree with him. With $1,600, we cannot have that kind of life now, much less go night-clubing with the kind of money that he has got. But I think what he has missed is that the same person with the same qualification and experience now will not be drawing only $1,600.

The other point is about the way we are doing things and the way we emphasise our roots. He is worried that the minorities are concerned about the increasing Chineseness of Singapore. I agree. Indeed, the minorities are concerned about the increasing Chineseness in Singapore. But they have a greater fear in their minds of losing their identity, given influence of TV, the media and from outside. I think all of us are optimistic, Sir, that the danger of any community swamping the identity of another community will not happen so long as the PAP is in Government. And I think it will not happen.

Sir, the Address of the President is peppered with what appears to be contradictions that must be reconciled. For instance, how do we reward the able but exercise compassion and charity to the less able; how do we maintain a meritocratic society without encouraging self-centredness; how do we encourage individualism without threatening community interest; and how, Sir, do we go back to our roots without breeding chauvinism. That is the challenge that each and everyone of us will have to face and the future for us will be a united nation.

The balance, Sir, between these apparent contradictions can sometimes be precarious, but it must be done. We have to live and govern the way which is suited to our own situation and our own needs.

Sir, I support the motion in the name of Dr John Chen, Member for Hong Kah GRC.

Dr Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to take part in this debate on the motion to thank the President for his Address.

Before I join in the debate, I would like to clarify the point concerning the remuneration of engineer. Mr Chiam See Tong mentioned that in the early 1970s, an engineer would draw a salary of approximately $1,700 per month. In fact, I am an engineer myself. I joined the profession as an engineer in 1975. In 1975, the market rate for an engineer was $1,250 per month, but not as high as $1,700. Now, an engineering graduate gets between $2,100 and $2,200. From these figures, it is quite evident that Mr Chiam must have been misled by his friends or assistants, thus producing these inaccurate figures.

In his Address, the President spent the longest time talking about the future plans for our education system. The Government intends to improve the educational plan for the primary and secondary schools so as to further improve the efficiency of the education system in Singapore. It is planned that by the turn of the century, about 40% of our children in the same age group will finish education at polytechnic level, and 20% of the population in the same age group will be university graduates. In other words, at the end of this century, among the younger generation of Singaporeans, six out of ten would be graduates of tertiary institutions. This is comparable to the advanced countries in Europe, America and Japan today. This would also mean that the educational level of the future generation of Singaporeans would be generally higher. By then, our people would be able to command better skills, better management, commercial, scientific and technological expertise to better prepare Singapore for its move towards more high-technology, more sophisticated and higher value-added manufacturing and service industries. This would also provide Singapore with more favourable conditions to develop itself into an economically advanced country whose GNP would be comparable to today's advanced European countries, by the turn of the century.

In the Addendum of the Ministry of Education, it is mentioned that students of the Institute of Technical Education would be allowed to further their studies in the polytechnics. It is indeed a heartening measure. In fact, under our education system, the main stream of education is from primary school with at least CL2 to secondary school "O" level. junior college "A" level, and then to the university.

We also realize that Singapore is a society which attaches much importance to paper qualifications. Everybody would take the completion of a university degree as the target of their studies, as well as the finishing point of their academic pursuit. In the circumstances, if our children did not do well in their younger days and were streamed to a non-main stream education, and if there is no provision, under our present educational system, for these students in the non-main stream to better themselves through their determination and hard work to get back into the main-stream, then the morale and work attitude of these students will surely be very low. They will think that there is no future for them, and that they are doomed! Therefore, we must offer ample opportunities in our educational system for our students. At the same time, we must help those students who are determined to better themselves and have done well in their studies to find a way out so that they can return from the non-main stream to the main-stream education. This way, this category of students will be able to visualize their prospects and hope in the course of their studies. This will also help to motivate and inspire them to work harder in the course of their studies. Eventually, the nation will also benefit. As a matter of fact, in addition to providing students of the Institute of Technical Education the opportunities to further their studies in the polytechnics, we should also provide more opportunities for polytechnic students to further their studies in the universities after they have completed their courses in the polytechnics. At the moment, the Faculty of Engineering in the NTU has already opened its door to admit polytechnic graduates. I hope that the NUS will follow the footsteps of the NTU by opening its door to polytechnic graduates.

Personally, I hope that the other faculties in our local universities, such as accountancy, business administration, computer science, etc, will also absorb some polytechnic graduates. I understand that in an ordinary university in the UK, in the Department of Mechanical Engineering alone, there are 25 Singaporean students studying there, many of whom are polytechnic graduates. Apparently, this is a very clear evidence that many of our polytechnic graduates who wished to be admitted to our local universities had found that the doors were shut to them.

I am very glad to note that the Open University is finally going to be established soon. Many working adults in Singapore will now have the opportunity to fulfil their ambition of enrolling in a university to receive further education. Ideally, the Open University should enjoy the same status as our two existing universities. Graduates from the Open University should also receive the same degree of recognition by people in our society. In order to achieve this objective, we must, right from the very beginning, ensure that the enrolment requirements of students and the quality of teaching staff for the Open University are comparable to those for the two existing universities. The Government should also treat the three universities equally, affording them the same status. Furthermore, in the teaching and training of students, the Open University should not be in any way inferior to the other two universities. In the course of its development, if we discover that students in the Open University need longer periods of time to learn and to undergo training before they can reach the standard of efficiency and intellectual level comparable to those of a standard university graduate, then we must try to extend the learning time of the students of the Open University. We should not produce some university graduates who may be wrongly regarded by others as "second-class graduates". Otherwise, the consequences would be too ghastly to contemplate. I also hope that we will not simply import the British system of open university "lock, stock and barrel" into our system here, because if this is done, then I believe the results will not be satisfactory.

Now, I would like to talk about the learning of CL2 in the schools. During the past 10 to 20 years, students from the non-Chinese schools have been continuously complaining that Chinese was hard to learn. This issue has been debated on many occasions in this House. From my own experience, during my undergraduate days, I gave Chinese tuition to some Secondary 3 and 4 English-school students. My feeling at that time was that these students were having a real hard time learning Chinese. During the past years, the CL2 courses have been simplified, to quite a large extent. At least, our students today need not study the classical Chinese. However, in the process of simplifying the courses, we have not solved the problems of difficulty in learning Chinese. Chinese is different from English. It does not follow an alphabetic system of writing. Every Chinese character has to be learnt by heart -- its pronunciation, its meaning and the way it is written. If not used frequently, very often, many characters will be forgotten. Therefore, when learning the language, the students should have an environment where they can practise what they have learnt. We have to be in touch with the langauge every day, learning and using it over and over, before we can be said to have a good command of the language.

In the earlier days, no one from the Chinese schools has ever complained that Chinese was difficult to learn. On the contrary, the complaint was that English was difficult to learn. The reason is very simple. In the Chinese schools of those days, Chinese was the medium of instruction. The environment was conducive to the learning of Chinese. On the other hand, in the English schools of the past and the schools, in general, of today, Chinese was and is used only in the teaching of the subject "Chinese". For the other subjects, English is used as the medium of instruction. In the circumstances, to those students who do not or very seldom speak Chinese at home, the learning of Chinese is as difficult as an ordinary student learning a foreign language.

In Singapore today, most of our people in the 40s are products of the then English schools. During their school days, they had studied Chinese as a second language. If we examine this group of people carefully, I believe not many of them could really read and understand the Chinese newspapers. If we want them to pick up a pen and write a simple note in Chinese, then even less people would have passed the test. The problem encountered in the past by our generation who are now in our 40s will likewise be encountered by the younger generation. If we are trying to take the easy way out by merely simplifying the contents of CL2 as a subject, with the hope that our students would stride over the minimum standard set for the school examinations, then I would say that we have basically failed to face squarely the problem of difficulty in learning Chinese.

I am of the view that our schools should endeavour to create an environment conducive to the learning of the second language. Perhaps we could boldly consider allowing using the second language as a medium of instruction for some minor subjects such as civics, physical education or extra-curricular activities, etc. This will imperceptibly create a lot of opportunities for our students to be in touch with the second language. At the same time, this will enable them to learn Chinese as a second language in a more flexible and receptive manner. If this can be done, I am sure it will help to make it easier for our students to master the learning of Chinese, and alleviate their difficulties in the learning of this language. 2.22 pm

Mr Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Member for Hong Kah GRC in thanking the President for his Address on 6th January 1992.

The agenda for the Government has been set forth by the President. He has identified four policy areas in the Next Lap that will significantly level up society for progress. These include funding scholarships and bursaries in education, restructuring our health care services, refurbishment programmes in public housing and the streamlining of our civil service. Collectively, they represent a bag of economic and social goodies.

My job as an MP will be to help this Government build a firm political cart, as in a horse-cart, to carry these social goodies and breed and nurture a strong economic horse to pull the same to the people. And I will use this horse-cart analogy throughout my speech. Without a strong economic horse to pull the political cart, the bag of promised goodies will just remain another far-flung Christmas wish.

This brings me to the kind of parliamentary democracy symbolised by the political cart that we wish to have for Singapore. When I asked my people, representing the mostly middle-aged and lower-middle income profile of our population land- scape, what I should focus on during this debate, they gave me one singular piece of advice that hinted at the shape of the political cart they want Singapore to have. My residents tell me, "Never mind what you say, just speak fearlessly for our rights and our welfare. We need you to echo (I repeat "echo") our fears, our hopes and our aspirations in Parliament."

I thanked my residents for their counsel. My performance as the people's representative of Tanjong Pagar GRC must necessarily be judged by my people's yardstick. And I will never allow myself to forget that I am here only on their behalf. But I also told them that representative democracy only works if I speak out of conscience and conviction, not out of convenience. Where the cause is just, I will speak out in Parliament with the full weight of my conviction. But I cannot morally champion a cause by conveniently echoing a viewpoint, however representative it may be, when I know that the long-term interest of my people is in jeopardy.

I cannot argue my case more persuasively and more convincingly than by quoting the British MP, Edmund Burke, who told his electors in Bristol in the year 1780 that "I could hardly serve you as I have done, and court you too." Without saying in so many words, his implied message to the people was quite clear: parliamentary democracy must exercise leadership, and leadership means the courage and conviction to do something that may initially be unpopular but which will bring long-term benefits to the people.

So the political cart we wish to build must carry the long-term social goodies, not just some make-shift device that carries the interest of a few intense minority. Neither should the cart be so flimsily designed that it will self-destruct before it has travelled the required distance.

This brings me to the second point about breeding and nurturing the right economic horse to pull the political cart of goodies to the people. To my mind, the best way to serve my people is to help this Government foster a society where there are good opportunities and incentives for everybody to get ahead on his or her own. How to achieve this has already been identified in the Presidential Address. The proven technique is to allow, whenever possible, market forces and private enterprise to steer the economy automatically. The Government's job is to chart the course and provide the manual override during times of economic and political turbulence. In short, we must train our economic horse for difficult terrain.

Sir, unfortunately, at exactly the same time when Singaporeans should tighten their embrace for the market, they have developed a fear for it. Why? Because the market has been wrongly diagnosed as the source that drives up the cost of living, when in fact the opposite is true. Market oriented policies have brought us success, jobs and affluence. The rising cost of living is only a small side effect of the rising standard of living.

Mr Chiam said that in 1972 he knew of an engineer who earned $1,600. My colleague, Dr Low, an eminent engineer, has already said that it was not the case. But even granting the fact that his friend is an exceptionally bright engineer earning $1,600 in 1972, his friend probably represents 2-3% of his cohort, whereas today more than 10% of the cohort who go to university own cars and houses albeit slightly longer. So the cost of living is only a small side effect of the rising standard of living. He talks about today's engineers wanting cars. It is because so many engineers want cars that they have to wait a little bit longer. So it is a sure sign that the standard of living has gone up.

Nevertheless, this market phobia, while totally uncalled for, must be taken cognizance of in implementing future policies. For a country like ours which buys everything from the rest of the world at market prices, the urgency for charting our future with the free-market compass has never been greater. At a time when significant parts of the rest of the world were fixated with command economies and its social cousins, we had a headstart by implementing market reforms. The rest of the world is charging ahead now, but our people appear to be hesitant.

Now that Marxism has been lowered into the grave, market-oriented economies have found universal embrace. Developed and developing countries from Austria to Australia, and Malaysia to Mexico, are liberalising their markets and selling their state assets and with haste.

The world-wide reform for privatisation and market-oriented economies may have begun in Britain under the hand-bag queen, Margaret Thatcher. But it was the political earthquakes of Eastern Europe and the sudden and recent collapse of the Soviet Union which have, first, accelerated and then endeared Margaret Thatcher's political brand to the rest of the world.

Every country which has witnessed the economic sclerosis of command economies has now jumped onto the free-market bandwagon. Eastern Europe and Russia are selling their state assets with haste, as I have said. They are determined to bury the past and succeed. Poland, for example, even has a Ministry of Privatisation to make sure that it does. Countries like Czechoslovakia and Hungary have similar Ministries of Privatisation. Mid-way from home, Pakistan and India, Indo-China including Vietnam, are also dismantling their socialist machineries with a great sense of urgency. Indeed, the competition for privatisation is so intense that marketing strategies have been used to seduce international buyers.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has even personally endorsed advertisements placed in internationally reputable magazines to say that in effect everything in his country is privatisable; nothing is sacrosanct, everything is on the table for privatisation. He wants to do it against better political advice within his 5-year term.

Equally, Mr Rao, the Prime Minister of India, is bent on the wholesale destruction of India's sacred cow - its industrial licensing system. Closer home, our ASEAN neighbours are already driving on the free-market highway. In his Presidential Address, the President warned that unless we keep ahead of competition, we must be prepared to be left behind. In some aspects, our closest neighbours are already setting the competition.

Malaysia, for example, has privatised their Telecoms way ahead of ours. On the 1st of January this year, they have also sold the 165 years old Postal Services Department, making the mailing of letters on the same par as sending letters through the DHL. Also on the shelf this year are Malaysia's National Savings Bank and their utilities.

When I was in Kuala Lumpur in December, I found a new sense of confidence among my Malaysian friends. "Malaysia", they said, "will become a developed nation by the year 2020 (their so-called Wawasan 2020)." But parts of Malaysia, like Kuala Lumpur, will reach developed status much, much earlier. Looking at Kuala Lumpur, I have no doubt that they will succeed.

Sir, the brave new world is learning new tricks. We stand still to our own peril. Singapore is not so special that we can ignore the worldwide events moving around us. However nimble we are, we cannot swim against the free-market wave now sweeping the world.

It has been estimated that in the year 1992 alone, at least 12 countries will attempt to corporatize or privatize their telecoms and eight their utilities. And these include countries of every political hue, from Australia to Argentina, from Vietnam to Venezuela, including some big G-7 countries - Canada, Germany, and, surprisingly, Japan.

Now more than ever before, Singaporeans should stand behind the Government, throw away their phobia, to implement free-market oriented policies before we are overtaken by worldwide events.

This message cannot be more powerfully conveyed than by images of human sufferings transmitted by live satellite pictures from Russia. Even in the face of seemingly interminable breadlines, the Russian President, Mr Yeltsin, is asking his "New Russians" to bite the bullet and let the market decide. Obviously, the Russian economy will go further down, before it even climbs up. But Mr Yeltsin's decision seems to have echoed a 4,000-year-old wise Chinese saying: [ ] (liangyao ku kou). Loosely translated, it means good medicine tastes bitter. Any politician who tells otherwise is a charlatan and should be exposed as one.

The lesson for us is quite clear: we can either move for free market now or later. If we move now, we can do so in the luxury of jobs with some side effects. If we do so later, we may have to do so in the agony of breadlines. To paraphrase President Reagan: we can run but we cannot hide. The free-market will meet up with us. There is no escape from free markets, subsidies soothe the pain but only temporarily.

I look forward to the next five years as years of opportunity to help the Government build the kind of society envisaged in the Presidential Address. I repeat, to achieve this, we need a strong economic horse bred for the free market, and a political cart built out of the conviction of MPs before the tide of economic and social goodies can be towed to the people.

Sir, I support the motion in the name of Dr John Chen.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.35 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Dr John Chen, Member for Hong Kah GRC.

It was noted in the President's Address that sound Government policies have created a framework for sustained economic growth, and enabled Singaporeans to progress and prosper. One strong, sound pillar that has provided, and will continue to provide, a solid foundation for our people in the Next Lap is our education policy. I am pleased to note that the Government will continue to invest heavily in education and human resources so that our people will have the requisite knowledge and skills to increase their earning power. Education also gives us all a better quality of life, as it opens up new worlds in the appreciation of the arts and culture. Education is a pre-requisite to attaining the status of a cultivated society.

What is the right amount a country should spend on the education of its people? It is an extremely difficult question to answer. A study of how much other countries spend on education may be instructive. Let us first take a look at developed countries. According to OECD sources, 1987 to 1988, the public expenditure on public education as a percentage of GDP varies from as low as 2.03% in Turkey to 7.5% in the case of Denmark. The figures are 4.77% for USA, 4.97% for UK and 4.98% for Japan. In newly industrialised economies and developing countries, the figures as given by the respective Ministries of Education are 3.3% for Hong Kong in 1991, 2.75% for Thailand in 1989, and 8.5% for Malaysia in 1991. Last year, Singapore spent 4.22% of its GDP on education, which is close to the norm of industrialised nations. Before that it was 3.15% in 1988, 3.1% in 1989 and 3.27% in 1990. Let me caution here that these figures may not be entirely comparable because we have not gone behind the statistics to find out in detail what items have been included or excluded. Nevertheless, they do provide useful ballpark figures for comparison. It is evident from the figures that our Government is spending more on education every year. In the book The Next Lap, it is stated, and I quote:

"The Government will raise its financial commitment to education from 4% to 5% of our GDP."

Should we continue to increase Government expenditure on education or should we put a cap at an appropriate ceiling? We must remember that a dollar more for education is a dollar less for other public expenditure such as defence, health care or the building of public roads, all things being equal. The experiences of USA, UK and Japan, all developed nations, seem to suggest that an expenditure of 5% of GDP is adequate. As a society develops and matures, the people themselves, through their alma mater, grassroots organisations or corporate bodies should shoulder a share of this financial burden of providing quality education for the people. In the USA, for example, many reputable private universities are funded not just by school fees, but also contributions of old boys and girls and corporate donations. The setting up of independent schools is a step in this direction. Private foundations and companies can also play a greater role in extending a helping hand not only to independent schools and tertiary institutions but also to deserving students in Government and Government-aided schools through scholarships and bursaries.

I am pleased to note that the investment we have made in our education system has yielded impressive results. There is less wastage in education resources now as the percentage of Primary One cohort entering polytechnics and universities has gone up from 12% in 1980 to 36% in 1990. Our long-term goal is 60%. Obviously, we have some way to go.

Some people have expressed concern that with such a large number of polytechnic and university graduates being churned out every year, there may not be enough good jobs to go round. This in turn may lead to disappointment, frustration, disillusionment, and eventually emigration out of Singapore. I do not share these sentiments. I believe that if we have a better educated, higher skilled workforce, industries that we attract here will be higher value-added, higher-tech ones that have the capacity to give our workers higher wages. Higher educated and better trained staff will be better placed to help our local companies go regional and even international. Being more mobile, they can become international workers too, without having to emigrate. They can work abroad, but leave their hearts in Singapore. To facilitate this, more Singapore international schools should be set up, when and where needed, to look after the educational needs of their children.

Next, I would like to comment on the preparatory year programme for five-year olds, currently being tested in several primary schools. This programme has been extremely popular as indicated by the response from eager parents who go to see MPs to seek assistance to get their children into these few schools. However, now, there are probably more unhappy parents than happy ones who managed to find a place for their children. This unhappiness is to be expected. Those who have gained admission are deemed to have an unfair advantage in Primary One over those not so fortunate. I support the Government's decision to withdraw gradually from its involvement in pre-primary education. In the next two years, however, the Government should quickly help private kindergartens and pre-school centres to replicate this preparatory year programme so that as many children as possible, especially those from not so well-to-do families, can be prepared for formal schooling.

The present guidelines for admission to Primary One are complex and have also been a source of unhappiness to many parents. Many deem the scheme as elitist because priority is currently given to parents with higher educational qualifications as well as to those who supported the Government's population policies of the day. While I endorse fully the Government's population policies, I do not think it is necessary to link these policies to the admission criteria for Primary One. At the same time, I am also not advocating that we simply ballot for all Primary One places. I would like to recommend that in the review, priority should firstly be given to children whose siblings are already in the school, irrespective of the number. Subsequently, proximity of residence to schools should also be given consideration as this will cut down road congestion and busing problems. Next, the parents' record of public service, either in the school or grassroots, social or community organisations should also be recognised.

The modifications to the primary education system starting from this year have also caused concern among parents. It should be noted that the old system has yielded impressive results. In fact, if you take a look at the results of the PSLE since 1980, when the system was introduced, you will notice that the percentage of passes has gone up over the years, from 84% in 1980 to 88% in 1990. I am convinced that the change will be for the better and the results of the modified PSLE will show it. With the improvements, parents will have greater flexibility to choose a stream that maximises their children's potential. Parents should be patient and give the improved system a chance to work.

I also support the introduction of Day Schools. It meets the special needs of parents both of whom are working. The Day Schools should continue to look into ways of making the students' long stay in school comfortable and productive without raising cost unnecessarily.

Over the years, the Government is offering more choices and options to parents and children in the educational arena. This is a move in the right direction. Children come from different backgrounds, have different strengths and weaknesses, and learn at different paces. The new system will allow children to move at a pace and in the direction most suited to their background, their learning ability and career ambitions. The objective is every child achieving his highest potential with minimum wastage of educational resources. The education system must enable us to achieve this objective in the most efficient manner.

Next, I would like to touch on the subject of Edusave. Let me say from the outset that I fully support the concept of the Edusave scheme. When the Prime Minister first announced it, I thought it was a very generous gesture by the Government to give every pupil, whether rich or poor, a helping hand in participating in special assistance and other enrichment programmes. The aim of the Government to maximise and equalise educational opportunities for all Singaporeans is laudable. However, I would like to suggest that those who do not need the money should be allowed to contribute them to scholarship funds of the school or charitable and grassroots organisations. The latter can then use them for the benefit of less well-off students.

I support the concept of scholarship to cover the fees of pupils enrolled in independent schools as well as non-independent secondary schools. The decision now is to award these scholarships only to the top 25% in independent schools regardless of financial means. Several questions come to mind. Firstly, would this be determined at the point of entry to the school? If so, then this may be unfair to students who do well in their studies in later years. If this is determined every year after the year-end results, then scholarship holders from poor families who lose their scholarships subsequently may find themselves unable to continue in the independent school. Secondly, would the scholarship amount vary from school to school, depending on the fees charged? If so, would this not encourage independent schools to raise their fees in order to take full advantage of the scheme? Thirdly, some students from wealthy families do not need such scholarships. Would they be allowed to decline the scholarships so that other more deserving students can benefit from the scheme?

Let me say also that I endorse the giving of annual grants to all Government and Government-aided secondary schools to be spent at their discretion in order to improve the quality of their teaching. However, what is debatable is whether these scholarships and grants should be taken from the Edusave fund or the Ministry of Education budget. I understand that the Education Ministry has many other types of scholar- ships and grants already in existence. Accounting-wise, would it not be neater to have them put under the same scheme or the same head or account? In future, if the Government decides to vary the number or the amount of scholarships and grants, it would not be faced with the dilemma of which fund the money should be taken from.

Let me conclude on this subject by reiterating that I am not advocating that the Government raises its funding for education or Edusave. Both funds of the Ministry of Education and Edusave come from the Government. I had mentioned, at the beginning of my speech, that an education budget of about 5% of GDP seems adequate. It is only a matter of presentation. What I would like to see is a form that would facilitate possible changes in the future. I think we all agree that substance is important, but increasingly, we cannot ignore the form of presentation as the people become more market-oriented, more informed and more demanding.

As of now, the concept of levelling-up society using the Edusave fund is still hazy. Do we level up effectively by providing every school-going child, irrespective of home background, a fixed sum of money to be spent at his or her discretion? Or is it better that the Government decides how some of these funds should be spent to benefit the more able children? Sometimes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Perhaps, the Government should take the opportunity to explain more clearly its concept of levelling up society in the area of education.

Next, I would like to touch on the subject of continuing education. In focusing on educating every child to his highest potential, I am heartened to note that the Government has not forgotten the continuing education needs of our workers. According to the 1990 Census of Population, we still have 215,000 workers without Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), and another 400,000 workers with PSLE, but without GCE 'O' levels. The Government, unions and employers have initiated and implemented various programmes, such as the Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST), Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE), Core Skills for Effectiveness & Change (COSEC), Information Technology (IT) programmes, Fast Forward and Training Initiative for Mature Employees (TIME) to help raise their trainability and skills, so that their earning potential can be enhanced. Although the response has been encouraging, I do not think we are even half way there.

More can and should be done, especially for those who are willing to be trained, but presently face certain obstacles of time and financial support. Employers could increase their current training budget from 2.3% of total employment payroll to 4%. They could also set aside a specific number of working hours per year for the training of the employees. The Skills Development Fund (SDF) could extend direct SDF subsidy to individual workers to enable them to upgrade themselves up to diploma, or even a higher level. Workers do not have Edusave accounts. Perhaps, the Government could consider allowing them to use their CPF savings for part-time courses, especially at the polytechnics or the Singapore Open University.

Studying, holding on to a job, and looking after a family at the same time is not easy. Those who have the grit, determination and the capability should be helped along the way. All workers who have missed out on their formal education should also be given the opportunity to realise their highest potential. Admission to the Singapore Open University should therefore take into consideration working experience. Bridging courses at the polytechnics should be organised for workers who do not qualify for the Open University. Such courses should be offered part-time and on a credit system, so that working people would be able to cope despite work and family pressures.

Education is an expensive investment by the State. The higher the student moves up, the greater the investment. The more talented also enjoys greater financial support with scholarships, bursaries and special programmes for the gifted. Students who have made good in life should return to society the benefits they have enjoyed, very often over and above those given to the less able. If the graduates' only aim in life after starting work is to pursue career and wealth, then our education system has failed. Scholars should not shy away from serving in the public service. Those who have succeeded should set aside time to serve their alma mater, constituency organisations and other public non-profit bodies. They should offer a helping hand to those not so fortunate and talented. Only then will we be able to build greater cohesiveness among our people so that we can progress as a nation.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate to thank the President for his Address.

The key to stability in any country is to constantly improve the living standards of the people. As appropriately stated in the President's Address, I quote:

"... sound government policies have created a framework for sustained growth, and enabled Singaporeans to progress and prosper."

Throughout the history of nations, the rise and fall of empires, it was repeatedly demonstrated that a strong government ensures stability and progress. The people may feel more relaxed, more at ease, with a Government that is accommodative and softer. But ultimately, for the best interest of everybody, a leadership that is resolute and firm is much better than one that is indecisive and unsure.

Recently, the signals of the stance which is preferred by the Government have become a little ambivalent. As have been noticed by many observers, the Presidential Address has not been explicit on the approach that would be pursued by the Government. I might comment that the Presidential Address and the Addenda of the various Ministries appear rather task-oriented. It is unclear whether the Government intends to continue with a more gentler, participative and consultative style or that a firmer and more resolute approach would be the line. Some may well prefer a softer approach. I am of the view that some quarters, in fact, would like to have a government that is firm, but its firmness should also be tempered with a fair measure of care and compassion for the poor and less fortunate.

Singapore has a history of only 26 years. Most countries and nations have histories much longer than ours. The Chinese civilisation has a history of over 4,000 years. Numerous Chinese dynasties came and went, some lasting as short as 10 years only. Two of the longest dynasties in China are the Tang and the Song dynasties, each lasting about 300 years. A unified country, a strong central Government, efficient land and water communications and wide economic and cultural contacts made the Tang dynasty, which was from the 7th century to the 9th century, one of the most brilliant epochs of the Chinese history. The Tang dynasty was advance in literature, the arts, foreign relations and many other fields. The famed Silk Road was established during this period.

The 300 years of the Song dynasty, which was from the 10th century to the 13th century, was another high point in the Chinese civilisation and culture. Agriculture, handicraft, commerce and the urban economy continued to develop. New achievements were made in science and culture. The various Chinese dynasties eventually collapsed because the leaders became weak and decadent, and the well-being of the people was neglected.

More recently, we saw the dramatic dissolution of the Soviet Union after 74 years of history. Another recent event was the sudden capture and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, and its eventual liberalisation by the Allied Forces led by the US.

All these incidents are lessons in history. We are constantly reminded that for survival and stability, the leaders must be strong, and the leaders must strive for the people's interest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are entering into a period of moderate growth and a period of consolidation. The Ministry of Trade and Industry expects our economic growth in the next three to five years to be between 5% and 7% per annum. Thereafter, after the fifth year onwards, growth will slow to about 4% to 6 % per annum. It is evident that the era of high dazzling growth rates is over. During the fast growth periods of the 70s and the early 80s, many Singaporeans prospered. Naturally, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened.

I strongly feel, Sir, that the Government's decision to emphasize on levelling up to progress comes at the right time. When we were moving ahead at a fast pace, it would be difficult to call on the fore-runners to slow down. Now that we are coming to a stage of slower growth rates, it is an opportune time for us to consolidate, a time to help narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

The Government could focus in the next five to ten years on levelling up the lower 20% to 30% of the population. Fortunately, it also has the means to do so as the Government has accumulated substantial reserves which can now be put to very effective use. Examples of what I see are meaningful schemes to facilitate the levelling-up process would be the proposal to form the Singapore Open University, the Edusave Scheme, the HDB Upgrading Programme and the Medifund. Hopefully, all these measures will help to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor in Singapore in future.

However, Sir, I feel that the burden of helping the poorer segment of the people should not rest solely on the Government. I feel that the community, that is the richer members of the community, should also be strongly urged to do a part. In the recent two years, numerous fund raising projects were organised by various charity and community organisations. The largest were, of course, the 25th Anniversary Charity Fund and the University Endowment Fund. We have often heard that local companies, MNCs and wealthy individuals felt overly taxed by these frequent calls for donations. Contrary to these sentiments, we should take the view that since local companies, MNCs and wealthy individuals have made good money in Singapore in the past, it is only small recompense for them to donate to the community when called upon to do so now.

Another area which has not been sufficiently promoted, I feel, is to call upon able citizens who have made good, to come forward to serve the community. We should roll back the trend towards the "individualistic" or "what's-in-it-for-me" syndrome. The tendency to seek personal gratification and well-being is getting prevalent. To address these social issues, Community Development will be an increasingly important portfolio in future. I note, Sir, that the Minister taking charge of this increasingly important portfolio is also shouldering another heavy Ministry, which is the Ministry of Health.

Sir, I wish to move on to one last area which I feel has not been adequately addressed in the Presidential Address. This is the rising cost of living. It is true that the costs of basic essentials have not increased substantially over the years. However, I feel that the people have been very much taxed by the rapid increases in the costs of health care, hospitalisation, education, transportation and housing. While the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has recorded only moderate increases over all these years, it may not be a fair measure of the high cost of living in Singapore for the average Singaporean.

I wish to conclude by urging the Government to put a strong emphasis on devising a better measure of the rising cost of living for the average Singaporean and to closely monitor this factor. An unchecked rising cost of living can easily erase the multitude of good work done by the Government in all the other areas.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): ( In Malay): As a nation, we are still young. But, within a matter of one generation, we have notched a list of proud achievements. Our fundamental institutions are stable. Life has never been better. And our people, regardless of race, are enjoying the fruits of this success.

Our way of life has undergone tremendous changes. One clear example is in housing. Where they used to live in crowded, chaotic conditions, mainly in rented housing, Singaporeans today are by and large owners of their homes. And this is a far cry from the situation in many countries, including some developed nations, where thousands of people are still living on roadsides, under bridges and in makeshift shelters.

Higher and better education and skills have become the key to progress for the people and a nation. And in time to come, these elements will continue to figure in the further improvement of our lives and in our further prosperity. Though much has been achieved on a broad basis, the restructuring of our society is still to be completed and indeed will not be complete within three decades. And that is why we continue to hear voices of hope, particularly from those in the low and moderately low income groups who desire to climb higher up the economic ladder.

Mr Speaker, I view these expressions of hope as a positive sign. When people say in no uncertain terms that they want to progress and succeed, we as a nation are in a safe position. Our progress and achievements are only half way. With this drive for progress and success in our people, we can run our development machinery with the confidence that the citizens will be with the Government in reaching for our objectives. I am confident that solidarity in our society will be strengthened with the development goals that have been clearly outlined by the Government in the President's Address.

One very important and prominent point to be noted throughout the Address is the Government's effort to open the widest possible opportunities for Singaporeans to further upgrade themselves, particularly through education and training. The programme outlined gives hope for people of all levels in our multi-racial society, including the low income earners, to take advantage of these opportunities to improve their lives and their families' lives.

One obvious example is the education system, which will be tied to the Edusave scheme. It would allay the concern among some families as to whether their children will have the opportunity to progress through better schools, whether neighbourhood or independent schools.

Mr Speaker, in my view, it is not that Singaporeans do not favour independent schools or the Government's emphasis on quality educational facilities and programmes. Instead, they are concerned about their means and the opportunities available to them. This is the case particularly among the low income earners. The Presidential Address has helped allay some of these fears. More importantly, with better educational and training programmes, all Singaporeans including those from the low income families will have equal opportunities to develop their skills and abilities. Equal opportunities are available to everyone to succeed through a system based on meritocracy.

Mr Speaker, as long as the people believe that they have good and equal prospects to build a life and to progress, whether they are rich or poor, they will have a reason to strive and to work hard. To me, this element of hope is the most important feature of the Presidential Address. This hope must be nurtured and allowed to shine, because it will be our main driving force. If people cannot see what prospects lie before them, they will be fearful and apprehensive. Things will be more difficult.

In this regard, self-help efforts such as those by bodies like Mendaki Foundation, SINDA or the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) must be seen as positive additional stimulus for us to reach for the common goals of all Singaporeans. Success for each citizen means benefits for every other citizen and for the country. Success for each community means benefits for every other community and for the nation. The spillover of one person's or one community's achievements normally can be enjoyed by all others around them. Therefore, we must encourage one another to succeed and not succumb to jealousy. When people of all ethnic backgrounds progress and get to enjoy the fruits of progress, political stability in the country and harmony in this multiracial environment will be enhanced. This is what we want in the long term.

In this regard, I cannot help but touch on the points made by the Member for Potong Pasir on the concept of Singaporean Singapore and his stress on creating a homogeneous society. Mr Speaker, his points contain an underlying charge, that Singaporeans, Chinese, Malays and Indians, are growing more and more communalistic in their attitude.

I consider this a very strong charge with no basis at all. My experience shows the opposite - that the Singaporean spirit is growing stronger day by day among people of different communities. But, while we want a Singapore that is united, where the people help one another, we do not need to be a people that forget our diverse cultures, heritage and ethnic roots. 3.38 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): The points made by the Member for Potong Pasir raises many questions that give us cause for concern. When someone says that Singaporeans are growing more and more communalistic, the impression one gets is of a widening gap between the different communities. But this is not so in reality. On the other hand, an explanation is called for as to what one means by "homogeneous society" and "Singaporean Singapore", because this question cannot be allowed to create confusion among us.

Every community in this country has its own unique needs and some of these needs cannot be fulfilled on an overall basis covering all the communities. I give the example of the Malay/Muslim community, which has its own heritage too, just like the Indians and the Chinese - its own language, culture, religion and way of life. The Malays want this heritage to be preserved and to flourish. They want to continue building mosques and providing religious education for their children. They want their future generations to continue to be able to speak Malay at home and among members of the community.

When we talk of Singaporean Singapore and a homogeneous society, do we mean that each community must set aside its own language, its own culture, its own religion and everything that constitutes its heritage, simply to be Singaporeans, free of cultural and racial differences?

That is why I call this worrying question that must be challenged so as not to create misunderstanding in our society. Must a Malay, for example, lose his identity, his religion and language in order to be some sort of person whose nature, character and appearance I think even the Member for Potong Pasir cannot begin to visualise?

On the other hand, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I am more comfortable with the Government's policy, with its emphasis on multi-racialism and its promotion of inter-racial unity, which has enabled us, people from different communities, to live together, work together, as friends, neighbours, colleagues and so on. I think our experience in the past decades has brought the people of Singapore closer together, and I hope there will not be charges that we are getting more and more communalistic.

The hopes and aspirations of the people are clear - they want a better life, quality life. The Government's plans are clear too - to let as many citizens as possible progress and succeed. The meeting point between the hopes of the citizens and the Government's plans is evident in the Presidential Address. The marriage of these two goals shall form a foundation that would strengthen the solidarity between citizens and leaders.

We are now in a very important decade. By the end of this decade, we expect to become a developed country, and I sincerely hope the Government would not be swayed by comments implying that life in Singapore in 1972 was better and ought to be our goal. With close cooperation between citizens and leaders, prospects will be brighter for all Singaporeans to achieve a better life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, a number of new developments in South East Asia, particularly the opening of Indo-China to the world and the withdrawal of US forces from the region, will have an impact on us, in the form of new challenges and opportunities. They are going to have an effect on our lives. Likewise, changes in the creation of the North American Free Trade Area, the European Community and the Commonwealth of Independent States. They require us to work together as a solid team in good times and in bad times. And only in this way would we be able to cope with new changes and challenges in a world that has undergone a lot of changes and will continue to change.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address. 3.45 pm

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Toa Payoh GRC): Sir, all around the world, as each state industrialises and moves into an urban setting, the cost of living will inadvertently increase. This is true for Tokyo, London, Bangkok and our immediate northern neighbour, Malaysia. Singapore is no different either. As standards of living escalate, so will the cost of living. Here in Singapore there is a pervasive complaint that the cost of living in Singapore has risen significantly. Sir, I have heard similar complaints from my constituents. I share the same opinion that living in Singapore has become more expensive, but we are lucky to have single-digit inflation rates so far.

However, Sir, in a free market economy that our Government ardently pursues, prices are decided by demand and supply. Producers will charge a high price if the consumers are willing to pay more, and less if otherwise. The consumer, therefore, is empowered to an extent to have an influence on prices specifically, and cost of living generally. I recall fondly, not too long ago, when a bowl of noodles cost only $1.50. Now in a lot of hawker centres a bowl of noodles is going at $2.00, and sometimes $2.50. Still people are willing to pay for it. In Newton Circus, it costs from $3 to $5, yet people still flock back.

Though consumers complain that prices are too high, they are willing to succumb. Consumers just simply do not want to exercise what I call "consumer power". Basic economic principles tell us that if there is no demand for a particular good, over a period of time the price of that item will fall. Although this may be simplifying economic principles somewhat, it is true in many regards. Consumers, if united, can make a difference.

Sir, take the case of the astronomically escalating Certificates of Entitlement (COE) prices. Whether transferable or non-transferable, since its debut, it has continued to hit new heights in almost all categories of vehicles. The prices are decided by the bidders - would-be car owners are also known as consumers themselves. The price of COE is indicative of what consumers think and are willing to pay for. In that sense, the COE prices are reasonable. Prices of COE will definitely drop drastically if demand decreases. The relationship between price and demand is therefore quite obvious. In this regard, Sir, if the cost of owning a car is sky-high, obviously the main bulk of the blame lies with the consumers themselves. The same argument may be made for many other goods and services. This problem is compounded by the fact that ours is a free market economy. One pays for what one consumes. But because one pays for what one consumes, prices of goods and services are influenced by people who can afford them at the expense of those who cannot.

For this reason, I am glad and applaud our Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues for the assurance that the poor in Singapore will not be neglected. Recently, there has been a lot of debate, and I suspect it will be around for some time, that the Government is one that is out to make money from the people. They point to the fact that some of our statutory boards are amassing huge amounts of reserves and concomitantly increasing their charges. Telecom is a good example. People also accuse the Government of devising policies with the view of making the Government financially robust at the expense of the people.

Sir, I think more often than not, most of the people's grouses are emotional and sometimes irrational. This is understandable as their pockets and ours are hurt. However, some of the Government policies seem to lend credence to their allegations. Please bear with me while I illustrate. The quality of HDB flats has certainly gone up in the last few years. Simultaneously, the price of a HDB flat has also risen and will continue to rise. One of the reasons, as I understand it, stems from the fact that the cost of building a flat has appreciated substantially in the last few years. And the cost of land contributes a huge portion. Sir, HDB buys land from the Government at current market price. That same piece of land which had been acquired by the Government at market rate of the past was very much lower. The Government is therefore seen to be making a substantial profit from the sale of State land meant for public housing.

Next, the COE, which is part and parcel of the car quota system, was not designed to generate revenue. The then Minister for Communications has assured this House twice on 26th February 1990. But, Sir, it is obvious to the man-in-the-street that a lot of unestimated revenue has been generated. In addition, the COE has proven to be an effective control of car population in Singapore. Then the question naturally arises as to why the Government still retains the high Additional Registration Fee (ARF). The argument is that ARF should gradually be reduced. This issue has been brought up before in this House during the last Parliament. One cannot deny that in summation a lot of these Government policies do help to create the impression that the Government is basically out to make money from the people.

Sir, I think all this negative thinking about the Government is not good for the country as a whole. The social contract between the people and the Government is being questioned. When that happens, the nation as a whole suffers because the Government's leadership role in nation building is also threatened. Thus, I think the Government should make an attempt to eradicate such negative feelings or prevent them from proliferating.

Sir, action speaks louder than words. While I applaud the President's assurance that the poor will not be neglected, I believe more can be done. I am not talking of an increase in Government spending either. I believe the Ministry of Communications can put the unplanned for revenue collected from the COEs to better use. For example, the monies can be used to enhance our public transportation system. The MRT, though efficient, is like an unpolished diamond. It plies all major areas in Singapore, but is not well connected to the housing areas. Almost all commuters have to take a feeder bus to their nearest train station. This adds to their daily expenditure. In some places, there is not even a feeder service. For instance, commuters in housing areas along Paya Lebar have to take a main service costing 60 cents to any nearby MRT station.

Sir, I therefore propose that the monies collected from the sale of COEs could be used to subsidize bus and MRT fares. This is not asking for more subsidies from the Government or cutting into the national coffer. Rather, the subsidy is conditional on the amount collected from COEs. For this purpose, maybe the Public Transport Council could be commissioned to take charge of this apportionment. The money can be used to reduce the cost of public transport so as not to necessitate periodic fare hikes. The money can also be used to encourage a greater and more refined network of feeder services to connect residential areas to MRT stations.

Sir, I also propose that more measures be introduced to encourage more people to use public transport like the MRT. For example, more car parks around MRT stations could be built during the Next Lap.

This is to encourage more car owners to park their cars and take the MRT to work instead. Presently, MRT stations near major housing estates, like Bedok or Clementi, do not have adequate car parks in their immediate surroundings. Along this line, multi-storey car parks, with shopping facilities, would be ideal. Sir, there are many merits in this proposal. For a start, it cuts costs for the man-in-the-street as well as alleviates traffic congestion in the city areas.

I believe it will go a long way to polish the image of the Government too. On that note, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Dr John Chen.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Hong Kah to express our thanks to the President.

I am greatly comforted by the President's opening remarks, in which he reminded Singaporeans to be united as a nation, to work together as a group, to strengthen their bonds with one another and to be mindful of the need for the more able to show concern for those lagging behind. To me, these are crucial points that need to be harped upon at appropriate occasions because we know that when society becomes better off, people would tend to become individualistic and selfish.

Sir, looking at the past year or two, we can be proud that conscious and concerted efforts are being made to address the problems of the bottom segment of society. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the setting up of self-help organisations in the Indian and Chinese community, in addition to MENDAKI, is a positive step.

Although some quarters have expressed concern that such a development might lead to heightened ethnic consciousness, it should not be viewed as such. Bearing in mind the complementary role of these community-based organisations, we should see it more as a move to promote greater public awareness of the plight of the disadvantaged, cutting across ethnic lines, so that we can provide them the opportunity for full participation and integration in the society at large. In this connection, I am encouraged to note that in the Addendum to the Presidential Address, the Minister for Community Development stated that more opportunities will be opened for people to take part in community and voluntary work.

Next, Sir, I would like to turn to the subject of education. Whilst our education system is geared towards giving our children the education best tailored to their individual needs, the underlying factor parents must remember is the ability and intellect of their children. Hence, parents should be heartened by the reiteration that admission to independent schools shall be based on merit, not on ability to pay. The relevant question to ask is whether any child has been denied admission to independent schools because of his family's financial circumstances. As far as I know, there is none. Hence, the fear of being discriminated is more perceived than real.

On the question of the scholarships to be given to the top 25% of independent school students, I concur with the views expressed by my colleague from Tanglin that those who can afford it should be encouraged to donate their scholarship money to help others more in need. This is in line with our humanitarian principle of the "haves" helping the "have-nots". Perhaps the Ministry of Education could look into this proposal.

On the subject of health care, presently there is a great deal of anxiety on the part of the lower and middle income Singaporeans on the issue of affordability versus rising health cost. I have been informed of incidents where counter staff insisted that the requisite payments be made first before a patient could be attended to, without due regard to the patient's condition. Besides causing unnecessary stress on members of the patient's family, my concern here is that such attitude will reinforce the perception, rightly or wrongly, that our health service is increasingly being run along commercial lines.

I trust such situations will be a thing of the past, and I am relieved to note in the Addendum by the Minister for Health that, I quote:

" . . . the Ministry will make a thorough evaluation of current health care policies . . . and keep basic health care accessible and affordable to all Singaporeans."

I sincerely hope that, when the evaluation is conducted, attention will be given to training and equipping frontline staff with human relations skills, so that they could be more sensitive and tactful when dealing with members of the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I support the motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

In the Next Lap, our people must guard against the temptation of going soft in the luxury of a prosperous economy. The temptation is great. After years of continuous growth, we have come to the level of affluence that was only dreamt about by our parents and is the envy of many people elsewhere. To raise the level of affluence any higher requires much more effort from the Government and from the workers. So the temptation is to slow down a bit, level off, enjoy life a little bit more.

There is a second way of going soft, and that is, instead of tackling the problems of society head on, and I am talking about problems pertaining to the under-class -- problems of drug abuse and health care - the way of going soft is to throw money at these problems and hope that they will go away. If we level off, if we throw money at the problems and hope that they will go away, we will undermine the very basis of our success. Our asset is our competitive edge. To maintain that competitive edge, the only way is to remain keen and lean, as the President told us in his Address.

Sir, Singapore will continue to succeed only if we want to succeed, which means that we have to stay on our toes all the time. The President's Address charts out the right approach. Our ASEAN neighbours are adopting policies to promote investments and growth in their countries. In time, one by one, they will take off, and they too will succeed.

Honourable Members may remember that a few years ago we were talking about the problems faced by Latin American countries, their debts and their inability to pay their loans. Today, analysts are predicting a strong turnaround for them. The world will not stay still for us. The Japanese understand this very well. One prestigious Tokyo business school teaches its students, "When you are behind, run faster to catch up. When you are in front, run even faster so that nobody can catch up." Sir, how do we beat such a philosophy?

In the Next Lap, we too will be running our race. From here it looks comfortable and easy. But, Sir, anyone who is training for a marathon will be able to tell you a slogan that says, "No pain, no gain." The going will become tough. And when it does, we must not soften. We must have the stamina and the will to make it.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

I rise in support of the motion by the Member for Hong Kah GRC, Dr John Chen.

Sir, Singapore's socio-ecological environment has been changing rapidly. In the last 25 years, the demographic patterns have changed due to changing fertility trends and our population policies. The physical environment and skyline have been reshaped; the population has been redistributed to various new towns. In addition, expectations and demands of the younger generation of population for better social services such as housing, education, health, transportation and entertainment have risen sharply.

Sir, the demands, if not mediated, would increase the financial burden on Singapore. Other alternative strategies of meeting the demands are being devised. It is not surprising, therefore, to see an increase in governmental emphasis on corporatisation and restructuring of some social provisions such as health, education, housing and other related services. In the Government's pursuit of restructuring and corporatisation of the public sector, it is important that social provisions are priced in a range which is within the reach of the working class population.

Sir, there is much concern about the privatisation of various statutory boards. There is concern that there will be runaway price increases. And I feel that there is a need to set up a review board to ensure that unnecessary price increases by these privatised statutory boards will be checked. I think this is very important because they are all monopolistic organisations which provide services which are specific to the enterprise itself. It is crucial to set up the body which would mediate in terms of the expected price increases if they are going to be privatised.

Sir, Singapore's progress in the last two decades has made it possible for the Government to provide a stake for its citizens. Singaporeans have become stakeholders as a result of ownership to housing and accessibility to education and protection against ill health. I believe the concept of "save and have" is one of the most important reasons for Singapore today to claim a success story. Sir, we have created opportunities for Singaporeans to be stakeholders. Can we sustain them as stakeholders? The challenge, as I see, is to ensure that housing, education, health which are primary pillars of our social foundation remain affordable. To do this, we need to save and create wealth.

In Singapore, "save and have" has been pursued vigorously on two fronts. Firstly, the Government's prudent policy of investing in our most valuable asset - our people - to enable them to build assets, own property and have a stake in the nation. Concomitantly, the people were encouraged to save so that they may own assets. "Save and have" is responsible for many of our achievements. I beg your indulgence as I briefly recount our humble achievements.

During the last three decades, educating the population was correctly identified as the means to lift the country into the road for progress. Hence, providing mass education dominated a pivotal role of Government's attempt to build the nation. Education became universally accessible. Over the years, while the Government saved by accumulating reserves, we were not only able to universally educate our population, but also the level of education of our people was also raised. Today, about 97% of our children of school-going age are attending school. We also have more educated young adult population. About 38% of them have at least secondary education, and university graduates have increased by one fold, from 4% in 1980 to 8% in 1990. Today, our attempts to provide education for people have accelerated to a higher plane with the introduction of independent schools. An Open University and a fourth polytechnic are due to open next year.

Sir, we have also made significant achievements in the area of housing. HDB was set up in 1960 to combat the acute housing shortage and problems then. However, not just being content with putting a roof over the head of our people, we aim instead to create a nation of home owners. Savings in the form of CPF were introduced to facilitate this aim. This huge base of savings has helped us to achieve a home ownership of about 87% of our population. Our housing policy is successful and more people would be expected to become home owners. Furthermore, the fact that there is more and more demand for bigger and newer HDB flats is testimony that the policy of "save and have" has worked.

Sir, on our health services, as we can assess, it has improved dramatically. We have also moved beyond providing basic health care. Quality health care is also available. As long as people are willing to pay, the best will be available. One only need to check into Class A ward of the Singapore General Hospital to see what I mean. All these improved services are provided with the Ministry of Health's assurance that no one will be denied of basic health care. If one cannot afford the luxury of Class A wards, there are always the subsidised Class C wards of Government hospitals which one can turn to. Moreover, health care is made accessible through savings in the CPF, ie, Medisave. In short, improvement in health care is achieved without any cutback on the universal provision.

Sir, the idea of "save and have" for nation building cannot be discounted. This is especially important for a young country like Singapore. When people accumulate assets such as home ownership, savings for better and higher education, or ownership of small business, their link to the country becomes more strengthened. People begin to have a stake in the well-being of the country and they can begin to take a long-term interest. In fact, Sir, all this provides a bondage between the people and the state. This surely must be the single most important reason for the early immigrants' decision to take root in Singapore.

Sir, as we stand on the threshold of both the Eighth Parliament and the Next Lap, I have deliberately touched on the above three areas which are basic foundations, namely, education, housing and health care. While in these areas we saw considerable development in the last three decades, these same three areas, to me, are likely to be the challenging issues in the Next Lap. It is in these areas that I am of the view that we must strive to ensure that they will be accessible to our people.

Firstly, not too long ago, education was a means to improve one's livelihood and economic status. However, today, Sir, our parents are concerned about the cost of education for their children. Educational cost has increased in independent schools and tertiary level. The burdens are certainly being felt by the working class families. They are urging for reprieve in further fee increases.

In housing, Sir, costs have spiralled. Two decades of rapid growth have fuelled people's desire and taste. The vast number of applications for a 4-room flat is a case in point. The gap between cost and desire, however, is widening. In 1986, a 4-room flat in Tampines New Town cost $56,300. A 4-room flat in the same locality now costs $92,200. The cost of a HDB flat is expected to continue to rise. On top of that, under the booking system, for one to get a flat it is very much left to chance. Thus, I applaud the Ministry of National Development's attempt to fine tune this system of allocation of flats. And I hope that MND will continue to do so.

Finally, Sir, I am glad that the Government acknowledges that the cost of health care will rise in future as the population is aging. The cost of health care will certainly continue to escalate in the not too distant future. In the area of health care, I would like to raise two issues. Firstly, why can we not have a Government hospital that is as efficient as the Singapore General Hospital, without the pitfalls of escalating cost? Secondly, while it is assuring that no one will be denied basic health care, I think the Government can do more by assuring and ensuring that better treatment will be provided to B2 and C Class patients. It is my contention that just because more people aspire for B1 or B2 wards, it does not indicate that Singaporeans are more affluent. One explanation may be that Singaporeans take health care more seriously, so much so that the treatment provided in Class C may not measure up to their expectation of basic health care.

Sir, I would like to put on record that I support the Government's policy of reserves building. I agree that for a small country like Singapore, we need as much financial security as possible. Sir, I am not advocating increasing subsidies either, but rather maintaining them at current levels and to stop reducing them. I would like to point out that a country's security is not built on its financial security alone. Equally important, if not more important, is its people's bonding to the country that also provides the thrust and life of the nation. As I have mentioned earlier, the more assets one owns, the greater the attachment he has to the country. But as we stand on the threshold of the nineties, it seems to me that it is getting more difficult for the man in the street to own assets.

The difference in asset ownership has many a time caused social strains and alienation in many societies. There is a deep danger that relations between communities can widen. Histories of various nations have shown these pitfalls.

Sir, I support my Parliamentary colleague from Tanjong Pagar GRC who provided an analogy of the horse carriage economy. It is an interesting analogy, Sir. It deserves attention. But it could have been more interesting if he has included the rider because to me, I think, it is important to also have the rider together with the horse and carriage as the rider will provide the direction to which one will aspire to get to.

Sir, in Singapore, we cannot afford to suffer the same tragedy, and we have to find ways to give a station in life for every Singaporean, young or old, and to take steps to prevent families from slipping down the socio-economic ladder. I also urge the Government to consider carefully the effects on the people's livelihood when formulating any policy and I know that the Government takes a deep interest in looking at its implications. I hope that further analysis of such policies in the interest of further economic growth can be generated.