PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address

Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, I think we have enough time. We are already more than half-way through.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, you have made your speech, and you have no right to speak.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, I want to get a point of clarification from Dr Michael Lim.

Mr Speaker: You are not permitted to make a clarification at this point. Please resume your seat.

Mr Chiam See Tong: When can I be allowed to make a clarification?

Mr Speaker: Under Standing Orders, you are not permitted to make any clarification. Mr Cheo. 2.15 pm

Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, generally speaking, the Government's policy, as outlined in the President's Address, is basically correct and encouraging. However, I feel that there is need for me to comment on a number of points.

First, on public housing. The HDB's plan to improve the neighbourhoods of HDB housing estates, including the upgrading of existing flats, and installation of water-proof flooring, etc, is most welcomed by the people. However, the HDB should pay attention to the design of the flats. Many residents complain that the doors of some HDB flats are too small, making it very difficult for them to get the furniture into the flat. Although this may appear to be a trivial matter, it has caused inconvenience to many residents.

Another problem concerns the water tanks. As the water tanks on the roofs of HDB flats are not sheltered, the temperature of water coming through the pipes can be very high in the afternoon. I have received complaints from many residents on this matter. I hope the HDB will look into the matter and improve on it. The HDB, I believe, must have been looking into this problem because it has received many complaints on this matter. I took up this matter with the HDB, but it has pushed the responsibility on to the town councils. Now I wish to tell the HDB that if they want the town council to take up the matter, of course, there is no problem. However, the town council needs the cooperation of the HDB. For example, the town council must 2have certain funds to carry out the works to improve the facilities. Furthermore, the engineering and architecture departments of the HDB have to approve the plan for the works.

Another point is that the HDB has recently amended many of its rules and regulations, making it more convenient to the people. This is something worthy of our praises. However, there is one matter I would like to comment on, that is, the HDB has recently stopped the practice of providing office premises for Members of Parliament. I think this is a wrong move. MPs are rendering their services to the residents. They are like grassroots leaders. If the HDB allows grassroots leaders to have their offices at the void deck of HDB flats, why can't MPs also have their offices at the void deck? This will enable the residents to meet their MPs, to seek their help, and to raise some complaints with their MPs. The MPs will also find it convenient to provide their services to the residents. HDB argues that the void decks are in great demand and there is more and more use for the void decks and therefore MPs cannot have their offices at the void decks. This argument does not hold water. For example, in Nee Soon Central, there are more than 140 blocks of HDB flats in the constituency under the charge of our town council. To say that there is no space to build a small office for the MP at one of the void decks of the more than 140 blocks of flats is simply unjustifiable. Therefore, I hope that the HDB will look into this matter.

Now I would like to touch on the question of labour. In the Ministry of Labour's addendum to the President's Address, it was mentioned that more and better job opportunities will be created for our people. As a matter of fact, I have already felt it. In the execution of my duty as an MP, I have come to know that the Employment Unit in the Labour Ministry has rendered a lot of assistance to the voters in my constituency. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them. However, in the protection of the interest of the workers, the Labour Ministry's effort is still inadequate. I hope that the Government will look into the matter and amend the law as soon as possible to provide for priority to be given to the payment of salaries and CPF contributions owing to the workers when a company goes into liquidation or receivership and when its assets are being auctioned off. I am aware that there is one high-tech vegetable farm in Yishun which owes as much as 10 months' salaries to its workers. The matter is now in the hands of the Labour Ministry. I hope that the Labour Ministry will deal with the matter appropriately to recover the salaries and CPF owing to the workers.

Next, I would like to speak on education and health care. I would like the Government to pay close attention to the hefty increase in educational and medical cost. The Government should be very careful in this matter. I feel that the Government should increase its subsidy on education and health care because we have a sizable reserve fund in our coffer and our taxes are heavy. The Government has a large income. Therefore, it should allocate more funds to subsidise these two welfare items.

Another point is that education should not be linked to politics and be influenced by politics. Of course, the political influence is inevitable. However, education should not be used as a political weapon. For example, after the General Election, the PAP has threatened residents in the Opposition constituencies that they want to withdraw or cut down on kindergarten classes in those constituencies. This is a sign of mixing up education with politics. In a reply to the readers' letters, the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister wrote in the Straits Times of 1st January that the PAP Community Foundation was a non-profit making and charitable organisation, and that it was not the People's Action Party itself. Therefore, we can see that the PAP has failed to distinguish between itself and the PAP Community Foundation. Whether it is a private organisation, or a Government organisation, education should not involve politics. If the PAP Community Foundation is not a political organisation, that is, not the PAP itself, then why is the PAP threatening to withdraw or cut down on the number of kindergarten classes? This clearly shows that the PAP, the ruling party, has made use of education as a means to threaten the people.

Now I would like to touch on privatisation. I agree that the corporatization of certain competitive enterprises and non-essential monopolized enterprises by the Government is a right move. However, important monopolized enterprises, such as public utilities, should not be privatized. Otherwise, corporatization would necessarily mean the increase in fees or charges. Of course, the Government could allow some private enterprises to participate in the operation of these enterprises, subject to some stipulated terms and conditions. However, the Government must be very careful.

The Government allows the schools to go independent and the hospitals to be privatized. In my view, this is tantamount to Government shirking its responsibility. If the Government cannot manage these institutions as good as, if not better than the private sector, then what does this show?

Next, on CPF. In my view, the Government should have more flexible regulations on the use of CPF. When there is turbulence in a society, apart from racial conflicts, I think the main problem is the contradiction between the rich and poor. In a society, those who "have" should help those who "have-not". For this reason, I am glad to note that the Government has encouraged community organisations to set up various schemes to help the poor and less fortunate people. This is certainly a correct move. But I feel that the Government should relax on the use of CPF so that people with large savings in their CPF accounts may be allowed to withdraw a certain amount of money, within a specified scope, to help their relatives in the payment of their housing loans and conservancy charges, and even their cost of living and medical expenses during unusually hard times. I think this is one of the ways the Government should consider.

Now, I would like to speak on consumption tax. The Finance Ministry will be presenting a White Paper on consumption tax soon. This is a prelude to the Government's intention to introduce consumption tax. I am very concerned about this matter. As the consumption tax will be levied on all our people, it will be extremely to the disadvantage of those in the lower income group. I urge the Government to carefully study the matter and not to implement this consumption tax hastily. I agree with the Member for Leng Kee, Dr Ow Chin Hock, that all the basic necessities, such as food and sundry goods, should be exempted from such consumption tax, if the implementation of consumption tax is truly unavoidable.

Another point I would like to talk about concerns a problem in our car quota system, particularly the surcharge on old cars. The Government imposes a road tax surcharge on cars above 10 years of age, and the surcharge is increased by 10% every year for five years. The reason given by the Government for imposing this surcharge is that such old cars can cause congestions on our roads because they may stall on our roads, that they emit a lot of exhaust fumes, thus polluting our environment, and that they are noisy, causing noise pollution. These are the reasons given by the Government. However, is the Government saying that by imposing a surcharge on these old cars, all the abovementioned problems could be resolved? No, the problems will still exist. As such, this is not a valid reason, not a genuine reason. In my view, the real reason is that the Government wants more revenue, and not the reasons as given.

As we know, some of these cars which are over 10 years old have been well maintained. The Government requires all old goods vehicles to be inspected once every six months and old motorcars to be inspected once a year to make sure that they are road-worthy. The quality of different makes of cars varies. The manner in which they are maintained is also different. If the cars are well looked after, I am sure many of them are road-worthy. Some cars are rarely used on the roads. Of course, taxis are running on the roads most of the time. They suffer more breakdowns. But most private cars are only used by their owners to go to office and back home. They are in good condition. For these reasons, I feel that the Government should abolish this surcharge.

Today, a car is no longer a luxury item. Many less well-to-do people need a car for their daily lives. The surcharge imposed by the Government is very unfavourable to them, and has increased their burden. I hope that the Government will carefully consider my suggestion to abolish the surcharge. We can use other methods to control the use of old cars. We can fix a life-span for each car, for example, motorcars may be used for 20 years and goods vehicles may be used for 15 years. We can set a basic stipulation, and then review the matter in due course. 15 or 20 years later, if the condition of the vehicle is still good, still road-worthy, then we should allow them to continue to be used on the roads, with a little extra levy. This will be more reasonable and more practical.

Next, I would like to talk about the Government's so-called "consultative" style. I am very glad that the Government has announced that it will be more "open-minded" and "consultative". However, the promise must be a sincere one, and not just to put up a show or to earn more political capital. I can give two examples to illustrate the point, for example, the Elected President system and the new system of telephone charges.

After the 1988 General Election, the issue of the Elected President was brought up. Thereafter, many people asked the Government to conduct a referendum to decide whether or not to implement the Elected President system. Many grassroots organisations also held the view that there should be a referendum. However, the Government did not accept their view. The same applied to the new telephone charging system. Many people objected, and they felt that the new system was no good because it would give rise to many problems. First, the cost will go up. No doubt, some people may pay less, but the vast majority will have to pay more. Secondly, the people-to-people relationship will be undermined. When you need to borrow the use of a telephone, you will have to first consider whether the subscriber will be happy to let you use the telephone. On one hand, the subscriber will feel bad not to let you use the telephone. On the other hand, he or she will have to worry about the charges to be incurred. Thirdly, the school children will hesitate to use the telephone to discuss homework with their class-mates. The old folks will not be able to chit-chat with their old friends. The old people are thus deprived of this little entertainment that they used to enjoy. There are many defects in the system. Many people have brought them up, but the Government has failed to consider them carefully.

The Government's explanation is that under the old system, everyone pays the same subscription whether you use the telephone very often or not, and that is not fair. In my view, this is not a valid reason. If the Government is sincere about it, they should reduce the subscription for those who use the telephone less frequently. There is no need to implement this new system of charging. If Telecom is serious about not wanting to earn more revenue but to improve its services to the subscribers, then it should not implement such a system. It should, instead, increase the number of telephone lines rather than resort to this sort of time-based charging system. Singapore is a small country. There is no need for us to lay very long underground telephone cables. Therefore, unlike the western countries, we have no need to adopt this time-based charging system. The other countries have to adopt this system because their land is wide and the cost involved in the laying of long telephone cables is mammoth. They use this method because their cost is high.

There is another point which the Government might have overlooked. Singapore is a commercial and industrial society. Telephone is an extremely important means of communication. By introducing this restriction, the Government may cause an inflation. Because, once the operational cost is increased, the businessmen would pass on some of the increased cost to the consumers. Therefore, if the Government is serious about practising the consultative style of ruling, it should be done sincerely in substance and not merely in form.

Another point is that I hope the Government will consult the people whenever it wishes to introduce a new policy, and not after the policy has already been implemented. When deciding on a policy, due consideration should be given to the actual situation, and it should not just be based on some theories or statistics. Let me give you an example. When I was in primary school, the school conducted a mathematics competition. One of the mathematical problems was: "There were five birds on the tree. A hunter used a gun and shot down one bird. How many birds were left on the tree?" [Laughter]. This is a very good example to illustrate the point that, when deciding on a policy, due care and caution must be taken. It should not be based merely on some theories. Coming back to this example, if you look at it purely from a mathematical perspective, one out of the five birds was shot down. Of course, four birds would be left. But, if we look at it from the practical point of view, not even one bird would be left on the tree, as all of them would be frightened off. [Laughter].

Next, I hope that the Government and the people in our society will show more concern for the problems of our old people. I appreciate that the Government is rather concerned about the problems of our old people. However, there is still room for improvement. The Government and the society should show concern for the welfare of the old people, because they are our older generation. They have contributed greatly with their blood and sweat in the process of our nation building. The fruit of success that we enjoy today is brought about by their contributions. For this reason, we should not forget them after they have retired from active service. Then only can we build up a compassionate society. I wish to thank SBS for granting concessions to the senior citizens. This is a way to return our gratitude to the older people. However, I would like to make a suggestion to SBS that the hours of restriction in which the senior citizens can enjoy concessionary fares should be lifted, so that they could enjoy full concessions and not be restricted to non-peak hours only. I hope that the Government will study the suggestions which I have put forward, review its policies and revise them.

Finally, I wish to thank the President for his Address. I support the Government policy as outlined in the Address as it is basically beneficial to the nation and the people.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.37 pm until 3.15 pm Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his Address said that we are now entering a new phase of development. He said:

'Now we face new challenges - how to strengthen national consensus despite the absence of visible danger; how to remind Singaporeans that the basics have not changed, however secure our prosperity may appear;'

He also said:

'The new generation of Singaporeans must find fresh answers to these challenges amidst tumultuous international changes. ... We have to work together productively as one nation ... Then we will fulfil the promise of The Next Lap.'

Sir, to fulfil the promise of The Next Lap, we need a right political climate. But what is the political situation now? Firstly, I notice that there are some signs of public disenchantment with the Government. Some people are clearly unhappy. Secondly, there are also emerging signs indicating the loss of political innocence as termed by Straits Times columnist, Mr Asad Latiff, in an article on 5th January this year. It appeared in the Sunday Times.

Sir, please allow me to elaborate. On point number one, why are people not happy? I think it has got to do with, first, the painful transition from subsidised education, health care, housing and utilities to a more or less user-pay consumption. Secondly, there is this perception that they are worse off. They feel resentful.

Sir, there are very imperative reasons to privatise. Nobody is arguing about that. We need to be cost effective and competitive. It is the side-effect of privatisation and the overwhelming changes it brings that people find it hard to accept or adapt. Notice the trend where people start to criticize the motivation of the Government. To quote Mr Asad Latiff:

'Whereas earlier it was customary for unpopular policies to be judged against the Government's stated intentions, now, such policies are being judged on their own with the larger purpose, either becoming secondary or, worse, being disbelieved outright.'

This signifies decreasing support and trust for the Government and its policies. The effect of privatisation on the public must be of paramount concern. The crucial question to address is: can the people take it at such a pace?

Sir, the trend towards privatisation may be inevitable. However, the pace and its implementation need to be fine-tuned. Unpopular policies, if they have to be implemented, can be packaged in such a way so that they are more acceptable and less painful to the people. This will mean going an extra mile to anticipate and manage public sentiments regarding this policy and thus avoid paying unnecessary political cost. The challenge of the Government is then to ensure optimal pace of privatisation without compromising on the competitiveness of Singapore vis-a-vis other newly industrialised countries. In the process, the Government must be seen to be eager in gathering views from the ground concerning Government policies.

On the other hand, our people have, firstly, to understand Singapore's need to change and adapt to external push and pull factors and, secondly, our limitations as a small country. Singapore has only this much of land and this much of space for roads. There is always demand for more houses and more cars. Prices of houses and cars will continue to increase because of the demand. Whenever possible, we try very hard to meet the aspirations of the people for bigger houses, better pay cheques and cars. But try as we might, we are also constrained by the limitation of our country. Despite our achievements so far, the basics have not changed. And I have no doubt at all that the Government remains committed to improving the standard of living in Singapore.

Now, are Singaporeans really worse off? Sir, nothing can be further from the truth. Singaporeans are indeed much better than before. The Government has come out with figures again and again to show how the lives of Singaporeans have improved. Statistics may not tell the full story, but you need only to look around to see how much Singapore and her people have progressed. For example, many are now staying in bigger flats than in the 70s. We also have nearly 300,000 foreign workers working in Singapore. When the Chinese President Yang Shangkun visited a Bishan flat owned by an HDB draftsman, he lamented that it was even better than his own abode. Indeed, the standard of living in Singapore has improved tremendously.

But the achievements of Singapore today are the result of a strong binding force that pulls the whole country together to combat widespread unemployment, communism, communalism, corruption and gangsterism. This binding force comes from the PAP. The society rallies around a popularly elected, strong and good Government provided by the PAP. Now, this force is increasingly being undermined and loosened. The bond between the Government and the people is not as strong as before. Yet, Sir, without this binding force, it is going to be difficult for Singapore to compete internationally and achieve our goals of The Next Lap. Because a divided society will surely sap its energy. Thus, it is important that both the Government and the people work out new ways to foster this link. If both parties cannot secure this kind of bondage, the final loser will be Singapore. And I submit that we still need this very strong binding force to pull our society together, because we still lack the natural cohesiveness of a nation. We are but a newly independent state. Therefore, we must consciously work towards mutual understanding and national consensus for the progress of Singapore as a whole. We must ensure that the right kind of political climate continues to prevail. If we cannot, then we may be heading for trouble or even disintegration. How should this be done?

Sir, at this point, I would like to draw an analogy. A traditional Chinese family believes in a balanced approach when it comes to parenting. This is manifested in its vocabulary. The term (yanfu) is accompanied with (cimu), that means a strict father and an understanding mother. The firm approach of the father coupled with the soft approach of the mother maintain harmony and happiness in the family. In governing, we also need to have such a balanced approach, ie, the firmness of a father and the tenderness of a mother.

Sir, I think yesterday the Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC alluded to a Chinese saying (liangyao ku kou), which means good medicines invariably are bitter. But I think there is nothing to prevent us from making good medicines more palatable. The Chinese physician has long been practising this. They use this item called (gancao). I believe it is called liquorice root which tastes sweet in its prescription. It does no harm. It is like a clown 2in a circus. It provides relief. I think it lessens the bitterness and maybe, in some cases, it can also produce a sweet after taste. So I say: why not, if we can do it? Except maybe for some more sticky problems! In fact, in the pharmacies, a lot of medicines are now sugar-coated so that the patients could swallow them easily.

In conclusion, Sir, it is the onus of the Government to think of the worst but hope for the best. While we want Singapore to strive for excellence, we do not want to alienate our people. The people on their part should be mindful of our limitations as a small island state. The smallness of our state limits our options. It limits our actions. It limits our opportunities. It limits our freedom. So we must accept this limitation. We have no choice. We must also learn to give and take in order to forge that consensus and mutual understanding. It is only when we have a common goal and vision that we will be spurred on to even greater heights.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Hong Kah GRC thanking the President for his Address in Parliament.

In his Speech at the opening of the Eighth Parliament, the President listed out education, housing, health care, the pace of changes in Singapore and the personnel management in the civil service as the challenges to be faced by the Government.

Sir, I would like to present particularly some views on health care. With an ageing population in Singapore, health care and related expenses are matters which a responsible Government should be very concerned with. As such, a gradual increase in Medisave contribution rate for the working people, particularly those middle-age workers who are already house owners, is a wise move, and it should be popularly supported by the people. However, I feel that we should allow Medisave to be used in a more flexible manner. We should give our people more liberal options. At present, they could make use of their Medisave account when they go to a Government or restructured hospital. I suggest that we should allow Medisave to be used in all hospitals which conform to the Government's specifications. By so doing, the Government will go one step further in alleviating the burden of our people. At the same time, we should also encourage all Singaporeans to contribute to Medisave, particularly those daily-rated workers, casual labourers who do not have a fixed job, and also the self-employed people. They should also contribute to Medisave. I think the Government should introduce some incentives to encourage them to contribute to the Medisave account on a voluntary basis.

No doubt, Medifund is a very good scheme; but most people do not know how they could benefit from this scheme. Many people are still not clear as to what Medifund is for. Naturally, they have a lot of doubts. For example, how poor must a person be before he is eligible to apply for assistance or subsidy from the Medifund? How are we going to ensure that the Medifund would not be abused? By setting up Medifund, will it encourage the younger people to push away their responsibilities and commit their chronically-ill parents to the care of the State? I think the Government should lay down detailed guidelines on this for better understanding by people.

The Government announced that the Ministry of Health will regulate all private hospitals and clinics. I think this is something which would be welcomed by the people. It is a wise decision. This will ensure that the people will receive the best medical care and proper treatment. The requirement that doctors should reveal the nature of illness to the patients, the type of treatment that he has to undergo and also the estimated cost of the treatment, is another step towards more efficient health care and medical treatment for our people. In order that our people will receive better medical treatment, the Government has spent millions of dollars to improve the existing Government hospitals. At the moment, the Singapore General Hospital is like a hotel. Whether in design, structure, equipment or facilities, it is as good as any hospital in the developed countries. However, there is still room for improvement in so far as service is concerned, particularly in the subsidised C wards.

Sir, I often hear complaints by some patients and members of their families about the treatment they have received in some of the Government hospitals. I feel that while we are improving the standard in our hospitals, we should also, at the same time, be more humane, sympathetic, and caring to our patients. Some patients and members of their families have often criticised that some of the medical officers are insensitive to the pains and sufferings of the patients. Understanding the feelings of patients and concern for their welfare is very important. This is something which the doctors, nurses and other medical personnel should bear in mind at all times. We should be more loving, caring and showing respect to patients. Doctors should not treat a patient like a machine which has broken down and completely neglect his feelings. With the ever improving science and technology, machines and computers can do many things which the human beings are doing. But one must not behave like a machine, which is totally void of feelings.

While we are talking about increasing efficiency and cost-effectiveness, we must not forget inter-human relationships. Many people with minor ailments attend the A&E units in the hospitals at night and they have been accused of abusing the service. In fact, many of these patients, I believe, are daily rated workers. They earn a very low income. They cannot afford to stop working in the day to attend the Government clinics when they are sick because that would mean losing one day's income. At the same time, the private clinic charges are much more expensive than the A&E units in the hospitals. I hope that the Ministry of Health would consider opening some of the Government polyclinics at night so that the lower income group could also receive such medical services after work.

Sir, in his Speech the President mentioned that some Singaporeans find it very difficult to adapt to the rapid changes in Singapore. They feel that they have been deserted and neglected by society. Among them, there are many daily rated workers or casual workers, some old people and those in the dialect-speaking community. I am glad to note that the Government is actively helping them in various aspects. I believe that so long as the Government and the people can put in a concerted effort, we will be able to help them adapt to our society so that they can enjoy prosperity and a comfortable living.

Mr Speaker, may I once again thank the President for his Address.

Encik Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I welcome the President's Address at the Opening of the Eighth Parliament.

The President's apparent concern and sense of involvement in the lives of the people is a sign of true leadership. I therefore support the motion of thanks to the President, moved by the Member for Hong Kah GRC.

Sir, the civil service can be likened to the pillars of a house. Strong pillars make a strong house, and weak pillars can mean the ruin of the house. The civil service is without doubt the nerve that drives the country's administrative machinery, whose role is not only to consolidate the progress we are enjoying, but also to plan the co-untry's future development and our future way of life.

I welcome the Government's proposal to grant more powers to the Ministries, including powers of promotion. However, we should also ensure that our executives are equipped with a fair yardstick with which to make the assessments they have been empowered to do. Misuse of the power, in the form of an unfair promotion, for instance, can demoralise other staff. Attention should also be paid to the welfare of civil servants. Besides the incentives and privileges already granted, we should not forget to give to hospitalisation as well. Officers should enjoy benefits commensurate with their length of service and salary, not just their qualifications. I believe if civil servants find their welfare being well looked after, they will be encouraged to enhance their efficiency and productivity.

Inter-racial harmony is not a new issue. It is something that has been with us for a long time. We are conscious that the country will be ruined should we ever neglect this aspect of our life, because one of the pillars of our success today is the solidarity and harmony we enjoy.

So far, we have succeeded in promoting mutual understanding and respect among the people. Life is more peaceful. All the hang-ups that used to lead to racial conflicts in the period between the fifties and the seventies are diminishing. The pain and anxieties that developed from the conflicts of the sixties are fading away.

We have also succeeded in reducing mutual suspicions among the various races. As an example, the Malay and the Indian communities are more and more appreciative of the needs of the Chinese to promote Mandarin through annual campaigns; likewise, Government's support for the Malay community's efforts to uplift themselves economically, socially and educationally is now better understood by the other races. In fact, we can say that the emotional ties that used to keep the different communities apart with every incident and every outburst concerning the country in China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia, etc. are now being ignored, because the people are now more aware that they enjoy equal political, economic, and social protection here. By "protection" I am referring to security and safety, not charity.

However, Mr Speaker, we should not rest on our laurels. Racial harmony requires an updated approach, appropriate to the level of progress which we are and which we will be enjoying.

Mr Speaker, the Government's plan to privatise Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) should take into account the question of how we can include elements that promote racial harmony in our future television and radio programmes. If we place too much emphasis on commercial considerations without regard for the reality of the plural society of Singapore, we would be neglecting the role of a very important medium for fostering understanding between the different communities in Singapore. Perhaps we could take a cue from American television, where there is always a role, no matter how small, for blacks and other immigrants. Programmes featuring the culture and arts of various communities should also continue to be shown, even if they do not have commercial value.

We can also enhance racial harmony through our Community Clubs. The language barriers that often prevent the communities from participating in each other's activities should be overcome.

Mr Speaker, the Asian values which we seek to nurture through our educational system should be kept alive not just in the school curriculum but also in our way of life and our environment outside the school. The negative effects or influence of cultures outside Asia that have found their way into our life should be reduced or at least not allowed to turn into common activity.

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

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion by the hon. Member for Hong Kah GRC.

The President's Address in many ways is remarkable in both substance and spirit.

Against the backdrop of world economic gloom, when most countries have to contend with civil unrest, poverty, massive unemployment, ever increasing crime rate and many other seemingly unsurmountable problems, we have here an agenda in front of us that is devoid of any negative issues. All our aims and objectives for the next few years are for the improvement on already outstanding achievements. In housing, education and health care, extensive and comprehensive plans for the future have been prepared. And I am confident that they will be successfully implemented. Even at this present moment when we are somewhat apprehensive about the impending economic downturn caused by the global economic stagnation, we have cause to be optimistic that our national agenda as set out in The Next Lap could be reached. However, we are at a very important cross-road.

It is very crucial now to re-examine some of the basic success ingredients that brought us to this happy state of affairs. Apart from the proven virtues such as hard work, far-sighted planning and good leadership by the Government, perhaps the most important ingredient of all that has not been often highlighted is the way in which the whole population rallied behind the Government in implementing every plan and policy in the past 30 years. The old dictum of "unity is strength" cannot be demonstrated more vividly. But the scenario of what comes next, I think, would be different.

The basic objective of survival has been overcome and the four main essentials in life, that is, clothing, food, accommodation and transportation, have been taken care of.Further progress cannot be as dramatic as before. Every step forward would take that much more effort and energy to achieve. There is an old Chinese saying, (Chuang ye nan, shou ye geng nan). When translated, it reads: "It is difficult to establish a business, but it is much more difficult to keep it prospering." Because higher expectation and complacency will provide the distractions that can lead to deterioration of our tradition-al virtues of achieving progress through hard work and personal sacrifice.

It is quite obvious recently that forging a consensus has become much more difficult as individuals become more preoccupied with their own personal progress. By itself, it is not detrimental because ultimately, the final objective of any government is to provide the individuals with maximum opportunity to attain the greatest satisfaction in life, both economically and spiritually. Nevertheless, it is of utmost importance that at this crucial stage of our development, we must not lose sight of our limitations. Every time we make reference to comparison with the United States, Europe, Australia, we often forget that Singapore is only a small island with a limited population of 2.8 million or so, completely without any natural resources. Just imagine if we are going into a prolonged recession like what is being experienced by some of these developed countries. While they will find great difficulties in recovering and bouncing back, we may never be able to do even that. Therefore, nation before self and unity is strength must be the hallmark of our nation building.

Just pause and think of this scenario if our popualtion is being fragmented into two opposing political and ideological factions. Numerically, we will reduce the already small population to 1.4 million or so. Having a sufficient breed of capable and talented people to serve the Government is being made that much more difficult and forging a consensus and achieving expediency in implementing policies and national projects will be a much more tedious exercise.

I must reiterate that I am certainly not saying that it is all negative to have opposing views from individuals or that they be restricted in their expression of divergent ideas and opinions. In fact, one of the major hallmarks of democracy is the provision of freedom of expression and individual liberty. But it should always be balanced against national interest. Individual freedom and liberty has always been a contentious issue, but it should never be defined in absolute term. The degree of freedom enjoyed by each individual should vary from situation to situation and, therefore, from country to country. It is important when we discuss about freedom and liberty, there must be a certain reference point. It should never be used as a slogan to score points.

May I demonstrate by a very, very simple example. In two identical dwellings, one ocupied by two persons and the next by a family of eight. It is obvious that the two individuals can enjoy much greater personal freedom and liberty in their home. It is clear that if the eight individuals demand the same degree of freedom and liberty, conflict and discord would result. It does not mean that the eight have no individual freedom or liberty. But it does mean that they will have to exercise more constraint. In Singapore, national interest must be above the consideration of sole personal freedom and liberty.

It is therefore my hope that the Government will take pains to explain the objectives of the goals in The Next Lap to the citizens and be able to mobilise them and motivate them to respond in unity, because we must not let the momentum that took us so much effort and hard work to gather be disrupted. If it does, it would take us a long time to get back to our path of success.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while embarking on the next lap of development, having our objectives and goals clearly spelt out, and the blueprint in place for implementation, we must not forget that there will always be problems associated with rapid growth and constant changes. It is well accepted that even in the most developed countries, there will always be 15% to 20% of the population who for various reasons cannot keep up with the main stream of progress. And in implementing our national agenda, there will always be a certain percentage of people that will be adversely affected. To ignore this would be irresponsible on the part of the Government. I am happy to note that in the President's Address as well as in the Addenda, every Ministry has provision and plans to cover this particular area of attention. It is also most comforting to be assured by our Prime Minister that every effort would be made to level up our society and lessen the anxiety of this affected group of people.

Still, I would urge that in our anxiety to achieve greater success, we must be sensitive to the needs of those less fortunate. While I would certainly not advocate any slowing down of the pace of our progress, nevertheless, we should have the capacity and compassion to pay particular attention to their needs. There will always be a certain disparity between the average Singaporeans and those who have to struggle to make ends meet. The value of money differs tremendously between these two groups of people.

I shall give you an example. A few months back, the Zoological Gardens increased the entrance fee to $7. While this increase has rightfully been assessed as fair to most visitors, both local and foreign, it can be out of reach for certain poorer groups of Singaporeans. At this charge, it would amount to something like $23 for a family of five. To a household which has a take-home pay of, say, $500 to $600, it constitutes a very high percentage of their earning. Ironically, those who can afford such an increase would not be adversely affected as they would be having so many other options for recreation. But to the lower income group of family, going to the zoo, visiting the bird park or Sentosa are the very limited recreational facilities that they can look forward to. While I do not advocate that the charges be tailored to suit this small group of people, there should be alternatives worked out for them. Special concessions for families, special rates given to tours organised by community groups, or even designate certain days when admission fees can be waived. These are some of the creative measures that can be taken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this may sound trivial in the light of what we are discussing. But attention to such details shows special sensitiveness to every hierarchy of our citizen. It is important to have a caring and dynamic Government. In realising our final goal for the Next Lap, everyone in Singapore, no matter what background he comes from, should have a meaningful part to play in our nation building. We must expect complete unity and patriotism from everyone. But it can only be achieved by making sure that everyone would be given the opportunity to claim that just reward.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my belief that we are in the threshold of making history, in creating a nation existing only in the mind of an idealist and in the dreams of so many unfortunate suffering people all over the world, a nation where the individual has the opportunity to develop his or her potential to the fullest, that he be free in spirit and in form. I hope that we will have the strength and courage to strive for greater progress in unity but, at the same time, possess the humility to realise our limitations. May we be blessed with the wisdom to enjoy happiness through contentment. It may not be possible to achieve utopia but we certainly can move very close to it.

Sir, I support the motion.