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

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

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

Sir, Singapore experienced the last economic recession in 1985. Since then, our economy has not only recovered but enjoyed strong rate of growth. There was uncertainty in the world economic situation in the last two years, in 1992 and 1993. We were expecting an economic slowdown but, as it turned out, we came out even stronger in the midst of high economic 8growth in the region.

We have learnt the lessons of the 1985 recession well. Our economy was restructured. We understand fully the need to continually upgrade ourselves, invest in training and retraining, and increase our productivity. The competition has become keener and more intense. We have to compete vigorously to stay ahead. We concentrate on attracting new investments in high-technology and knowledge-based industries to bring better paying jobs to our people.

If we look back to the economic growth achieved in the last six years from 1988 to 1993, at a remarkable average rate of growth of 8.5%, we are well on our way to acquiring the developed economy status and standard of living.

If we ponder to consider the present situation in Japan where many university graduates and school leavers are finding difficulties getting employment, we can count our blessings for our young Singaporeans. Some of our young university graduates even go overseas for a good holiday before starting work. Many are confident of securing good paying first jobs with plenty of job offers to choose from.

Many of our students are now able to proceed to higher studies in the polytechnics and universities. Our emphasis in science, engineering and technical courses helps in the employability of our students.

This happy employment situation in Singapore is indeed rare in many countries. Countries which have enjoyed strong economic growth in the past, like Germany and Japan, are facing serious economic recessions today. This adverse situation may well come to Singapore if we do not prepare early and adopt sound long-term economic policies.

There is consensus among Singaporeans that the next stage of Singapore's economic development will be to actively promote the development of an external wing to reinforce our domestic economy. We should apply the same diligence in growing the external economy as we have done in building our strong domestic economy.

Our future will be more secure and stable, and we can fly higher and further with two wings, which is definitely better than one. Singaporeans who venture and invest abroad can work towards building a distinctive Singaporean character and identity in the manner in which they conduct themselves overseas. They should be good ambassadors of Singapore. By earning an excellent reputation, Singaporeans will be warmly received by the host countries, and the goodwill and ties established between countries arising from our overseas investments will pay handsome dividends in the future.

Sir, there is always the likelihood that the hard work and good incomes received by our people for the effort put in could be undone by the scourge of inflation. Our standard of living is the real purchasing power of our income and savings. We do not wish to have our incomes eaten away by unnecessarily high prices and inflated cost of living. We will pay the high prices, if we must, but we better get value for money. With the Goods and Services Tax due to start on 1st April, I would urge the Government to watch the situation closely and take swift action, if necessary, so that the livelihood of Singaporeans will not be seriously affected.

The Government should encourage the further growth of the cooperative movement. Cooperatives play a meaningful role in sectors like consumer, credit, insurance and health care, contributing to the well-being of the working population. The spirit of self-help in the cooperatives to obtain goods and services at competitive prices and to be able to borrow money at attractive rates of interest is a boon to the large majority of the working population who would not normally get credit for short periods for cash needed to tide them over due to unforeseen expenditure. Perhaps the Government can consider the setting up of a statutory body to replace the Registry of Cooperatives and the Central Cooperative Fund to better supervise and coordinate the cooperative activities in Singapore.

With regard to the asset enhancement programme, I welcome the effort taken by the Government to spread the nation's wealth and to share the benefit with as many Singaporeans as possible. The HDB 'heartland' where already 90% of HDB dwellers own their flats is the right target group for the Government to concentrate on.

I am particularly happy, looking after a constituency in the city area, with the decision of the Government to sell the 2- and 3-room HDB rental flats to sitting tenants. These residents can now feel even more secure after owning their own homes. I hope the HDB will understand the financial situation of these low-income families and allow for an easy payment scheme for them to buy the flats.

The sale of hawker stalls and HDB shophouses at a discount will give rise to an even larger number of small businessmen who could put their enterprise and hard work to full advantage.

Sir, there are two aspects that need to be considered and be mindful of when carrying out the asset enhancement programme. We need to ensure that the future generation would not be deprived of the same opportunity to enhance their assets when their turn comes. We have to retain some room for our children and our children's children.

Singaporeans cannot expect such asset enhancement programme to come naturally and as a matter of course. There will have to be budget surpluses and accumulation of our country's reserves. The benefit given is intended to be a long-term investment. If the people were to decide to take immediate profit from the share allocation or the sale of HDB properties, they will have to live with their choice and not regret later and pass the blame to others. It is the cyclical nature of property and stock markets and Singaporeans must appreciate that the values of assets do fluctuate from time to time. It is the long-term value of HDB properties and Government privatised company stocks that matters. The long-term investors who hold on to their assets long enough are usually the winners.

The Government's fiscal policy of a balanced budget is a sound and fundamental one. Not only the Government but every one of us must live within our means. We have to be judicious as to where and how our limited resources are to be allocated and spent. There will be competing demands on the resources of the country. It is right that the Government concentrate its expenditure on basic health care, education, public housing, infrastructure and security.

Singapore's population is greying fast. The aging problem is a cause for concern. This issue has been discussed and documented first in the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged, Ministry of Health, in February 1984, and then the Report of the Advisory Council on the Aged in January 1989. The Government has already taken several measures to deal with the concerns of the aged ? by raising the retirement age to 60, by encouraging people to save more for old age and in promoting exercise and healthy living. Singaporeans have to make the necessary adjustment to cope with this demographic change and adopt a positive attitude towards old age.

We have to be careful before raising retirement age beyond 60 too quickly. It has to be done gradually to allow the labour market to adjust. With the extension of retirement age, the older staff should be happy with the extra years of working even if it means going into new careers. The younger colleagues should not feel aggrieved that their career advancement and promotion opportunities have been delayed in the process. Employers will have to find a way to accommodate the retention of the older staff and meeting the aspirations of the younger ones.

CPF savings is Singapore's way to provide the nest-egg for old age security. When the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme was first announced by the then Minister for Labour in Parliament on 25th August 1986, the Minimum Sum Scheme effected from 1st January 1987 was $30,000. The sum has since been increased to $34,600 for individual members. If a person has a property of a market value equivalent to the Minimum Sum, no cash need to be set aside, the assumption being that the person has the property to fall back on.

Sir, I think there is a flaw in the assumption to expect people to sell their property to turn into cash for their living expenses. Old people generally prefer to continue living in their homes that they are familiar with and would unlikely sell their house to fetch the cash needed. I think they would only do so out of real necessity and as a last resort. I think it is important to review this premise of not requiring those with property to set aside a Minimum Sum needed for living expenses in their old age. It is important that they set aside cash as well even if they have properties. An alternative would be for HDB to consider allowing the flat owners to purchase annuity through the reversionary interest in the HDB flat. In this way, those with property but without cash for living expenses can receive monthly dues against the property and remain living in the property until they die.

Family support in looking after the aged parents and close relatives is essential. With strong family and kinship ties, family members can help look after one another and our aged will be taken care of by their children. The Government can show understanding by increasing the aged dependants relief and recognising the cost involved in taking care of the needs of the elderly. The elderly needs more and regular medical attention to defer the onset of frailty. We need to provide easy access for health screening and medical counselling for the elderly. Medical centres at constituency level, and working with the help of grassroots organisations, will ensure that the expenses incurred will be affordable. We need to plan ahead to meet the increasing need for homes for the aged to provide adequate residential care facilities for the frail aged.

Sir, the question as to whether we should go as far as legislating the obligations of children to maintain their parents is a subject that should be openly discussed and debated. Prof. Walter Woon has spoken on this topic last year. If there is a growing trend of children neglecting and rejecting their parents and failing to look after them, it may be necessary to turn to the experience of Israel and Taiwan where there are laws in place to ensure the maintenance of parents by the children.

Sir, I believe a better and more constructive approach would be through family life education, counselling and persuasion. We have to exercise extreme care in dealing with this delicate and sensitive subject. Perhaps we can wait for the Advisory Council on the Family and the Aged to come up with their report some time this year. It is really up to Singaporeans to show that they do not need laws to prod them into looking after their aged parents.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Member for Kampong Glam GRC.

In particular, I wish to deal with the problem of the greying population in Singapore. With smaller families and the increase in the life expectancy of Singapore, the problem of a greying population is becoming serious. According to the Report of the Advisory Council on the Aged published in 1988, it was revealed that in the year 2030, Singapore will have 248,000 of elderly persons aged 75 and above, eight times more than the figure in 1988. As for those aged 60 and above, the proportion will increase from the present 10% of the population to 26% in 2030, which is around 835,000. Furthermore, a UN expert on population analysis has predicted that in the year 2025, the greying population in East Asia will be more than 10%. In this region, Singapore is predicted to top the list with a greying population of 18%. These statistics remind me of the many constructive suggestions made in the Report on Elderly Persons by Mr Howe Yoon Chong which I believe deserve further review and discussion today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the President's Address did mention that the Government has, through legislation, raised the retirement age from 55 to 60. The Government will also gradually raise it further, and eventually to 67. At the same time, to deal with the problem of the greying population, the Government will amend the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme. This will enable the Central Provident Fund members to withdraw higher amounts each month after they have retired at the age of 60. The aging population will gradually affect the economic growth of Singapore and pose some social problems. Therefore, the present Government's proposal to adjust the policy is a wise act.

The Government intends to implement these adjustments gradually so as to prevent our labour market from suddenly losing its competitiveness and flexibility. At the same time, the Government is prepared to give employers enough time to get used to the new labour conditions. This highlights the great emphasis that the Government has always put on employer-employee relations. There is a need, however, to debate on the suggestion to raise the retirement age to 67. Why 67, and not 65 or 75? How is it adopted? I, therefore, hope that the Government will study the following suggestions.

First, we know that our life expectancy is in direct proportion with our health. Therefore, except for those aged who are sick and unable to work, the Government should encourage those who are in good health and able to work to continue in their jobs instead of enforcing the retirement age. This will help to reduce the wastage in manpower and also enable the younger generation to have a longer period to learn from the senior citizens' past experiences, thus stimulating our economic growth. This will be very good to Singapore in the situation of full employment.

Secondly, for those senior citizens who are healthy but only slower in movement and softer in speech, the Government should consider giving them lighter jobs so that they can continue to serve the country. This will also help to lighten the burden of the society and, at the same time, keep the aged able bodies occupied.

Thirdly, we should give more tax rebates for families who take care of the sick and elderly. For those families who need to take care of the sick and elderly, the Government should consider giving them tax rebates so long as the old members are certified unfit by the Government doctor so that the expenditure in supporting the aged can enjoy tax rebates.

We should continue to inculcate the good value of respecting the elders. Getting old is an unavoidable cycle in life. Youngsters who respect and take care of the elderly will one day be respected and be taken care of by others. Therefore, those who are concerned about the greying problem are actually thinking of their own future and preparing for their old age. Filial piety, respect for the old and family care are the most important social values in our Asian society. No matter how fast our pace of development and the extent of modernisation, so long as we can preserve these traditional values, the greying population will not only be a social problem but also a problem for the family and the individuals. All these three parties, therefore, can join hands together to work out a solution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address also states:

"In economics, one major thrust is to venture abroad, to develop trade and investment links with neighbouring countries, and tap the vitality and opportunities in a fast-growing region. We will promote a regional outlook among Singaporeans, and remove obstacles that hinder our entrepreneurs and companies from going offshore."

This is very heartening for entrepreneurs and companies who think of going overseas.

In the past years, the Government had already established a good reputation for entrepreneurs and companies overseas. It has enabled the Singapore businessmen to embark on joint venture business with foreign governments and companies. This has indirectly strengthened our economic growth and opportunities and has brought prosperity to our country. The decision by the Government to promote a regional outlook among Singaporeans and remove obstacles that hinder our entrepreneurs and companies from going abroad is a farsighted move. I hope that the Government could consider the following factors:

(1) The setting up of more "Singapore schools" or the incorporation of the "Singapore Educational System" in the present schools, to provide education for Singapore children overseas.

(2) The Government would help in solving the "double taxation" problem so as to minimise the burden of taxation.

(3) There would be an incentive scheme to encourage our entrepreneurs to bring back the profits to Singapore.

(4) The Government would consider allowing mortgage with local banks assets invested in other countries so as to encourage them to speed up their foreign investments.

(5) The Government would consider direct flights so as to enhance the economic and investment growth of Singapore.

(6) The Government would consider setting up Singapore information centres in various big cities so that our entrepreneurs would be able to obtain data and first-hand news about Singapore.

(7) The media would try their best in providing information in the investment activities of our entrepreneurs so as to encourage more to go overseas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address mentioned the setting up of more schools and upgrading the present schools. This is a piece of good news to Singaporeans. The Ministry of Education's objective to improve on the quality of education and to reduce the drop-out rate is also a correct move. However, the Ministry of Education may need to periodically review the adverse effects of certain policies. Here I wish to raise an example of a resident who came to seek my assistance at my meet-the-people session. His child has been promoted from N2 to N3, but his results are not up to the expectations of the school principal. He was asked by the principal to transfer to another school. I fail to understand why this is necessary because his results are good enough. I believe the school wishes to keep those students with very good results so that they will not be falling behind in the ranking of schools. So those with passable results will not be welcome. I think this is very abnormal. The Ministry of Education should consider making adjustments to prevent such occurrence and to avoid straining the relationship between the school and students. The anomaly should not be allowed to continue so that we will not lose sight of our objective in education. School ranking should also be avoided so as not to strain the relationship between the school and students. This is not what the Government seeks to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the good news of improving the salary of teachers and to attract more capable people into the teaching service is commendable. But the policy whereby teachers who do not opt for the new medical benefits scheme will not be able to enjoy the new salary increase has brought about much disappointment to many teachers. They believe that this scheme is unfair to them and has dashed their long-awaited hope of a pay increase. This will also defeat the purpose of attracting more talented people to remain in the teaching service. I hope the Ministry of Education will clarify and improve on the policy so as not to link pay increase with the new medical benefits scheme, thus allowing those teachers who do not opt for the new medical benefits scheme to continue to enjoy any pay increase that they deserve. In this way, it will be able to help future efforts to expand the teaching strength and improve the quality of education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the above points, I support the motion. 1.05 pm

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

Sir, the President has spelt out the Government's focus for the next stage of nation building. The Government's focus will be on long-term policies. The main issues that will be addressed are:

(a) Regionalisation and globalisation of our economy;

(b) The asset enhancement programme; and

(c) Health care and greying of our population.

Regionalisation and globalisation of our economy

Sir, that this is the right direction for our limited domestic economy is becoming more and more obvious. Multi-national companies, regardless of their country of origin, are now going into strategic alliances and joint ventures with each other. Furthermore, their manufacturing and service centres are again strategically located in the country which can offer the best infrastructure, workforce, political stability and, preferably, of course, at the cheapest rate. Thus, it is that in Singapore, we have been able to play host to billion dollar venture projects between European, American and Japanese joint venture projects, as in the Tech Semiconductor project.

What does this mean to the Singaporean? This will mean that the Singaporean, whether he is top management or a supervisor in a factory or a skilled craftsman, must be prepared to travel overseas, maybe many times a year. It may mean a posting overseas for longer periods. This may be something that is commonplace to some, but for the majority it is a new mindset and way of life, not only for the person going overseas, but for the whole family - the spouse and the children. However, I am glad to observe that the call to venture overseas has been well accepted by most Singaporeans. This message came across to me very well when the proprietor of a chicken rice stall came to seek assistance during my meet-the-people session to have outlets overseas.

I am also glad to note that our schools are also aware of their role in preparing our young for this new role. The students are being exposed to more adventure-type activities and more visits overseas are being conducted to expose our students. Indeed, our schools and tertiary institutions play a pivotal role in moulding the attitude of our new workforce to pioneering work overseas. More attention must be focused on this area.

Asset Enhancement Programme

Sir, to me, the asset enhancement programme is an enlargement of the Government's successful home ownership for all programme. Previously, the emphasis was on home ownership. Now, the emphasis has been widened. How do you add further to the value of your home? How do you increase other non-property based assets, eg, share ownership? Of course, to the cynic who is always trying to fault the Government's good intention, he (the cynic) may feel that the Government is encouraging gambling on the Stock Exchange. This could not be further from the truth. The issue of the Telecom shares is but one example of how this has been done. It is done in a fair, equitable distribution of a blue-chip share.

Sir, the enhancement of the value of HDB flats in the Upgrading Programmes (Main Upgrading and Interim Upgrading) is a programme very close to the hearts of all Singaporeans. At the national level, it will ensure that our HDB towns do not degenerate into slums. At the personal level, it is an enhancement of the value of each home-owner's flat. This has important and far-reaching personal and social implications and I will elaborate on this in a little while.

Health Care

Sir, before I touch on this topic, I would first like to declare my interest as a doctor in medical practice. The Government's concern is a very serious one that is shared by governments in the developed countries and is shared by the medical profession and the public. Having participated in the deliberations of the Minister of State, Dr Aline Wong's Health Review Committee, I can appreciate the concerns that are being addressed, especially that of rising costs and the implications of an ageing population. However, Sir, I must say that for the majority of Singaporeans, including health care professionals and employers, the announcement of the co-payment scheme came as a surprise. This is especially so for those who are ill or under treatment for chronic illnesses. In the outpatient care area, my personal feeling is that the cap of $350 per annum is generous for the young who do not suffer from chronic illnesses. However, for the more elderly, who often have multiple illnesses, eg, if one has high blood pressure, he may also have cardiac disease, diabetes and high cholesterol, all put together, $350 per annum may not be sufficient. My fear is that these patients may now default treatment. The complications that will set in in later years will be even more costly in dollar terms, and the pain and suffering to the patient and family immense. For example, if a diabetic patient should default on treatment because of costs and becomes blind or has a limb amputated, the cost later down the road to himself and to the nation may indeed be very great. Perhaps the Government should look into having a two-tier capitation: one for those who are younger, say, under 45 years, and a more generous one for those who are older. I can understand and support both the philosophy of co-payment and capitation to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility and prevent wastage. Regarding the 15% co-payment for employees and 40% for dependants, perhaps this could be implemented in stages over several years. The same principles should also apply to inpatient cases or hospitalisation cases.

Greying of our Population

Sir, I must state at the outset that I agree with the principle that more should be set aside for the retirement years. Even if one works till the extended retirement age of 67 years, our statistics show that we may still have to provide for maybe another 10-15 years after retirement. It is thus prudent to start now, especially for the young. My concern is for those approaching the age of 55 years, say, in the next five years. If the Minimum Sum is increased too heftily and too quickly, these persons who have planned all these years for their retirement will be very disappointed. They have worked long and hard and will feel extremely let down, especially if they find out that they are unable to withdraw any sum at all because they have not fulfilled the Minimum Sum requirements. This matter will be discussed further. I am sure that the Government will take into account the views of the public and especially the feelings of this group.

At this point, Sir, I would like to link the issue of asset enhancement to this "Minimum Sum" issue. At the time of retirement, for most Singaporeans, their most precious single asset will be the home that they are staying in. Many, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, will not want to move out of the home in which they saw their children grow up in, and in which they have so many happy memories, and the home in which they want to have the family come back over the weekend and to have family reunions. In other words, they just do not want to sell their home. Many also do not want to burden their children. Perhaps a scheme can be worked out with the financial institutions or HDB whereby a "reverse mortgage" takes place, ie, the elderly home owner is paid a certain sum in cash each month by the bank to supplement that of his CPF for his daily needs, including that of his medical needs. He can thus live to his last days in dignity in the home, in the place which he has called home all these years. On his demise, the remaining value of his property will revert to his estate. Of course, checks will also have to be instituted to ensure that the system can work successfully. I hope that the Government, with its wealth of expertise, and the financial institutions could throw more light on the pros and cons of this.

Living Wills

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will close my speech with the unsavoury but important subject of living wills. The subject of living wills whips up emotions for those who contemplate making it and their loved ones, and for those who will have to implement it - the medical personnel.

Essentially, people do not like even to talk of making their own wills regarding their own estate. It is just our culture. We do not like to talk about something like this. So it is understandable that the subject of living wills will stir up emotions. However, the right to die with dignity is also important - but who decides? The person himself while he is still alive? Can medical science predict accurately enough? As a doctor, I understand the futility of keeping a "brain-dead" patient "alive" on expensive life-support systems. However, there will be many "grey" areas. There will be the wishes of the relatives and next-of-kin to consider. I hope that before we make any legislation on living wills the public will be consulted at every stage. I am sure that the Minister-in-charge will definitely do it before the Bill is presented to Parliament.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my other PAP colleagues in thanking the President for his Address to this House on Monday, 10th January.

Sir, very rightly he has stated that the Government's focus is on long term issues, and I quote him, "to position ourselves for the next stage of nation building." Sir, while this is extremely important, I would also urge the Government to pay sufficient attention to short term problems and unhappiness. There is growing concern on the increased cost of living, cost of doing business and income disparity. These current problems need equal attention as well as the longer term problems like those connected with an ageing population. Sir, a couple of my other colleagues have already mentioned that there is widespread unhappiness over the changes in the medical benefits scheme, particularly for the civil servants. I believe there seems to be a gap between the policy and implementation. Circulars have been issued, I am told, and also have been withdrawn. There is utter confusion. I would urge the Government to pay equal attention to some of these current problems which I have mentioned.

Sir, specifically, I would like to touch on two areas in the President's Address.

First, I would like to refer to the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme. The CPF is to cater for the needs of Singaporeans after they have retired. Hence, we must constantly review and improve the scheme to meet with the original aims of CPF. With retirement age being increased and the longer life expectancy of Singaporeans, I welcome the Government's move to increase the existing Minimum Sum. By increasing the Minimum Sum, it will ensure that the retiree will be able to withdraw higher sums each month, and maybe over a longer period. This will thus enable the retiree to maintain a higher standard of living.

I am glad that the Government has stated, as Dr Arthur Beng has also mentioned, this issue will be thoroughly discussed in the next few months before any decision is taken. Hence, here is an opportunity for all interested parties, be they employers, unions, individuals, professionals, to give their inputs for consideration. I for one would like to see a graduated increase based on age, ie, the maximum to be imposed for those joining the labour market and also possibly workers below the age of 45. There will be no adjustment problems for this group. A graduated increase should be considered for those above 45. By doing this, the older workers who will be retiring early will not find the change a serious burden.

Currently, the Minimum Sum can be entirely in the form of a fixed asset, which is a house. In the long run, this may pose a problem as the only way to raise cash would be to sell the house. If the house is sold, this would cause other problems. The Minimum Sum therefore, I believe, should be a combination of both fixed assets and cash. Again, Sir, this ratio of fixed assets and cash should also be graduated, that is, a lesser amount of cash being retained and it must be weighted in favour of people over 45, particularly those likely to retire very early. This graduated approach would certainly soften any hardship likely to be faced by those retiring early. Sir, I hope the Government would give some consideration to the above suggestion.

Sir, in his Speech, the President stated, and I quote:

"In economics, one major thrust is to venture abroad, to develop trade and investment links with neighbouring countries, and tap the vitality and opportunities in a fast-growing region. We will promote a regional outlook among Singaporeans, and remove obstacles that hinder our entrepreneurs and companies from going offshore."

In the last two years, the Government has spared no effort to prod, encourage and assist Singaporeans and Singapore companies to venture abroad. Singaporeans have responded well to the call to develop an external economy. Not a day passes by without a deal being struck either in China, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Myanmar, Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam, USSR and so on by Singaporeans and Singapore companies. I am confident that with the extent of strong moral and financial support from the Government, we will succeed in our offshore activities. The business community is extremely grateful for the personal efforts of the Prime Minister, Senior Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. Today, it is very common for business delegations to accompany Ministers on their overseas visits. Not many years ago, this would not have been possible.

With Singaporeans running all over the region, I would like to sound a word of caution. While travelling abroad, it is extremely easy to identify Singaporeans and we are beginning to leave quite a reputation behind, both good and bad.

We have read in the newspapers that Singaporeans speed in Johor Baru, throw things in other countries and complain about everything under the sun in China and India. Surely, Sir, things are not perfect in these countries as they are in Singapore. If they were as good as it were in Singapore, I am afraid we will have little or no place in these countries. So let us learn to work there within their system and complain less. Constant comparison with Singapore may not do us much good. Let others do the comparing and praising of Singapore. Let us go to this region to do business to help ourselves, our hosts and, at the same time, be sensitive to their feelings and needs. In this way, we will be more than welcome by our hosts. I hope Singaporeans going abroad will pay some special attention to this. This problem is now at its infancy and we can easily correct our international image, otherwise it is only a matter of time before we are branded as the "Ugly Singaporeans" by our hosts.

In conclusion, Sir, let me congratulate the Government for making Singapore what it is today. To continue with the success, every Singaporean has a part to play. If all Singaporeans put their shoulders to the wheel, then as the President said, "we will thrive and prosper."

Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.

The President, in his Address, states that the Government will focus on long term policies to position the country for the next stage of nation building. The President has also reiterated some of the basic principles of this Government. These principles have stood the test of time and are indeed worthy of continued support.

In particular, Sir, I am pleased to note the Government's emphasis on the need to invest in education and training. Matching the Government's emphasis is also that of the parents themselves who are ever prepared to also invest in the education of their children. These investments, together with the Edusave Scholarship Scheme, the Edusave annual grants and the provision of 10 years of education, will pave the way for the country to realise its educational objectives of further improving the quality of our education and to strive for excellence in education. More importantly, it provides equal opportunities for every schooling child to realise his or her maximum potential. However, given that our restructured education system is in place, no amount of investment, be it from the Government or the parents themselves, will help us in achieving our educational objectives if we are unable to attract and even retain good quality people to become teachers.

In this regard, it is heartening to note that, in the Addendum on the Ministry of Education, measures will be taken to further improve the system of rewarding good officers and grooming capable officers for leadership position. In the process, the need to ensure that our teachers are provided competitive terms and conditions of employment should also be given due emphasis and attention. This is of paramount importance. However, as some speakers before me have said, the recent salary revision in the civil service and also the option for medical benefits have in a way given rise to some morale problems. This is not only affecting the teachers but the civil servants and employees in the statutory boards as well. For those who opt for the Co-payment on Ward (CPW) Scheme, they were informed that they would not be eligible for future salary revisions. This is a rather unfair condition for them to opt. We hope that the Government would take a serious review of the decision made and address the problem accordingly.

Sir, the President's Address also noted the demographic changes which have serious social and economic implications. Firstly, the need for older workers to be retrained and learn new skills and fit into new jobs. Sir, the term "older workers" has more often than not been loosely used. To use it without a clear definition may give rise to the undesirable perception that "I am not old, so I do not need retraining." After all, as the saying goes, feeling old is a state of the mind. Therefore, in stressing the need to retrain older workers, we should avoid sending a wrong signal, otherwise such workers may be less receptive to the need for retraining. Older workers as they are would have many good years with the company they work in. While they can accept the rationale that retraining to learn new skills would enable them to earn better wages, for all practical intents and purposes, this may not necessarily be the case, as companies do have their constraints. Unless these workers can see immediate rewards upon completion of their retraining, a common response is: What for? By the time I am retrained, I will be due to retire, anyway.

The Addendum on the Ministry of Trade and Industry states that new ways would be sought to help workers participate in training programmes and to encourage them to continually upgrade themselves. In the process, perhaps the Government and employers as well can formulate incentive schemes for workers who complete the retraining programmes. It does not necessarily follow that younger workers are more skilful or more productive than older workers. Older workers have acquired skills, expertise and experience over the years on the job. It would be a waste if their skills, expertise and experience go untapped.

In our environment, when one joins the labour force, it is evident that one will have to be trained and retrained continuously, regardless of age, because of the rapid and constant change in present-day science, technology and even business requirements. A better educated and skilled worker will of course be in a better position to be employable, to earn better wages and a better living. This has been reiterated many times by our national leaders. Notwithstanding this, we must also recognise that there exists a certain category of workers whose jobs are not skill-intensive and yet the job they are performing is important and vital to the economy, for example, the drivers, the security guards and the postmen. To this category of workers, skills upgrading sounds hollow and irrelevant unless there are structural changes in the employment of these workers, for example, by using foreign workers. Or if there is a technology breakthrough, these workers will find it increasingly difficult to better themselves.

There is also another category of workers, presumably older workers, with "A" level or polytechnic diplomas who want to pursue higher paper qualifications through part-time courses offered by the polytechnics, Open University, or the Singapore Institute of Management. These workers have family commitments and enroling in part-time courses will inevitably impose a financial strain on them. In view of the emphasis placed on education and training, the Government should consider allowing these workers to use their CPF savings for part-time courses. Let them decide how they want to invest their CPF savings. If they decide to invest them in their part-time education instead of the stock market, so be it. If I may borrow a sentence from the President's Address: Let them have the freedom to decide for themselves how to invest and take responsibility for their own choices.

Secondly, the need to raise the CPF Minimum Sum gradually over the years. While the rationale for the need is understandable, how this change is implemented will determine the degree of acceptance. This is a sensitive matter as it may be perceived as an indication of Government's paternalism and also intervention in deciding for CPF members how they should utilise their hard-earned savings. I am glad that the Government does recognise this as it has indicated that the matter would be discussed thoroughly over the next few months before deciding on the best way to proceed.

Sir, the Government has reiterated its commitment to its asset enhancement programme by indicating that it will use privatisation of statutory boards to enhance the assets of Singaporeans and to use part of its budget surpluses to fund the asset enhancement programme. This is a good policy as evident from the good response to the Singapore Telecom Group "A" shares and the HDB Upgrading Programme. The impending sale of the 2-room, 3-room HDB rental flats, hawker stalls and HDB shophouses to sitting tenants, I am sure, will also be met with the same good response, if not more.

Sir, the flotation of Singapore Telecom, coupled with the bull run on the stock exchange, has generated some concern about workers, especially first-timers, punting in the stock market. This concern is a valid one. Perhaps the Government should embark on a public education programme to educate this new category of citizen shareholders on the risks and dangers of the stock market before they get burnt and blame someone else or the Government for it.

Finally, Sir, I welcome the plans to review the present arrangements for recruiting, promoting and managing personnel in the civil service and the granting of more operating autonomy to some departments by converting them into statutory boards, as stated in the Addendum on the Ministry of Finance. This must be so if the civil service, being the largest employer, is to continue to attract good quality people into its service.

Sir, the granting of more operating autonomy to statutory boards should encompass giving them more autonomy in determining the terms and conditions of their employees, especially those statutory boards which function more like a commercial company. We have seen that more often than not these statutory boards still use civil service relativities in determining their terms and conditions of employment for their employees. The recent civil service salary revision is a good example. The determination of the year-end bonus is another good example. The question often asked is: how does this reconcile with the autonomy granted to the statutory boards?

Sir, with these comments, I support the motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to join my parliamentary colleagues in supporting the motion of Address of Thanks to the President for his Speech at the Opening of the Second Session of Parliament on Monday, 10th January.

One of the basic issues touched by the President was the impact of demographic changes resulting from better health care and a lower birth rate. Our population is aging. The Government realises the effects of this development. How do we handle this problem? The question has to be resolved satisfactorily.

We have already taken a number of measures. Among them, extending the retirement age, adopting a public housing policy that promotes the strengthening of family bonds and enables the aged to live with their children, providing for training and skills upgrading so that aged workers can continue to contribute to the national economy as well as secure their own livelihood, implementing organised community programmes in the housing estates so that our senior citizens can take part in healthy social activities and, finally, introducing a health policy that enables us to absorb the rising cost of health care.

To me, however, what is important is providing a safety net for old age. I agree with the view that we have to set aside part of our workers' income for old age. This is the reason behind CPF and the reason behind the Minimum Sum scheme which has been set at $34,600. The question is: is this sufficient? We know that the cost of living is rising, the expectations of our retirees are higher now and, more important, our average life expectancy today has increased.

I support the President's suggestion that a higher Minimum Sum is necessary to meet this need. The President has stated that the Minimum Sum will be raised gradually. This means that our workers will need to increase their contributions for the purpose. This objective has to be achieved considering, firstly, our workers' higher income and greater capacity to save; secondly, the appreciation of the value of their properties; thirdly, the need to meet the cost of living; fourthly, the possibility of the existing topping-up facility being extended.

Mr Speaker, I would like to speak on extending the existing Top-up scheme, which has been touched by my colleagues. I think there is a lot of potential to be explored here towards achieving our objectives. The scheme enables aging workers who have reached a sort of plateauing in their salary increments to obtain assistance from their children who have greater savings in their CPF.

We know that $34,600 is far from sufficient for retirement needs, and we have to do something about it. If a worker retires at the new retirement age of 60 and withdraws $1,000 a month, $34,000 will be enough for only 35 months, not even three years. Statistics show that our life expectancy has now reached at least 75 years. How can the retiree maintain himself for another 15 years or more when what he has in savings is enough for only three years? This demands our attention and raising the Minimum Sum is the most appropriate measure.

Although we can raise the Minimum Sum gradually and specify a cash amount, there will be workers who cannot afford it for various reasons, like a small salary, a large number of dependants, etc. So they have a problem complying with the Minimum Sum rule. We might include the value of the property they own by working out a suitable proportioning to make up the required amount. Let us say the amount required under the Minimum Sum scheme is $70,000, half of which can be accounted for by the value of their flats. Let us say they have a 3-room flat now valued at $60,000. $35,000 has to be deposited into their CPF accounts if they sell their flats, and the balance can be in the form of cash which can be gradually raised.

But, Mr Speaker, the cost of living after retirement will continue to rise. If they retire at 60 years and require $1,000 every month for their basic needs and they can live up to 75 years, they actually need about $180,000. Even in families where both husband and wife are working, they would still need a certain amount in current assets and $90,000 cash each in their Minimum Sums.

This is no mean problem. In other countries, a mortgage scheme is introduced, under which flat-owners mortgage their homes in return for cash to meet their daily needs. Having mortgaged them, however, they no longer own their homes. If such a scheme is introduced here, our home ownership policy would be affected.

Mr Speaker, I am impressed with the suggestion by the Member for Kampong Glam GRC, which was supported by the Member for Bedok GRC, that flat-owners be allowed to mortgage their flats under a scheme that gives them cash in return but allows them to continue living there until they pass away, at which time the balance of the money will be paid to their beneficiaries. This suggestion deserves to be debated and considered and we might then get even better suggestions.

But, more importantly, the extension of the Minimum Sum scheme is one way in which we can achieve two objectives, that is, maintaining home ownership and securing life after retirement. The scheme demands that we increase our savings. But not everyone can afford to do so.

Mr Speaker, when we introduced the Top-Up Scheme, the reaction from our young workers was rather encouraging. I believe the reaction reflects our confidence in the institution of the family and a strong sense of responsibility towards our parents when they are old. So I would like to suggest that, besides raising their own Minimum Sums, young workers with larger savings be allowed to contribute through a Top-Up Scheme for their parents, if they want to and if their parents' CPF savings are small and not enough to comply with the Minimum Sum proposed.

Mr Speaker, this idea brings me to a more crucial issue, that is, stabilising and upholding the family as an important institution of our society. Whether working children are prepared to contribute to the Top-Up Scheme will depend on the atmosphere and the history of their family life. If they have been raised in a family torn apart by conflict and troubled by divorce, I do not think they would be keen to sacrifice for their parents.

Considering that the President's Speech also touched on the long-term future of Singapore, the strengthening of family life should be upheld.

We often hear how the institution of the family is facing a challenge in some Western countries. Burton Yale Pines, in his book "Back to Basics" in 1981, expressed his concern over the problem of erosion of noble values and the weakening of the family, the building blocks of society. He was very concerned and I shall quote him. He said:

'Since the start of this century, the divorce rate has soared 700%, almost matching the cost of living's acceleration. Except for a brief slow-down in 1977, the rate has increased each year since 1966. So have the absolute numbers. Since 1975, more than 1 million couples have been divorcing annually, with a record of 1.18 million in 1980. Experts estimate that more than 1 million children annually are involved in divorce cases and currently 13 million children under age eighteen are living in households with at least one parent absent.'

He wrote this 12 years ago. We now hear reports of children seeking divorce from their parents. The wave of destruction of the institution of the family in the United States described by Burton Yale Pines has not abated today.

For us in Singapore, parents have the right and the responsibility to nurture, educate and discipline their children. A healthy family life today depends on the unique relationship between parents and their children. It is the right, duty and responsibility of children then to ensure that their parents enjoy security in their twilight years. We must avoid having this responsibility shifted to the State and the society. We must avoid having the institution of the family weakened by attack from anti-family elements, whether in the form of destructive values, programmes that break up family life or personal choices that encourage divorce, or legislation that is not orientated to the strengthening of family life.

We need to formulate more effective measures to stabilise family life by taking into account the fact that we are an eastern people and Singapore is a multi-racial society with a variety of cultures, religions, values and views on life. In line with this, the threats to the institution of the family will come in a variety of ways and at various times. We must uphold authority, discipline, a moral framework with its value structure and standards of individual conduct and responsibility within the social environment. We have to be wise in handling the fact that differences in a person's ability lead to different levels of success and income. While advocating hard work, thrift and the sacrifice of short-term enjoyment for a happier future, we have to see how differences in family economy can threaten a happy family life.

In discussing this issue, we need to ask some fundamental questions. For example, should market forces be the determinant of everything? How far should this be allowed and at which stage should society and the Government intervene? We cannot, for instance, accept the enforcement of quotas or guidelines, giving subsidies or providing special treatment as an equalizer or balancer of social development and progress. This is inequitable as it would penalise the diligent and talented and the society would, in the long-term, be the poorer because we would not be using our human resources in an optimum way.

We might not succeed in building a Utopia or fully embrace the confidence in human rational capacity to build a perfect society in future. But we have to create the right climate. We also have to work to apply policies that would effect stability in community life and make changes from time to time to those policies in order to further our objectives.

Mr Speaker, Singapore has chosen the middle way and wants the family to overcome its problems, be they the stability of the institution itself or an aging population. But if this cannot be achieved, a limited intervention by the Government can still be expected because basically Singapore is still a large family.

Mr Speaker, I support the motion in the name of Mr Loh Meng See.

Mr Chia Shi Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am most happy to support the motion of thanks to the President standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See, Member for Kampong Glam GRC.

The Government has, since the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament in January 1992, spent much time in tackling the many hot issues of the day. Ministerial, parliamentary and professional committees were formed to study and make recommendations to solve or, at least, to alleviate the problems - health cost, cost of living, etc. I totally agree with the President when he said that, and I quote, "Our short term issues are well in hand." Of course, the Government will need to consistently monitor all developments concerning the people's day-to-day well-being. Circumstances may change, adjustments and modifications will have to be made, and I believe this Government has the wisdom to make these changes. However, the Government and all of us, Singaporeans, should not be drawn into just spending time on short-term issues.

I am glad that the Government will now focus more on the bigger issues that are confronting us, issues that affect our very survival. Whilst we are doing well, so it seems, the world at large is not doing that well. Europe and Japan are still in recessions, deep ones, and signs are that they have not bottomed out. The US economy is still very uncertain. The former Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc have more than just economic woes. Border, ethnic and racial problems are on the increase. A new balance of power is taking place after the collapse of the Cold War. And according to Prof. Thurow - he was quoted by BG Lee in the last session - he wrote an article in the Asian Wall Street Journal recently that the growth of China and, for that matter, this region cannot be enough to carry the world. And if the giant economies continue to be weak, the four "tigers" and all the other emerging NIEs will surely suffer. We cannot remain unscathed.

So, yes, there is jubilation in the successful conclusion of the GATT talks on 15th December last year. Yet, the developments between and among these big players, the big blocs of US and NAFTA, the European Union, Japan and China, do not seem to be very encouraging. Squabbles and frictions are taking place. Therefore, let us not be too carried away with our present success, and let us be sober and down-to-earth all the time.

The President rightly said that, and I quote, "Sooner or later we will face a recession like the short one we had in 1985, or like the prolonged current recessions in Europe and Japan." In the last few days, the share market has collapsed and I do not know whether it is the first indication.

The President has outlined the Government's programmes to tackle our present and future problems. In fact, almost, if not all, the programmes outlined are already in their various stages of development. Let us all be good citizens - Opposition, critics, cynics, one and all. Let us study the President's Speech and all the addenda on the Ministries. Let us all play a part to ensure success and then to enjoy in the success of the programmes.

We may like to ask ourselves questions like these: Are we in agreement with the problems identified? Are we convinced that the programmes put forward will solve all the problems? Are we uncomfortable with any of the programmes, or do we have better alternatives or suggestions for the Government? I believe in the Government's sincerity in wanting to enhance the well-being of each and every Singaporean. The enhancement, however, has got to be earned and we have got to compete with the world to survive and prosper. And yet we cannot, as a country, leave it simply to the survival of the fittest and, therefore, we talk about compassion and for those who are better endowed to carry the less blessed. The designers of our long-term programmes are always well-intentioned. However, sometimes, policies may backfire and certain results may be achieved with unexpected cost - negative, social and political consequences - whilst we may succeed economically.

Sir, may I indulge in citing one sensitive example that has pretty devastating consequences? This, of course, is done with hindsight wisdom now. Faced with double digit unemployment and uncertainty in the horizon in the 1960s, the "Stop at Two" policy was implemented. The campaign to ensure success was fired with many ingenious incentives, disincentives and schemes to go for an all-out population control. Abortion was legalised, ligation was coerced, if not forced. Couples with more than two children were stigmatised and penalised. Family tensions mounted, the family fabric was strained. Gratefully, the policy is now changed.

Faced with a non-replacement problem and, now, a fast aging problem, the Government is encouraging more births. The slogan now reads "Three or more, if you can afford it." Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, the Minister for Health until last month, was jubilant when he said that the number of births reached 50,000 last year. Thanks must go to all the parents and fathers, including our new Health Minister here. Congratulations to him and his wife for having their fourth baby! Since the introduction of this new policy, the last few years had seen a good harvest of over 40,000 births, reaching 50,000 last year. However, as mentioned in the President's Address, the number is still not good enough.

Our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, has, in his New Year's message, said that we are aging faster than other countries. But if we take it positively, we can similarly correct the situation just as fast. We should go for numbers. The baby boom years in the 1960s saw over 60,000 births per year. It dropped to under 40,000 and if we should have some 10-15 years of 55,000-60,000 births, then I reckon a big part of the problem would have been solved, ie, depending on a few to feed the old.

Our present policy encourages birth if you can afford it. That rekindles my thoughts back to the great debate and controversy on nature versus nurture. Whilst there may be much truth, how much and how certain, God only knows. There may be some truth in the nature theory but no one dares challenge the equal importance of nurture which plays a part. And this Government, I am proud to say, is very sensitive and has treaded the issue solely on the ability of the parents to nurture their offsprings. Incentives have been introduced to get the better educated and the richer breed more babies. Some success has been reported. But from the tone of the then Minister for Health, those who are supposed to have more babies still fall far short of the target, albeit there is some improvement. And the other group, those who cannot afford, is having more babies than it can cope. Sir, do we need to stop these people from having more babies? Is it wise to cut down such births, I ask myself, because I am troubled. If we so need the numbers that badly, can the Government and all of us Singaporeans not help in nurturing the babies? Allow all those who love children to have more babies. We can help them. The slogan can be changed to "Three or More if you Love and are Prepared to Sacrifice for your Children."

Will it be too irresponsible to ask the State or society at large to help nurture all these children born to poorer families? The President stated clearly in his Address that, and I agree, subsidies must be justified by desirable objectives of improving the self-reliance for long-term economic independence, not dependence, of those helped by subsidies. Is there a case to justify going all out to nurture our children, sons and daughters of Singapore? Yes, maybe not many of them will become leaders, not many of them will enter this House. But I think even if they become our construction workers, they are still contributing and can be counted upon to defend Singapore. Can SINDA, MENDAKI, CDAC and all other welfare bodies help shoulder a bigger load? Our SDU has done a good job in getting more people to get married and to raise families. Can there be a unit to help promote probably a Godparents Scheme? There may be many Singaporeans who can be matched to become godparents of such babies. The joy can be shared.

Another issue that is very sensitive is abortion. I remember the outcry when abortion was legalised. I am not raising a public issue or public debate on this, but I am purely looking at the numbers. Surely, the lesser the abortions, the more babies we will end up with. How can we reduce the number of abortions? Have we done enough to counsel and talk people out of abortion? Can we help foster the unwanted babies for whatever reasons? Can we make the option for abortions as a last resort, ie, make it more difficult? These are issues that we can tackle if we are just purely looking at numbers. And if we do get the increase in numbers, I think a lot of the problems could have been solved. We have, I think, over 300,000 foreign workers here.

Let me now turn to another issue. A policy that was of much concern in the last debate on the motion of thanks to the President in January 1992 was the sudden emphasis on the ethnic self-help groups with the formation of SINDA, CDAC along the lines of MENDAKI. Clan associations, Eurasian body and all similar ones were given lifts to help look after their kind. The hon. Member, Mr Chandra Das, had said then and I quote him:

'The line between one's pride and one's culture and chauvinism is indeed very fine.'

Many had voiced caution including the then Opposition leader, Mr Chiam See Tong. Whilst accepting the policy to be logical and worth pursuing, many were concerned. After two years now, the policy appears to be progressing fine. However, one cannot be too sure. Should the bodies stick strictly to only helping their kind? Our leaders in these various bodies, I am happy to note, are very good and sensible people. In fact, there are already some forms of cooperation and collaborations between and amongst them. The leaders, however, have their problems. I checked with some of them and one thing for sure, they told me, the contributors or donors along ethnic lines will not want to see their money being used to help other ethnic groups. So there is a problem as to how much they can do.

Look at the various ethnic based Chambers of Commerce. They played a most useful role, a most meaningful role, in our earlier years of development. Today, I think they are struggling to find their relevance. The Singapore Manufacturers Association and many other industry-based trade associations actually were formed and became more meaningful and they helped develop their own cause. But now, again, a new development is taking place because they are now looking at the big umbrella, a confederation of all these Chambers that can speak in one solitary voice. So along the line, the needs may be satisfied or new needs may appear and I hope the Government will monitor the situation closely, as I believe this is still a point of concern.

The Government is absolutely correct to see the need for continuous training and retraining and I agree with the union Member, Mr Tong Kok Yeo, who said that the younger workers have to be trained. But I like to take up the older workers' position first. As regards the older workers, as emphasised, why are they not coming forward for training? The National Productivity Board told me that there are lots and lots of places for training and yet they are not coming forward. The President's concern about the older workers makes sense and he said that the older workers will need retraining to learn new skills and fit into new jobs. Therefore, it is not a question of retraining or upgrading. How much can an old driver or delivery worker learn? How far can he be upgraded?

Sir, not long ago, Pusan, South Korea, was the place where the world's best athletics and sports shoes were made. Over two years, they have disappeared. All the companies have relocated in China and Indonesia. All the companies are all right, but the workers were left high and dry. Pusan has over 30% unemployment now.

Our mature economy is now undergoing painful structural changes. Our older workers with absolutely no skills need to master new skills to serve new masters. I think they have got to get out of their present jobs and go into full-time learning and be counted upon to man our new investments, the new value added investments that the EDB and the Government are pursuing. Also, there are many opportunities in existing industries that may need them. So how can we take those older workers who are interested to start afresh, to learn a new skill and to have a second chance? These older workers, in their late 30s and 40s, will need an income to support their families and pay for their financial commitments. But yet they have got to resign from their existing jobs and go into full-time learning. Companies have a problem releasing them. Everyone is looking at cost and is short of workers. Can we turn to a scheme where we actually give these older workers an income when they come out to learn a new skill? Can we draw on the foreign workers levy? It is not a subsidy that will go to waste, because we are training these people to learn new skills, new jobs, that we are bringing into Singapore. Many of the older workers cannot attend night courses because they are also moonlighting. Many have other family commitments and responsibilities. So they are stuck. Unless we are prepared to take them out from what they are doing now and give them a chance to learn a new skill, I do not see how we can solve the problem.

On balance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Government has grasped our problems well. The Government's philosophies and strategies are generally sound. It is for us all Singaporeans to rally behind the Government to achieve success. It is also our job to give feedback to the Government the minute we notice negative side effects. I trust that the Government will listen.

Sir, I support the motion. 2.10 pm

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of thanks to the President standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See.

The President's Address clearly spells out the Government's focus on long-term policies to take Singapore to the next stage of nation building. In this debate, I wish to touch on two important issues in this respect.

First, skills upgrading and training of the workforce. As we face a keener regional and global competition, skills upgrading and training is no more a matter of choice but a necessity. Increasingly, more MNCs are giving Singapore a miss in their plans to set up or expand their manufacturing operations. We have read recently about a major disk drive company, Quantum Corporation, which preferred to site their factory in Penang instead of Singapore. The main reason cited by the company is that Penang offers higher skilled workers and in bigger numbers.

According to labour statistics as at 1992, 46% of the Singapore workforce do not even have at least a secondary education. In comparison, in South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, more than 70% of their workforce have at least a secondary education. Further, the 1990 census of population reveals that 53% of those between the ages of 30 and 39 and 68% of those between the ages of 40 and 49 do not have a secondary education. As this group of workers would continue to be a sizable part of our workforce in the next 20 to 30 years, every effort must be made to ensure that these workers receive skills upgrading, retraining and on-the-job training.

In this regard, I am happy to note that the Skills Development Fund (SDF) will expand retraining programmes for older workers to help them upgrade and adapt to new technology.

Presently, the income ceiling for employer's contribution to the SDF is at a salary level of $750. In today's context, it is common to find low skilled older workers who earn more than $750, especially in the private sector. SDF statistics on the training participation rate of older workers indicate that only 7% have gone through SDF-sponsored programmes. To ensure that more of such workers can benefit from the programmes, I would like to propose that the income ceiling of the employer's contribution be increased from $750 to $1,500.

More funding will enable the availability of a wider range of courses. But funding would only solve part of the problem, as pointed out by Mr Chia Shi Teck. What is of equal importance is to ensure that employers and workers respond positively to the schemes and programmes that exist. There is an urgent need to promote greater awareness of skills training and to develop a training culture and mindset. The employer knows best the type of skills that his employees would need to keep ahead of competition. So, it is the employers who should formulate and implement training programmes. Some employers have come forward to show greater commitment to training by including the percentage of wage cost to be expended on training of workers in their collective agreements with the unions. More employers should come forward to emulate this commitment. At the same time, unions and Government institutions must do their part in promoting greater awareness and positive attitudes in workers as well as on-the-job training and retraining amongst workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to move on to health care. The Government has recently set in place its health care policies. Civil servants have to decide on one of the three options available under the revised medical benefits scheme. Many of them do not understand how the scheme works and what is best for them. In fact, as Mr Chandra Das pointed out, there is utter chaos. The unions are doing their part to explain to their members how the scheme works. However, explaining the revised scheme should not be the sole responsibility of the unions. Government should organise the respective heads of departments to explain to their employees the changes in the benefits and the terms and conditions of service. Also, the extent of coverage of MediShield and how MediShield is paid out should be made clearer to these employees.

I would also like to bring to the Government's attention of the plight of many daily-rated employees (DREs) and Division IV civil servants. Recently, a union leader told me that after working in the service for more than 22 years, his take-home pay is less than $800. With the need for co-payment of hospital bills, he, like many of his union members, is concerned about the high deductible and the claim limits of the present MediShield Scheme. I would therefore urge the Government to consider lowering the deductibles and to make MediShield claim limits more generous.

Another problem faced by the DREs and Division IV civil servants is that when they receive outpatient treatment, they are required to pay upfront 100% of the bills and they have to subsequently claim 85% from their own departments. This may not be a financial strain for most Singaporeans. However, for this group of low income earners, it is a significant problem. Therefore, I would urge the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance to show compassion for this group of civil servants by making the necessary administrative arrangements to allow them to receive treatment without the need to mete out any payment upfront. Their co-payment portion can be deducted from their salaries subsequently. I would therefore urge the Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance to accede to this simple request.

On that note, Mr Speaker, 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 Kampong Glam GRC, Mr Loh Meng See, thanking the President for his Speech.

In his Speech, the President mentioned that the short term issues of Singapore were well in hand and that the Government's focus would be on long term policies. The Government's decision to prepare for long term problems is a very wise one. However, I hope that the Government will not neglect some of the short term problems which affect the everyday life of our people. For example, the problem of price increases. This is an imminent and ever increasing burden to our ordinary citizens.

To many ordinary citizens, 1994 is a year of many price increases. With effect from 3rd January 1994, the CBD hours were extended and people have to spend more money to get into the CBD during the day. The HDB and URA have increased their parking fees by five cents for every half-hour. Admission charges to various places of interest and scenic spots have also increased. Television and radio licence fees are increased by 10%. Some creches have also increased their fees by $10 to $50. School bus and newspaper delivery fees have also increased. Some coffee shops are charging 10 cents more for each cup of coffee. Six taxi companies have applied to increase their fares. Bus fares and MRT fares are likely to be increased too. This series of price increases has brought about a great burden to our people. It is like a person falling into the sea and he has to face the impact of one wave after another. This impact is certainly very hard for people to tolerate.

People are generally very puzzled and unhappy with all these price increases, and there is very little they can do about it. What can they do about the increase in TV and radio licence fees? They have to pay. Can they possibly forgo watching TV or listening to radio just because of the increase in fees? When the creches raise their charges, the parents will still have to pay because the working mothers have to depend on the creches to look after their children when they go to work. When the school bus operators raise their fares, can the school-children stop going to school just because of the additional charges?

These price increases have also brought on a heavy burden to the lower-income families. The newspaper vendors are now beginning to charge three cents more for the delivery of newspapers. At certain places, coffeeshops charge ten cents more for each cup of coffee. Although some people may say that it is only an increase of five cents and 10 cents, which is no big deal, many five cents and many ten cents, added together, could become an enormous sum, something which not everybody could afford.

Some operators are saying that they have to increase the prices because the cost of doing business has gone up and almost all of them are putting the blame on the Government for taking the lead in price increases. For example, the increase in parking fees and the full-day ALS scheme which brought about a chain reaction. In order that the standard of living of our ordinary citizens would not be affected and the Government would not be blamed for all this, I think the Government departments concerned should look squarely on the problem and check on the businessmen and hawkers who are increasing the prices of their merchandise and services indiscriminately and citing the increase in operational cost as their excuse for doing so.

Some irresponsible businessmen and hawkers are using the excuse of GST to increase their prices. Let me give you an example. One morning, I was at a hawker centre for breakfast. I discovered that the price for a certain type of food has been increased from fifty cents to sixty cents. I asked the stallholder why he had raised the price. He replied that he had to do so because the Government is introducing GST. We all know that this is not true, because GST has yet to be introduced, and even with the implementation of GST, it should not have much effect on these hawkers. Yet, these hawkers have no hesitation in putting the blame on the Government. I believe he is not the first hawker to raise his prices under this pretext, nor will he be the last one to do so. This misconception will just spread. Nowadays, with a large proportion of our people eating out at hawker centres and restaurants every day, this will unwittingly result in more people misunderstanding and grudging the Government. This is very unfair.

Sir, I have no objection to reasonable price increases. If the cost of doing business has increased, then a reasonable price increase is a matter of course, just like a salary revision. However, it is very worrying to see that these people have already increased the prices before GST has been introduced. With the implementation of GST, are they going to increase the prices again? How is the Government going to deal with profiteering? How is the Government to determine which type of price increase is reasonable? I think these are the questions which most ordinary citizens are very concerned with and the Government should pay more attention to them.

No doubt the GST has to be implemented to improve and to enhance our competitiveness. But the Government should ensure that after the implementation of the GST, our people could still have a healthy and fair consumer environment.

Sir, I hope that the reflection of the above reaction of the people would enable the Government to appreciate the unhappiness of our people against all these price increases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.29 pm until 3.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in the debate.

The President's Address has covered several areas. I will confine myself to a few areas.

The good PAP Government we have had over the years has resulted in a prosperous Singapore and high standard of living, and this has resulted in a longer life span for Singaporeans. With many Singaporeans living up to their 70s, 80s and beyond, problems of old age will arise. Health problems such as stroke, heart problem and cancer may afflict the elderly. Social problems such as loneliness and lack of family support will also occur. Many of the health problems of the elderly are both difficult and costly to treat. Are our elderly prepared for the day that such a disease condition will affect them?

Last week, I saw a lady in her 60s with suspected heart disease. She underwent a test which showed that there was significant blockage of her heart arteries that required surgery. That afternoon I went to the ward to explain the findings to her and the treatment required. She was almost in tears. She said that her son had just scolded her. Her son would scold her every time she required money for her health problem. And her son considered it a waste of his money by spending it on his mother's health. Yet he had no qualms about spending money for his own vacation. This was in the words of the patient. She was so disappointed that her son whom she had brought up and cared for considered it more worthwhile to spend his money for his own vacation than for his mother's health care.

The filial piety of yesteryears may not be so prevalent today. It may even be less prevalent in future. The middle age and young Singaporeans will have to prepare for the day when he or she grows old. With the rising cost of health care, the ceiling for Medisave should be reviewed so that the retired will be able to fend for themselves when they are ill. Perhaps the Government should also consider whether it should be made compulsory for children to contribute to the Medisave of their parents. Equally important, the values of filial piety should be reinforced in the schools and educational institutions.

The health problems bring with it social problems. It is not easy for any family to manage a member of the family who has, for example, a stroke. It is never easy to feed the person, clean him up and help him with his activities of daily living. Are the nursing homes a solution to this problem? Are they affordable to the average family who has a member who has a stroke? Do the nursing homes help to foster family support for the sick? I think these are issues that need to be looked into. And perhaps the Government may consider building nursing homes in the heart of HDB estate itself, so that the family will have easier access to their loved ones in the nursing home and there will be better and closer relationship between the family members.

For those who have partially dependent family members who may have recovered from a stroke, a heart attack or a debilitating disease, they may be partially dependent and the family members may also be unlikely to leave them at home. There perhaps should also be more structured facilities and community organisations to ensure that the family members can leave their semi-dependent family members in the community facilities when they go to work. This will allow the family members to carry on being economically active and yet have peace of mind and heart when their semi-dependent family members are left in these community facilities. I think the current senior citizens' centres are not quite set up to perform such functions and maybe we should look at the possibility of developing centres to cater for these needs. The health and social problems are certainly areas that the Government should examine more closely to provide solutions to such problems.

In the midst of success and prosperity, we must not forget those at the bottom of the social ladder in Singapore. The recent focus of attention of many Singaporeans has been on the increased costs, that is, cost of homes, cost of COEs, cost of health care. It is also time to review the Public Assistance rates to meet this increase in costs. The Public Assistance rates should be reviewed not based on previous standards of living but rather current standards of living. The Government has always been sensitive and responsive to the needs of those Singaporeans who face hardship. I hope that there will be a review of the Public Assistance rates to reflect the concern of the Government for these people.

With these comments, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to make a few comments on the Presidential Address. It is a most business-like Address as it clearly and concisely sets out the Government's policies on the further economic development of Singapore. The Government, to its credit, has also not forgotten the social needs of Singaporeans.

Sir, however, there are one or two grey areas which I hope the Government will clarify. The President, in his Address, touched upon privatisation and the free play of market forces and the need for Singapore to maintain its competitive edge. The Government has also accepted the need for it to intervene, whenever necessary, to prevent hardship to Singaporeans.

Sir, I agree privatisation will enable Singaporeans to have a bigger stake in the prosperity of their country. At the same time, privatisation may also result in a higher cost of living. Private sector discipline should bring down the cost of a privatised enterprise but this does not necessarily mean its prices will be lower. For example, the operator of a privatised food centre may run it more efficiently and economically than a Government department, but the prices will not be lower. This is because other factors come into play. The operator and the hawkers have to pay more for the food centre and the stalls, respectively.

Even if the hawkers do not pay more for their stalls, they will charge what the market can bear, which may be well above their cost. As for the advice to shop around for the lowest prices, it is easier said than done. Sellers also know unity is strength and maintain uniform prices. Forget about such obvious gimmick as a $1 roast pig. Even the $1 chicken rice seller does not keep up his gimmick too long.

Sir, if you think the examples I am giving are chicken-feed, let us take the case of housing. Private housing is out of reach of most young people who are not share brokers or remisiers. But public housing is no help to them either. I am not sure whether private housing prices rise because of public housing prices or vice versa, but they definitely rise in tandem.

Housing prices, of course, have not reached the absurd proportion of the COE for motorcars. I will not be surprised if the present boom in the share prices may cause the COE to cost more than the car itself. No matter how much we subscribe to the free play of market forces, I do not think I can bring myself to accept such a situation as normal or desirable.

Sir, more seriously, many Singaporeans are wage-earners who are confused by these sky-rocketing prices when the official price barometer, the CPI index, shows it is still fair weather. Moreover, Singapore workers have been told over and over again to restrain their claims for higher wages in order to maintain Singapore's competitive edge. On the other hand, they read in the newspapers that the senior managers and executives here have one of the highest take-home pay in the world! Obviously, high managerial salaries and perks have the blessing of the Government.

Sir, it seems to me there are too many conflicting signals. The President's Address may not be able to deal comprehensively with all the Government's policies. I hope the Ministers will add more flesh to the skeletal framework of the Presidential Address. One point they should touch upon, in great details, is where and how they intend to draw the line of balance between market forces and regulation.

Rising prices must sooner or later affect consumers, the vast majority of whom are workers. It is easy to dismiss such matters as COE as being of no concern to the ordinary workers. Unfortunately, the buyers of expensive cars and homes do not get their money out of thin air. Whether they derive it in the form of salary, commission, fee, interest, dividend or profit, it is ultimately reflected in the prices paid by the lowly consumers.

Sir, the Government has stated it is prepared to intervene to keep the cost of medical care affordable, for example, capping the fees of doctors. I should think the Government needs also to come out with a detailed statement as to how and to what extent it is willing and able to intervene in other areas. The benefit of the Government's public housing programme, for example, will not be appreciated by a young couple if their apartment swallows up a big chunk of their joint income.

Sir, Singapore is one of the few countries which is small in everything except ambition. I think Singapore is simply too small to permit the free play of market forces. On a big ocean liner, any number of passengers can jump up and down on the deck as long and as hard as they wish. In a sampan, even a lone passenger should think long and hard about rocking the boat. Regulation will not necessarily stifle progress if it is administered in a flexible and imaginative manner.

Sir, some form of regulation will also give the added bonus of social harmony.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Thomson GRC): Sir, President Ong Teng Cheong in his Presidential Address focused on the long-term objectives of the Government and its plans, particularly on economic development and care for the aged. It is more a reiteration of past policies, proven and tested, and some fine-tuning of schemes to meet the challenges of the future.

Basically, Sir, the economic emphasis is on the free market system. It has been accepted by most Singaporeans though we face the prospects of cost increases when demand is more than supply. The principle of having to pay for what we consume is equitable to all. It has led to people having to decide carefully on their needs and being able to afford it. People have a choice of the goods and services provided and decide on those that are within their means. However, Sir, it is most assuring to note that the Government will subsidise in areas where they benefit the public most, especially in education, health, housing and infrastructure. This has resulted in all Singaporeans having access to quality education, good medical care, better housing and infrastructure as compared to the past.

Sir, the Government is concerned about the people. They think very far ahead and put in place policies to ensure that Singaporeans live a comfortable life. One area of concern is the aging population. Soon there will be a lesser number of economically active people supporting an aged person. Elderly persons more than 60 years old comprise 10% of the population now and will increase to 26% in the year 2030. This will definitely put much strain on the younger working people and all the infrastructure in the country.

The move to adjust and set aside a larger Minimum Sum in the CPF is a step in the right direction. I support the proposal and urge that the sum be increased gradually over the years. There is no doubt that the cost of living will rise. As such, workers must, from now, prepare to keep aside more every month in their CPF to enable them to withdraw higher amounts each month after they retire at 60. As the retirement age has been increased from 55 to 60, it is only fair that adjustment is made to the CPF contributions of workers within the 55 to 60 age group. The present rate of contribution from employers and employees is less as compared to workers below 55 years. I suggest that the rate be the same for all workers until they reach 60 years old. The lower CPF contribution rate could then be moved to the 60 to 65 years old category. This will encourage more older people to stay on working and, at the same time, have more money in their CPF account for their retirement.

Sir, in its Addendum to the President's Address, the Acting Minister for Community Development spells out his Ministry's objectives in strengthening the family. This, I believe, coincides with the International Year of the Family 1994 as declared by the United Nations. I strongly support the move to have more activities to emphasise the importance of strong family relationship.

Sir, the family is the oldest and most fundamental of human institutions. In traditional societies, kinship ties constitute the primary form of social organisation. However, in a modern industrial state like ours, kinship matters less in shaping human lives. Individuals rely heavily on a complex array of institutions, including the state, industries, religious and commercial institutions to organise their activities into orderly and socially meaningful endeavours. Though the nuclear family tends to be predominant in our society, we cannot treat kin relations as secondary. Efforts must therefore be made to ensure that the variation of the extended family and the kin network persist because such a family structure helps to sustain individuals, especially in the face of hardship.

The family continues to play an important role in modern life. It remains the primary group where intimacy and affection can be fully expressed and is still the best setting for the primary care of the young. The family has become a specialised institution to provide the emotional support that the larger more impersonal worlds of education, work and politics do not.

Sir, the family is the key to our future. A happy family provides stability to the society and nation. The future of our people depends on the stability and strength of their families. It is therefore important for us to ensure our families' continued prosperity by striving hard and overcome the challenges that come by.

Sir, in order to encourage the setting up of happy families, the Government may consider incorporating family life education in our school curriculum, especially at the upper secondary and tertiary levels. The young child could be taught good family values that are inherent in our society. They will be more aware of their responsibilities as a husband, wife and later as parents to their children. Even in Britain today, the government is advocating "back to the basics" policy of a good family life. It is a return to old values and would be the backbone of the British government's policy. The same, I believe, is also being done in America.

Sir, to cater to the adult population, support must be given by the Government to the many civic, cultural and religious organisations that are conducting marriage guidance courses and counselling services. Marriage guidance courses have become increasingly popular among couples who are aware of the importance of marriage as a life-time commitment. The courses should be viewed as something that would further enrich matrimony. The book Preparing for Marriage commissioned by the Ministry of Community Development is certainly welcome. If the Government has a central coordinating body to encourage singles to marry in the form of the SDU, I am sure there could be a coordinating body to take charge of promoting family life. Keeping marriage alive and stable is just as important, if not more important than encouraging singles to marry. The setting up of Family Service Centres in all parts of Singapore should therefore be given some urgency as such centres play a vital role in assisting families solve their problems.

Sir, let me now move on to the Small Families Improvement Scheme. I applaud the Government for introducing the Small Families Improvement Scheme. This scheme will encourage low-income families to upgrade themselves and at the same time keep their families small. This way, parents can concentrate their resources and attention on their children.

This scheme provides educational bursaries for children from small families and also housing grants for the mother. However, I hope the criteria on income should not be too rigid. It must be flexible enough to allow for the wife or husband earning more than $750 per month each to qualify for the scheme. If the husband and wife, without GCE 'O' or 'N' levels, have worked hard for many years and be promoted in their jobs, many may be drawing above the stipulated amount of $750 per month. If we disqualify them, then we do not encourage them to work hard and earn more each month. In addition to that, we may discourage many from doing overtime work or even do extra part-time work.

If the intention is to assist these low-income families to upgrade themselves, perhaps the Government could also consider giving educational and training grants to the wife and husband to attend courses and improve their working skills and education level. This way, Sir, we not only assist the children but also the parents from these families. This suggestion is in line with the policy of retraining older workers so that they could learn new skills and fit into new jobs. We should help these people upgrade and adapt to new technology.

Finally, Sir, I thank the President for his Address and support the motion.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See.

The Address by the President reminds me of the speech made by the Prime Minister in this House in paying tribute to the former President, Mr Wee Kim Wee. In that speech, the Prime Minister mentioned that Mr Wee discerned a trend that worries him, ie, Singaporeans are beginning to judge the worth of a man by the car he drives and the house he lives in. Since the Prime Minister chose to bring this up, I was hoping that the President would touch on this issue in his Address to the House. It is indeed quite true that there is such a trend.

In my discussions with young Singaporeans, I find that their respect for a person nowadays is measured by how much money that person makes. Furthermore, if two persons make the same amount of money, they would have higher respect for the one who is less intelligent or less capable. This is to say, respect seems to be tied to how street-smart that person is. To capture this, I would like to use a ratio which I would call the "street-smart quotient" or SQ in short, which is derived by taking the gross monthly salary divided by the IQ of the person. For a person who makes, say, $5,000 a month with an IQ of 125, which places him in the gifted category, his SQ is only 40. Whereas if his IQ is only 80, which is just below average, his SQ is now 62r, which means he would get more respect from young people than the gifted person.

With the stock market boom in 1993, I would say remisiers and dealers certainly scored the highest SQs. Furthermore, the vibrant real estate market also means that the real estate brokers have very high SQ as well. They are the people who drive the fanciest cars on the road and buying up the most expensive homes in districts 10, 11 and so on.

If Singaporeans emulate these young individuals and take after them, how are we going to motivate them to take up professions in production, in engineering and R&D which do not pay as much, but which is where the wealth of the nation is generated?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is also another worrying development, ie, the widening income discrepancy in Singapore, and Mr Chin Harn Tong has touched on this. With our drive towards globalisation and regionalisation, the income discrepancy between the high-income group and the low-income group is widening. Business Times reported recently that the Singapore CEOs are the 15th highest paid in the world. If we take the after-tax figures, these CEOs are even further ahead, ranking 6th, ahead of CEOs in Germany, Japan and Switzerland. Whereas if we look at our workers, I do not think we are comparing them with workers in the same league of nations. The recent civil servants' pay adjustments only further highlight this trend. While the overall increase is 7.1%, those in the higher echelons received much higher pay increases.

In his Address to the House, the President mentioned that social cohesion is fundamental to the continued progress of our nation building. The Prime Minister in one of his speeches identified four strategies and one advantage of Singapore that would transform our nation into a developed country in the 21st century. And that advantage is social cohesion. The question here is: what is the effect of widening income discrepancy on our social cohesion? Everything being equal, the social cohesion in a nation where there is great income discrepancy must be weaker than one where there is a smaller discrepancy. Matters can only become worse if people flaunt their wealth openly.

I believe it would be a more ideal situation if every person is respected for his contribution to society. Respect for the individual. That is the guideline for personnel management in multi-national companies like IBM, Shell and HP. An employee would command respect if he carries out his job well, regardless of what the job is and what the job pays. A janitor who does his job in a quality way would deserve no less respect than a manager. He shall be respected not for how much he earns but how he carries out his work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for instance, in Singapore, it is hard to get people to become school teachers. Not only does the job not pay well, it also no longer commands the respect the profession once received. Perhaps our teachers should be accorded the kind of respect the Japanese do for their teachers. Teachers there have high status and that is one of the reasons why the Japanese system continues to attract teachers of high calibre even though the job does not pay well.

Sir, in the Government's drive to motivate Singaporeans to strive for greater economic growth, are we overdoing it by pushing money as the primary measure of success? Would our young men and women wake up one day and find that, after all, money is not the path to happiness? In fact, it is already happening to a certain extent currently. In 1993, if you look around, you will notice that the assets of all Singaporeans have gone up. Their HDB flats are worth more. Their cars are worth more. Whatever they own in assets have gone up in price. Indeed, everyone seems to be richer, but not everyone is happier. If anything, if we ask around, more people are unhappy.

Sir, other societies have actually travelled down this path before. Perhaps we can learn from them. In Japan, they have a system of honouring master craftsmen in the trades. These craftsmen are known as "National Treasures". They are accorded great respect. In America, the emphasis is on sports. Every young man there has his idol in sports; sportsmen that young men and women can look up to and emulate. Perhaps Singaporeans need heroes and role models who are ordinary people too. For instance, the best worker, the best taxi driver, maybe one day the best actor, the best tennis player, the best swimmer, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Government will take heed of Mr Wee Kim Wee's concern and find a way to mould a Singapore society that is less materialistic than the one that we are evolving towards at this moment.