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

12.33 pm

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an honour to be given this privilege to move the motion.

I beg to move,

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, 65% of the voters voted for the PAP in the last general election, reversing a trend of the previous three general elections, a trend which the opposition had been counting on to carry them into Parliament in greater numbers. Instead, the election saw opposition parties humbled and decimated, so much so that the SDP, the main opposition party in the last Parliament, is no longer represented in this House.

The PAP's success is based on its record of good Government. Singaporeans have found their standard of living improved for the past five years. In his 1992, 1993 and 1995 National Day Rally speeches, the Prime Minister had reiterated that Singaporeans' assets would be enhanced during his tenure. A series of asset enhancement programmes such as HDB upgrading and share ownership were introduced, benefiting a large majority of Singaporeans.

Our booming economy has raised our per capita GDP to US$28,500, placing us amongst the top 10 countries in the world. Real wages have increased by 4-5% per annum over the past five years. Propelled by the increasing income, the appreciation of our homes over the last five years was unprecedented in Singapore's history. As inflation has been low and our currency remains strong, our purchasing power has increased dramatically. The Institute of Management Development, a Swiss business school, has ranked Singapore equal with Japan in terms of purchasing power parity. With such a strong record, it was no surprise that the voters supported the PAP.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the results reflect the trust and confidence the people of Singapore have in the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. As we are poised at the threshold of the new millennium, our people have given the PAP a renewed mandate to lead them into the 21st century. They have endorsed the vision of the PAP Government for this term of Parliament, namely, Singapore 21, with its five pillars: create wealth, share success, invest in the young, care for the old, and build ties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's competitive advantage lies in our ability to figure out how to organise ourselves more efficiently and effectively than others. The process is simple. We identify where we are. We determine where we want to be. Then we implement a gap-closure plan to get there. Nothing fancy, just a step-by-step systematic approach.

While the recipe is simple, to implement it nation wide requires strong leadership, clear minds, focused and consistent execution. Being simple, it is also a recipe that others could copy. A good example is our Operational Headquarters strategy which has been quite successful in attracting multi-national companies to establish their OHQs here. Malaysia adopted the same strategy and has succeeded in attracting several major MNCs, including the software giant Microsoft, in direct competition with Singapore.

We welcome other countries to emulate us. We support their effort to improve the standard of living of their people. The world will be a better and safer place if our neighbours are also prosperous. Still, Singaporeans should realise that competition will become even stiffer in future.

Now that Singapore is amongst the richest economies in the world, the question is how do we continue to enlarge the economic pie and raise the income of our people. We may be rich in terms of per capita GDP but Singapore cannot be considered a developed country as we lack depth in R&D and other capabilities that will ensure continued demand for our goods and services. Being rich also means that the cost of doing business in Singapore is now comparable to those in the developed countries. In a recent dialogue session of the Feedback Unit, chaired by Dr John Chen, on the President's Address, the high cost of doing business in Singapore was a main concern of the participants. They reflected that high office rental is one of the main components. Secondly, the use of the pricing mechanism by the Government to achieve policy objectives, for example, COEs, is another factor that causes the cost to rise in Singapore.

Their concerns are also reinforced by the recent slow-down in our economy. The economic growth for the first quarter of 1997 was a slow 3.8%, with manufacturing registering a minus 6.7%, the third quarterly decline in a row. By economic definition, in fact, manufacturing should be in recession. While this is partly due to weak global demand, increasing business cost is definitely a contributing factor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the message is quite clear. While we must continue to become more efficient, that is no longer enough. In many areas, we are already rated No. 1 in the world and have reached the point of diminishing returns. Consider, for example, the much acclaimed baggage delivery system in Changi Airport. Already we have achieved the target of delivering the first bag on the belt when the first passenger reaches there. There is little strategic value to do this any further.

The Government's strategy here is to move our economy up the technological curve. The National Science and Technology Board is provided with ample funds. Good progress has been made, and more remains to be done. Let us look at the number of Research Scientists and Engineers (RSEs) per thousand in the workforce, a statistic commonly used to gauge a nation's strength in R&D. In the five-year period from 1990 to 1995, the number of RSEs increased from 27.7 per thousand to 47.7 per thousand, an increase of 72% or an annual growth rate of 12%. Still, we are 13% behind the UK, 18% behind Germany, 36% behind the US and 41% behind Japan. Even amongst the NIEs in the Asia Pacific region, we are 17% behind Korea and 22% behind Taiwan.

We are also investing in our IT infrastructure, including Singapore One, a $80 million project involving 31 companies. The spread of the Internet is probably the most important event in the post-industrial revolution. With more and more information accessible on-line, the future belongs to those proficient in surfing the Net. Only those tapping the resources on the Net will discover new business opportunities. Thus, it is most heartening that the Government has announced a $2 billion IT plan for schools. Our citizens' proficiency in the use of computers will ensure that Singapore will remain in the forefront and ahead of the competition.

Even in R&D, high cost is a deterrent. Several US R&D operations in Singapore have closed down over the last several years and relocated their R&D operation back to the US, citing high cost. The recent shut-down of Apple Design Centre is a good example. As cost increases, we no longer can depend entirely on MNCs to develop our R&D capabilities. We need more home-grown companies, such as Creative and Aztech. We need more young men and women to take up science and engineering to produce the next generation of techno-entrepreneurs.

Here, Sir, we face an uphill task. Young people are naturally attracted by the financially more rewarding careers. In all modern economies, the closer one's job is to the management of large sums of money the better is the pay package. Old favourites like lawyers and doctors are still very popular, with fund managers and remisiers increasing in favour. Young people are also choosing accountancy, business studies and shying away from the technological areas like computer science, engineering, manufacturing and other technical disciplines.

Yet they need to be convinced that science and engineering are also rewarding career choices. In terms of pay, this choice should be as good as being a lawyer, doctor, remiser or a financial analyst. Yet, the Government has limited the number of new lawyers and doctors through various administrative measures implemented since 1993, thus ensuring that these professions will continue to enjoy high income levels. On the other hand, the Government has been generous in granting Employment Passes to foreign engineers and software professionals to satisfy surging domestic demands. While this enlarges the pool of talents, it will also increase the competition in these careers and moderate the wages. Are we sending mixed signals to our young?

Though technology is important, we should not ignore the opportunities in other sectors of our economy such as financial services, legal services, life sciences and medical services. Here, I found the views expressed by Ms Ho Ching, CEO of Singapore Technologies at the 31st AGM of the Institute of Engineers on 17th May 1996 quite enlightening, especially her views on the supply of doctors and lawyers. She proposed that if we consider the region as a catchment area for our medical services, then the previous assumptions in arriving at the demand and supply balance of doctors in Singapore could be thrown out of the window and the number of doctors could be increased. Coincidentally, Sir, the Minister for Health has announced on 25th May 1997 that NUS will increase the annual intake of medical students from 150 to 180 next year and to 200 the year following, citing existing shortage till the year 2000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we look at the American economy that sustains a high income level, we will discover that its cultural exports such as clothing, footwear, food, music and movies are very strong. Singapore should explore similar opportunities too. In this respect, I am glad to note that the Government has set up a Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness involving two Ministers and one Minister of State as well as many titans from the industry. The long term strategies charted by this Committee will be our roadmap for growth.

The cornerstone policy of our Government to share success is each citizen's right to purchase heavily subsidised HDB flats twice in a lifetime. Other asset enhancement schemes such as the various HDB Estate Renewal Programmes like Interim Upgrading Programme, Main Upgrading Programme and Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme are also well received by the people. This home-ownership programme has brought about a stakeholder society in Singapore. The percentage of home-ownership in Singapore is the highest in the world, something no other society has been able to emulate.

In a way, the home-ownership programme has been overly successful. MND released a survey that showed that 35% of those who changed flats downgrade to roll-over and realise their substantial capital gain in the form of cash. Some used the money for retirement and for their children's education. I think no one will quarrel with that. However, others used their capital gain for consumption like buying a car and going for vacation. Besides being unwise, this behaviour is against the intent of the HDB housing progamme.

Thus, the new measures to cut HDB waiting time, namely, longer time bar and new resale levies, are timely. However, almost every Singaporean is affected by these new rules. I hope the Minister for National Development would be compassionate in dealing with those HDB applicants who are caught in a financial bind as a result of these new measures.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has said that our education programme is already very good but we can do better. How? By increasing the information content or teach our young to be more creative. Already, parents are telling me that the pressure in primary school is getting greater and greater. They told me that they must employ tutors for their children. If they were to leave their children to depend entirely on the instructions in the classroom alone, they would not make the grade. I understand that the Minister for Education is reviewing this very question.

Presumably, as a result of the high stress, some Singaporeans are weighing immigration as an option to a slower paced society. This is reflected by the Master Card survey conducted in June 1996. The survey shows that one in five middle-income Singaporeans wish to migrate to another country. Of those who express so, 38% choose Australia. While this could be just a wish, it also goes to show that the anchor of a fair number of Singaporeans to the soil could be loosened in a crisis.

The President has advised us to expect rough weather. Where would the squalls come from? We do not have to look far afield.

The recent furore raised by Malaysian political leaders over one single statement in the affidavit filed in the Tang Liang Hong's case showed that the bilateral relationship between our two countries is a minefield. Most Singaporeans find that the intensity of the emotions expressed by the Malaysians far outweighs the gravity of the statement on the crime rate in Johor Baru. Most Singaporeans of the post-independence generation are puzzled. On the other hand, for older Singaporeans, we know that this is a manifestation of the historical baggage resulting from the separation of Singapore and Malaysia in 1965.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are usually accused of being insensitive to their feelings every time Malaysian politicians find fault with us. Apparently, they place a high premium on being sensitive to the feelings of others. I would like our Malaysian friends to realise that we Singaporeans too have feelings and emotions.

I am particularly unhappy over the perennial threat to cut off our water supply. Those Malaysian politicians calling to cut our water supply, regardless of the status of the person, were given extensive coverage in their media. I wonder whether the people of Malaysia understand the impact of such talk on the psyche of our people. Yes, Singapore is short of water while Malaysia is blessed with abundance. If not tapped, much of the water we import from Malaysia would have flown into the ocean anyway. Water is an accident of geography that we Singaporeans are handicapped with.

We are not ungrateful to our neighbour for supplying the water. But it is a gratitude that would be better expressed on a foundation of friendship and trust. Singaporeans are sick and tired of this threat. Most of my constituents will support the proposed water rate increase to conserve water. As we all know, for Singaporeans to support price increase will show the resolve of our people in this very matter.

We see water pipes on the causeway carrying water to Singapore. What we do not see is a virtual pipeline conveying large sums of money Singapore tourists and investors spend in Malaysia. The Malaysian Tourist Promotion Board's figures showed that in 1995, Singaporeans spent a total of $4.3 billion ringgit in Malaysia, about 50% of the total tourist spending. Malaysian leaders should realise that after their public display of anger towards Singapore, Singaporeans will instinctively avoid Malaysia. It is partly due to concerns for their personal safety but, mostly, I am glad to note that it is a closing of ranks among Singaporeans. Malaysia will probably one day become affluent enough not to be bothered whether Singaporeans spend money in Malaysia or not. Until then, Malaysian political leaders would have to consider this factor when it comes to choosing their words as it does not pay to use Singapore as a bogeyman.

Since our independence in 1965, we have evolved along different paths as the Malaysians. While the Malaysians still conduct their politics along racial lines, the PAP Government has built a multi-racial society based on meritocracy and equality. We, Singaporeans, are very proud of our way of life.

No Singapore leader would be able to command the respect of Singaporeans and remain our leader if he were to adopt an appeasement policy towards Malaysia, even for something as crucial as water. Our Malaysian friends should realise this and abandon their expectation of a dominant relationship over Singapore. The sooner they come to this realisation, the sooner could we build a stable and balanced relationship between our two countries. Better relationship is something that we all are hoping for given our geographic proximity and historical ties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when sudden squalls hit, only those with the courage and experience could weather the storm. Our post-independence generation has no experience of the trials and tribulations leading to our separation from Malaysia. As such, they lack the ballast to stay the course.

As recent events demonstrate, relationship between two countries could plunge off a steep cliff without warning. How do we mentally fortify our people against such eventuality? Our young should be taught the forces shaping the birth of our nation that predates 1965, including the tumultuous years between 1963 and 1965, the racial riots, and our righteous call for a just and equal society. We should transmit to our younger generation the experience of those who have lived through these events.

In this respect, the Government has taken the right step when our Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee Hsien Loong, launched the National Education Programame for younger Singaporeans on 17th May 1997. The National Education Programme aims to foster in our young a sense of identity and pride of being a Singaporean. They must understand Singapore's unique constraints and vulnerabilities.

When the post-war baby boomers' generation starts to retire, Singaporeans will enter into a period of rapid aging. As we cannot build enough old folks' homes to cater for our old, the only feasible way to take care of them would be to continue to accommodate them within the community they live in. For those without families, we need to build a stronger community support system. We must also look into opportunities for the successful among us to extend a helping hand to the needy.

The Government has already identified the Community Development Council (CDC) as the vehicle to achieve these goals. Two full-time Mayors, Dr Ow Chin Hock and Mr Eugene Yap, have been appointed. By the end of this year, CDCs will be established in every constituency. With the CDCs, we will be progressing forward to fulfill the other two pillars of Singapore 21, namely, to care for the old and to build ties.

Singapore is a unique place. We have built a robust society based on the principle of meritocracy. We have strong leadership, a society without corruption. Today, we have the financial resources accumulated over the past 32 years to build a highly creative and dynamic society in future.

This Parliament will be the one which ushers Singapore into the new millennium. We will face new challenges and unexpected crises as we enter into the 21st century. As this Government implements programmes to fulfill our vision of Singapore 21, we will build a prosperous and at the same time a more caring society. We shall overcome any hurdles as we march towards the future provided we remain a united people.

Question proposed. 12.58 pm

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

In the recent general election on 2nd January 1997, Singaporeans had given their overwhelming support and strong endorsement to the PAP. We have 23 new colleagues who have joined us in this Parliament. The leadership renewal process set out by the first generation PAP leaders is in place. Our Parliament continues to have new and younger members who are in sync and representative of the general population. Even former migrants with talent and ability are given the opportunity to represent and serve the people in Parliament. We have a truly democratic political system where money does not feature in the candidate's ability to stand and win in an election.

Having won convincingly, the PAP Government has to live up to the expectations of our people and to keep faith with them. The people are assured that the PAP will deliver as promised. The President's Address at the opening of this Parliament did just that. It spelt out the Government's plans and programmes over the next five years.

Singapore has enjoyed remarkable economic growth in the last 10 years. If we had not developed the external wing, our economy would not have gone beyond the forecast of 4-6% economic growth only thought possible during the earlier years. Singaporean entrepreneurs and corporations have actively invested and expanded their businesses overseas. In time, we should see our overseas investments bearing fruits, propelling our economy to an even keel and contributing to firmer economic growth.

The greatest achievement in fiscal and monetary policy during the last decade was our ability to keep inflation low and cost of living affordable notwithstanding the introduction of GST. With Government budget surpluses and healthy GST collections, we hope the Finance Minister would reduce the corporate and personal income tax when he announces the next budget. During this period of difficult business climate, a reduction in taxes would add the necessary fillip to economic competitiveness and bring down the cost of doing business in Singapore.

There is much that needs to be done and can be done to add depth and make our economy more resilient. The next 10 to 15 years will be the real test and challenge to Singapore. Our ability to compete and stay ahead will determine whether we have the intrinsic qualities to make the grade of achieving the status of a developed economy and a mature, gracious society.

In an era of deregulation and information age, education holds the key to our future success. The Government has reiterated its desire to develop our people to the maximum and to raise the quality of education across the board. We have done very well thus far in the education of our young. The Edusave bursary and scholarship schemes have served to encourage students from the lower income families to excel in their studies. Our high quality education has enabled our graduates and school leavers to secure good jobs and high incomes, seizing the abundant opportunities of high economic growth enjoyed domestically and by countries in the region. The question is how can we sustain our economic growth in the years ahead in the face of ever changing and fiercely competitive international business and market environment.

Our Government expenditure on education has already more than doubled in 10 years from $1,638 million in 1986 to $3,770 million in 1996. For every $5 of total Government expenditure, $1 is spent on education. As many as 95% of each year's cohort complete their secondary education. This is a laudable achievement as it benefits the greatest number of students. The long-term benefit of a better educated citizenry mandated our high investment in the first 10 years of education. On a per capita basis, we could easily justify spending more money and resources in primary and secondary education.

We should strive to reduce the wastage rate further, ideally enabling 100% of each cohort to complete the minimum 10 years schooling. The Government has always committed to educating every child. It is up to the students and the parents to avail themselves of the excellent educational opportunities. The parents have an important role to play in the education of their own children. The students themselves must have the desire and motivation to learn. There will be less disciplinary problems in schools if the students are teachable and want to be taught. The education of our young is a joint effort of parents and teachers. I hope to see the parents playing their active part and not leave it entirely to the schools. Our children will then grow up to be good and useful citizens.

I am concerned whether our children are receiving broad-based general education in our schools and proficient enough in language and numeracy skills. Are they enjoying their school life? Will they pick up the habit of life-long learning, or will they be so sick and tired that they would give up their books after leaving school? Are we placing undue pressure on our students with high school workload? Are they given time to take part in sports and extra-curricular activities? Are they developing the interpersonal and social skills to work and live in a community of people? Will the single session schools help alleviate the situation or would it make matters worse?

I read with concern that our school teachers are at risk of being burned out. Is it a case of closed mind-set in not being receptive to change or are our teachers being inundated with too much workload? Is the quality of teachers such that they could not cope with changes taking place simultaneously even if the overall load remains unchanged but adjustments are needed to disrupt their routine? Is there a serious shortage in the number of teachers? Are more being recruited and retained in service so that the workload could be shared? I am sure the public would be interested to know the real situation in our schools, otherwise they would be alarmed by the morale of teachers having an effect on the children. It is important that the grievances of teachers be listened to and addressed. We do not wish to see our school children suffer because of the problems faced by the teachers. Neither would we want to discourage new candidates entering the teaching profession. We need a competent and well-motivated teaching force to nurture our next generation of Singaporeans so that they can deal confidently with the future challenges.

Sir, on the subject of National Education, I am surprised at the doubts cast and the speculation expressed as to how the history of Singapore would be written and taught. How could we dispute facts and events that actually took place? We are duty-bound to be accurate and credible, for how else can we teach our students? There are research standards and methodology that historians follow in writing history. There is no doubt that Singapore's history will be written from the national perspective and it has to be analysed and interpreted as such. I would urge the sceptics to reserve their comments until the materials are written and disseminated.

The Education Ministry has indicated that a sum of $2,000 million will be spent to provide computer facilities in our schools. Every child, regardless of family circumstances, will have the benefit of learning with the aid of computers in schools. Information technology will be used for information, instruction and interaction. It is still vague as to how different the classroom would be with the introduction of computers. How ready are our teachers to adopt this new technology? Are the educational materials already available to embark on the new instructional approach in teaching the children? There is concern that it would be a passing fad and not sustainable over a long period of time. The Ministry could throw more light so that parents and the public can have a better understanding of what we are striving at with the use of information technology in schools.

A more difficult and challenging task would be in developing creativity in pupils. This would involve modification to the curriculum which is a monumental task and the method of assessment which would pose problems of subjectivity in grading. There is unanimity, however, that critical and creative thinking skills are necessary to prepare our young for the future. An off-shoot of this could possibly be the inter-disciplinary approach in treating different related subjects on an integrative basis. As we teach our young to think better, we have to instill in them the right values so that they will use their grey matter for the common good, otherwise we may unwittingly be producing clever crooks which is certainly not our educational objective.

Singaporean parents place high priority in their children's education. They all desire to see their children through university. The demand for university education is always high. More so with good teaching and better academic results achieved in our schools. If no university places are found in Singapore, the parents and the students themselves would want to go overseas to study. My fear is that many students may become holders of academic qualifications from many overseas universities that do not mean much to employers. There has been severe deterioration of academic standards in overseas universities operating strictly on a commercial basis. We should therefore increase the number of places to accommodate many more students in our universities without compromising the high standards of our tertiary institutions. The long-term employability of the graduates should be our concern and ensuring that only useful and relevant courses are conducted. We should also allow for some variety to cater to the many different aptitudes and job demands in the employment market. Our institutions must impart skills, knowledge and competence required by employers.

The admirable thing about Singapore (most often expressed by foreigners) is our ability and willingness to anticipate change and adopt far-sighted policies to deal with issues that confront us and make a success from what we set out to do. We can only do this when we have a strong, able and stable government which is not distracted by politiking. Our leaders' time will be better spent thinking about national issues, meeting people, both locally and overseas, learning about aspirations and market conditions, communicating the concerns and building up consensus on the direction the country is to take and the useful policies to implement on behalf of the people.

We have achieved much materially with higher standards of living. Our challenge is to develop our people in the qualitative aspects to be more wholesome and enriched with non-material things like the appreciation of aesthetics, culture and the arts. Our social habits and behaviour should reflect that of a developed mature society where people are gracious and care for one another. Our people do not urinate in lifts and they keep the public toilets clean without prompting. We have made tremendous improvements over the years. We can do more and better. As we move ahead, with exemplary leadership our people will emulate the good examples and in time good personal behaviour and social habits will be our way of life. Our people have the qualities to make it to be a cultured and gracious society. I hope that it will happen soon.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the motion in the name of the Member for Bukit Timah.

The President in his Address to this Parliament has underlined the importance for Singapore to stay competitive and view the regional development in infrastructure as challenges to our people to further refine and upgrade our competitiveness. At the heart of our drive to remain competitive is a question not just of building the up-to-date infrastructural facilities and equipment but also the management and workers' collaboration towards productivity. In addition to meeting the market challenge with the right product, we need to enter the market at the right price, whether for export or for within the domestic economy. In this respect, Sir, two areas of the President's Address stand out importantly. The first covers the issue of raising productivity for our economy. For the third year in succession, productivity growth in the economy has fallen. While the economy has been growing 7 to 8% per annum in the recent years or higher, the figures on productivity rates are not growing creditably. We need to look into these areas seriously as it is productivity growth that determines ultimately our real income and competitiveness.

For too long our economy has been growing on account of factor inputs including foreign workers and foreign capital. If the productivity growth is not sustained, our competitiveness will be affected in attracting investment and in exporting our products. This will have repercussions on our growth prospects and our people's income.

As the population ages, it is all the more important for our workers to embark on retraining programmes. Technology, especially those embodied in products, gets obsolete very fast. But the skills in working with or making such machines or equipment should not be obsolete. These skills should be constantly refined and applied in new products and in new contexts. This is the challenge we face with our workers in the Singapore economy: to enable and allow our workforce to be constantly retrained and to stay employable in their lifetime. The Prime Minister, in a recent speech, paid tribute to the late Christain Brother Christopher for his attitude in always learning new things even in his old age. Brother Christopher taught a good number of Josephians in this House. He was well known for teaching Mathematics and Physics at the `O' level for years at St. Joseph's Institution. He also learned this subject by himself.

From Brother Christopher, we learn the importance of learning from first principles, and it is by being well-grounded in the first principles of enquiry that all subsequent learning in the subject over a lifetime can be further developed and refined. Long after he retired, he once told me he was giving tuition in the same old subjects to the children of some of the old boys who have sought him out, entirely up to date, relevant and useful even in his old age retirement. Hence, retraining for skill or job competency is an important area for us.

We have about 400,000 of our older workers who may not have the language or numeracy skills to be retrained in the standard classroom way. However, they have been working effectively and productively all their working lives. Hence, giving them certification in skill competency or job competency is an important element in our retraining programme: to reach out to these older and uneducated workers in order to enable them to be employable in the future. Many foreigners, who are applying for permanent residence (PR) in Singapore, coming from China, Hong Kong, India and Malaysia, have to provide some skill competency certification. They spend time and energy and resources to prepare and sit for such competency certification in order to acquire some extra points for their PR application. The average Singaporean-born worker who takes his job for granted may be left behind in a skill-intensive or information-based workplace in the next century.

The second area in the President's Address which I will focus on covers communication which stands as an important pillar in our competitive economy. In addressing the importance of building up adequate and up-to-date infrastructure, we must not forget that it is not just the hardware but the software that must be developed in order for the product or service to face the market competition. One can buy the trains and build the railways but it is always another story to make sure the trains run on time.

My friend, the Member for Pasir Ris, informs me that nowadays planes can fly and land better without human intervention. But that is not to say that management and customer services and the satisfaction of customers have no role in running airports and airlines. Indeed, it is not the airport terminal size or the high-tech gadgetry but the support services, the management and workers that are behind the facilities that make the difference.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the latest SIA flight kitchen. It was an eye-opener for me to see and learn of the equipment and management and quality control. The SIA flight kitchen prepares 50,000 meals a day. I was impressed to see the food preparation workflow from the fresh produce arrival to the tastefully and hygienically prepared meal ready to fly at the appointed time. But in spite of all the backroom facility and capability, I was also made aware that they still have to find the customer in this service-oriented business. I am sure other more sophisticated and stringent workflow governs their plane servicing and the maintenance programmes. The underlying thrust is that it is by the excellent differentiation of their service and product that SIA or CAAS can make the difference to the attractiveness of Changi as an international airport hub. In the same analogy, we can think of all our different and differentiated sectors of our economy synergising to attract the tourist or the visitor to Singapore.

Similarly, our port has also been striving to maintain their No. 1 status in cargo handled and I believe they have achieved it. Of late, we have been hearing in the news that some foreign bodies are levying some fees on vehicles coming to our port to pick up cargoes. I wonder whether this kind of practice is in the spirit and intent of the WTO for free and open trade and investment. What impact does this kind of practice have on the drive towards foreign investment in countries in the region of ASEAN? Such discriminatory practice surreptitiously works against the interest of the region which seeks to attract foreign investment and maximise the freedom of MNCs to determine their regional strategies to base themselves at selected locations in order to maximise the comparative advantages of different countries. Does this kind of approach of nationalist myopia violate the ASEAN spirit of free trade? Will it make the region less attractive as a whole to foreign MNC investment with implications on the growth prospects for the region, bearing in mind that other regions are also competing for investments from the MNCs? Individual countries, particularly members of ASEAN, have a duty and responsibility to maximise their own countries' gains without negating the benefits to the region as a whole. Otherwise, the approach is only shortsighted.

On the issue of land transport, there have been considerable public sentiments expressed on the latest measure of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP). I believe that Electronic Road Pricing is the correct way to go. In general, it is difficult when introducing some extraneous and new feature into the existing pricing system and structure for road transport to correctly price the charge to effect the desired outcome. It may require a bit of time and some adjustment. When, for example, people with CBD passes are also exempted from ERP charges in the latest CTE charge, it may be relatively cheaper for many using the CTE to go through the CBD causing jams at unexpected places. People should realise that embarking on the ERP, there is no roadmap by which our authority can ride on, as we are probably the first country to embark systematically on this. This system, when fully and effectively implemented, should be an efficient system for the overall economy in that it minimises wastage of time and resources in jammed traffic and prices the users of road what they should bear based on supply and demand at the point in time.

Sir, of late, some members of the public have also expressed unhappiness over the latest fare increase in public transport. Many members of the public are wondering why the SBS management is spending time and resources to build houses in London and Singapore when they should be concentrating their energies on improving the standard of bus services in Singapore. Public transport is an important element in our economy's competitiveness. The company's time and resources should be better spent in the area we presume they are good at and help improve the customers' satisfaction and service to Singaporeans.

Of late, we have also been hearing from the bus companies a lot about their duty to their shareholders. Public transport is too important an area to be left to shareholders. Over the years, I have heard more and more of my residents and others complaining about the bus services. The Government has a duty to the ultimate stakeholders of Singapore who need to go around efficiently and cost effectively every day to work, to study, to conduct businesses and to do their respective jobs, to compete with their friends in the neighbouring region and countries. I also urge the Government to seriously consider allowing community-based solution to the perennial problem of complaints about the bus service in the housing estates and the workplace, for example, in Jurong. Perhaps, the CDC or Town Councils should be empowered to run bus schemes in the estates on a cooperative basis to supplement the existing unsatisfactory routes, to feed onto the MRT and/or the bus interchange. As a cooperative, the members will know their interest and will also know the full cost and benefits of running a feeder scheme. Surpluses can also be reinvested or distributed based on patronage so that users will get rebates on the fees they pay. Then they will know the full cost of operation and on that yardstick, we will truly know how efficiently or otherwise our SBS has been performing to serve the needs of Singaporeans.

Finally, I wish to urge the Government to consider delimiting the ambit of operation of the public transport companies so that resources should be reinvested to ensuring continuing productivity improvement through technology and creative management solutions in public transport services rather than running straight to the PTC the moment operating losses are incurred. They should also stick to their area of competence and not divest into areas best left to others. They owe it not only to their shareholders but to the stakeholders of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Member for Bukit Timah.

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Address to Parliament.

Singapore has performed extremely well economically since independence in 1965. Our per capita indigenous GNP grew from $2,478 in 1970 to $34,220 in 1996. Our annual growth in GNP was mostly in double digits. More importantly, the benefits of our economic growth have been shared fairly equitably across all segments of society. Our fair and open meritocratic system allows the more able, talented and hardworking to move up the social and economic ladder. Many of us today in this House have benefited from this system. However, because of our humble beginnings and modest backgrounds, many of us still embrace the values of thrift and hard work.

Three decades of continuous high economic growth may have benefited all of us in terms of living standards and quality of life, but it has also led to some unintended consequences which, if left unchecked, may lead to a society without a soul. What are some of these unintended consequences?

First of all, materialism. There is so much emphasis on the creation of wealth at national level and company level that it inevitably flows down to the individual level. Everyone wants to get rich quick. Success in life seems to be measured by the amount of money you make - it does not matter what the job is. For many, the pinnacle of success would probably be to appear in the list of the one million dollar club, ie, the 200-odd people who earn more than $1 million per year, and which the Government has chosen to publish every year. Although the names are not mentioned, you could make an intelligent guess of who they are, given the small business community here in Singapore. With monetary wealth comes the inevitable pursuit of all the symbols of material success - houses, condos, posh cars, foreign branded clothing, fine dining and overseas vacations. It would not have been so disturbing if all these were only pursued by those who have already earned them. Unfortunately, many born in the post-independence era crave after them even before having earned them.

The second is high expectations. Our children today, fortunately or unfortunately, I am not too sure, are brought up in much more comfortable surroundings. Having come from a higher base, they also have unnecessarily high expectations. For example, children who now live in a private property with their parents and are sent to school by car every day, will find it very hard to start life again in a HDB flat, and take a bus to work. The young who start to work today compare themselves to their seniors and are impatient and unhappy when they have to wait longer for the same promotion, that same car or house. Many among the young expect the Government to meet their expectations from good jobs to affordable housing and cars. Some also expect parents to continue to provide for the lifestyles they have been accustomed to. Unfulfilled expectations very often turn to dissatisfaction, disenchantment and resentment against the establishment, which is most unhealthy.

The third is asset inflation and work ethics. With too much money chasing too little goods, prices will go up. The asset inflation in the last 10 years, especially of properties, has made instant millionaires of many. The capital gains from many of these assets are more than what an average worker can ever hope to save from earned income in a lifetime. Many are now contemplating early retirement. It has blunt the will to work. It has encouraged further speculation in assets which do not create wealth. It has made a mockery of thrift and hard work. Those who have geared themselves to the hilt in the last 10 years have benefited most from asset inflation.

With such asset inflation, those who want to retire comfortably are considering retiring elsewhere where the cost of living is lower. Today, even HDB owners have that option to retire elsewhere given the current prices of HDB properties. My concern is: will Singapore become only a good place to work in and make money, but not to live and retire in? If so, where will the hearts of our people be even though they may be physically working here in Singapore?

Sir, this brings me to the main subject of what I want to say today, ie, what should the Government do to address the problems of the unintended consequences of high economic growth? I wish to offer some suggestions.

The first one is: let us not over emphasise on wealth creation. Although economic growth and wealth creation are necessary for progress, one should not over emphasise them. It should be seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. We need much more balance in our lives to be happy and caring.

The role models that we hold out today to our people, especially the children in our schools, should not be only successful business people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, but also successful people from all walks of life - successful sports persons, successful professionals like lawyers, doctors and teachers. And success should certainly not be measured just by the amount of money they make, but by their contributions to their particular fields of expertise and knowledge. Contributions to society and mankind cannot be just measured in monetary terms. We should also not over promote glamorous lifestyles which only the very rich can indulge in. For example, the Government has been talking a lot about waterfront housing as something we can look forward to. Yes, but in reality, however, at today's cost, only a very small minority can afford such housing. The remaining large majority who cannot afford them will be envious, or perhaps even resentful.

I would also like to suggest that the Government stop publishing the list of the top earners in Singapore derived from income tax returns. Income tax returns are confidential and should remain so. Most people can be contented with their lot if they do not know what others have. When envy and discontentment set in, there will be upward pressure on wages and consumer prices, as everyone wants a bigger share of the pie. A vicious cycle then begins. Such a situation will make bonding of people and society much more difficult.

Secondly, control asset inflation. I am all for enhancing the assets of our people through the HDB upgrading programme. Asset enhancement is not the same as asset inflation. Asset enhancement takes place when real economic value added has been imparted to the assets, thereby justifying the price increases. Asset inflation results when the same asset increases in price simply because the demand for it far outstrips the supply. And the asset still remains the same. Many have argued that the majority of Singaporeans are better off today with the high property prices as most Singaporeans are property owners, whether public or private. I do not think so. Most Singaporeans only own one property, the one they live in. They worry about their children being unable to buy one at today's high prices. And they are unable to help unless they sell theirs and emigrate.

As almost all land in Singapore is in Government hands, the Government is best placed to control the escalation of property prices. They can do this through timely release of land, setting realistic reserve prices at tenders, speeding up the building programmes, and also increasing the plot ratios. In this respect, I urge the Government to consider allowing residential buildings to be built on a much higher plot ratio, even to 50-60 storeys high to better intensify the use of land, especially in prime areas and the waterfront. If we can control asset inflation better, we will also enable the elderly and the retired to keep their homes and their hearts in Singapore.

Thirdly, to improve public infrastructure. Many people living in London today do not own cars. The subway system is excellent, complemented by widely available taxi service. For the few occasions that Londoners need to venture beyond the city, they rent a car at fairly affordable prices. In Singapore, we should improve the coverage of our MRT and LRT system island-wide as quickly as possible. The greatest bugbear of most commuters today is that the nearest MRT station is just too far away for them to use. In this regard, the Government should review the basis for funding for infrastructure projects such as the LRT to make it as widely available throughout Singapore as possible. If we can meet the transport expectations of Singaporeans, we would have resolved one of the main grouses of Singaporeans.

Fourthly, to give greater recognition for community service. In tandem with de-emphasising wealth creation, the Government should also give greater recognition to those who perform community service to help their fellow Singaporeans. Recognition could perhaps follow along the same line as the recognition given to national servicemen. Involvement in community service should be strongly promoted because volunteers meet up with the underprivileged class and are more grateful for what they have achieved.

The community service awards that we have today, the PBM, BBM and BBM(L), are not exactly user friendly or prestigious. May I suggest that we consider something more prestigious, like the equivalent of Malaysian Datukship or the British knighthood to reward those who have contributed significantly to community service and their fellow Singaporeans.

In conclusion, let me restate categorically that I support our economic and social policies that generate high growth. My concern is that the Government should also address the unintended negative consequences of high growth and success. I know that our main competitors, the other newly industrialising economies (NIEs) face similar problems of materialism, asset inflation, work ethics and even law and order. They are struggling to address some of these issues today. In Singapore, the problem may not be as acute, but it is never too early to work on these issues.

In summary, I believe that the Government, in spite of our ambition to stay ahead, should address some of these unintended consequences of success by managing the expectations of our people better, giving greater priority to inculcating core values of hard work, thrift, modest living and community spirit. Most important of all, the Government should control asset inflation more effectively so that our citizens, while working here, need not worry too much about the future of their children, or for that matter, for their own future on retirement.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to reiterate the support for the motion moved by the hon. Member for Bukit Timah in expressing our thanks and gratitude to the President for his Address at the opening of the First Session of the Ninth Parliament.

The President, in his Address, highlighted before a full House about the formidable challenge facing us in the wake of tougher economic competition. However, he assured us that there is no reason to be daunted as we are much stronger now than in 1965.

This reassuring statement underscores the President's confidence in the Government's almost 32 years of track record. We have surmounted various crises at home and abroad, each time coming out stronger as we reach new milestones in economic and social progress. This can only be possible because of a government which continually plans ahead, is pragmatic and realistic in confronting problems, and a government which has repeatedly earned the confidence and respect of the people, as once again demonstrated in the recent general elections.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while the President reassured us of our current position, we have also often been reminded by our Government leaders that our success so far cannot be a reason for us to slacken. We need to work harder and smarter as our standard of living approaches developed nation levels.

Sir, being also a private sector executive myself, the subject of competition and competitiveness is always close to my heart. Knowing exactly where we are is important, but knowing where we are going is critical. Computers and telecommunication technologies have already created intense, worldwide competition for business. The information age is causing developed and newly industrialising economies (NIEs) to shift more and more towards services and towards knowledge work. No sooner than we realise, competition for our very own job will come from practically any corner of this earth. It is therefore imperative that we must continue to have access to data and information with the predictive power to show where we are headed, to enable us to continually make informed and the right decisions.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry, in its Addendum to the President's Speech, has outlined a number of key policies and strategies to maintain the vibrance and resilience of our economy. Retraining of older workers and helping them to acquire new skills is one of them. The aim is to train half a million workers by the year 2005 through on-the-job programmes. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not only laudable but essential considering that the educational level of our workforce still lags behind many developed countries and NIEs and also that we have some 700,000 workers with less than secondary education. With the majority of them expected to remain in our workforce for the next 20 years, they will continue to represent a sizable portion of our active workforce in the medium term.

Also, as Singapore restructures and shifts its economy upstream, it exposes our workforce to the potential of structural unemployment as those with lower skills face the risk of losing their jobs or find themselves displaced from the centre of economic activity. Joblessness, even more than poverty, strains families and robs children of workforce role models. When legitimate work disappears, more serious social problems develop that could affect the entire society. If not tackled decisively in advance, it could widen the social gap and therefore pose a serious problem for us in the future.

Sir, while it is encouraging to note that workers are generally responding well to the call for training and retraining, I am concerned whether we have adequately reached out to one of our primary target groups, namely, the lower educated older workers, ie, those averaging 40 years of age. I suspect the majority of them in this category have not felt the urgency to upgrade and prefer moonlighting to make ends meet. I am not sure if this is currently being done, but I would like to suggest that we gather appropriate data and statistics to clearly understand the extent of responsiveness of this group to retraining. I believe we have to devise more effective strategies to persuade and motivate this group. I suggest the consideration of a holistic approach involving Government and community organisations, self-help groups, employers, unions, grassroots organisations and even family members, to persuade, motivate and clearly put across the retraining message to this vulnerable group specifically and others generally.

Secondly, Sir, it is a known fact that our workforce is rapidly ageing. In the not-too-distant future, younger and better educated managers and supervisors will run organisations and production units staffed by relatively older workers. I believe the handling and treatment of older workers require a special set of skills to keep them motivated on their jobs. It is therefore important for special people-centred human management programmes to be devised to teach our young people how to effectively deal with their older subordinates in order to ensure that productivity does not suffer due to communication and human relations problems.

I would like to suggest that the training programmes must also incorporate the inculcation of positive and proper attitude in our workers, apart from the most current technical content. Although we have been rated No. 1 year after year by Business Environment Risk Intelligence (BERI), work attitude has remained one of the attributes we have continued to lag behind. Our workers have to understand the importance of doing more - faster and better - with less, and be committed and supportive to accept constant changes at the workplace. In due course, as the cost of our workers approaches that of developed economies, employers expect them to act like an owner to help cut costs, serve the customer better, continuously improve productivity, innovate and take personal responsibility for outcomes that count the most. In short, they must realise that they have to contribute more than they cost.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with training and retraining expected to be the norm in the near future, our workers, young and old, must be made to recognise and accept that life-long learning is the only way to remain competitive in the job market. This means strengthening our Continuing Education and Training (CET) infrastructure. I am not certain if this is being done but I would like to suggest that a tripartite approach with a central coordinating body be considered to enhance our CET infrastructure. This differs from the current largely employer-driven approach, which focuses only on skills required by the workers' current jobs. As our economy shifts to become more technology and knowledge intensive, their current skills may become less relevant or even obsolete. It is therefore imperative that programmes are in place to prepare workers beyond the current needs of their jobs to enhance their employability. The suggested central body can also serve as a one-stop centre to coordinate the multitude of training programmes offered by various institutions to suit diverse training needs. A nation-wide campaign of sorts to effectively put across the importance of perpetual learning should also be considered and launched.

Another concern I have is the rigidity of our seniority-based wage system. Such a system exposes our mid-career and older workers to lay-offs when companies restructure or relocate their operations. Statistics of retrenchments over the last two years revealed that the average age of the group was 40 years. Unless these workers are prepared to settle for lower pay, getting a new job may not be easy for them as their skills become less and less relevant to the economy.

I am glad to note that the Ministry of Labour, in its Addendum to the President's Speech, intends to address structural problems in our current wage system which make it difficult for employers to retain older workers. I suggest that the Ministry considers the relevance of a wage system which plateaus at a certain point of a worker's age and then gradually declines - something to the effect of a backward bending wage curve. I understand that such a system has been successfully adopted by companies in Japan.

The point I wish to make here is that our workers must realise that as they reach a position when their cost exceeds the value of the job they perform, their jobs will be at risk. They face a stronger prospect of being laid off. Such a proposed system will not only help them retain their jobs but may save them from the trauma of retrenchment, joblessness and finally facing the reality of settling for a lower paying job. The system will be particularly helpful to workers who do not want to take heed of the call for upgrading their skills.

Besides, without the choice of such a system, some businesses may be forced to trim down or relocate sooner due to cost pressures, thus, exposing such workers sooner rather than later to joblessness in our imminent high-tech and knowledge-based economy.

On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like in conclusion to, once again register my wholehearted support for the motion to thank the President for his Address.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate.

I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bukit Timah to thank the President for his Speech.

1997 is an important year for Singapore. It is the year where the people of Singapore elected a new term of Government to lead them into the next century, into the new millennium, to jointly realise the vision of Singapore 21.

In his Speech, the President clearly pointed out that the competition before us will be more and more intense. The President also urged the people of Singapore to be more united, and Singaporeans and their leaders should strive to reach consensus on key issues. In fact, competitiveness and bonding are closely related. If the bonding among the people is not strong, if the bonding between the Government and the people is weak, then we will not be able to enhance our competitiveness. To put it simply, no bonding, no competitiveness.

It should be noted that economic growth and sharing of wealth alone is not enough to bond our people together. The moment there is some discrepancy in the distribution of wealth, misunderstanding will arise among the people, and between the people and the Government.

In recent years, people have been rushing to apply for HDB flats to upgrade themselves. In the very long queue for HDB flats, many are first-time applicants and there are also some upgraders who are in need of bigger flats because their children have grown up. But there is also a good number of people who are changing their flats to reap great profits for themselves. This has caused great concern and unhappiness to many people. When the Government adopted new policies to check this phenomenon, it gave rise to some misunderstanding between the Government and some of the people.

This has adversely affected the bonding among the people and the bonding between the Government and the people. As a matter of fact, there is a small group of people in our society who seem to be unhappy with any policy or measure introduced by the Government. There exists between them and the Government a perception gap on many issues. We should try and do something to narrow this gap.

To some people, if the weather forecast says the weather will be fine nation-wide this afternoon, and all of a sudden there is a downpour, they will blame the Government. Perhaps, the only thing they will not blame the Government is when they bought a lottery ticket and it did not strike a prize. Then they will say, "Well, bad luck" and they do not blame the Government for that.

In order to enhance our competitiveness, we should let all the people of Singapore know that competitiveness is not just the concern of the bosses or the Government alone, but that every citizen can play a part and contribute to the enhancement of our competitiveness.

There are three things we can do to strengthen the bonding among our people and thereby enhancing our competitiveness.

Although Singapore is very small, the space of activity of Singaporeans is in fact very large. The June school holidays have just started and many families have already left on tours to Indonesia, Hong Kong, China, Japan, the United States. In fact, they are going farther and farther away. As Singapore gets wealthier, Singaporeans travel farther away. But when they come home from their holidays abroad and get back to their HDB flats, they begin to feel that they are very constrained. We can provide them with larger space of activity and increase their space for exchanges. In this area, the media can play a very useful role.

As we all know, the American Chinese "Yan Can Cook" has been cooking from the United States to Singapore, and cooking from Singapore to China - from speaking in American-accented English to Cantonese-accented Mandarin. His specialty is made known to more people through the help of the media. Our very own Moses Lim has also been creating fun from Channel 8 to Channel 5, and from Singapore to Hong Kong. His activity space is expanded. This has proved that he has the bonding domestically which gives him the competitiveness internationally.

Our football star, Fandi Ahmad, has become the focus of attention to the newspaper and the TV media, not only in his game of football but also his wedding. His space of activity has extended beyond the football field into the homes of many Singaporeans, thereby enhancing the bonding among the people.

In fact, in Singapore there are many "Yans Can Cook", "Moses Lims" and "Fandi Ahmads" who have yet to make their name. They can sell bah kut teh, barbecue satay, crack jokes, and sing karaoke. Anecdotes in coffeeshops, touching real-life stories in hawker centres and good deeds of taxi-drivers are frequently picked up by the media and they help to promote the bonding among the people.

Presently, our focus seems to be concentrated at the celebrities and elites of the upper and middle classes in our society. If we allow our people more space for activity, everyone will be more relaxed, and the bonding among our people will be stronger. In recent years, the Government has begun to target its activities at the masses and encouraging more people to participate. This is a move in the right direction. The Feedback Unit is inviting representations from various quarters and opening up more channels of communication with the people, enabling more people to voice their views on Government policies. This is very effective in promoting consensus between the Government and the people.

In promoting consensus between the Government and the people, the public service plays a critical role. Our public service is very efficient. Our civil servants are very good at their work. This is a recognised fact. However, while going for high efficiency, the Government departments should also remember one thing, that is, its services are targeted at the people.

More and more Government departments are using machines to replace the work of the civil servants. On the surface, less demand for manpower would mean higher efficiency. But, in fact, our people are now talking more and more to machines. Civil servants are listening to the voices of the people through the machines and replying with computer-generated letters which require no signature. Since everybody is working through the machines, and the only voice we hear is that of the machine, there is a danger that with so much automation, the civil servants are leaving everything to the machines to tackle. In exceptional cases where compassionate consideration should be given, they are also left to the machines, which have no compassion, to deal with. This is certainly not conducive to the strengthening of the bonding between the Government and the people.

As we are crossing to the next century, we want to train people who are not only efficient in their work but also effective in dealing with people. We have already formulated policies to enable 20% of each cohort to have the opportunity to be enrolled in the universities and 40% to receive polytechnic education. We will also start national education at the primary school level to teach students the history of post-independence Singapore. We should also cultivate graciousness and courtesy in our people in various stations of life. We should teach our people to be courteous to others.

The Singapore Tourist Promotion Board recently launched a "Smile" campaign. This is a typical example. While we teach our students to achieve good results, we should also teach them to relax and smile. We know that many Singaporeans have to be reminded to say "Smile, cheese" before a camera, only then will they smile!

We read from the newspapers that each time there is a "A dollar a phone" or "A dollar a chicken" sales promotion, a big crowd of people will be attracted to it, resulting in massive traffic jams. Those who are late and missed the special offer were full of complaints. This has caused friction among the people and has certainly a negative effect in our effort to promote a gracious society.

Our education system and our social rules should be structured in such a way to teach our people how to judge the real value of things, whether it is worth doing or whether they should or should not do it. Unfortunately, there is always a small group of people in our society who believe that "you are a fool not to get it", and therefore they want to grab everything that is available. This concerns the personal values and social values. I hope that the Government will look at the major issues from these minor matters. In formulating policies, we should try and change the people's philosophy of "you are a fool not to get it" to one of "I will take it only if I should take it."

In order to strengthen the bonding among the people, we should remember another thing, that is, while encouraging our people to upgrade themselves in various aspects, they should be reminded to cut their coat according to their cloth. As we all know, in recent years, besides the long queue for HDB flats, there are also long queues to purchase private condominiums and country club memberships, farecards, etc. It is not a question of the people having no roof over their heads, or not enough farecards to go around. The reason is that the people have money and they want to make a few `quick' bucks.

We often hear people complaining that they are having not enough money to spend. Not enough money does not mean no money. If they do not live within their means, and want to buy one more house or a bigger house, to buy a club membership, or to go for overseas holidays, then, of course, the money is not enough. To these people, they ought to be happily contented with life but they have made themselves unhappily discontented. At the same time, those who can afford to upgrade should not look down on those who cannot. On the contrary, they should help the less fortunate to upgrade on certain aspects of life to enjoy a better standard of living. If the upgrading of society can benefit only certain groups of people, then the problem is serious. The present trend seems to be that many people want to upgrade, but they fail to take their means and actual needs into consideration.

We should accept the "in-flight" arrangement. As we all know, in every flight there are the economy class, the business class and the first-class cabins. No matter which class you travel in, you will enjoy in-flight services. SIA will not send an air hostess to the economy class just because she is less attractive when, as a matter of fact, all our SIA girls are charming and attractive. But more importantly, everyone reaches the destination safe and sound together. As to who travels in the economy class, who goes to the business class and who flies first-class, we will have to consider our means.

Let me give you an illustration. Suppose economy class is the HDB flats, business class is the private apartments, and first class is the bungalow houses, we should believe that when we step into the next century, when we realise our vision of Singapore 21, it will be like the SIA flight taking you safely at the same time to your destination. All Singaporeans, whether you are living in an HDB flat, a private apartment, or a bungalow, will benefit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, upgrading is a motivating force, but we have to upgrade according to our means. More importantly, we have to upgrade in line. If you try to jump queue and be caught "offside", you can land yourself in deep trouble. It is like someone who cannot afford a business class ticket but insists on sitting there. You are just asking for trouble.

Our successful economic policies have enabled Singapore to become one of the more advanced developing countries. We have to upgrade according to our means. Our market economy causes some Singaporeans to be utilitarians. Let us put our collective wisdom together, to balance the imbalance between economic development and the building up of a gracious society.

In the past 30 years, the consensus between the Government and the people in major issues has resulted in Singapore becoming a small but strong nation. We have friends all over the world. Our model of success has become the role model of many developing countries and territories. Thirty years later, if we have the chance to meet again, I hope that we will be able to rejoice in having a strong and healthy Singapore where everyone is joyful and happy. Singapore 21 will be yet another role model, just like the way we are glad that our leaders in the early days of our nation building had made the right decisions and paved the way for Singapore to progress to what it is today.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate.

I rise in support of the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bukit Timah.

The last hon. Member, Mr Seng, as I was listening to the translated version of his speech, said that karaoke activities promote bonding. The only type of bonding I know of karaoke activities is between young females from China and our males in Singapore. Perhaps he would like to clarify what sort of bonding he has in mind. If not, I would proceed with my speech.

The Government's aim is to make Singapore our best home. The majority of Singaporeans would agree to that. But in a survey carried out by the Straits Times not long ago, it was shown that about 20% of Singaporeans, or one in five Singaporeans, want to migrate and make another country their home. One in five Singaporeans wanting to migrate to another country is quite a large number, despite the Government's lure to Singaporeans to wealth-sharing by the State, asset enhancement and home ownership programmes. Obviously, the 20% Singaporeans who want to get away from Singapore and live elsewhere are not impressed by the said Government programmes.

For those of us who want to live here and make Singapore our best home, the question is how do we go about it, how about doing it. The Government has its own ideas, as spelt out in the President's Speech. Basically, to me, if we want to make Singapore our best home, we have to achieve two objectives. The first is social cohesion. This is necessary if we want to continue to live in peace together. The second objective is to make an environment where it is possible to create greater wealth so that there is more to share among Singaporeans and enjoy a higher standard of living.

As regards the first objective to build social cohesion, Singaporeans from young should be taught to be patriotic. Their duty as Singaporeans is to build Singapore to become a nation. We are all Singaporeans, and we must care for one another. But it is not like this in Singapore today. At the last general election, the ruling Party told Singaporeans that if they did not vote for the PAP, they shall not be cared for and their housing estates would become run down. And only those constituencies that returned PAP candidates, their wards would be well taken care of. This kind of election strategy will only divide Singaporeans into two camps - those who voted for the PAP and those who do not - and this is not based on ideology but on materialism. And if the PAP, after being returned to power, actually carried out their threat of serving only those who favoured them at the polls, then the PAP is serving its own self-interest and not that of the nation, and that is not good for building a nation.

The PAP's scare tactics did work to some measure at Potong Pasir in the last election. Many residents in my constituency were really afraid that their flats shall not be upgraded. I had to assure them that there is no way the Government can leave certain parts of Singapore to be unattended and the flats there to become slums. I am heartened now to read in the President's Speech that the Government has given its assurance that "no part of Singapore shall be left behind as we progress". This is said with reference to the HDB Estate Renewal Strategy and the Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes.

I now come to the second objective - to create an environment where the size of our national pie can be increased. This can be achieved if we form an economic union with Malaysia, our immediate neighbour. Lest I be misunderstood, I must explain that I am not advocating a merger of political union. What I am suggesting is that we seek a common market arrangement with Malaysia. If such an arrangement is achieved, our market size for Singapore products shall be increased from 3 million to over 20 million people. With an enlarged market, we can export more of our goods and services and shall have also more opportunities for investment. For such an arrangement to come to fruition and to succeed, we must assure our Malaysian neighbours that such an arrangement is for mutual benefit and not for the sole benefit of Singapore. Both countries can gain from such an economic cooperation and not only both countries can become richer but the ties between the two countries can be strengthened.

In 1980, I founded the Singapore Democratic Party and I drafted the objects contained in the Constitution of that party. One of the objects of the SDP is to strive for Singapore to have an economic union first with Malaysia, then later with the other ASEAN countries. Last year, I left the SDP and joined the Singapore People's Party (SPP). I am happy to say that this object of having an economic union with Malaysia is also contained in the Constitution of the SPP. To me, it is only natural that Singapore and Malaysia shall eventually form an economic unit despite the intentions of ASEAN members in organising the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA).

I must point out that to have an economic arrangement within a wider common market area is something that is not new. In Europe, there is the European Union (EU) but within that larger grouping, there exists a smaller economic arrangement comprising Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg (the Benelux countries) which within themselves have some kind of a common market arrangement. I cannot see why when a common market arrangement is made between Singapore and Malaysia, it cannot subsist within the wider AFTA countries.

In 1963, the first generation PAP leaders were all of one mind that Singapore should be part of Malaysia, both politically and economically. I think they had in mind more so economically. The short period of about two years when Singapore was in Malaysia, Singapore prospered economically as it had a sizeable market to sell its goods and services.

In 1965, Singapore was booted out of Malaysia and there was acrimony in the parting of ways between Singapore and Malaysia. There was no possibility at that time of forming an economic union as feelings were bad on both sides of the Causeway. Even till today, we can see from recent events that ill feelings can still be easily generated between the two countries. But I believe that the recent events caused by what Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, said of Johor Baru in his affidavit in connection with the Tang Liang Hong affair shall pass away with time. It may take longer than usual, but it shall go away. When the situation between Singapore and Malaysia has become normal again, I would suggest that the Singapore Government take the initiative to propose an economic union with Malaysia. I shall, of course, be too pleased if I am called upon to assist in this endeavour.

I do not think that should Singapore commence talks with Malaysia to form an economic union, it would be in any way jumping the gun on ASEAN's proposal to form an ASEAN Free Trade Area in the year 2003. Our membership of ASEAN, I believe, does not preclude us from entering into any bilateral arrangement with any other ASEAN component member, especially such relations do not go counter to ASEAN's aims and objects. In any event, Malaysia is not just any member of ASEAN. Malaysia has always had a special relationship with Singapore due to having a common colonial past with Singapore, having its proximity to Singapore and having a common culture and common ethnicity and language with Singapore. If both sides have the will to cooperate, I am certain the formation of a common market between Malaysia and Singapore can come to fruition and both economies shall benefit greatly and the chances of living peacefully with our immediate neighbour shall be enhanced. Our water supply from across the Causeway can also be assured.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion moved by Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Member for Bukit Timah, in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of this Ninth Parliament.

Before I do that, may I just draw attention to some points made by Mr Chiam just now. I will make three points here. First of all, he said something about Singaporeans wanting to migrate. I think all of us have also heard stories that there are many who had migrated but had returned to Singapore after experiencing the adverse conditions abroad and after knowing the developments that had taken place in Singapore which all of them have realised are for the better.

Secondly, Mr Chiam seems to be pushing the point that we have been using the upgrading issue as a political ploy for the People's Action Party. I think it has been stated on many occasions that upgrading will be for all Singaporeans regardless of political affiliation and that it is a question of priority, but in the end all will get upgrading.

Finally, I see that Mr Chiam has managed to import his policy of appeasement relating to Malaysia from the SDP to the Singapore People's Party of which he is now a member. In terms of economic arrangement, it must be asked whether Singapore's aspirations are necessarily served by any bilateral agreements when ASEAN is already in place and it is not at all clear whether any common market arrangement would be beneficial, as Mr Chiam would have us believe.

Having said that, may I now return to the Debate on the President's Address? The President reminded us that we have enjoyed political and social stability since independence -

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Prof. Chin, would you like to give way to Mr Chiam?

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to make clarification in respect of remarks made by Prof. Chin. On migration, I am quoting from the Straits Times poll or survey that 20% are leaving. But I do not think Prof. Chin has given any figures as to the number returning to Singapore. I hope he can do that.

As regards the strategy of the PAP in the last election, I think it is common knowledge. Unfortunately, I think Prof. Chin has not visited Potong Pasir or any of the opposition wards during the hustings. He would then know that it was made unequivocally clear to the people of Singapore that if they did not vote the PAP, they would probably get last and there was a hint of not getting any upgrading at all. Unless the PAP is trying to deny that, they have to produce all their election speeches at the rallies.

An economic union is not an appeasement. I am surprised that he used the word "appeasement". It is not something that the Prime Minister of England, Mr Chamberlain, returning from a trip to Munich took a piece of paper signed by Hitler. This is nothing of that sort. It is a step between two neighbours which is very logical. I think all the arguments for merger and economic benefit raised by the first generation PAP leaders still hold today unless he is trying to refute and say that it is not true.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to engage in a ding-dong battle with Mr Chiam over figures. During the election I had been to an opposition ward in Bukit Gombak and I was walking around there. I know what our policy has been regarding upgrading. And as we all know, in terms of Singapore's attitude towards trade, the world is our market, not just Malaysia, and I think I have said enough in relation to that.

May I continue with my speech? The President reminded us that we have enjoyed political and social stability since independence - which is over 30 years of stability. Many Singaporeans now take such a state of affairs for granted. But it is important to realise that this is not an immutable fact of nature.

This point was forcefully brought home to me today when I read in the papers about the developments in Sierra Leone. In March, I was in a conference with a number of Commonwealth Parliamentarians. Among them was a very able MP from Sierra Leone. An eloquent speaker, he gave an impassioned speech on the problems besetting his country and asked for help from his fellow Parliamentarians in maintaining parliamentary democracy and civilian rule in Sierra Leone.

Today, Sierra Leone is in the hands of the military; and several neighbouring countries are sending forces into the country to re-establish civilian rule.

Sir, this event brought home to me that stability is indeed a fragile thing. In contrast, because of the period of stability, Singapore has progressed. We have done so well that the Director of the Swiss institute in charge of the World Competitiveness Project in today's paper was reported as saying that the Republic rightly deserves a place in the industrialised nations. This is because our per capita GDP is set to exceed the US$30,000 mark this year. All this would not have been possible without the stability during which time the Government was able to implement its policies to good effect.

Looking to the future, the President has warned that Singaporeans will be facing a formidable challenge in the years to come, and that we must be prepared for hard times ahead. One of the key pillars to prepare for such times is "to invest in the young". This means investing heavily in education, training teachers and pupils in the use of Information Technology tools.

Sir, parents must have been reassured to hear that "every child will have access to computers" whether the parents can afford one or not, and that the quality of education will be raised across the board and not restricted to a few schools. The benefits will be widespread and there will be equal opportunity for all to acquire IT skills.

The impact of Information Technology in this decade has been compared to that of the invention of printing in Europe in the 15th century which eventually led to a cultural revolution known as the Reformation. The inventing of printing released the privilege of knowledge from the elite few to the ordinary people.

The computer and Internet have similarly done the same for all those who know how to use a computer. The Internet has made us all citizens of the world, or "Netizens" as we are sometimes called. Information that used to be in the hands of rich organisations or governments can now be available to anyone who is adept at surfing the Net. Citizens can now make more informed decisions and can give feedback more quickly and efficiently. Both government and citizens can be more responsive and, I hope, responsible.

Sir, there is little doubt that there have to be important changes made to the education system if it is to remain relevant in the Information Age. Information now comes to the user. In the past, students went to schools, to libraries, to museums, to universities to be educated. Now, the materials come to them. Virtual libraries, museums and schools in time may become more important than the existing physical institutions housing libraries and museums. In determining our needs for the next century, it is important to realise that physical facilities such as classrooms may eventually not be as important as communication lines between students and teachers.

As information now becomes a matter of access rather than something that must be remembered by each pupil, there must also be a change in the ways in which children are taught in our schools. Indeed, the National Council for Educational Technology in England coined the phrase, that a teacher should now be "a manager rather than the deliverer of learning". The availability of computers means that students can become more independent in their approach, more creative and can acquire research skills early on in their school days.

The changes can be fundamental, particularly in the mindsets of teachers and students. It is aptly illustrated by the Director of the Media Lab in MIT, Nicholas Negroponte, when he gave the example that with the computer, children now need not learn about a frog by dissecting one; they can build their own frogs through computer simulation. Why dissect a real frog when you can learn more by building one yourself? Learning by doing is an important principle as is learning by teamwork.

Turning to the teaching side, it is imperative that Singapore should invest heavily on what is a relatively new industry, namely, electronic educational publishing. In the US and Britain, it is recognised that the need for software and support materials for educational institutions is growing at a phenomenal rate. There is one trend that needs to be emphasised, ie, the increasing convergence between education and entertainment.

According to David Puttnam, who is the Chairman of the National Film and Television School in England, but who is perhaps better known as a film director for such films as "Chariots of Fire" and "The Killing Fields", Hollywood talent agents have reportedly informed him that "within ten years the highest paid performers in the industry would not be conventional movie stars . but an as yet undiscovered generation of educational presenters."

In tandem with the development of such an industry, it is necessary to foster an interest among the young people in the arts in the interest of education. The role of the arts is to provide a means of communication and identity, something that is vitally important particularly in the light of our National Education programme. Literature and art can be the mediums through which our people, young and old, can be inspired, and can learn about our past in a most entertaining, yet meaningful way.

Sir, it may be that in the not too distant future, a "public education" TV channel could be dedicated for the purposes of National Education, as well as for providing an avenue for the creative talent in Singapore to showcase their talents. Such a TV channel can also be used for the purposes of standardising teaching materials; all schools will have access through TVs and computers to such programmes. The channel can also be used for the purposes of "skills upgrading" and further education, which is an essential consequence of the information age.

Sir, I should like to mention two cautionary points. The first is that there is likely in future to be two categories of workers - those who embrace IT and can use it effectively, and those who cannot. Technological change favours brains to brawn. Intelligence, managing information and acquiring knowhow are more important than sheer sweat and effort. This may mean high productivity workers with higher paid jobs, but less of them. This matter will, of course, need special attention in the future so as not to create a group of dissatisfied citizens.

The second is that care must be taken to control the reliance on information technology. Too much information technology can be de-humanising. To give a trifling example, we will all shudder if the idea of social conversation is reduced to people whipping out their wallet PCs to determine who has the latest information. If we ask a casual question, "Is it going to rain?", I do not think that we expect an answer from the other party whipping out his wallet PC to access some weather report, when all that is needed is for both parties to cast their eyes sky-ward to see what the weather is like.

In the final analysis, Sir, the duty of every teaching institution, every teacher, is to ensure that every child or young person leaving the institution be equipped with not just knowledge, but with the relevant IT competencies to make their way in the world. These competencies are how to obtain access to information, what to do with the information, how to make the information useful to others, and how to re-educate oneself.

Sir, the President has in his Address indicated that we can be confident, and should not be complacent. I am confident, having heard his Address and read the Addenda, that Singaporeans can indeed look forward to making Singapore the best home for ourselves and our children.

Sir, I support the motion.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.37 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Lily Neo (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the privilege to participate in this debate.

The President, in his Address to Parliament, has given us an exciting vision for this country going into the 21st century. This is good for Singapore and I therefore would like to support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.

Before I go further, I would like to mention to my colleagues in this House that it is good that there are now four of us women Members in this Parliament. Whilst some people may be expecting us to come across in this House as liberators of women or champions for women's rights, I, however, would like to see ourselves functioning more as moderators on things that are relevant to the welfare of women-folk. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let my colleagues in this House see us as their sisters, seeking only for what is just and fair for all; serving only for what the people want and striving only for what is best for Singapore.

The President has brought up many points that will affect and very likely improve the lives of Singaporeans. I believe this Government will fulfill his aspirations in the way only an efficient and earnest Government can. This Government did rightfully earn my trust and admiration previously. And now, as a Member of Parliament, I want to contribute towards the many great programmes already lined up for the future. I shall aim to help this Government fine-tune and carry out these programmes efficiently and without any of those unfortunate and false authoritarian stigmata. Let it not be said that this Government is bo kwan or tidak apa, and everything is dished out in ai lai mai sua or suka suka attitude. I would like to help make the people see this Government for what she really is. Yes, one that is caring, careful, constructive and conscientious.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add to what the President has said on two of the issues close to my list of concerns. My foremost concern is about the best ways for us to cope with the aged in a greying Singapore and my next concern, which I can only briefly touch on for today, is on issues related to women.

Women's issues

As a brief introduction on women's issues, Sir, I would like to urge and persuade this Parliament not to alienate women's needs as an issue but to see it as an important societal issue. I say this because about 40% of our workforce is composed of female workers and their contribution to the country and the success of the country is indeed substantial both for today and also for tomorrow.

Due to equal opportunities in education as well as in career seeking, a lot of our women today are holding important and surprisingly high-ranking positions. Today, women are not seen as housewives alone, but are expected to contribute to the two-income families of modern Singapore.

Holding a full-time job, managing the home and bringing up the children all at the same time is definitely a trying experience. Therefore, if we can help women cope better with their difficult roles, we will benefit not only the women but also the children, the nuclear units of homes, the economy of the country and, in the long run, the nation as a whole.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, please help me along and support me in finding better solutions and ways to help our women-folk attain an easier and better future. Perhaps we can look at making child-care centres more precinct-orientated; having more before-and-after-school-care centres; reviewing enhancement of maternity benefits and even allowing introduction of a Women's Bureau. There is a great deal of scope for further improvements to our women's lot in the times ahead.

Greying of Singapore and coping with the aged

My main concern relates to the way we anticipate and plan on the needs of the aged in Singapore in the years to come. We will have about 27% of Singapore's population above 60 years of age by the year 2030. This amounts to about 800,000 people. We are all aware that coping with the needs of the aged will be a colossal task, fraught with problems. Indeed, Sir, unless careful preparations are made in advance, problems in terms of health-care requirements, social responsibilities and economic loss may disadvantage the country severely. It is thus very important that we prevent this potential disaster of the future. I believe strongly that this issue should be dealt with by embarking on three different levels of care: primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

Primary-level care

No amount of money or benevolence that we put into the care of the elderly will be satisfactory if they are mostly sick, fragile and incapacitated. The most effective way to go, in coping with and caring for the aged, is thus through promoting preventive care and encouraging healthy lifestyles. This primary level care should be foremost in our planning policy. It should be carried out as a concerted effort nation-wide, preferably at the precinct level. And each and every constituency should treat this, even as of now, as a matter of urgency.

Let me elaborate on this "primary-level care" which is aimed at all our physically-independent elderly who are able to participate daily at various centres.

It is known that disability problems of any population can be reduced by up to 60% simply through maintaining healthy lifestyles. Considering that in 20 years' time, the average expectancy of life will be more than 80 years, it is vital that we succeed in this concept of preventive management. If we are successful at this, the burden from problems of the elderly will be much reduced.

At the moment, scattered around the country, there are eight activity centres for the elderly. However, they do not exactly fit the ideals I have in mind. Most of these are more like "free-food providing" centres as distinct from my concept of "total care" centres.

We are having a centre with this "total care" concept set up in my constituency. We call it CARE (Centre of Activity for Retired and Elderly) and it should be operational by the end of this month.

The centre is well-located, as it should be, for convenient access by the participants. We will attend to their physical needs by providing them with adequate wholesome daily meals, regular health-screening tests, frequent health talks and so on. We will help them pursue healthy lifestyle habits such as exercising every day, curbing smoking and so on.

We will promote a more gracious and caring environment among themselves by getting them to sing, to dance, to socialise and to eventually feel committed to each other. This latter feature is to be developed into a "buddy system" whereby we help them not only to help themselves but also to help each other. The "buddies" will keep an eye on each other and they can report on problems and seek help on behalf of and for each other.

The old are also prone to poor mental health. I believe we can help reduce debilitating mental-states arising from loneliness and abandonment.

Now, we are not going to do all this as a form of free welfare. Membership will be dignified by having the members pay for their participation at CARE. Of course, the fees payable will be made affordable.

Secondary-level care

The "secondary-level" care pertains to the physically dependent or semi-dependent elderly. They are not sick but, nonetheless, they need constant assistance in order to carry out some of the basic activities of day-to-day living. The type of assistance this group requires will vary from person to person depending on the degree of their incapacity. Without doubt, the ideal situation will be to have these elderly staying for as long as possible in their own homes instead of institutions. In this instance, home-care services would be needed for support and care to enable the frail elderly to live with their families.

However, it is not possible for us to avoid having to set up centres for this group of elderly persons. Such secondary-level care centres should be set up at the constituency level and ideally as a follow-on to CARE. These centres will be costly and staff-intensive. For the present moment, however, I would not even suggest starting such centres island-wide, even if we have the means to set them up, because we simply do not have enough relevant personnel to run them. We are, indeed, very short of trained nurses, physiotherapists, speech therapists, trained social workers and so on. For that matter, we are also deficient in home-visiting doctors. We need a school to train people in geriatric care. I feel a sense of urgency here as, unless we have the support services including home-visiting doctors, there will be a serious strain on our presently limited numbers of care-givers.

With the working to elderly ratio of 10:1 now, increasing to 3:1 by the year 2030 and, with those aged 75 years and above increasing in numbers from about 55,000 now to about a quarter million over the same period, it is essential for us to get the secondary-level care facilities in place lest we waste our able-bodied citizens from the workforce. For those who need complete care with total dependency, geriatric homes are needed. We are, fortunately, already on the way in this respect, albeit mainly through voluntary organisations.

Tertiary-level care

The tertiary-level care is for the aged who are sick. They account for 18% of all hospital admissions and 20% of all outpatient attendances. Those who are 70 years or more in age account for a large proportion of these figures.

The projected demands on our health-care services will be overwhelming unless some significant change takes place. This is why I am stressing repeatedly on the importance of primary-level care as an effective way to reduce the number of our aged sick. Successfully managed secondary-level care can reduce the use of the expensive and much-needed acute beds in our major hospitals.

At the moment, we have many of the acute beds in these hospitals being taken up by patients who cannot be discharged just because there are no alternative venues to relocate them. One or two geriatric hospitals each with a multi-disciplinary team will have to be considered for a more holistic approach towards better care.

At the moment, both the geriatric units in Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Alexandra Hospital are not able to operate optimally for various reasons. The other restructured hospitals prefer not to operate geriatric departments which can seldom be profitable to run. Geriatrics is not a popular specialty among our younger doctors and we do not get enough geriatrics specialists. All these factors will cost us dearly in the future. We need to discourage and reverse these trends.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government and our seniors have done so much to attain this remarkable state of success for Singapore. This is the time for us to further their achievement. We should now go on and make Singapore a great place to live in. We should pay even more attention to the mundane things of life such as the people's immediate needs, their aspirations for the future and their overall expectations in living standards. I would like to mention that this Government must continue to be sensitive and is seen to be sensitive towards Singaporeans' desire for fair and just handling of issues. Ways for improving harmonious and gracious living and ways for decreasing stressful and excessive paper-chase lifestyles should be enhanced.

Let us make sure Singapore is their best home.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M (Marine Parade): ( In Malay): First of all, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah in connection with the President's Address.

Mr Speaker, first of all, I would like to raise two issues concerning Mr Chiam See Tong's speech at the beginning. I would like to give my views to be recorded in Parliament. Firstly, about upgrading programme. It is known that upgrading that is done by the Ministry of National Development is a big project affecting all the housing estates in Singapore. The question is which estate will be the first in line for upgrading and which estate will be upgraded later. But upgrading is not something that is pushed to Singaporeans. We know that in every housing estate and constituency the people are given a choice to choose whether or not they want to have upgrading. The choice has been given to Singaporeans and they have made their choice.

The second matter that Mr Chiam touched on concerns economic union with Malaysia in which he reiterated his stand in the SPP which he formed with his friends not too long ago. I heard with care just now that Mr Chiam found that when Singapore was in Malaysia, we had a sort of economic union with Malaysia, Singapore's economy grew rapidly. I was able to go to the library of Parliament and found that from September 1963 when the Malaysian federation was formed involving Singapore, the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak, up to our separation from Malaysia in August 1965, between these two dates, in 1964 Singapore had a full-year in Malaysia. I found that our economic growth was negative, that is, minus 2.7%. This posed a question mark as to how Mr Chiam based his economic view that being in the union would benefit Singapore more. However, as I think that he is very serious about this union, Mr Chiam and his party should bring this matter to the interested parties in Malaysia and try to find out their opinions. Should this idea be found attractive, perhaps Mr Chiam could raise this issue to the authorities and government to carry out follow-up actions to study the feasibility as to whether this economic union is beneficial to both Singapore and Malaysia, and to see how this idea could be expanded to an association like ASEAN. I think Mr Chiam has to look into this idea further before we can improve on it or go further and be accepted by the Government.

Mr Speaker, in the President's Address, the question of Singapore's ties with the countries in this region and with the world had been touched upon. As a small nation with a network of ties throughout the world, Singapore has always practised a foreign policy aimed at fostering cordial ties with all countries. As far as I can remember, the Government has always given priority to ASEAN interests in managing our foreign policies. But sometimes there are obstacles and challenges. An example is, for almost three months now, Singapore-Malaysia ties have not been as good as before. In fact, it could be said that ties have been in a mess. I do not see how anyone could profit from this situation, except perhaps ---[Mr Chiam See Tong entered the Chamber.]

An hon. Member: Repeat your second point.

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, there are two matters which I raised just now. So I will return to the second point, that is, Mr Chiam had proposed an economic union with Malaysia saying that during the years that Singapore was in Malaysia, Singapore had benefited economically. I checked in the library just now and found that in 1964 when Singapore had a full-year in Malaysia, we underwent negative economic growth of minus 2.7%. So I do not see any basis in Mr Chiam's opinion that the economic union is a good factor for Singapore to consider. But since Mr Chiam is convinced that this is a good idea, he should raise this matter with the relevant authorities in Malaysia and obtain their reactions and if they are interested, he could then raise this matter so that our Government could take follow-up actions to look into this idea. I hope he could give some attention to my proposal.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Member for Marine Parade for giving way. This 2.7% that he speaks of in 1964 ---

Some hon. Members: Minus 2%.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sorry. Minus 2% that he speaks of, was in 1964 or 1965?

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: 1964.

Mr Chiam See Tong: My answer is that Singapore's economy could have been worse.

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: Why?

Mr Chiam See Tong: As far as I know, when Singapore had a common market with Malaysia, our investors were coming in droves because of the larger market. And every other night TV was showing some new factories being opened by Dr Goh Keng Swee. That speaks for itself that there should have been economic growth with so much investments coming in. So I do not know how the economy arrived at minus 2.7 %. But in any event, I would say again that if not for Malaysia, we could have slid down even more.

The other point about asking me to approach the Malaysian authorities is a serious matter and, of course, if they do want to have a dialogue with me, I shall be most glad to find out what is their feeling with regard to the economic union with Malaysia. All the basics are right, as far as I am concerned, about this formation with Malaysia, and you cannot fault this proposal.

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am not trying to find fault with Mr Chiam's suggestion. I am only saying that the basis that he used to compare the period between September 1963 and August 1965 when the Malaysian association was formed with Singapore, until Singapore left Malaysia, we had one full year, that is, 1964, and just in that year we experienced negative economic growth. I am not denying Mr Chiam's idea. He should look into it in greater detail and see whether he is alone in this or whether there are other parties which are also interested, because we cannot be alone in our ideas, we need both parties.

I also recall Mr Chiam saying that Singapore grew very rapidly when we were in the union and many factories were officially opened by Dr Goh Keng Swee. I would like to ask whether he was confused concerning the growth of the Jurong Industrial Estate which grew rapidly after 1965 and with the period before 1965. From what I recall, whatever he said was more in relation with the growth in the Jurong Industrial Estate after Malaysia, and not when we were in Malaysia.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, I speak from memory. And if my memory serves me right, there was this Malaysia thing going on all the time. Over the radio, over the TV, all kinds of jingles were being sung. I believe it was during the period when we were in Malaysia where our market was much bigger. With roughly a market of 2.5 million at that time, I do not think it was easy to attract the multi-nationals here. But because we had an assured market of 10 million or more at that time, I believe it was during those periods that we attracted a lot of investments from abroad. But, of course, you can check that out. But, again, I would stress that this is a serious proposal and I hope that the Member for Marine Parade would take it seriously.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, I want to check out some figures. I thought maybe I should use this occasion to bring his memory back to 1964/1965 when we were part of Malaysia. When we were in Malaysia, Singapore only had control of education and labour. Finance, trade and industry were under the central government. So any industry wanting to invest in Singapore - in fact, we had the idea of awarding pioneer status to investors when they invested in Singapore - had to be approved by the central government. Our agencies worked very hard and, if I remember the figure correctly, we managed to attract nine investors to come to Singapore. But we had to ask the central government for approval and these nine investors went to Kuala Lumpur. Seven were disapproved to come to Singapore; two were approved to come to Singapore; one eventually did not come. So, that is all for you, Mr Chiam, if your memory did not serve you right. This is a brief history for you to understand that when we were in Malaysia, all these decisions on investments were under the control of the central government.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Much obliged, Sir. When I made my speech, I do not know whether the Leader of the House was in the Chamber. Because I did clarify that I do not want to be misunderstood as saying that we want to have a political union with Malaysia. I am only envisaging an economic union. In other words, our sovereignty is still intact. All the portfolios in the Ministries are controlled by Singapore. We are not surrendering any of our powers of state. This is purely an economic union and basically lowering of tariffs and increasing the market size. Of course, other factors will have to be worked out. So basically it is only for economic purposes.

What the Leader of the House is saying is that at that particular point of time we had a full merger, political as well as economic. And Singapore, I believe, as he correctly said, only had control on labour and education, and everything else was in the hands of the central government. We do not want to go into that situation again.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is entirely true. In fact, that was not the point I was trying to make. What Mr Chiam was saying just now was that when we were in Malaysia, the economy boomed. It did not boom, we had minus 2.7%, and the reason was that we did not have control of our industry and our inability to attract investors. Even in the case of an economic union now, as Mr Chiam would like to propose, you cannot take one hand to clap. You need two. If the Malaysian government agrees, if the terms are right, Mr Chiam can persuade them as to what terms he would like to have, then maybe you can discuss. But we all know that Singapore's market is now way beyond just between Malaysia and Singapore. We invest, we trade, with the rest of the world. We have ASEAN Free Trade union, and all these have stood us well. Why do you want to singularly base our economic growth on just a bilateral economic partnership?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think it is true that at that particular point of time, they had control of much of our activities in Singapore, including investments. Would the Leader not agree with me that we would have grown, if taking aside the fact that they were impeding us? Assuming you minus that, our economy would have grown tremendously. Would you not agree with that? So we do not want to repeat that situation again.

As regards trading with the rest of the world, this is a necessity for Singapore. We have got no other way. Just imagine, we have to go all the way to China to invest $20 billion or so. If you can invest that across in Johor, or somewhere else nearby, where labour is still abundant and both sides can benefit from such hefty investments, they will grow and we will also grow. So I do not think we should belittle this suggestion. In fact, there should be greater efforts by the Government to always diligently seek markets from all over the world. We should also try this line. If the present leadership is unable to do, I think the next echelon of leaders should give it a go.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I do not want to belabour the point. Singapore would like to do business with everybody, including our closest neighbour. So if our closest neighbour says, "Yes, we would like to have such a union with you.", in fact, if Mr Chiam can persuade them, and if there is a slightest inkling that they are prepared to even talk about it, we are prepared to do so. That is the basis on which we proceed, that is, both sides must be able to agree on the right terms, then we can do business. But we cannot tell Singaporean businessmen where to go. It is up to them. If they think it is better to go to China, India, or Indonesia rather than Malaysia, it is also their decision. Of course, some have also decided that it is better to go to a place nearer home like Malaysia. But it is also their decision. We have got nothing to do with that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Maidin, would you like to resume your speech?

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be speaking in Malay, but allow me to just speak to Mr Chiam directly in the language he can follow and understand his ideas and points. May I suggest to him to pursue the idea? Maybe he can come back to this House to make the proposals. Or if there are too many PAP MPs here who may not agree with him, he can probably find a way to put it together as a platform for the next general election. For all you know, his idea could very well get support from Singapore citizens.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, as a small nation with a network of ties throughout the world, Singapore is always practising foreign policies aimed at fostering cordial ties with all nations. As far as I can remember, the Government is always giving priority to ASEAN interests in managing our foreign policies. But sometimes, there are obstacles and challenges. An example is, for almost three months now, Singapore-Malaysia ties have not been as good as before. In fact, it could be said that they are in a mess. I do not see anybody benefiting from this situation except perhaps two persons, one a lawyer and the other a politician, one called Tang Liang Hong and another Abdul Razak Ahmad, who could perhaps be proud because the actions have affected ties between the two countries.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

3.35 pm

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: The Senior Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, has apologised twice over this incident. Although he is a statesman of wide experience and internationally recognized and respected, Mr Lee did not hesitate to apologise. In fact, he was also present in court to delete the remark in question from his affidavit. I feel that this is an indication that he holds Malaysia-Singapore ties in high regard. But it is clear that his efforts have not satisfied some quarters across the Causeway. We have read of threats after threats still being made until now. And up to yesterday, I have been informed that more than 140 reports which hit out at Singapore, especially from political leaders and journalists, have been reproduced by the Straits Times. I feel that the actual number of such reports in the Malaysian media is greater. But the greatest effect on Singaporeans until today is the repeated threats to cut off our water supply and harsh words, such as, I quote, "bastard" and "swine" hurled at Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in this matter, I think that many Singaporeans feel very hurt, if not, angry because such harsh terms have been used at our national leader. Last Saturday, I was given the opinion of a Malay mother which I think reflects the opinion of some Singaporeans on this matter. This woman said, and I quote,

"As a Malay and a Muslim, I am ashamed of the extremist attitude displayed by some of the people across the Causeway, their antics and words do not in the least reflect Malay and Islamic traits and conduct." She said that she understood why Malaysia was angry in this issue. But their anger should be in moderation, she said. I think this woman's opinion reflects the opinion of others in Singapore.

Many of us are aware that to the political leaders in Malaysia, it is important that Singapore be sensitive to their feelings as a neighbour. Singapore and its leaders have been accused, have been vilified and threatened with words and matters which do not at all show their own sensitiveness towards their neighbour. Despite this, I think that we should try to understand what is happening. Perhaps they feel deeply hurt which has caused some of them to react excessively. The question here is: where are we going to bring this issue? Is there any hope that it could be settled quickly? Many Singaporeans are puzzled. Looking at the reaction in Malaysia, we wondered: Firstly, does Malaysia have any other agenda behind this anger over Mr Lee Kuan Yew's affidavit? If they were angry over that, why is it that even after the issue was settled, their anger still goes on? Are they hoping to motivate Malaysians to work harder and to be united in overtaking Singapore in the economic field? These are among the questions that we are asking ourselves. But if this is their hope, why not compete fairly? In fact, we can compete and cooperate for the benefit of both countries.

The second matter is whether the freezing of ties which had been reported by the Bernama news agency as a Cabinet decision and later denied by the Malaysian authorities is still being implemented on the quiet. Otherwise, why is the call by Mr Goh Chok Tong that both countries move on from here and restore bilateral cooperation not being responded? In fact, as far as I can remember, all proposals that this matter be settled have not been reciprocated. How long more will it take for the situation to cool down and to restore ties?

Third, what should be done by Singapore considering that calls to cut off the water supply are normally bound to be made every time there are difficulties? I am convinced that it is important for us to re-think our dependency on the water supply from Johor through resources within our country, through desalination of sea water, sources in Indonesia perhaps, and through water saving measures. Through these ways, should the situation get out of control and perhaps one day, when our water supply is cut off, Singaporeans need not die of thirst.

Fourthly, the question that has been haunting us is whether Malaysians are influenced by all the reports and criticisms against Singapore made in their mass media. If this is so, will Singaporeans be treated, as usual, with warmth when they go across the Causeway for their holidays? Mr Deputy Speaker, this question has been the cause why many Singaporeans are reluctant to go for vacation in Malaysia at this time, that is, during the school holidays.

Fifthly, will investments costing billions of dollars from Singaporean individuals and companies in Malaysia be safe? This question also needs to be answered. Will their investments be target also? Nobody knows the answer. But investors will of course consider current developments and whether it is wise for them to devote too much capital in Malaysia only or should they channel some of their investments to other countries in ASEAN which are very happy with Singapore's participation in their economic development.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many other questions which we are asking ourselves. This is because since the separation from Malaysia, there have been many times when Singaporeans saw the outburst of anger by Malaysia. Perhaps, because we are so used to such a situation, many people prefer to keep quiet and look on. But this does not mean that we do not learn any lesson from all these situations.

However, I am convinced that, basically, many people in Singapore and Malaysia will feel happier if the situation were to improve and our ties be restored. Both sides will be able to give attention to the development of the people and the nation and not be involved in accusation and counter-accusation to the extent that the actions of some children, drunkards and drug addicts who urinate in lifts, have been made into examples that Singaporeans are uncivilised.

My view is that this has gone on far enough and if no serious efforts are made by both sides to settle the matter, I am worried that many other issues will be dragged into this controversy. For example, the issue of the Malayan Railway land and its station at Tanjong Pagar had been raised, including several other pieces of land that it manages, despite agreements having been signed in the Memorandum of Understanding in 1990. Recently, the Ministry of National Development tried to give its perspective concerning reports published in the New Straits Times of Malaysia. But its efforts were blocked to the extent that MND tried to pay for advertisements. This too was not allowed. I think it would be preferable if the actual situation could be explained in this House so that Singaporeans could understand what is happening and why it has come to such a situation. Is it true that we are always creating difficulties and are not complying with the 1990 MOU? I hope the relevant authorities could clarify the situation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, all this while, Malaysia has always been a popular choice of Singaporeans to go for their holidays or investment. In fact, as our close neighbour, Malaysia has a special place in the hearts and minds of Singaporeans. Malaysia is not only easy for us to go to by land, air or sea, but it also has many similarities with Singapore in terms of race, language, culture and food. In addition, many people go to Malaysia not only for a holiday. The historical ties between the two countries are very close that many Malays, Indians and Chinese in both places have relatives and close friends. Some people have described Singapore/Malaysia ties as that between the nail and the flesh of the finger, or like that between two brothers or sisters. The Prime Minister has said that our ties are like water - even if we cut it with a knife, it could not be cut. Only in this instance, the water is not sweet but sour. This sweet and sour taste is normal in any ties. But both sides could determine whether the water would always be sweet or sour. Or perhaps we may have to get used to the sweet and sour taste which is not normal but could still be acceptable?

Mr Deputy Speaker, both nations also have large economic ties. We need one another. The success and prosperity of both countries should be viewed as profitable developments which benefit both nations. There are many other reasons to show how both nations have more to benefit in working to settle the situation. In fact, the faster the situation is solved, the better it should be. I have said earlier that it is only people like Tang Liang Hong and Abdul Razak Ahmad who will have reasons to allow this situation to continue. We do not have to entertain them and make things difficult for more than 20 million other people.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the President's Address.

The Ninth Parliament of Singapore will see Singapore in an increasingly competitive global environment. Parliament will not only need to focus on local policies and legislation, but will also have to examine the broader issues of helping Singapore succeed. Towards achieving this goal, we will have to pay attention to certain `Cs'.

The first `C' is complacency. Singaporeans are so accustomed to hearing Singapore rated first in many areas that they are lulled into a sense of complacency. This may reduce their drive and competitive keenness. We do not have to look far to realise that competing nations in the region are fast catching up with us. If we want to stay ahead, we must remove this complacency.

The second `C' is challenges. By understanding the constraints Singapore faces in terms of limited land, water and airspace resources, and the economic competition we face, we will have to provide avenues by which all Singaporeans can be given the opportunity to understand these challenges. We must make efforts to understand and be aware of the progress that competing economies have achieved. The Government may want to consider having a regular programme perhaps entitled "Economic Competition" in the civil service and the statutory boards to keep their staff aware of the achievements of competing economies in the different areas. The first step towards success is to know and understand the competition and challenges.

The third `C' is confidence. Having removed the complacency and understanding the challenges, we must inspire and provide confidence. Recently, a prominent successful middle-aged professional whom I know and who has benefited from the economic success of Singapore expressed his pessimism in the future of Singapore to me. He had already invested in a house in Australia and felt that his children may have a better future there. Yes, there will be such views despite the economic success of Singapore. However, such perceptions should not be taken lightly lest they become prevalent. We must not only help Singaporeans understand the difficult challenges but they must also be made to understand the solutions so that we can instill confidence in them. Otherwise, the vacuum created by the absence of confidence will be filled with despair and pessimism. However, in instilling confidence, we must be careful not to allow arrogance to breed.

Fourth `C' is centre of excellence. To continue to breed success, we must be a centre of excellence in all areas. Investment in manpower is the basis for success. Singaporeans will have to continually upgrade themselves educationally and invest time in the acquisition of new skills through training. Manpower is the foundation of our success and hence investment in education and skills will enhance the quality of this resource tremendously. In this age of information technology, all Singaporeans will have to learn and grow to be accustomed to the tools of information technology and avail themselves of the opportunities available for them to be familiar with information technology.

The Government should consider extending computer literacy and familiarity beyond the schools into the housing estates. We can encourage the use of computers, but there must be opportunities for working adults to be proficient in computer software. Government should be the catalyst in helping the average adult use the software efficiently. Government, through the National Computer Board or People's Association, should consider setting up neighbourhood computer centres where residents can enrol in classes at affordable cost and be proficient in commonly used software. These centres can also function as training centres for multimedia software. For these centres to succeed, they should not just have a few computers and ad hoc programmes at perhaps the community clubs, but they should have full-time staff and a structured and systematic set up, and programmes.

Government agencies, statutory boards and private companies should not be pulling apart in opposite directions and spend tremendous amount of resources competing against each other unnecessarily. There must be avenues to draw them together and pool their strengths together, so that they can be excellent in their core business and can compete efficiently in the global economic environment. We should have strategic planning committees which not only involve key Government agencies and key private sector companies or individuals, we should also consider allowing other private sector companies who want to contribute to this process to participate. It is also about time that the Ministry of Trade and Industry should look into a more formal and systematic means of gleaning and collating from the experiences of Singaporean businessmen in different countries so that our businessmen do not have to learn lessons the hard way again and again. We may not have the formula to ensure success for all our businessmen all the time, but by learning from the experiences of others, there will be less mistakes and increased likelihood for success.

We must create Singapore brand names. Government agencies and statutory boards must not be prejudiced against locally developed products and services which are of good quality and pass them over in favour of other foreign products and services of similar quality. We should instead be actively identifying good quality local products and services and help them by recognising them for their high quality and support them. EDB and PSB have performed well in their areas but to increase our competitive edge, they should be more active in not only helping the bigger companies succeed but also promote any high quality Singaporean product or service. We must learn to be proud of the Singapore brand name. Our aim should be to create quality Singapore brand names that will be no less reputable than any competing Japanese or American brand names. We must move beyond a centre of excellence for producing foreign products. The next big economic leap is to establish Singapore as a centre of excellence in producing Singapore brand products that can be accepted all over the world.

The fifth `C' is the competitive environment. Rising labour costs and land costs are major factors that can erode our competitive edge. If we want to continue to have increasing wages, it is inevitable that productivity must increase. However, other costs such as land costs and levies have to be dealt with in innovative ways so that we do not price ourselves out of competition. Government should be careful about unhealthy increases in commercial and industrial land prices that will increase business cost unnecessarily. Regional economies have cheaper labour and land costs. We may not have lower labour and land costs but at the end of the day, the total business cost must be competitive. Political stability, a transparent legal framework, an efficient civil service, highly skilled workforce and a developed infrastructure all contribute to our competitiveness.

The last `C' is cohesion. Singaporeans will have to sink their roots into the country. Parents must inculcate in their children a sense of pride in the nation. A new generation has grown up which have not experienced the tumultuous years during the birth of Singapore and yet they have not been educated on the history of that period. It is time for us to take an active interest in the history of our nation. We must gel together as a nation and stand united as a nation to succeed.

Singaporeans will no doubt want their Members of Parliament to raise local issues affecting their living environment. However, Singaporeans will have to look beyond these issues and be able to see their Members of Parliament as helping them to make these `Cs' as issues relevant to them. In the new Parliament, Members of Parliament must apply their minds and hearts not only to the task of helping their constituents but also perceive their role as catalysts to help all Singaporeans work together to meet the challenges of the coming century. We have succeeded in more difficult times and with less resources. If we remain united and committed, with our present significantly better resources, we will continue to succeed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are crossing into the 21st century soon. From the basis of national defence and the conditions for survival of our national economy, we are indeed stronger now than in 1965. However, there is one thing that deserves some introspection, ie, since independence, have our people developed a sense of belonging and do they feel that they are the masters of the nation? Apart from the political consensus on independence and sovereignty, has the Government developed in the people any political consciousness that can sustain Singapore's unity and the sense of belonging of our people? This is a major challenge that we have to face in the 21st century.

In the early days of nation building, the problem facing us was how to continue to survive. Today, we do not only expect a stable life. We are also concerned with how the Government is going to allocate national resources, how to make decisions affecting the people's livelihood and whether these decisions are reasonable and convincing.

If the PAP Government insists on using the past practice of leaving the Government to decide and the people just follow to exchange for a stable life, and hoping that we can develop a sense of belonging for our people, then the PAP Government is just simply being complacent and conservative. They are locking themselves in the political pace of the 60s.

Identity is one of the processes of ideology. Our people must agree on how to allocate our resources before they can develop unity and a sense of belonging. In the President's Address, it was stated that "no part of Singapore should be left behind as we progress." He also said that "if some segments of society feel neglected or alienated, Singapore will start to unravel".

Unfortunately, the election strategy used by the PAP has already caused Singapore to start to unravel. Prime Minister Goh himself has threatened the voters during the election, that if they did not vote for the PAP, then when Singapore progressed very rapidly, the constituencies which voted for the opposition parties would be lagging behind and degraded into slums. This is to deliberately neglect the areas that do not benefit the PAP. PM Goh also used the counting by precinct mechanism to threaten the voters. He said that even in those constituencies where PAP candidates were returned, the precincts which voted for opposition parties will be given low priority in upgrading. So they are causing our people to drift apart. I condemn the PAP's method which has caused our people to drift. Singapore is an independent country. We are all citizens of Singapore. We are all masters of the nation. However, if the people are having fear for the Government and feeling that they are totally helpless on the policies of the Government, then they feel that they would have no choice but to bow and submit to the Government. How could they have a sense of belonging? In the construction of public facilities, such as the MRT, library and the polyclinics, the Government has deliberately neglected the opposition wards. For example, in the previous election, they threatened to close down the kindergartens in the opposition constituency and children living in the opposition constituency had to get the endorsement by the grassroots leaders before they could be admitted to the kindergartens. So these people are beginning to feel as though they are not citizens of Singapore. This sort of policy or strategy that caused the people to drift apart is very bad.

The Government is conveniently making use of the power vested in them to allocate the national resources, such as the HDB upgrading and asset enhancement, etc. to its advantage. They are using it to win votes. By using such a method to win the election, would it not give the foreigners a misconception that so long as we give some benefits to the Singaporeans they will just succumb to such benefits. This will have adverse effect in the future on conducting our foreign relations and in the area concerning our international living space.

I have received a letter which was addressed to Mr Bai Shi De of the Lianhe Zaobao with regard to an article written by him entitled Where lies the National Soul. Let me read from this letter. It says:

"Mr Bai, I have read your article in the Lianhe Zaobao entitled Where lies the national soul? I feel that you do not understand the Singaporeans. With more than 38 years of continuous ruling of Singapore, the PAP Government has full control of the people of Singapore. Now in Singapore many Government and quasi-Government departments have become tools for the PAP Government to control the people. Political right is now the monopoly of the PAP. Under such a situation, the young people know only how to study hard to get good results and to get a good job eventually. For the adults, they only know how to work hard to earn more money and to get the best material enjoyment. Singaporeans are already becoming apathetic. Who cares about the affairs of the nation? The PAP Government has divided the people into those who support the Government and those who support the opposition. How are they going to unite Singaporeans when there is a crisis? Most Singaporeans wish to have an opposition in Parliament. However, in the general election, they were tempted by the material benefits offered by the PAP Government and voted against their will. Under the high-handed governing by the PAP Government, the Singaporean people have already lost their souls. So where lies the National Soul?"

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small nation. Our population is much smaller than our neighbouring country. So if Singaporeans feel that they have been divided into two camps, it is a crisis to our nation. This would enable the other countries to instigate our people and further weaken the cohesiveness of our people and our national unity. In the conclusion of the President's Address, he pointed out that we should be more confident when we face our future competition because we are stronger than what we were in 1965. However, in the recent conflict between Singapore and Malaysia, Malaysia threatened to review the supply of water to Singapore, and the Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, had alleged that our Government has asserted pressure on Malaysia to give up their rights on the Malayan Railway land in Tanjong Pagar. I feel that these are two major issues which Singapore has to face and resolve in the 21st century.

Water supply has a great effect on the livelihood of our people and also on our economic development. The problem of the Malaysian Railway has a great effect on our national defence and security. The Government should announce its specific long-term solution to the matters and at the same time explain the details of the agreement signed between the Singapore Government and the Malayan Government on the use of the railway land so that the Government of Malaysia may not make use of these two issues as a stake against us.

Apart from that, the PAP Government says it is going to build Singapore into the best home for ourselves and our children. This is indeed another major challenge we have to face. Apart from facing the external competition, the Government should not neglect the heavy pressure that our people are facing domestically. With the people having to face the problem of prices going up all the time, how are they going to build up the best home for our people and our children? In fact, some of them are even considering migrating to other countries. So the PAP Government should not only believe in the magic of the market economy and neglect the ruthlessness of the market economy and the adverse effect it can have on the cohesiveness of our people and their sense of belonging.

This is the time for the PAP Government to mend the rift that has appeared after the general elections and to avoid the people from further drifting apart. Historical experience shows that a strong economy alone does not guarantee the survival and wealth of one nation, the people's cohesiveness, political will and a sense of belonging are more important.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah. I would like to deal with the matter relating to the Chinese education. But before I speak, I would like to direct my remarks to the speech of the Member for Hougang. He said that during the last general election, the People's Action Party used the method of inducing and intimidating to split the people of Singapore. I think he was completely wrong on this, because under the democratic government system, we have to face the people at a certain stage. Every party must have its own party's platform for the people to choose. The PAP Government presented a programme of upgrading and other measures for the electorate to determine what they wanted and if they supported the upgrading and other measures or policies of the Government, then they should vote for the PAP. But if they were to support the platform of the opposition parties, then they were also equally free to vote for the opposition. From the last general election, we can see that most Singaporeans supported the PAP. Similarly in UK, the Labour Party presented to the electorate their own platform and they won the support of the people and they formed the Government. Of course, among the people we have some who support the opposition, and some for the ruling party. You cannot say that the people are divided as a result of the Government's platform and programme. You cannot use this kind of argument to say our election strategy is to divide the people. That is incorrect.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Can I make a clarification?

Dr Ker Sin Tze: ( In Mandarin): Let me finish my second point, please. Secondly, the Member for Hougang also said that the people were induced to vote for the PAP by material benefits offered by the Government. So they have lost their soul. I think this is insulting the people of Singapore. They treasured their rights to choose during the election. They assessed the capability of the four parties contesting the election and evaluated what they could do for them, and they finally made the wise decision in choosing the PAP. But the Member for Hougang said that they could not withstand the inducement and the threat by the PAP and they made the wrong choice. I think this is a great insult to the people of Singapore.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): First of all, I hope that Dr Ker would answer my question. The policy was introduced by the PAP and they claimed that it was a national policy. Now they are in power. Does this upgrading programme include the oppopsition constituencies? If they say that this is not just an election strategy of the PAP but a national programme, then does this apply to the whole of Singapore or just to part of Singapore?

Secondly, just now when I mentioned about the people losing their soul, it was not what I said. I was quoting from a letter written by someone to Mr Bai Shi De. I do not fully agree with what he said. Of course, I can understand that not everyone voted for the PAP just because of the upgrading. Because there may be some ardent supporters of the PAP. But I think we should not ignore such feelings of the people. So I hope Dr Ker will enlighten me.

Dr Ker Sin Tze: ( In Mandarin): Upgrading, as repeatedly pointed out by the Prime Minister, is the policy of the Government to help the people to improve their living environment. It was one of the programmes which the Government would implement if elected. By voting for PAP candidates, the electorate had signified their desire for and acceptance of the programmes including HDB upgrading, they should therefore be accorded with upgrading priority. As to the opposition wards, I do not think the Government will neglect them. As to the timing of implementation, we will have to look at the overall programme for the whole nation in terms of priority to determine when it will be the turn for the Opposition wards.

On the second point, the Member for Hougang clarified that what he mentioned about the people of Singapore having lost their soul was not his own statement. However, when he quoted somebody, he should at least indicate whether he has agreed or not with such a statement. So I would like to ask the Member for Hougang whether he has agreed with what was quoted by him. If he agrees with the quoted statement, it is an insult to the people of Singapore. It is an insult to the voters of Singapore.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): First of all, let me talk about what Dr Ker has said about insulting the people of Singapore. This is representative of how some people of Singapore feel. What we cannot ignore is that there are in fact some people who have such feelings. My purpose is to show the feelings of some of our people. The election strategy of the PAP has caused not only some Singaporeans but also foreigners to have such a wrong impression of the people of Singapore. This is not a good thing to us.

Just now Dr Ker said that he believed that the Government would also upgrade the flats of the opposition ward. I do not know why he said "he believed". Is he really sure that the Government will do that? Secondly, the Prime Minister had also said that if the people voted for the opposition, then the opposition wards will be falling behind and they will be degraded into slums.

Dr Ker Sin Tze: ( In Mandarin): I would like to respond to his statement that he was merely giving a feedback from the ground. But if what he had quoted in this House about the people being unable to withstand the material inducement of the PAP and have lost their soul was just to reflect the voice of the people, then I would ask him whether he agrees or disagrees with this view. If he does not agree, he should at least say that, "I do not entirely agree." Or he should criticise this kind of view. Otherwise, Members of this House would take it that he shares the view of the quoted statement.

Secondly, on upgrading of HDB flats, I said I believed that it was a matter of time that the Opposition wards would get upgrading, and the timing will be determined in accordance with the order of priority. I am confident that this will be the case. As to when this can be done, it will be decided by the Prime Minister.

Let me go back to what I ---

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Dr Ker, does it mean that if we wait long enough, we will get it? Is that what you mean?

With regard to the people losing the national soul, I have already clarified my stand. I did not say that all the people had lost their soul, but I believe some have.

Dr Ker Sin Tze: ( In Mandarin): As I said, it is question of time. As for how long the opposition wards will have to wait, that will depend on the performance and the effort of the Member for Hougang and other related factors.

Sir, since the election campaign in December last year, the Government has been taking to task the opposition candidate, Tang Liang Hong, for his chauvinistic bias. Chauvinists ignore the sensitivities of other races and they propound radical views. If such words are not stopped, it will cause suspicion and division among the various races to the detriment of our national stability and economic growth. I think it is very important that we should expose the true colours of chauvinists.

Tang Liang Hong came out as a champion of Chinese education and in the process he has caused some impact on the Chinese-educated. Some are sympathetic with his specious and confusing views. Some think that the Government has not been treating the Chinese-educated favourably and think that the Government is persecuting him. Some have doubts on the sincerity of the Government's effort in promoting Chinese education and the implementing bilingual education policy.

As a Chinese-educated myself, I fully understand their feelings. Before independence, Chinese students took part in student campaigns against the colonial government. Chinese education was under suppression and English education was supreme. At that time English was the language of the ruler, and Chinese was the language of the ruled. The Chinese-educated therefore felt indignant about it. After independence, the Government has been implementing bilingual policy so as to enable our students to master English as well as their mother tongue, and the status of Chinese language has been enhanced. But English remains as the working language of the Government, language.commerce, business, and therefore it is in the leading position. And those educated in Chinese feel that they are less competent in English and hence inadequate, or even feel that they are neglected. So the words of Tang Liang Hong have gained sympathy from these people and they will want the Government to pay attention to their feelings.

Is the Chinese language being suppressed, and has it caused its standard to be lowered? I often hear my friends from the Chinese-educated circle saying that the standard of Chinese is low in Singapore. And there are some other friends, especially those who are parents, feel that Chinese language texts are very difficult to understand and the demand on their children is too high. Of course, compared to my days, the contact hours for Chinese teaching have been reduced and it may have affected the standard of the Chinese language. But the actual standard of the Chinese language is determined by the interest and the effort of the students themselves. Among my friends, there are some who are strong in Chinese and some who are not so strong in Chinese. Those who were interested in the Chinese language spent a lot of time outside the curriculum to read books, newspapers, magazines and others. Of course, they have a better command of Chinese. Now the students, apart from their regular studies, have to allocate time to many extra-mural activities, computers and television. As a result, they have very little time left for reading Chinese magazines and Chinese literature. Of course, this affects their standard of Chinese. But individual students who have special interest in Chinese can opt for Higher Chinese, they can read Chinese magazines and Chinese newspapers. They can still attain a high standard of the Chinese language. SAP schools have provided a good environment for the learning of Chinese and Chinese traditional culture. Nobody can deny that Mandarin is more frequently spoken in Singapore now than 30 years ago. More Chinese students are speaking in Mandarin in schools and Chinese programmes over Channel 8 are very popular. This shows that it is wrong to say the Government has been suppressing the learning of the Chinese language.

We all agree that it is equally important to learn Chinese and English together. English is an international language and also a language for cross-community communication. English is also a very convenient language for business and administration. While we acknowledge the important of English in research, business and inter-communal communication, it is important also for us to know our own mother tongue for the preservation of our culture and our psyche. I hope that the Government will encourage the people to learn their mother tongue well in addition to the English language. In this way, we will be able to build a psyche of self-respect. We must be able to ensure that the students can use English competently in their work and can also understand our own culture and values system through the Chinese language. Students imbued with this language ability will be able to have a balanced development for themselves and to make greater contribution to the society.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

Sir, before I move into my speech, I was intrigued by the point raised by the Member for Hougang who stated that the free market policies which Government has been pursuing have been very divisive and are not good for Singapore as we try to build cohesion at the same time. I am intrigued. Perhaps he can elaborate and explain to this House the policies which we have pursued that have not been in the interest of Singapore and have been divisive. The Government has always made it very clear that in the areas of education, housing and health, the Government will provide subsidy. Outside of these three areas, I think the free market policy has always shown to be beneficial to us.

The recent general election in the United Kingdom has also shown very clearly that the Labour Party had to move to the centre. Had it not moved towards policies which are more in line with what the Tories, the Conservative Party, had been pursuing, it would never have been elected. In other words, even countries with staunch socialist instincts, very strong feelings for the underdog, have no choice but to move to the centre. And today the platform is that they even agree to nationalisation which is unheard of before the last general election.

I think it is very important to bear in mind that free market policies must always be pursued to prevent a situation whereby we misallocate our resources. To make sure that we do not have, as explained many times in this House by the Frontbench, a situation of distortion in demand. In other words, when you give things free, whether you are rich or poor, one will always take it. I think what is important is that the Member must understand that the policies which the Government pursues, should they affect any one particular segment of society, any one particular segment who are not able to pay for those services will be taken care of. It is very important that we must make sure that subsidies are allocated in a manner which will benefit those who are affected directly.

For example, in the case of transportation, a general subsidy is not going to help us improve our bus system and our mass rapid transit system. A general subsidy will only create inefficiency and over time, certainly a decline in the service. What the Member must realise is that subsidies must be applied directly and given to those who are affected by bus fare increases and MRT fare increases.

If the Member has anything to say, I am prepared to give the floor to him.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, Mr Chng has reminded the Government that it has to provide subsidy even if you apply the principle of a market economy. That was exactly what I meant. Because a market economy, carried to the full extent, means it depends on whether or not you can afford it. If you cannot afford it, so be it. And that is a market economy. There is no question of subsidy. I am glad that Mr Chng is aware that while applying the principle of a market economy, we must also take care of those who cannot pay and who cannot afford it, and that is why we need a society and a government.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Thank you very much. I am glad that the ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 4.30 pm. Moment of interruption. Debate to be resumed what day?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.