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

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [2nd June, 1997],

`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.".' - [Dr Wang Kai Yuen].

Question again proposed. 12.44 pm

Mr Ong Kian Min (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the hon. Member for Bukit Timah. The President, in his Address to Parliament, has emphasised the importance of strengthening our nation's competitiveness.

I believe this is particularly important as we stand at the threshold of the 21st century. The new millennium will be an era of high technology and rapid development. To highlight just how rapidly technology is developing, we would recall that back in the mid-1960s there were only a few hundred transistors on the computer chip. Today, there are 7.5 million for the most powerful computer and that number is doubling every two years.

With such exponential increase in processing power, the years ahead promise many exciting challenges. Singapore has risen to the challenge by keeping abreast of this rapid advancement. We are already making a headstart with programmes such as IT 2000 and Singapore One. Even for the young, $2 billion have been set aside in support of the IT programme for schools. We must continue to maintain this headstart using the best available technology for the continued progress of our nation.

Although we have done well over the past 30 years, we must not be complacent and take prosperity for granted. We must not delude ourselves into thinking that the tried and tested system that has produced good results in the past will continue to produce good results for the future. There are many examples of this fallacious thinking. A number of East Asian tiger economies which enjoyed high growth in the recent past are already facing rough economic weather. Even Japan, which remains by far the richest country in Asia, has suffered economically over the last few years. This has prompted its Prime Minister to call for drastic economic reform in his speech at the opening of the new parliamentary session early this year.

Looking at specific industries in Singapore, one area that demands our close attention is our role as a regional hub. An example is telecommunications. At present, we enjoy the position of being a telecommunications hub with signals from the regional countries being routed through Singapore. However, the industry is developing very rapidly and there is no intrinsic reason which dictates the location of a hub in Singapore as exists in the location of a seaport or an airport. Other countries are putting in place huge capacities to carry signals. Telecommunications giants are setting up worldwide alliances, such as Global One. The technology of telecommunications is such that signals which are routed through Singapore can easily be re-routed through other locations that have the carry capacity and offer it at a more competitive price. To enhance Singapore's position as a telecommunications hub, we have to put in place an integrated package of sensitive and appropriate regulations, high quality and time-effective operations and maintenance personnel, as well as being price competitive to promote that Singapore is a total business centre.

Closer to myself as a practising lawyer, similar trends are evident. Singapore is a hub for about 55 international law firms providing regional legal services. One issue which we should look into is how we can make Singapore law an "international commercial law" in the same way as English law and New York law function as international commercial law for international transactions. This requires that parties engaged in international transactions are confident that the commercial law is clear, predictable, modern, transparent and commercially relevant. All these qualities Singapore law shares with London and New York. This leads to the next question of how Singapore law firms can increase their role in this regional legal hub. We need to assess and examine how Singapore lawyers can widen their regional capacity and role.

With an ever-changing global environment, we must be prepared to put aside conventional wisdom in analysing emerging trends and developments and in working out solutions for Singapore. We must be nimble and ready to make swift changes and adjustments when the situation demands it.

To quote from Tennessee Williams, the US playwright:

`It is almost as if you were frantically constructing another world while the world you live in dissolves beneath your feet, and that your survival depends on completing this construction at least one second before the old habitation collapses.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, it must never be said of us that the time for change was yesterday.

Sir, I believe, if Singapore is to continue the economic miracle, it requires us to systematically identify our strategic advantages and weaknesses. We must build on our strengths and eradicate areas of weaknesses. I am confident that our fair and open meritocratic system is a sure foundation on which to consolidate the "Singapore Way" of organising ourselves and doing things.

We can build a "Singapore Cluster" comparable to successful "clusters" in industries, such as the Silicon Valley in the area of technology, or the City of London in the area of finance, or Hollywood in the movie industry.

As we advance into a highly technological 21st century, our concerns should include the building of a value system. This will unite our people and give us a firm base and a powerful platform to face the challenges of the future. Our togetherness and strong convictions will give us our cutting edge. A spirit of stalwart nationalism must accompany our strive for excellence.

Recent unrest that occurred in as diverse places such as Xinjiang province in distant China and Kalimantan in Indonesia stems from economic disparity between various segments of the population. Therefore, even at a time of good economic growth and prosperity enjoyed by a wide segment of our population, we must anticipate and address any disparity that may be building up between the successful and those who, relatively speaking, have not done as well.

Sir, I would urge the more successful, who are the beneficiaries of this system, to lend a helping hand to those who are less successful and give them hope to break out of their circumstances. Every Singaporean in every segment of our society has a part to play in sharing, building, encouraging and bringing out the best in one another. It is not only the Government helping the less fortunate. It is not merely the most successful at the top of the ladder helping the one at the bottom. But it is every Singaporean at every level helping those around him and it goes on down the line in a caring and sharing chain, right down to the last person. This way we can make Singapore a home where people feel bonded to one another and the country. Such close-knit local communities with dense interlocking relationships will produce a resilient society that can hold its own against the winds of change.

This spirit of mutual help and support should not be focused merely on people. Companies, businesses and all other organisations need help and support too. Singapore has only a population of 3 million. If we organise ourselves and work as individuals, we are only a nation of 3 million people. If we work smart, and work as a team, collectively we can be more than the individual parts put together.

For a small country like Singapore, the public and private sectors can and should work closer together to forge a trusting and symbiotic relationship. Home-grown businesses need help and support to compete more effectively in the regional and global markets. The public sector and Government-linked corporations can help and support them to focus their energies on competing more effectively overseas. The civil service has started to change its traditional functions as mere regulators. The private sector businesses welcome this. I look forward to the public sector evolving to become facilitators of business and growth.

Reciprocating, the private sector can contribute its ideas and expertise in planning for the needs of Singapore in the 21st century. It is heartening to note that at the macro level, the Government has formed the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness to chart the strategic direction for the country's economic growth. Such brainstorming involving the public and private sectors can be extended to and will be particularly useful in the development of public facilities and the delivery of quality public services.

To work as a team, we must learn to share, help each other, dwell deep into our internal strength as a united people so that collectively we can beat all external competition. We need to know our areas of strength and work in tandem with each other for the benefit of the whole. For such ties to form and work, we must believe that there is a much bigger world out there, and everyone can have more of the pie if we work together, instead of against each other.

One negative attitude which runs against the grain of nation building and the building of the team spirit is kiasuism. The war-cry of kiasuism is - "grab as much as you can for yourself, forget about others!" In kiasuism the focus is on "I" and "me". But, survival of our nation has to do with the "we" and "us". Kiasuism concentrates on personal survival but, as a nation, we must focus on the survival of the nation. We are a people with a big heart, not a people who want to grab all we can at the expense of others. There is enough for everyone if you are willing to work in tandem.

As individuals and Singaporeans, we must work as a nation and as a team. We must not merely look after our own interest, but the interest of our fellow citizens and nation. In place of kiasuism, let us make caring and sharing important values in our culture. As we move from the "I" orientation to the "we" orientation, we can ensure a legacy that will hold good for generations to come.

We have come a long way since independence. Today, we have much more resources than in 1965. With this strong base, we are in a much better position to compete in the increasingly competitive world markets and offer the generation to come a position of positive advantage to succeed in an even tougher millennium.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Bukit Timah): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we would like to thank the President for his Address on the Opening of this Parliament. I am confident that the people will give full support to the Government to make use of our favourable situation and opportunities now to realise the vision spelt out in Singapore 21.

The President's Address has given us confidence for the future, but there are also some points for us to ponder over. For example, the President said that we are much stronger than what we were in 1965 and there is no reason for us to flinch from difficulties. But the problem is, at this time when Singaporeans have almost everything, do we still have the type of unity and high morale like our leaders in the early days who fought against the Japanese, strove for independence, faced the threat from communism, solved the myriad of problems resulting from the separation from Malaysia, racial riots, etc? So, are Singaporeans today able to rise to the occasion to protect and to defend our own country? This is not a question of "able" (yes) or "not able" (no), but a definite "able" (yes). If we want to be first class citizens, we want to be masters of Singapore, we have to make it a strong "yes".

Our foreign reserves now stand at $107.7 billion, which ranks among the top ten in the world. We have a better economic structure and infrastructure; we have a better educational system, full employment and advanced national defence capability. But the question is: used to living in much better condition, are our younger generation able to face challenges with the same determination and undaunted fighting spirit of our first generation leaders?

I am very happy to note that the Government is now promoting the National Education programme. National Education must succeed. However, I hope that while promoting National Education, we must not forget the human factor, that is "EQ education". It is undeniable that we need to have good IT education and creative education so that we will be able to participate in the world-wide long-distance economic race and still remain in the leading position. Taking into consideration our present economic strength and our talent pool, there should be no problem. But the key issue is how to make National Education a success, and to ensure better cohesiveness among the people of Singapore in every generation. In this aspect, if we can pay more attention and place greater emphasis on "EQ education", we will be able to achieve double effect with half the effort.

What is Emotional Quantum education? It involves our outlook of life, work attitude and integrity. In recent years, the Prime Minister has been promoting team spirit, integrity, moral values, the proper attitude of learning excellent social culture values, arts, and to build up a gracious society. These are actually the main factors of "EQ education". The scope of EQ education is very broad. It is the control centre of our thinking. It controls our conduct and our lifestyle. The quality of EQ education would affect the political and social practice of the country and the quality of our people.

It involves the cultivation of our outlook of life, culture and arts, discipline, national character, courtesy, personality, ways of handling things, learning attitude, team spirit. For example, some soldiers are very highly patriotic and are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the nation, while some will betray the country for wealth; many people are disciplined and law-abiding, while some are prone to commit crimes; some people are serious in life, while others are happy-go-lucky; some people are prepared to sacrifice themselves for others while some are self-seeking. In addition, there are different emotions - happiness, anger, sadness, contentment, resentment, impatience, forgiveness, etc, which will affect the handling of marital and family relationships, public relations and communication with colleagues at work, boy-girl relationship, etc.

Our Government is clean and honest, fair and unbiased, and our people are law-abiding, hardworking and always striving to improve themselves. The success in EQ education has much to do with these. But in some countries, governments are corrupt and society generally depraved. This stems from the failure in their EQ education. We have to correct the biasness in the EQ education. Our emotional education is successful, especially at a time when everybody is talking about information technology and computers. There is nothing wrong with learning to use a computer, because I am also learning how to use it. Now everybody has a computer at home. When a young man comes home, what is the first thing he does? Does he go straight to the computer or does he greet his parents or his family first? There should be a balance between technology and the human factor.

According to a famous Japanese doctor, in his book A Great Revolution in the Brain World', he mentioned that emotion had a great effect on our health and on our attitude towards life. His theory is that we should balance the usage of the right and left parts of our brains. When we talk about the emotion, it refers to the right brain which controls our potential for music and the arts, and our feelings and emotion. The author pointed out that most of the time, people put too much emphasis on the left brain which controls their rational operation, such as administering language, computation, science and technology, and computer information, etc, and neglected the positive and negative effects of the right brain on conducting social communications. If a person is full of confidence in life, the brain will produce a secretion known as the B-endorphin which will make him even more willing to contribute to society. On the contrary, if a person is under stress and pressure and he doesn't know how to handle them, the brain will secrete a toxin known as Noradrenalin which will not only affect his health but also make him do something which is anti-social. In other words, if we want stronger cohesion among Singaporeans, we have to complement National Education with a balance between the left brain (rational) and the right brain (emotional) and place equal emphasis on material and spiritual advancement. How can we draw the people's attention to emotional education'? We have to promote `emotional education' through the school, the family (parents and grandparents) and the work place (superiors and subordinates).

(1) To foster teamwork and mutual help among students through the school.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the cultivation of EQ should start from the school. At a time when the Ministry of Education is placing a lot of emphasis on the gifted programme' and on teaching according to ability', we should not overlook the fact that streaming the children too early may make those in the Normal Stream, or even Express stream feel that they are born-losers or `second class'. The worst is even parents and teachers cannot bear such a stigma. It would have a very negative effect on the children. Since we have already set up a Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness to enhance our competitive edge, in order to inculcate in students and young citizens a sense of self-esteem and the willingness to contribute their best to their country, I hope the Ministry of Education will consider setting up a Committee of Specialised Education and invite educationalists, psychologists, scientists, sociologists and other experts who are specialised in the areas of education and children counselling to delve into the different stages of education for our students. Apart from encouraging students to exel in academic performance, the school can also group students into, say, teams of ten with similar learning ability to take part in after-school activities. This will not only improve individual performance, but also collective performance as a team. At the end of the year, some incentives, such as prizes for best team spirit based on their performance in their lessons, arts, sports, games, computer, etc. could be given. In addition, the schools can also reward the teams based on their attitude towards learning, scoial services, cooperation and leadership skills. The aim is to enable students of different talents to excel in their respective fields, be it arts, science, technical, music or sports. In addition, they will be able to work together as a group with the best team spirit. In this way, every child's talent will be put to optimum use to achieve the goal of the team as a whole.

Under these circumstances, we can, on the one hand, nurture future leaders and, on the other hand, encourage more students and the future workforce to develop a positive attitude towards learning and contributing ideas.

(2) Actively fostering Singaporeans' learning and working attitude through family and workplace.

It is not enough to depend on the school's efforts alone. The family, parents, government, various organisations, trade unions and employer's union can foster management's and workers' learning and working attitude through emotional Education' funded by the SDF. The Prime Minister had said that we must establish two long-term objectives - thinking schools and learning nation' in order to meet the challenges of the future and to encourage our younger generation's thinking ability and the urge to learn. These long-term objectives should therefore be extended to students, teachers, parents, workers, companies, social organisations and various Government departments. Singapore should draw up a long term plan for continuous learning and skills training and enourage parents and workers to adopt a positive attitude towards learning - while sailing against the current, if you do not move on, you will be moving backward' and learn as long as we live'. Everybody including professionals like doctors, lecturers, lawyers, engineers, and teachers, managers and other specialists must do so.

Besides, companies should not always complain about workers' attitude and the job hopping problem but from the focal point of EQ', companies should establish close rapport and good communication channel with employees, encourage their workers to respect and love their work' and contribute constructive suggestions to their companies. As the Prime Minister has said `not only does the management have to think, individual worker has to think too'.

When the Prime Minister met the workers and the unionists, he told them the story of a Japanese doorman. When the doorman in a Japanese company opens the door for the CEO, there is eye contact which means the CEO will ensure that the doorman is doing his job. We must care for our employees. When an employee falls sick and is unable to work, he may have lost his market value for a certain period, but you cannot just send him packing. Perhaps you do not know that the idea of hotels building their passenger lifts outside the buildings originated from a lift attendant of a hotel. When the management informed the workers that more lifts had to be built in the hotel to facilitate convenience to its guests, the lift attendant suggested, "Why do we have to interrupt our business to build more lifts? Why can't we build the lifts outside the hotel?"

So this idea of building the lifts outside the building came from a lift attendant, not from an architect. This ingenious idea of the lift attendant saved the hotel a lot of money and space. This has also prompted the management to pay more attention to suggestions from their employees thereafter.

(3) To establish stronger ties between the Government and people through the CDCs and grassroots leaders.

I think the CDCs and grassroots leaders should actively organise forums, dialogue sessions, etc. on National Education and emotional education. The media should also report objectively on National Education" related activities and emotional education' stories rather than crime stories and sensational news to attract the readers.

Our opposition parties and Members in this House should be united with the rest of Singapore to maintain the dignity and status of Singapore in the international arena. They should not join force with outside media to attack and damage the image of Singapore and her people. They should learn from the Japanese. When there are different opinions on or criticism against Government policies, they do it internally. They do not do it externally. In summary, when we are promoting social cohesiveness, we also have to pay attention to the `EQ development' of our people. Family education, school education, public education and productivity education, trade union education, civil defence education, and military education are equally important.

As we encourage Singaporeans to master IT, at the same time, we should also conduct a `revolution of the human brain' so that everybody will have a healthy mind in a healthy body. As long as everybody has a sense of self-esteem, and is prepared to acquire new experiences, new technology, changes and willing to improve himself, we will all be united. In this way, not only will we be a learning nation, we will also be a thinking people and a caring society. Everyone is a winner as long as we can live in a peaceful and stable country. Our social cohesion will be stronger than ever, our nation rock-firm and our homes sweet and warm. 1.12 pm

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have given notice of my amendment to the reply to the President. I propose to read my amendment and then move it before I return to my seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment is that the words:

`but regret that the President makes no mention at all of how our citizens will be prepared to meet the challenges ahead.' be added at the end of the reply in the motion. I will, as I said, formally move this before I return to my seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last eight days of 1996 and the first two days of this year, the people witnessed a spectacle that has left a trauma in the minds of many of our citizens. It is not just in the minds of those who had to take part in this event, but in the minds of many who were unable to take part but were equally concerned in the result.

The event, Mr Speaker, Sir, was to be an event and opportunity for our people to elect who they would have as their speakers in this House of the people to raise their grievances, to raise their aspirations and their hopes. In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was to give them an opportunity to participate in the decision-making of this country, to have a say on their behalf before decisions affecting them are made. It was to be an event between political parties offering their candidates to the voters as the better able to represent them in this House, and to bring their grievances and their views - their dissenting views, let it be said - in this House so that they may be taken note of and considered before any decisions are made by the Executive. That is all it was meant to be, Mr Speaker. It was not an occasion for choosing a government. That had already been decided by the Government that went out of office. By a number of measures, they made sure that they would continue as the government of the day after the elections. So, as I have said, it was simply an opportunity for the voters of Singapore to decide who should speak for them, who should bring their views into this House, to be considered before decisions are made. They expected to exercise their minds on this choice freely without any fear or any compunction. But, unfortunately, the event was turned into something quite different.

The spectacle that our country witnessed was the spectacle of a Government because, as I said, the Government was already in place on nomination day, it was the spectacle of a Government fiercely determined to hold on to its power, fiercely determined to deny the people any say in the decision making processes of this country, a say that the people had been clamouring for, a say that the people were longing for, but we had a Government determined to deny them. Nowhere was this more evident - this contest of a Government determined to deny the people a say in decision making and a people clamouring for a say in decision making - than in the election at Cheng San GRC. The voters in Cheng San GRC were left with the clearest message coming from the Government of the day - let us not forget that; it is not a party which was sending the message, but the Government - the clearest message that if the voters decided in their foolishness, so it seemed, to choose people other than those sent by the Government to represent them in this House, if they were so foolish enough, then they would lose everything. This was brought home on the eve of polling day by no less a person than the Prime Minister of this country. Speaking at his eve of poll rally, he told the voters - I do not know how many of the voters were there; that is another story - the one or two thousand people who were assembled there, that if the voters of Cheng San voted for other than the men the Government had sent to represent them in this House, they would lose everything. It was, as he put it, win big, or lose all. It was all or nothing, and the voters can ponder over it, he said. And, of course, our ever faithful press in Singapore blazed this message on their front pages on polling day.

On polling day, this determination of the Government to deny the people any say was brought home again by the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers swooping down on the polling stations in Cheng San so that the voters who came to vote would be left in no doubt at all that the Government meant business. It was a Government to be taken seriously. The Prime Minister was there; the two Deputy Prime Ministers were there. This, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, was in clear violation of the provision in the Parliamentary Elections Act, and we are still waiting to know whether any action would be taken for this clear violation of the Parliamentary Elections Act. So is it any wonder that a significant portion of the voters perhaps were not prepared to lose everything. As the Prime Minister had said, either win big, or lose all. And so they were not prepared, and so we have it that the Government won the day at Cheng San.

But it was made quite clear by the Senior Minister himself that it was the Government which was putting its head on the line in Cheng San. If people chose somebody else other than the Government men, it was the Government that would lose, not the People's Action Party. Therefore, the people had to take a very firm note. Enough of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, but it forms, as it were, if I may say so, a backdrop of what I have to say.

Sir, for sometime before the elections - if I may call it not really elections but a sham of elections - the Ministers were proclaiming in their speeches, were telling our citizens of the challenges that lay ahead in the 21st century, and how Singapore would have to be prepared and ready to meet the challenges. But, of course, we never heard any of these plans on the part of the Government to prepare Singapore to meet the challenges. All that was swept aside during the election campaign. I thought that perhaps the President's Address containing as it is the Government's programme for the next five years would have something to say about how our people would be prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as has been stressed by some speakers before me, it is not the technological advances; it is not the improvements in our infrastructure, it is our people who are going to see whether we prosper, we go forward in the 21st century. It is our people who take the responsibility for the future of Singapore. With respect to Mr Goh Chok Tong and the Cabinet, the responsibility is not theirs. The responsibility is the people's responsibility. And if the people are to take this responsibility, they have to be given the equipment, the baggage, that is necessary for them to take this responsibility. They cannot go into the 21st century with the baggage of the 18th century when decisions were made by just one man or by a minority and the people were left merely to obey or to take the consequences of not obeying. Countries have moved forward from that and it is the people who are clamouring everywhere for a share in the decision making and to be equipped to make the decisions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we have to learn is to be able to trust our people, that our people have the intelligence and the capabilities to safeguard Singapore's future. It is when decisions are made on the collective wisdom of our people that the country can survive. A government that relies on the fear of the people is not a democratic government that rules by the people partaking in the decisions. A government that rules by fear is a Mafia government and, Mr Speaker, Sir, I know a number of Members will rise and say I am talking nonsense. But I have found in this country a fear that grips our people. It is to that I must now turn.

The President in his Speech made some mention of the need for bringing the people in. He says, and I quote:

`We will build a nation where everyone has a stake in Singapore's success, feels a sense of belonging and ownership and wants to contribute to make Singapore our best home.' I say "Amen" to that. But how do we do it? That is the question. I am sad to see that, after those noble words, the Address says nothing at all of how this is to be achieved. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it has fallen on my Party, through the Member for Hougang and myself here, to bring to this House how this bonding of our people, as some Members have said, and as the Member for Hougang has said, of giving our people a sense of identity so that they feel part of one nation, the closeness of being together can be brought about. The first thing, of course, is that we have got to remove the fear.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the risk of repetition, may I say that no people will accept responsibility unless they share in the decision making of that country. It is no good preaching to them about being loyal to the country, about putting the country first unless they feel that they have a share in the decision making. So I say that we should first remove this fear of our people in participating in the decision making. Of course, immediately what comes to mind, and this is the first thing that we have got to do, is to abolish the law providing for detention without trial. That is an anachronism which has no place in a modern civilised society, which we claim to be. That was introduced as an emergency measure to fight an Emergency that was gripping the country. But today there is no Emergency. There is no threat and yet we carry this law in our statute books. They remain as a permanent signal to our citizens that if they should step out of line, they may be picked up and detained. So we have got to abolish detention without trial. It is totally unnecessary and it is a negation of the rule of law.

The second thing we have got to do is to establish the rule of law and, as I said, detention without trial is a negation of the rule of law. But it is not just that. The rule of law requires that citizens know their rights, know what their rights are and know that the law will protect their rights from the Government. From the enforcement agencies, it requires that the Government acts under law. It requires that Government officers carrying out any actions act under the law. Time does not permit me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to elucidate all the instances and to support what I will say in the course of my speech, but I hope we can find time to discuss this further. So the second thing is to establish firmly the rule of law.

Thirdly, we have to remove immediately all impediments or curbs on the right of free speech and assembly. We have got to tell our citizens in ringing tones that it will not be an offence for them to speak out, even if it is in dissent of the Government's policies or Government's actions. We have got to tell our citizens that they do not have to go to the police and beg for a permit to hold an assembly. We do not have to tell our citizens that they have to go and have a police permit if they wish to hold a peaceful procession to express their views. That seems to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, is essential if our citizens are to be allowed a share in decision making, which is what they want. We have got to give them the opportunity to stand up in the public place and say, "I do not agree with this", not in meetings arranged by the Residents' Committees or by community centres which are all agencies of the Government.

In line with that, Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that it is time that we looked at our defamation laws and our contempt of court laws. It is not only in America, it is in Europe, in England and in other countries that the courts have recognised that the laws of defamation should not unnecessarily, I say unnecessarily, restrict the right of the citizens to criticise public officials in the discharge of their public office. It has been recognised in America for longer than in other countries. It has been recognised by the European Courts of Justice for some time and it is even now recognised in the common law of England. So it is time for us to look at our laws of defamation and equally with the contempt of court.

The laws on the contempt of court have undergone a substantial revision. But we still hold on to the old laws in Singapore. It is time we looked at that. The courts, like anyone else, are not above criticisms. Government is not above criticism. The ruler is not above criticism. No one should be above criticism.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the thing that we have to do is to see that our citizens are supplied with the information that they need to take the responsibility for this country to make the decisions that are necessary for the welfare of this country. We need a Freedom of Information Act. We should look at that quite seriously. The business of Government cannot be transacted behind closed doors. There are, of course, some things which cannot be made public, like the security arrangements or our defence capability. But there are lots of other things which should be brought out into the open so that the citizens are better informed and are better equipped to make the decisions. On this, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need a respectable newspaper in this country, not a newspaper or press that slavishly repeats everything that the Government has to say and put out. So it is, in my respectful submission to this House, that we can go forward into the 21st century ready to meet any challenges that lie ahead. I am very confident that our people are able to if you provide them with the necessary information -

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, you have used up your time. Can you move your amendment? You have used up the 30 minutes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: My time is up. Yes, I will stop.

I beg to move,

at the end, to add,

`but regret that the President makes no mention at all of how our citizens would be prepared to meet the challenges ahead.'

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

`but regret that the President makes no mention at all of how our citizens would be prepared to meet the challenges ahead'.

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

Hon. Members have before them the Notice of Amendment filed by Mr Jeyaretnam. Debate will now be confined to the amendment.

Mr Lim Swee Say (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond to the amendment proposed by the NCMP.

I would like to speak against this amendment. The NCMP, in proposing this amendment, has made a few baseless allegations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time I, as a Member of Parliament, am sitting in this Parliament. When I look at the last three days' debate, I thought it was meaningful, it was responsible. It is like having three persons standing in front of a cup which is half filled with water. Someone will come out to say the cup is half empty. The other person says, "No. I disagree. The cup is half full." And the third person says, "No. The cup is 50% H2O, 10% O2 and 40% nitrogen." All the three points of view are valid, even though we may disagree with each other. Because it is based on different perceptions, different perspectives, founded upon some sense of reality. So when the NCMP proposed this amendment, the thought that came to my mind is like having a fourth person come along to say, "All of you are wrong because this cup is empty."

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it possible that everyone of us is so blinded that we could not see that there is nothing in the cup? Having listened to the NCMP's deliberation, I came to realise that what the NCMP is saying is not that the cup is empty but the cup does not contain the kind of liquid that he is looking for. Sir, everyone of us would like to drink our cup of water. I think it is very unfair for the NCMP to try to impose on the kind of water that every Singaporean ought to drink.

Here I would like to share my own personal experience. A few days ago, I read the e-mail via the Internet talking about a young man. He is always very positive, very constructive. And his friends ask him, "How do you manage to be so positive, constructive all your life?" He said the answer is simple: "It is all a matter of attitude." He said, "Every morning when I wake up, I look at the mirror, I ask myself: Should I be in a good mood today or should I be in a bad mood today?". And he said, "I always choose to be in a good mood. When I come across any unfortunate incident, I can choose either to be a victim of the circumstances or I can choose to learn from this experience." And he said, "I always choose the latter so that I can become a better person all the time." So one day, he was unfortunate to be shot by a gun. They sent him to hospital. And lying on his operation bed, he looked at the eyes of the doctor, he could tell he must be very seriously injured, because he could tell that the doctor, more or less without telling him, was saying that, "Look. I am looking at a dead man." Before the doctor operated on him, the nurse asked him, "Are you allergic to anything?" He said, "Yes." And everybody stopped because they wanted to find out what he was allergic to. And he said, "I am allergic to bullets. Can you please do your best, remove these bullets in my body." The doctor, the nurse, they laughed. They operated on him. They did their best. But because of his will to survive, because of this expert skill of the doctor, of the surgeon, he survived this operation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to share with the NCMP that many Singaporeans today support this Government because when we look back to history, in 1965 when Singapore became independent, we were very much like this young man who was seriously injured, lying on the operation bed. The same thing between Singapore and this young man is that we both have the will to survice. But there is a big difference. In the case of this young man, he has a doctor, a surgeon who has the duty to perform his best to rescue him. But in the case of Singapore, when we became independent, when we were in great difficulties, nobody else in this world, except Singaporeans, has any duty or responsibility to do anything to help us. Therefore, the reason why we get to where we are today is because all Singaporeans were working together as a team, as a united people, under the very able leadership of the Government. That is why we have succeeded.

The NCMP said that the way we went about campaigning, we denied the people of Singapore the right to choose the leaders to represent them in this House. This cannot be furthest from the truth. You see, what the NCMP has to understand is the aspirations of the Singaporean. The Chinese has a saying,

(shui wang di chu liu, ren wang gao chu pa). The point here is this: water, by nature, will flow downwards but human beings (people) have aspirations, they want to do better every day, they want tomorrow to be better than today. Why did the people, given the choice to elect the party to represent them, choose the PAP? Why did they not vote for the Workers' Party, and so on? The NCMP would like to believe that this is because we leave the people no choice, and I would like to counter this point.

I believe that the people of Singapore voted for PAP because they all want to have a better future not only for themselves but for their children. I have gone through three recessions in my life. The first time was in 1974 when I was studying in the United Kingdom. At the point in time, due to the hike in oil prices, the global economy moved into recession. The second time was in 1985/86 when Singapore experienced negative growth. And the third time was in 1991 when I was assigned to be based in New York to take charge of the international operation of the Economic Development Board.

Having gone through three recessions, my feeling is that, firstly, any country, any economy is likely to experience ups and downs. It is unavoidable. The question is: is it more ups or more downs, and how high are the ups and how low are the downs? Secondly, what is even more striking to me was the way UK, US and Singapore, with a different sense of urgency, responded to the recession. In 1974 in UK; in 1991 in US, I did not sense that there was any sense of panic in the people. You see, these countries, they are big, they have tremendous resources, they have world-class technology. So to them, a recession is something they will eventually get out of. It is just a matter of time. So sometimes they work faster, sometimes they work slower.

In 1991, in USA, they went through what we call the double dip. They went down, they came up. But before they had gone back on track, they came down again. And they took their time, they went up again. But in the case of Singapore, in 1986, when there was a recession, I could sense there was a great deal of concern. Many Singaporeans were concerned whether we would be able to get out of the recession, and whether that would be the end of Singapore. In fact, this is the reason why property prices dropped drastically in 1986.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my point here is that for a big country, nation building is not an easy task. It is like climbing a mountain. The higher you go, the more difficult it is. And if you were to fall down, the more you have to lose. In the case of Singapore, being a small country, we are in a much worse position. In a big country you can climb mountain. In a small country, like Singapore, there is no mountain to climb. We go down the river. In fact, we do not go down the river. We go up the river. In fact, the way we build our nation is like the Chinese saying, (ni shui xing zhou). It is a small boat trying to move upstream.

For a big country, why do I say this way? In a big country, when they have a problem, when there is a recession, when they are tired, they can take a break, they can have a debate, an argument. When the debate is over, when the rest is over, they pick up their backpack and they carry on. In a small country, imagine if the members from this small boat along the way, instead of paddling together in sync, some members like to take a rest and therefore you have less people contributing to the effort; worse still, some people want to create different opinions, want to move in different directions, why move upstream when it is so difficult, why do we not go downstream, it is easier. Can you imagine if the teamwork is broken, if the cohesion is broken? Then it is the end of this boat, because not only this boat will be pushed downstream; worse still, it may even capsize and disappear forever.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my submission is that the people of Singapore voted for the PAP not because they were deprived or denied the freedom to choose their leaders but because they share this common aspiration of making Singapore our best home in the 21st century. Many opposition Members here keep on saying that the PAP Government says one thing and does another thing. We talk about cohesion, at the same time we try to divide the society through MUP priority and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to give another example to explain that what the PAP is doing is what the people believe as well. Two years ago, when I was still with the EDB, the Chairman of a leading MNC met our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister asked him this question: "Do you have any plan to invest in Asia-Pacific?" This Chairman said, "Obviously. Asia-Pacific is growing so fast, expanding so fast. Obviously I have a lot of plans to invest more in the Asia-Pacific." So our Prime Minister asked him, "Where will you consider to invest?" His reply was: "It depends on how much investment I am talking about. If I am investing $5 million, there are many locations in Asia-Pacific I could consider. But if I am thinking of investing $50 million, then the list is shortened to maybe five to seven locations. But if the investment amount is $5 billion, or $500 million, then the list is not more than three." And the Prime Minister asked him: "Would Singapore be one of the three?" And he said, "Certainly, yes. Not because you have world-class workforce, not because you have world-class business infrastructure but, more importantly, you have a stable policy, you have a stable government, stable society."

Sir, the point here is that when an investor has to look for a location to invest $500 million, $5 billion, it will take him at least 10, 20 years to recover his investment. And for that, it is very important that there is stability in all the policies in the investment environment. So can we imagine, in the last general election, if the ruling Party, the PAP, had lost in Cheng San, if the ruling Party did not have a landslide victory in the last general election, what kind of signal are we giving to the global investment community? Would that Chairman who spoke to the Prime Minister and many chairmen of many other MNCs consider to bring their best, world-class, high-tech industries to Singapore? The answer is, at best, maybe or, at worse, no.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the reason why the people in Cheng San voted for the PAP is that they value the values, the aspirations, the vision conveyed, promised by the PAP through Singapore 21. I believe that they do so because they want their children to have a better life, they want all these investors to come to Singapore to create better jobs, better pay, better future for their children. Of course, the NCMP will argue that money can buy a house, but cannot buy a home. I agree with that. The question is this. If the people have to choose between a better house or a warmer home, I think some, hopefully a majority, will go for a warmer home. But this is not what we are talking about in Singapore 21. In Singapore 21, we did not say that Singapore 21 is towards a poor but happy future. We said that Singapore 21 is to make Singapore our best home in the 21st century. And when we said "best home", we are saying that yes, we want to build a comfortable home, a comfortable living environment for our people and, at the same time, make sure that there will be very strong social cohesion so that this nicer house will also be a better home. And this is what we meant by the best home.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having thought through very carefully what the NCMP had said, I cannot but come to the conclusion that there is no basis at all for this amendment proposed by the NCMP. I therefore beg this House to vote against this amendment proposed by the NCMP.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, by clarification, first of all say that I was not trying to impose my views on the people. I was merely making a plea for them that their views be heard, let them make the decisions. That is all that I was trying to say.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon. Member, if he says that the aspirations of the people lie with the PAP and that is why they have voted the PAP, to explain how is it that we had 50,000 people coming to listen to us? [Laughter.] Well, you may laugh, but that was the estimate that was given to me and half of them must have come from Cheng San itself. It is because they wanted us to translate for them what their hopes and aspirations were? Is he saying that it is not the aspiration of the people to want a greater say in the decision-making in this country?

Mr Lim Swee Say: Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to respond. Firstly, I did not say that the people do not want to participate more in the decision-making. My point is that the people have voted along the line of their aspirations. The NCMP mentioned that there were 50,000 people who attended the rally. In fact, I am very happy to hear so, because a better informed voter is a wiser voter. The fact is that having listened to the Singapore 21 from the PAP and they went on to listen to the WP and various parties, and having listened to all of them, they still came to the conclusion that the PAP is the party that they would like to support. I think that reinforces their commitment to work together to pursue this vision of building Singapore as their best home in the 21st century.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Cheng San): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have yet to make my maiden speech but I suppose the maiden has to wait because I cannot let the NCMP get by with his remarks. I am speaking here not just because I stood for election at Cheng San but because, as a Singaporean, I am very proud of our achievements and, in fact, we are seriously preparing for the challenges of the 21st century.

We all know that thinking is indeed in the air. We have this thinking conference in Singapore but, unfortunately, thinking does not seem to permeate the air evenly. I enjoy watching the film `Godfather' although I cringed sometimes at the violence in the film. But it is just incredible for me to accept that I am now considered as a member of a mafia government. It is just shameless to say that hon. Members here are now belonging to this mafia government and he calls it a "shameless" election. Is it shameless?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sham.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: It was a sham, he said. I think it is shameless to call that a sham. Because I stood for election in Cheng San together with my team and I think we all fought very hard for the election and, to us, it was a contest of ideas. We were able to go down the ground, meet the people and they were all debating issues, ideas and programmes which we had to come forth with our own explanations. And I believe that we won because we were the better team. To me, it was real democracy at work and it has proven to be fruitful.

On the question of violation of the Parliamentary Elections Act, yes, there were allegations. There were also allegations made against me as a candidate in Cheng San. We have given our response and I find the allegations not only baseless but meaningless. So we should just wait for the outcome of the investigations rather than listen to the NCMP wanting to know what action needs to be taken now.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the reason why he is calling for an amendment to the motion, I find it simply unacceptable because we have been sitting here for the last few days listening to hon. Members talking about what we have to do to prepare for the challenges of the 21st century. If the President had not raised those issues in his Address, I cannot think that as though our Members here are just imagining those things. So I must say that, in fact, it is ludicrous to suggest an amendment because the President had not mentioned about how to prepare our people for the challenges of the 21st century.

On the question about the press, I do not think I will have the time to answer it today, but just to say that coming from the press before, I do not think the press will want to be slavish to the ideas of the NCMP. And let it be said that in presenting the aspirations of the people, I hope the opposition Members will understand that it is never the monopoly of the opposition.

The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Sir, I rise to speak against the amendment.

Sir, the NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, has called the election a spectacle that left Singaporeans in a trauma. The only spectacular thing that occurred was, of course, the strong endorsement the people gave to the PAP Government. And far from being a spectacle that left Singaporeans in a trauma, it was a spectacular endorsement that made Singaporeans more confident of their future. I think this shows how much Mr Jeyaretnam is out of touch with the ground.

After the election, with a strong PAP Government in place, I think Singaporeans feel more confident of their future. So I would call it, in fact, a resounding endorsement of what the PAP has done all these years as well as of its policies and programmes for the future. In fact, it can even be said that if Mr Jeyaretnam calls it a sham election, in a sense he is insulting the intelligence of Singaporeans. Because, if indeed it is a sham, instead of being a free and fair election that it is, then Singaporeans will see through it. But there is no hue and cry.

Mr Jeyaretnam alludes to alleged violations under the Parliamentary Elections Act. Yes, reports have been made. Because these are serious matters, the police has very carefully investigated these reports and interviewed many people concerned which I think Mr Jeyaretnam is aware of, including both PAP leaders as well as opposition leaders and others involved. The case is now referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers. So like what Mr Zainul Abidin says, let us wait and see what the outcome will be.

The next point I want to make is that Mr Jeyaretnam talks about the President's Address not being people focused. If you really look at the Address very carefully, you will see that the people are in the centre of it, whether it is heavy investment in education, fostering racial harmony, training and retraining, or encouraging greater voluntarism in CDCs, getting people to come forward to serve. I think all these talk about getting more Singaporeans involved in helping to shape the Singapore society.

Let me now go on to my next point. Mr Jeyaretnam, being the seasoned and experienced politician that he is, brings out the old refrain that Singaporeans live in fear. I would just like to say that if he really talks to Singaporeans, young Singaporeans in particular, they are very expressive, they are very vocal and some of them give very good constructive criticisms even of the Government which I think young people are wont to do. And it is all right as long as these are responsibly made and they have thought through their comments. So I do not think Singaporeans live in fear.

He talks about some laws which reinforce this fear. This is not the place for a full debate. But I think it warrants a reply to some of the points that he has made. The point is whether or not there is a place for the ISA in modern day Singapore. This point has been made before. Let me just say it again here. We must not be complacent. We must not be taken in by the relative peace and calm in Singapore. We are a complex society with fault lines and things can go awry quite quickly. Therefore, there is a place for the ISA in Singapore to deal with matters such as racial and religious extremism, international terrorism, espionage and even subversion.

And indeed, the ISA had been used in the 70s against Chinese chauvinists who attempted to whip up Chinese communal feelings and gut issues of race, language and culture in the Nanyang Siang Pau. In 1985, two Singaporeans were detained for facilitating the supply of arms to terrorist group abroad. And in 1987, - these are just examples that the ISA still has relevance today - four Malays were detained for spreading rumours of impending racial clashes and making active preparations for communal disturbances.

So let me just say that there is a place for the ISA as well as for the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) which also provides for detention without trial. Again, we see that all is pleasant and calm in Singapore. But even though we do not have the fears of secret society gangs of old, this is a problem that needs tending all the time, particularly in view of the international situation - Hong Kong returning to China and a possibility of triads coming to Singapore. We debated this in the House when we renewed it for another five years. There is certainly a place for the CLTPA in modern day Singapore.

The other point which, in fact, quite surprises me is that Mr Jeyaretnam talks about whether or not there is a rule of law in Singapore. I think all Singaporeans will say that we indeed respect the rule of law in Singapore. The rule of law is embodied in our judges who are respected not just in Singapore but in other countries as well. People come to study our judicial system. The Chief Justice has instituted many improvements to the legal system. There is certainly the rule of law where decision-making is transparent. Decisions are made, judgments are written, they can be appealed against. So I think it is really something that we should state in this House that, yes, we respect the rule of law in Singapore and the rule of law is firmly established in Singapore where people know their rights, our statutes are published, they are available, people know where they stand with regard to possible violations and offences. And, of course, the point to note is that with rights come liabilities. Maybe that is the point I think all of us should note. Yes, there are rights, but just as there are rights, there must be liabilities.

The next point is right of free speech in assembly. Yes, that is a constitutional provision. It is enshrined there. But, again, all of us know that in a society, a balance is needed. Just as a person has a right to speak, another person will have a right for his reputation not to be maligned, to protect and defend his reputation. And, particularly, in Singapore which is multi-racial, multi-lingual, the right of free speech must be tempered with the realities of Singapore society.

The Member brings up points like police permits for public speeches and processions. In Singapore, again, public law and order is something that we are very proud of. Singaporeans feel entirely safe and secure. This is one thing that we are very proud of and which we will jealously guard. Yes, we are opening up. Singapore society is opening up - culture and arts are more lively. But where law and order concerns come into play, we must draw a line.

The next point he talks about is our defamation laws. I am quite surprised that he brings out as examples the US defamation laws. Again, here we must be very clear that defamation laws are there to protect the reputation of members of a particular society. Even though the defamation laws in Singapore are based on the common law, there are developments. The UK, for example, being part of the European Community, will have to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties. Therefore, it is not quite right to say that we must follow blindly or fully developments overseas with respect to defamation laws which must be society biased.

I think these are the points I want to make which I feel ought to be made. I hope that Mr Jeyaretnam will be very open to what has happened in Singapore over the last 10-15 years. I think if you look around you, you are objective, you look at it not in a political partisan way, you will see that Singaporeans do not live in fear. Singaporeans are very proud of what we have achieved. Singaporeans feel very much a part of society to which they contribute in many ways. Singaporeans will speak up when they need to and indeed there is a general atmosphere of confidence in Singapore that if we pull together, led by a strong Government, supportive people, everybody working together and taking in all points of views, we will indeed make great progress.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang has the floor. Order. Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment, especially on the proposal that we should review our defamation laws. Before I go to that, first of all, I wish to speak on the question raised by Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee on the question of fear. Yes, there is fear in Singapore. Let me recount my personal experience before the last election when my party was trying to find a printer to print our election posters. Many printers I approached were fearful of the repercussions, whether the authorities might check their premises or their printing licence may not be renewed, or things like that. I cannot substantiate that because no one is going to come forward and say all these things. They are fearful of that. That is my personal encounter.

Secondly, Sir, we approached certain people who had the intention or were prepared to be candidates but, at the end of the day, they were also fearful of their jobs. Whether these are perceived fears or not, I cannot substantiate. I have to make it clear here. Whether it is perceived or it is a real fear, anyway, there is a fear and it is alive in Singapore. Let me tell you this.

I told Mr Ong Ah Heng yesterday. If you look around the coffeeshops, of course, they would not tell you that they are PAP members. If you go around and ask for support, they tell you that life will be difficult for them if they support the opposition.

An hon. Member: How are you here?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: That is another matter. There is fear. Clearly, there is fear. How am I here? It is because of the determination and courage of the voters in Hougang. So I am here. We are talking about fear. There is fear. These are totally two different issues.

Why do I talk about defamation laws? I am not a lawyer. I do not know. But what I am puzzled is that to me, I have the impression that everything can be defamatory, because it can be an innuendo, depending on the interpretation. I do not know where the line is drawn. I think that will not be conducive to expression of criticisms against the Government, criticisms against certain policies because you do not know where the line is going to be drawn.

Sir, I now wish to move to the Member, Mr Lim Swee Say, who talked about the past history of Singapore. Yes, I think our political leaders, the PAP Government, were capable to lead us from where we were. I admit that. But do not forget one thing. Without the political will of Singaporeans at the point in time to support and rally behind the PAP Government, we will not succeed. So do not say that the contribution was all from the PAP Government. I say it is wrong.

Mr Lim Swee Say rose ---

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, may I make a point of clarification? What I said earlier was that Singapore is where we are today because Singaporeans had contributed their effort and that we had worked together as one united people under the leadership of the Government. I did not deny the effort of the people. In fact, I said that it was the teamwork between the people and the Government.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: OK, that is fair. Let us not forget that Singaporeans made a great contribution.

Sir, Mr Lim also talked about a Chinese phrase shui wang di chu lui, len wang gao chu pa, water flows naturally down to the lower plains, and people have aspirations to climb upwards. I think what is important here is that we have to ask at what expense to climb upwards, and not just to climb upwards. Yes, there are aspirations.

He also mentioned about his experience in the EDB and investment in Singapore. If the PAP has no landslide victory, there will be no investment and investors would lose confidence. I remember these are old sayings that I used to hear. If you ever elect the opposition into Parliament, investors will be frightened out of Singapore. In the 1991 election, we had four opposition Members. Were any investors frightened out of Singapore? I would like to know.

On the contrary, Sir, I believe investors are looking for political maturity of the country to invest in. You have a mature political system, you have mature opposition, I think investors will have more confidence to invest in.

Next, I would like to move on to the last election which the Member here says that there were a lot of choices. But the fact remains that the voters in the last election faced tremendous pressure from the PAP, not so much whether we vote in a good government but what they were going to lose if they voted for the opposition. I have some records of what was said and reported in the Straits Times on the election. Let me quote. The Prime Minister himself said, "If they turn it down, they don't get it." He was talking about upgrading. "That is what elections are all about." He said, "Opposition wards will still get a chance to enjoy upgrading programmes if they back these programmes at future elections. If they do not want upgrading, there is no way I can give to them. And later on if they want upgrading, somewhere in between elections, I would say wait until the next elections." The message is clear.

He also said, "If voters choose the opposition, their neighbourhoods will not be improved. Their children will not benefit from schemes like Edusave, Medisave and all that." So these are threats to the voters.

Sir, in the President's Address, it says that no part of Singapore should be left behind as we progress. The President also said that if some segments of society feel neglected or alienated, Singapore will start to unravel. I would expect the PAP Government to come to their senses, after the election, to remove the unfair policies that would divide Singapore. And one particular example is the question of priority in upgrading.

A Member said, "We cannot do everything together. It is either this one first or that one first." Fair enough. But what is the principle of priority you are going to set? The moment you bring the principle of priority to the vote, you are dividing Singaporeans into PAP Singaporeans and non-PAP Singaporeans. The PAP Singaporeans will be given priority, whereas non-PAP Singaporeans will not. The moment you link the priority principle to the vote, as I said in my speech, that will not make a united Singapore. Even within the same PAP constituency, for instance, people would doubt each other. For instance, one precinct was upgraded first. The other was not. As the Prime Minister has said, he is the agent, he would know which precinct has given more support for the PAP, and thereby they will get the priority. I will be doubting. If I do not get upgraded, even though I voted for the PAP, I say, "Maybe you are the one who sabotaged. You did not vote for PAP and thereby we do not get the priority." You are creating the differences in terms of human relations, within a small community or a small precinct. Is that how you are going to build social cohesion in Singapore?

Sir, if we are serious about building a cohesive society and a united nation, it is important for the PAP Government to be fair. I am not saying the People's Action Party. If it is your own money, it is all right, you can give whatever priority and use your money. But the money is the people's money, as what the Senior Minister has said, and every Singaporean has a share in this money. All of us contributed. Mr Lim has admitted, every Singaporean has contributed. Let us treat all Singaporeans fairly and do not link whatever Government schemes to political support. The moment you link a Government scheme which uses the Government's money with political support, you are giving yourself, the PAP, a party political benefit. That is wrong, and you will have a divided society, dividing into PAP supporters and non-PAP supporters. This concerns very personal matters of interest, and that is bad.

On that note, Sir, I support the amendment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask for a clarification?

Mr Speaker: All right, I will allow your clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the last speaker but one seems to imply that the last election has not left any trauma in the minds of our people, which is what I was saying. Has he not seen the report in the papers of the Prime Minister's statement - I see the Prime Minister has just walked in - that it was time to heal the wounds. What wounds were he talking about? If it were not wounds inflicted in the last election, I should like to know what wounds were the Prime Minister talking about?

Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member was saying that we need the ISA and we need the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Is he not aware that there are other provisions in the law to deal with any incitement to disorder on religious or racial grounds? Is there no other provision?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think in the aftermath of a hard-fought, fair, free election, where there were contending sides, where people voted for different parties, the Prime Minister's call to heal the wounds must be taken in the context that politicians, both from the PAP side and the opposition side, made claims, calling for the people to vote for them. Even Singaporeans in the same family may have voted for different parties. So there will be this feeling in any election, whether it is in Singapore or elsewhere. In all elections, it is right for the winning party, whether it is Mr Blair or Mr Clinton, to say, "Let us heal the wounds. Let us work together. Whether you voted PAP or opposition, let us work together for the good of Singapore." That is the context that we must look at the situation.

As for ISA and detention without trial, yes, there may be some laws which deal with situations of incitement and so forth. But we must look at the context in which the ISA and the CLTPA operate, situations where there is a need to act decisively, situations where it may be difficult to get witnesses to openly testify in court for fear of reprisal by other parties involved which witnesses are testifying against. Particularly in the context of Singapore, which is multi-racial and multi-lingual, there are situations which I mentioned just now, ie, dealing with racial and religious extremists, international terrorists, saboteurs and so forth, where there is a need to act decisively. But do we use it freely, wantonly? We do not. But as a law, it ought to remain because it will be a good measure to fall back on if the need arises.

Before I sit down, there is just one point which the Member for Hougang said. We must not leave the impression that the defamation laws are so open-ended that anybody can sue anybody for any criticisms that are made. This cannot be the case because he has been an MP for five years and he has made fierce criticisms of the PAP Government. Has he been sued for defamation? The answer is no. This is because he has not attacked the integrity or the honesty or the character of anyone. So that is important.

Mr Bernard Chen (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam just now said that our last general election was a sham and Mr Low Thia Khiang also jumped on the bandwagon.

Let me jog Mr Jeyaretnam's memory to 15th May 1977 in the place called Tiong Bahru Secondary School, the counting centre for Radin Mas by-election. He and I were there on opposite sides of the election. I think he got 34% of the votes. He did not complain that there was an unfair election. He even shook my hand before he left. Came 1980, before the Anson By-election, the party was spreading the rumour that voting was not secret. Then they discovered that it was working against them because if the votes were not secret then everybody would vote for PAP. He changed tack. We all know that he won the Anson by-election. Did he protest that the election was a sham? Did he offer to resign from there? He did not.

In 1991, there was an opportunity for him to come back in the Marine Parade by-election. He abdicated that offer and decided not to contest. Mr Low Thia Khiang was elected in Hougang. This time he was elected with an increased majority. I think the fear that he has mentioned among our voters would not have been so serious, is it not, if he can get an increased majority. I think it all boils down to Mr Jeyaretnam being a very sore loser. That is what he was. Every time he lost, he said the system was unfair. But when he won, he did not make any noise. Why is that?

I think Singaporeans have been through so many elections. They are all well-educated now. They can decide for themselves. The decision at Cheng San was a clear demonstration that the voters preferred the team fielded by the PAP. It is as simple as that. So Mr Jeyaretnam will be well advised to respect the wishes of the voters who have made the decision. We all lose sometimes. But let us not gripe about it. Maybe the next time, in the year 2002, he can try his hand again, and let us hope that we would not hear this thing again if he gets into Parliament as an NCMP.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for letting me have this opportunity to join in this debate.

I wish to speak against the amendment by the Non-Constituency Member. When I first heard Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam speak in this Parliament at the beginning of this session, I was a little bit puzzled. First of all, why did the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament who has criticised the NCMP scheme finally decided to join Parliament? Today, hearing him again talking about the general election, which happened a few months back, and also on his allegation of sham elections, I am still more puzzled why he continues to maintain the same line of speeches that he has been saying for the past umpteen years. I would have thought that with the Member joining the House finally as NCMP, after reverting his initial position, he would have at least, hopefully, in my view, come to a change of heart, and at last would have said something more substantive and true. He talks about one or two thousand members who were present at the PAP rally on the eve of poll when the Prime Minister spoke. I was there. I helped Mr Lim Boon Heng organise all the election and coordinating it. There were certainly more than one or two thousand. There were more than 10,000. I am not sure whether it was 50,000 that he mentioned that were at his rallies. Anyway, that is not important. The important thing is in the results and the results spoke convincingly of the maturity of Singaporeans to choose the kind of people to lead the country into the 21st century.

He talks about the climate of fear and his colleague, the Member for Hougang, joined in to talk about fear of printers who dared not print his leaflets. There are all kinds of people and there are all kinds of fear. Some of us fear the dark. I think the fact - as mentioned by the Member for West Coast, that over the years he has been through the elections where some results were better, some results were not as good - speaks volumes of the legitimacy of this Parliament. And for him to continue to maintain this line of attack is wasteful of Parliament's time.

I would like to also talk about his point on the responsibility of political parties. I think the people of Cheng San were wise enough not to let the team that he led as the leader of that group come into Parliament. It was only because of the force of personality and leadership of our Prime Minister and his colleagues that was able to challenge the trend that chauvinism and the play of racial and ethnic forces would otherwise have put us.

He talks about Singapore being with the baggage of 18th century politics. Is this Parliament a baggage of 18th century politics? The fact is that there is a debate in this House with Members from both sides, including hybridization of the original concept of Westminster Parliamentary democracy, whereby he speaks here as a Non-Constituency Member. Is this a baggage of the 18th century? I think it is an improvement. It is something that Singapore has always, under the leadership of the PAP, been able to think out and institute so that we can have alternative views ventilated by people from the opposition, by people who are not in politics but who have substantial achievements and who speak with their own expertise as NMPs. We have this kind of concept introduced in Parliament. I think it is very insulting to talk about the baggage of 18th century politics in Singapore today.

On the question of articulating the fears of Singaporeans, he speaks as if he and the hon. Member for Hougang are the only two persons in the House who have this right to articulate the fears of Singaporeans. I think they are articulating the fears that they impose on themselves.

The hon. Member for Hougang just now also mentioned about the danger of this policy that we have instituted whereby we would like to prioritize at a later stage those who have not expressed their interest in the programmes of the People's Action Party, who forms the Government today. Is it wrong? I do not think so. In the constituency where I represent, where practically all the flats are more than 30 years old, we still have to accept priority. Not all my constituents or all the flat owners in Queenstown get to have their flats upgraded, even though I would say they are definitely at the top of the queue by the age of the flats alone. But we have got to be persuaded. Because government is ultimately the art of the possible and we have to persuade even old residents in aged estates that it is necessary for the benefit of Singapore, for the wider impact of the scheme, that at least there must be other criteria that we must accept in order for this scheme to be manifestly implemented in Singapore. So, therefore, we have to accept the fact that some of us will have to go a little bit slower and let the other, perhaps, newer flats take the queue. So it is not a question of abiding by some rigid rules that we fix ourselves. In the same way, for the Member for Hougang, whose constituents have voted him as their representative, he must accept the fact that at the end of the day, the Government will not discriminate but the Government has a right to prioritise. So he should not complain and the residents of Hougang who have voted him know exactly and fully what they are in for.

On this question of rule of law, which the Minister of State for Home Affairs and Law has also expressed his views, I would like to remind the hon. Member that even foreign non-partisan institutes have voted and ranked the rule of law in Singapore very highly. We have grievances, we may dispute. Many of us feel that sometimes policies that we have may need to be improved, but we speak and we debate on this. But on the question of law and order, it is ultimate. It is something that underpins the whole system of government and the whole stability of Singapore. So it is through this rule of law and the transparency of government that others outside of Singapore, outside of this 224 sq miles, know about this. And it would be foolish for the Government to deviate from this rule of law policy.

Freedom of information - with the advent of the Internet, I think it is very difficult for any Singaporean not to be informed, and there are so many avenues in publications and various channels that Singaporeans know about information. So it is futile for the Government to try and control whatever information. Exactly what his views on this matter, I am not sure.

Why do Singaporeans support the PAP Government for so long? More than 35 years. Is it a charade that is going on? I think we ought to ask ourselves. Or is it because the Singapore PAP Government has delivered the goods and promises to the people of Singapore and in the process naturally there will be some who have been wounded in the cut and thrust of politics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Members of this House to reject this amendment from the NCMP.

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

Mr Speaker: The amendment has been defeated and the Question before the House is now the original Question, which is the motion moved by Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.49 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Lim Swee Say: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to support the motion moved by Dr Wang Kai Yuen to thank the President for his Speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember what happened in 1965 when Singapore attained independence. On that day, my father heard from Rediffusion that Singapore had broken off from Malaysia. He shook his head, sighed and told us, "Children, this time it is disastrous!" That year, Singapore was in a very bad situation, in an almost impossible situation to survive. We survived and we built up our nation. That we were able to survive, and went on to achieve what we have today, is because we have very good leaders to lead us through, and all Singaporeans work in one heart and one mind to fight for survival. I think this is something that we Singaporeans should be proud of.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said just now, water tends to flow downwards and people tend to climb upwards. In his speech, the President mentioned that the Government has set higher targets for everybody to build Singapore into the best home for everyone in the 21st century. Of course, we hope that every Singaporean will be able to work towards a better standard of living. But we must always remember that the achievement we have today does not come easy. If we want to continue to climb higher, we should know that the higher we climb the more difficult it will be. If we unfortunately slip, the fall will be very heavy. Therefore, if we want to achieve this dream of having the best home for everyone, our country is like a small boat that has to keep on rowing forward. No matter how strong the currents are, no matter how roaring the waves are, we have to keep on moving forward. Otherwise we will be driven back. We must seize the right opportunity when they come so that we will not miss the boat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech on the day before yesterday, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that we should not be blinded by the magic of market economy and neglect the adverse effect it has on our social cohesion. Generally speaking, I agree with his point. In fact, this is the essence of our successful nation building over the past three decades.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me give you another example to show this point. In 1993, as an EDB officer, I had the honour to participate in the transfer of the Singapore public administration software to the Suzhou Industrial Park project. That time, a senior Chinese official of ministerial level told me that he had learned a lot in his meeting with Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew. He realised that the secret of Singapore's success is in a delicate balance between our economic competitiveness and our social cohesion. He compared Singapore and China, and pointed out that China, during a certain period of time in the past, had over-emphasised social cohesion and lost its economic competitiveness. He also quoted the example of a certain city which is one of the five Special Economic Zones in China to show the mistake of over-correcting. This Special Economic Zone, for many years, has placed too much emphasis on economic development and neglected social development, resulting in an imbalance between social and economic development. So having heard the experience by the Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and having personally witnessed the delicate balance and smooth operations of our social and economic development, he was full of praise for our achievement and said that we were able to stimulate competition through cohesiveness and then rationally distributed and allocated our resources to the people, which in turn enhanced our social cohesion.

I am quoting this example to show that over the past three decades, our leaders have been working very hard to achieve balance between our economic competitiveness and our social cohesion so that it could be mutually stimulating and creating a virtual cycle. I trust that we would continue to maintain this balance and in this aspect, Mr Low Thia Khiang can be rest assured that we would be successful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the lane that we had been trodding on used to be a small and tiny path. But after 30 years of hard work, we are walking broadly on the highway. Our prospect is very good, our future is bright. But we must not forget that Singapore has its achievement today because we had three very important pillars of our nation building, that is, strong economic competitiveness, a cohesive society and political stability. So in order to achieve greater success, we have to continue to strengthen these three pillars because if we walk on the highway of success, it is not a bed of roses all the way. We have to be very careful. If we are not united, we are like loose sand. Once there is a thunderstorm, we would be blown apart. However, if everyone in Singapore is united, with everyone contributing his best, we would be like a solid rock. No matter how strong the thunderstorm may be, no matter how much stronger our competitors may be, we would still be successful when we compete against them.

Finally, I am confident that we will be able to realise our common dream, that is, to build Singapore into the best home for everyone in the 21st century.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Cheng San): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the motion moved by Dr Wang Kai Yuen. I support the motion.

Mr Lim Swee Say told the House just now the reaction of his father at the time when Singapore broke off from Malaysia. The situation now in Singapore is totally different. Nowadays, we often hear our elders saying, "Son, you have a much better life now." Today, our conditions for survival are much better than those in the past. Our quality of life has improved, so has the standard of our knowledge. What we need now is teamwork among our people and the resolute determination in our fighting spirit. We not only have to defend what we have, we must also create and build on what we have. So the path that we have is much more challenging. It is always an uphill task ahead of us. We must continue to climb upwards, as my colleague has already said. If we now roll down the slope, or are kicked down the slope, the consequences are unthinkable. It is not difficult for us to realize that if we do not continue to develop, we would have no social development. Infrastructure, housing, job opportunity, defence and education opportunities will not be so good. And, of course, life of the people will not be so good.

Contrary to what the NCMP has said, we believe that we have a good Government in the PAP, which even before the General Election has already introduced the vision of Singapore 21, urging people from all quarters in Singapore to work together, to face the competition ahead as we enter the 21st century.

The Addenda to the Presidential Address have further stressed the promises of the Government that will be implemented.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in our society, there are bound to be cases of some people who are less fortunate. We must assist them and give them a helping hand. We must all strive with one heart, to work together for the future of our country and the well-being of our people. There is an old saying that "Unity is Strength". More importantly, when the country is strong, the people will be rich and when the people are rich, the country will flourish. We must not forget that in the Chinese language, the term guomin ( : national ) consists of two Chinese characters, guo ( : nation ) and min ( : people ). The two are one and the same. They cannot be separated. It is like the daching of which the sliding weight cannot be separated from the scale stick. We also say that without the nation, there can be no families, without soil, there can be no flowering plants. National development affects the livelihood of the people.

On the other end, without a united strong will and hardworking people, coupled with an honest and reliable Government, there will be no prosperity, stability and happy families. For our sake, for our children's sake, most Singaporeans support the Government and work together to build a better future. The people support a good Government which, in turn, looks after the well-being of the people. We must strengthen the communications and ties of mutual trust between the Government and the people. If the PAP Government had failed to look after the well-being of the people, it would not have won the support of the majority of Singaporeans. We have one such strong support in the last election. This fact shows that our programmes benefit the people and work for the interest of the people. No one would deliberately drop a heavy stone on our own feet. There is no elected government in the world which does not seek the support of the people. Nor is there a government which deliberately goes out of its way to divide the people. On the contrary, if there is no mutual trust between the Government and the people, the two can easily be alienated from each other by people with ulterior motives.

After the general election, the Prime Minister called for the rift to be patched up. This is a big rift caused by certain political opportunists who had stirred up sensitive issues to divide our ethnic groups. This shows that far from deliberately breaking up our cooking pot, we will even help to amend that crack caused by others. We must strengthen the channels of communication between the people and the Government. Our young people have a higher standard of education and with information technology softwares getting more and more popular, they have access to better and wider knowledge. We must encourage them to express their views in order to strengthen their sense of belonging to the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government is always working hard in this direction. Maybe we need to publicize more or consider urging the people to participate more in the Government's process of decision making. For example, Quality Control Circle (QCC) has been very popular in our production units and in our factories. QCC gives confidence to our workers, strengthen the spirit of teamwork, cuts down cost of production, and increase efficiency. We should consider extending this kind of QCC or Work Improvement Teams (WITS) to the society, to the community and to the whole nation. We should consider giving incentives to the various individuals and private organisations for their suggestions and improvements. We can, like the QCCs or WITs, give them the appropriate rewards and recognition in order to encourage more people to participate in them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, new environment needs new ideas. Now that we have all the material comforts today, in order to face up to greater competition, I think more attention should be paid to improving our public transport system. We should look for ways and means to see whether there are possibilities to improve efficiency and better use of our limited resources, especially in the bus services. As far as I know, the bus companies are always complaining that they are suffering losses as a result of the need to maintain the increased frequency of bus services. Our bus workers have to work to the extent of having only 20 minutes for their meals. I think the authorities concerned and the bus operators must quickly find better solutions, by collecting feedback from the people and studying such feedback to better understand the needs of the people so that they can further save time and money in public transport. Maybe the Government should consider giving them some necessary assistance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another issue that concerns us is the aging population. The Member for Tanglin-Kreta Ayer has referred to three levels of care for the aged. I would like to expand on this. The Singapore Government has always been preparing for the rainy day. So before the year 2030, we must be prepared for the problems concerning the enlarged aged population. We should set up an inter-departmental agency to look into the improvement of new estates and the upgrading of our environment, so that all these works can be better coordinated to meet with the trend of an aging population, and look after the needs and convenience of the old people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Pasir Ris mentioned, there is need for us to help our workers to better face our future challenges. The Prime Minister has also mentioned in the Conference on Thinking that we should set up a comprehensive Government agency to ensure that every worker is given the opportunity for retraining. I hope that this agency can be formed as soon as possible.

In the past 30 years of nation building, workers have made substantive contributions to our society. We should not forget that, in 1985, our workers made sacrifices and suffered voluntary pay-cut to meet with the policies of the Government to get ourselves out of the economic difficulties. Today, when we are facing more competition, our workers are also responding to the recommendations of the NWC for more moderate pay increases. I hope that both the public and private sectors, after the workers have accepted the proposal to restrain wages, should consider the NTUC's call to delay or moderate price increases, so as to help the poor families.

Sir, I fully support the motion in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen to thank the President for his Address. This Presidential Address reaffirms the pledges of the Government to create wealth. I am also glad to note that in this Presidential Address, the Government will more actively improve our culture and artistic standards. Not only will the less fortunate not be neglected, I think the Ministry of National Development has also said in the Addendum that they will help to solve the housing problems of the single people.

Sir, I support the motion.

3.35 pm