DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Debate resumed.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members have spoken about the need for Singaporeans to conserve water, to seek alternative sources of supply (including desalination) and to reduce our dependence on Malaysia for this vital resource.

I wish to thank Members and the public for their comments and suggestions and to assure them that the long-term security of our water supply is indeed a top priority for the Government. Recent events have added urgency to the matter.

The PUB has studied and implemented numerous schemes to exploit local water sources. Half our land area is already used as water catchment. We have expanded our reservoirs in the Central Catchment Area. We have built storm water collection schemes in HDB new towns like Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Tampines and Yishun. We also collect rain water from the developed areas in Kranji, Pandan and the non-industrial parts of western Singapore. Together, these yield 150 million gallons per day, more than half our present total consumption.

We are now studying developing supplementary sources from other local catchments. These small projects are expensive, and will require our people to observe rigorous anti-pollution measures. But they are still worthwhile provided their cost per gallon of water supplied is no higher than desalinating sea water, which is an alternative source of additional fresh water.

PUB has commissioned an engineering study on desalination to be completed by the end of this year. It intends to build a pilot desalination plant to learn from the experience so that it can build more desalination plants, if necessary.

We have also entered into agreements with Indonesia to develop the water resources of Riau Province in Bintan island and on the Riau mainland in Sumatra over the long term for our mutual benefit.

To reduce our potable water requirements, PUB encourages industries to recycle water, and to use industrial water and sea water. Industries now use 7 million gallons of industrial water a day for cooling and washing. Several power stations, oil refineries and other industrial and commercial organisations already use sea water for cooling. We are also studying a dual-reticulation system to supply new areas of development with lower quality water for purposes other than human consumption.

Reducing demand for water is as important as developing new sources of supply. Per capita domestic consumption has been growing steadily, as people move into bigger flats, and their lifestyles change with affluence. PUB's save water campaigns have made the public conserve water, but the effect wears off after one year. Singaporeans have to make water conservation a way of life. For a start, homes and workplaces should install water-saving taps and fittings, and low capacity flushing cisterns.

Water accounts for only a small part of the average household utility bill. But water is not just an economic commodity; it is a strategic resource. My Ministry is finalising a package of revisions to the water tariffs and water conservation tax and details will be announced soon. With these revisions, Singaporeans will be well prepared for the day when we will have to produce water from much more expensive sources, including desalination.

We must encourage all water consumers including households to conserve water. Already domestic consumption accounts for more than half our total consumption of PUB water. In raising water tariffs and conservation tax, we also need to be mindful that we do not add too big a burden to industries which could affect their overall competitiveness.

Yesterday, in Prof. Low Seow Chay's speech in Parliament, he referred to a recent report by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to indicate that it is possible to produce water by desalination at 70 cents per cubic metre and to build a desalination plant at $540 million to supply 150 mgd of water. He has just given me a copy of the report for study by PUB.

Unfortunately, PUB's own studies indicate that our construction and production costs of desalination will be about five times the figures quoted by Prof. Low. A dual-purpose desalination plant, with a capacity of 30 mgd of water and which will also produce electricity, may cost $1 billion or $1,000 million. Roughly, half of this amount could be apportioned to the water desalination facilities. At current energy prices, the cost of water from desalination is estimated at $3 to $3.50 per cubic metre. I have confidence in PUB's estimates which are based on an engineering study. Actual costs will be known when PUB calls tenders to build the plant.

On Monday, Mr Low Thia Khiang asked for some information on our water agreements with Malaysia. The 1961 agreement is for a period of 50 years and will expire in the year 2011. It enables PUB to abstract an unrestricted quantity of water from the Tebrau and Scudai Rivers and the Pontian and Gunong Pulai Catchment areas. The current supply from these sources is about 90 mgd.

The 1962 Johore River Water Agreement is for a period of 99 years and will expire in 2061. This gives PUB the right to abstract up to 250 mgd of raw water from the Johore River. A subsequent agreement in 1960 enables PUB to construct the Linggiu Dam and other ancillary works at its own cost as a project under the 1962 Johore River Water Agreement, with the same expiry date unless mutually extended. The Linggiu Reservoir enables PUB to abstract up to 250 mgd of raw water during dry weather as provided for in the 1962 Johore River Water Agreement.

In the 1965 Separation Agreement between Singapore and Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia guaranteed the 1961 and

1962 Water Agreements between the PUB and the Johore State Government. A Guarantee Agreement was also signed in 1990 under which both Governments mutually agreed to guarantee the due performance and observance of the 1990 Water Agreement.

The security of water supply is clearly an issue of utmost importance to all Singaporeans. I wish to thank all Members and the public at large for their understanding and support for Government measures to ensure that our total supply of water from all sources will always be more than adequate to meet our needs.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, would the Minister clarify whether any party, ie, either Malaysia or Singapore, could unilaterally terminate the signed agreement?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, the answer is clearly no.

Mr R. Ravindran (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to thank the President on his Address to Parliament.

Sir, I support the Singapore 21 programme of the Government aimed at making Singapore the Best Home for all Singaporeans.

Sir, the Government's agenda is a far-sighted one and I support it wholeheartedly. I would like to offer some suggestions to help make the Government's vision become a reality.

First among the lot, Sir, I would like the Government to motivate our under-achievers. Among the Government's action plans to meet the challenges ahead, none is more crucial than that of providing all Singaporeans with the opportunity to get the best education in the world. The Government's goal must be to ensure that a quality education is available and affordable to every Singaporean. We all know that an educated workforce is the key to our economic future. We have to invest in education not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the one thing we must do to continue to be a dynamic economic power house in the next century. Education has been the great equalizer in this country. Let us continue to make it so to achieve success for our country.

Sir, meritocracy has been a pillar of our success in motivating people to succeed at all levels. The basic tenet of this principle is that everyone is generally motivated and will achieve according to his inherent talent and ability.

Sir, however, in reality this is only partially true. There are many who are able but who do not excel due to a lack of motivation and self-esteem especially in their formative or school-going years. In my interaction with the students of Singapore and from feedback received, I found many students who are under-achievers lacking in motivation and self-esteem. In our competitive environment, the school system in Singapore is primarily geared at completing the syllabus and getting the best scores. Our teachers are trained to teach but not to motivate.

The non-academic performers are identified as slow learners and streamed to learn at their own pace. Some do come back into the mainstream but many do not. Some bloom too late only to discover themselves among the less motivated and give up trying.

Our school system assumes that all students come to school with a willingness to learn. It is not designed to take care of students who are not willing to learn due to a variety of causes. Many of these problems faced by these students outside their classroom manifest in many ways in school and show up in their unwillingness to learn at school. Lack of a proper family environment, lack of parental and educational guidance, peer influence or low self-esteem, all contribute to the unwillingness to learn.

In the working environment, workers, and even employers, are regularly sent for motivation programmes to improve performance and change attitudes. It has proven to be a success in many cases.

Motivation programmes run by ethnic self-help groups throw up evidence that academically weaker students who undergo motivation programmes show a marked improvement in academic performance.

Sir, our children are our vital resource. No effort must be spared in maximizing the potential of our students. Our teachers must be constantly reminded that our young must be motivated to excel. The highly motivated students in schools are also the brightest and the best. I would urge the Minister for Education to place more emphasis on motivating our weaker students. Many of them are intelligent and able. Teachers and, if necessary, outside agencies must be brought in to motivate our students to become willing learners. I would urge the setting up of a National Institute of Motivation to help in this exercise. This Institute can play a leading role in motivating students and also can become a centre for all resource materials. A willing learner in turn becomes a joy to teachers. Many of these children come from disadvantaged families. Education holds the key to enable them to break out of the poverty trap. Sir, the young are our precious resources. Let us ensure that the best is brought out in them.

Let me now move on to another topic on community bonding. I applaud the effort of the Ministry of Community Development to promote maximum community participation to help uplift the disadvantaged in society. I look forward to the CDCs to reach out to families in distress, low-income families, the elderly and the children in need. The Government must continue to render all assistance to low income families.

Among the steps taken by the Government to help weaker students perform better was the setting up of the various ethnic self-help groups. This community-based approach has helped under-achievers to level up and break through the vicious circle of low education and poverty.

Over the years, these self-help groups have gone on to take more responsibilities and more resources have been given to them to tackle various problems, for example, education, drugs, family issues, worker training, marriage counselling, and preventive programmes for youths among others. While there is merit in using an ethnic-based approach to solve sectional problems, I would urge the Government to reconsider the present scheme of things.

Duplication of programmes becomes unavoidable. In addition, problems, which should be understood by Singaporeans as national problems, are being isolated as problems of certain communities. Many national problems are increasingly identified and carved out as problems of different ethnic communities and passed to them to solve. The beneficiaries of such assistance schemes and programmes only see their own ethnic community helping them, not the Government or the other ethnic communities. Cross-ethnic volunteer involvement is sparse. It is important and timely to reassess the role of our various ethnic based self-help groups.

It has become clear that some of the problems faced by the various ethnic communities are similar, for example, tuition, family services, skills training and motivation programmes. We must avoid duplication of resources and enhance the position of the Government as the foremost body concerned for its citizens. It is perhaps timely to establish a national coordinating agency, not an ad hoc one, to look into ways to coordinate this effort. For a start, perhaps the newly formed CDCs can coordinate the various programmes offered by these self-help groups. Such an institute or body can reach out to all Singaporeans despite their ethnic backgrounds. The CDCs can also ensure that volunteers from all ethnic groups are mobilised to help all Singaporeans. I look forward to the eventual emergence of a single national self-help organisation to serve all Singaporeans. It will help bring people from the various ethnic groups together and help create a better bond among our people.

Let me move on to the topic of creating a more compassionate society. We have a good network of social services. Yet it is the information about these services that needs to reach the end users. There are many agencies that provide a variety of social services, but no one agency is a one-stop agency, which is able to understand and refer the client to the right agency. Many of us in the grassroots agencies and others refer to the agencies according to our limited knowledge of these welfare agencies. I appreciate the effort of the Ministry of Community Development in publishing a book on the various social services offered by different agencies. I look forward to the creation of a one-stop agency, either at the national level or at the CDC level, which can be a one-stop referral agency to channel the clients to the relevant social services or agencies. Ideally, a telephone service with an easy digit to remember, like 888 or 777, can be created for people to telephone and enquire on social and other services offered by our volunteer organisations.

We must also strive to do more for those who are in need of help. We provide safety nets for the disadvantaged in various forms. While we need safety nets which prevent them from falling further, we must also provide trampolines which can enable them to spring back from where they have fallen. They could have fallen for a variety of reasons, for example, the death of the breadwinner in the family, old age, a debilitating disease or a physical handicap. We can do more to help those in need. We must consider setting up a loan scheme which enables them to borrow a small sum of money at low interest rate to tide over their immediate problems. The loan scheme can be provided by a Government agency or by external financial institutions as a social service. Strict criteria can be set for disbursing these loan schemes. This will prevent many of them from resorting to loan sharks or to other desperate measures. We should design schemes to help them to obtain hawker stalls and other small businesses for them to get back on to their feet.

Let me now move on to the next topic of national defence. Singaporeans are committed to the defence of their country. Our Armed Forces must remain vigilant and operationally ready. Recent events have highlighted to Singaporeans the need for a strong and credible Singapore Armed Forces. We must continue our efforts in Total Defence to emphasise the role of each and everyone in the defence of the nation. We must continue to build and maintain a strong and deterrent armed forces.

I am pleased that after a recent private survey done by me among NSmen, it showed their unanimous willingness and determination to fight for our country. I am highlighting this fact to let those who are watching us that no one should take us for granted and hope to stroll into Singapore. Our NSmen do us proud.

National Servicemen play an important role in the defence of our nation. Our young men sacrifice 2 to 2(r) years of their youth for the benefit of our country. Many do it out of a sense of duty to the nation. The inequity of their sacrifice becomes more glaring by the bigger number of foreigners who have taken up citizenship without the corresponding responsibility of participating in national service. It is perhaps time that we looked into how we can take care of our NSmen better so that our NSmen feel that our Government takes special care of them. Here I would urge the Government to pay our NSmen increased allowances for their services. We have the resources to pay our NSmen more. Our NSmen and their families will appreciate the increase in the NSmen's allowances. If direct increase in allowance is not feasible or not to be encouraged, perhaps the Government can place their extra allowance above a certain maintenance amount into a special CPF account which can be used either to buy a flat or pursue an education course. The Government has the resources and it will go a long way to rewarding our NSmen for their just sacrifice of their youth. I would also urge that for those NSmen who are without skills or who do not possess IT training in these fields before their ROD, the relevant Ministries undertake the necessary training so that when they enter the workforce they are better equipped to enter into the information age.

Finally, let me touch upon the bilingual policy of the Government. The Tamil language is well and alive in Singapore. The Government has increased the hours of Tamil radio and television programmes. It has used Tamil in its official publications. Signages at the airport and certain streets are in Tamil. There are even Singapore web sites in Tamil on the Internet. I must express the heartfelt gratitude of the Indians in Singapore for the Government's commitment in the promotion of the Tamil language and other Indian languages. Singapore has the single distinction of being the only country in the world outside India where Tamil is an official language.

Sir, our bilingual policy helps impart mother tongue language skills, moral values and cultural traditions. Tamil is studied as a second language by more than 18,000 students as at 1995. The Government has gone to great lengths to ensure that Tamil language classes are held wherever sufficient numbers of students are found.

There is a growing concern in the Indian community over the quality of Tamil education in Singapore. Out of about 450 Singapore Tamil teachers, less than 30 of them are graduates. A vast majority of the Tamil language teachers have no tertiary education in Tamil or other disciplines. Are these teachers able to teach Tamil to our upper secondary and pre-university students? I would urge the Minister for Education once again to look into the shortage of tertiary educated Tamil teachers so as to ensure that the quality of Tamil education in Singapore is maintained. One way to overcome the shortage can be through the setting up of a Centre for Tamil Language at the National Technological University or at the National University of Singapore or, in the alternative, by establishing a twinning programme with an overseas university offering Tamil language disciplines.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my support to thank the President for his Address at the opening of the Ninth Parliament.

While we are charting our new direction to bring Singapore to the 21st century, Singaporeans can look back to the past 32 years with full satisfaction. When we are facing the challenges in the next three decades, we are full of confidence that there will be continuous success for Singaporeans. The pillar of Singapore as a community is very strong. As what has been said by the President, the economic activity and trade are already globalised that we may not be too affected by problems with any one of our economic associates.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.01 pm

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): We have good savings and we are able to enjoy political and social stability. We have excellent infrastructure. We also have diligent and educated workers and we have a large talent pool. We have a Government which is clean, efficient and honest, not only in namesake but also proven. In short, we have the foundation to be confident of the success of Singapore in the near future. But we have to be reminded by the President that Singaporeans should not be complacent as there are many new challenges that we are facing. While the country and the population are reaching maturity, we should expect an aging population. We are faced with rapid advances in technology and fiercer competition. The effect is that Singapore is exposed to a slower economic growth. All these challenges have an effect on one another and if we are unable to overcome these challenges, the effect will not only be felt by the community, the people, but will also affect the stability of a country. If we look at these challenges in terms of relationship with other nations who are blowing hot and cold, then the situation or circumstances will be more difficult.

Mr Speaker, for the last two days some of our friends in this House have spoken about the Singapore-Malaysia relationship. Many, I think, agree with the Member for Bukit Timah, Dr Wang, that Singaporeans are sick and tired of the repeated threats made by Malaysian leaders against Singapore to freeze the water agreement. The criticism, which initially was directed at the Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but later extended towards Singapore and its leaders in general, has made Singaporeans more united. It should be the case. The threats and the challenges of any form should unite Singaporeans. We should be proud because, compared to the initial perception that Singapore will be divided on this recent issue in Malaysia, Singaporeans as a whole have given their strong support to the Government.

All the races and the communities at all levels are quietly resentful of the derogatory criticisms that have been cast upon our leaders and the country. When I met a Malaysian official recently in the midst of this crisis and asked him for his view on the Singapore Malays' reaction, he said that, based on the letters that were published in Berita Harian and the general reaction, the reaction of Singapore Malays is similar to other Singaporeans. They are unhappy and not comfortable because the national interest is threatened.

In short, in this case, Singaporeans, including the Malays, expressed similar feelings. This relationship is cooling down, and some Singaporeans hope that this matter will stop, especially the rebuttal made by some Malaysian leaders who are casting unfounded allegation against us. They want good relationship to be resumed. I also feel that the prolonged tension will not be good for both parties. Both countries need each other and prolonged dispute will be of no benefit to both parties. However, Singapore should be aware of the background and fact that has given rise to this crisis so that we become more knowledgeable to understand why after an apology is demanded, derogatory remarks and statements were hurled followed by repeated threats. And why every time a crisis arises, we are served with the re-run of the old movies, especially the allegations and objections and threat after threat.

Although we want to end this unpleasant episode regarding our relationship with Malaysia, we are not happy if this pace is being set by one party, that is, we are being dragged into the crisis when one of their leaders wants to increase the heat of the tension and we should shut up when they want to cool down the situation. This is a case where one wishes to turn on or turn off the tap.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not the best way to have a good relationship with your neighbour. If we are trapped in this situation, anything we do will be deemed as inappropriate. It is important to stress that even in such a situation, we should re-establish the relationship to the previous level and, if possible, we should be more cordial in future. However, this relationship must be based on mutual respect and a win-win situation. How good our relationship with the other countries, we should not be too overly dependent on that country for our needs or for any activity, especially our main requirements. I think the people of Singapore are in support of the Government's attempt to expand our water sources other than the one obtained from Malaysia.

National Education

Mr Deputy Speaker, the crisis should make us more united and committed to build a united country. In this respect, the step taken by the Minister for Education to introduce National Education is significant. I believe the formulation is not due to the recent crisis in Malaysia but, nevertheless, National Education will ensure our citizens are literate in history and help us to understand the stormy situation that may arise domestically as well as externally which will have an effect on our national interest. National Education can be a compass to guide our direction when facing a similar situation.

Although National Education focuses on the young who are still schooling, I think it is better that this education be disseminated to the adult citizens. Although our aim is to improve cohesion among all levels of the community regardless of their background, language and religion and their socio-economic status, it is important that the teaching staff under this programme should be among those who are able to disseminate the fact to nurture the national spirit in the right way and also to enhance the sensitivity of the students. This is important as a Malay proverb says that "The place where you stand on is the place where the sky is". Or an Arab saying that "Loyalty to the country is part of the faith which will live in your soul". As we continue our effort to deepen the root of our loyalty, we should also nurture friendship with all countries. It is ironic that the disbanding of the Cold War and with an increase in economic cooperation between countries, it is also accompanied by an increase in nationalism in many countries. This nationalism will bring about an acute competition among the countries, including economic competition, especially among neighbouring countries.

In this aspect, I support fully the Government's policy to extend friendship with other countries. Our attempts to increase economic cooperation, whether among the ASEAN countries or the Asia-Pacific countries or in other regions like the European Community, are in the right direction. The Prime Minister has also expressed his desire to have such cooperation with other countries while at the same time competing with them. In this aspect, the National Education programme should inculcate this learning. We should nurture this spirit among our children and give them the opportunity to prepare themselves with the ability to develop friendship. I think it is good that the Ministry of Education has widened the opportunities for our children to have more interaction with their contemporaries from other countries through an exchange of students. This can be done, firstly, with the cooperation of the special schools, together with the children of other citizens in Singapore. This will give our children the opportunity to galvanize their skills, not only in their IQ development but also give them an opportunity to enhance their EQ.

Preparation for Competition

Mr Deputy Speaker, many of our friends in this House have already said about the importance of preparing our children for education to face the acute competition. Many Members have said about the importance of training and retraining among the adult workers who lost the opportunity to obtain the skills when they were young. As a labour MP, I am grateful that the labour movement in Singapore, under the leadership of NTUC, is making such an effort. In fact, our labour movement, in fighting for the interest and benefit of the workers, has become a significant partner in the development of Singapore through the tripartite relationship with the Government and the employers.

Yesterday, Mr Ong Ah Heng said about the NTUC's effort to bring about the retraining programme together with the Government and the employers. I believe the NTUC will enhance their role by encouraging our workers who are not young to grab this opportunity. The employers and the Government should also play their role. Singapore companies, especially the small and medium enterprises, should play an active role because they comprise 95% of the total number of companies in this country. They pay half of their payroll to our workers. Until now, 41% of 1,100 collective agreements have a clause on skills retraining. We are grateful that within 1995-1996, half of the collective agreements which were signed had such a clause on skills training. In comparison, it was one-quarter in 1995. At the same time, investment in skills training has reached 3.6% of the wage cost or payroll cost, which is not far from the objective of 4% at the national level.

In short, the hope of the labour movement to increase investment in the training skills of our workers should be welcomed by employers. If we can extend this, not only are we able to enhance the competitiveness of the companies but also that of the country. It is an enhancement of the economic strength of the family. Competitiveness has a direct effect on the income and welfare of our workers.

A Caring and Gracious Society

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the emphasis which is made daily to increase our competitiveness should not make a Singaporean to be self-centred for himself and for his family. We should encourage Singaporeans to be ready to render their services to the unfortunate. We hope to see that our communities are gracious and strong in the social and emotional aspects. The Government, other than emphasising on the marketing aspect, should also emphasise on the help for the unfortunate, especially those who are in need of financial support. If we are able to bring about success in this, with the basic principles spelt out by the President, not only we will be a progressive country but we will also be a supreme country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion of thanks for the President's Address.

Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

Sir, before speaking on the motion, I would like to commend all our new Members of the House who have spoken before me and have delivered impressive and enlightening maiden speeches.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure you must have enjoyed listening to all the speeches as much as I have, and I am sure Members of the House also look forward to hearing more of such speeches.

Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bukit Timah, Dr Wang Kai Yuen. I am delighted to note that in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Addendum to the President's Address that Singapore's Asean partners would remain central to our foreign policy, and I hope that all our Asean partners share our aspiration for a more peaceful, cooperative and prosperous South East Asia. Sir, a1though each and every one of our Asean partners is important to us, I would like to confine the topic of my speech basically to Singapore-Malaysia relations, as we seem to have problems with our nearest neighbour on a regular basis and over quite unexpected issues. Although the issues may be unexpected, the accusations and the wayang that follow are usually quite consistent and predictable. We are always accused of being insensitive to others and, if we try to be conciliatory, we are invariably accused of being insincere.

This regular cycle of accusations and demonstrations organised for our benefit has led to speculation, especially among younger Singaporeans, who may be unaware of the different courses taken by Singapore and Malaysia since merger and separation as to why it is so challenging to maintain a problem-free relationship with our nearest neighbour. Some views have already been expressed on these issues by a number of speakers before me.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to test your patience by repeating what has already been said by previous speakers, other than to say that I share many of the views expressed by Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Mr Mohamad Maidin when they spoke on this subject on Monday and with what Mr Hawazi has said when he spoke just before me on this issue. However, I am less impressed with what the Member for Potong Pasir had said about how things were when Singapore was part of Malaysia. I would, therefore, like to urge the Minister for Education not to confine our National Education programme that his Ministry is introducing in our schools only to young Singaporeans but also to extend the programme to cover our slightly more senior citizens who may have lived through the events but have forgotten what it was like.

Sir, I agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we should always keep our lines of communication open and that we should try to manage our relations with our neighbours as best as we can. We should also try to understand why some Malaysian leaders find it difficult to be friendly with Singapore. We should try to resolve outstanding issues as early as possible without having to adopt a policy of appeasement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, was reported to have said that it was difficult to conduct friendly relations with Singapore and gave two examples why this was so. One was the decision to eventually relocate KD Malaya, the Malaysian naval base at Woodlands, back to Malaysia. I am glad to note the Prime Minister has since provided clarification on this issue and the matter has now been laid to rest.

The other example quoted was that of Malayan Railway (KTM) land in Singapore. We believe there was an agreement signed on this issue by the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and the then Finance Minister of Malaysia, Tun Daim Zainuddin, in 1990. However, we are puzzled by recent letters in the press on the subject. Datuk Abdul Rahim Osman, Managing Director of KTM Berhad, in his letter to the Straits Times on 13th May this year took issue with an article written by the Straits Times' journalist, Miss Chua Lee Hoong, on KTM land in Singapore. Datuk Abdul Rahim wanted to point out what he termed as a factual error made by the journalist in the interpretation of when the 1990 agreement on KTM land would come into effect. Several days later, there was another letter to the Straits Times by Mr Goh Kim Leong, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Law, Singapore, taking issue with Datuk Abdul Rahim's interpretation on the effectivity of the 1990 agreement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there appears to be some disagreement over the agreement, and I feel that this matter should be resolved as expeditiously as possible in order that it does not become a stumbling block in Singapore-Malaysia relations. I therefore support the call by the Member for Marine Parade, Mr Mohamad Maidin, that some clarification of the 1990 agreement would be in order.

Sir, it is my belief that all potentially troublesome issues that could affect bilateral relations with our nearest neighbour should be addressed as soon as they arise and be settled as expeditiously as possible. If an early settlement is not possible, then the problem issues should be discussed and desensitized as much as possible and not left to fester only to emerge again when new problems arise as they would from time to time.

I would therefore like to urge the Government to clear the air on KTM land and also to submit for adjudication to the international court of justice the Pedra Branca case as we have agreed to do so with the Malaysians.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if both Singapore and Malaysia, despite our historical baggage, can accept the principle that relations would have to be conducted in a rational manner and on an equal basis between two civilised and sovereign countries, then there is hope that the situation can improve over a very short period of time, if not immediately.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah, Dr Wang Kai Yuen. I fully support this motion.

The President's Speech is a signpost towards our goals in the 21st century, as depicted by the Prime Minister. He emphasises the development of the various fields and outlines the actions to carry out projects whose ultimate object is to promote national cohesion and build the best home for Singaporeans.

Now, I would like to voice my opinion on public housing and National Education. Ever since the founding of our nation and in order to improve the housing conditions of the people and to realise the goal of home ownership for the people, the PAP Government launched a vigorous housing programme. In the past 32 years, the HDB has built more than 730,000 housing units, of which 660,000 are owner-occupied, achieving a home ownership rate of 90%. Right now, 88% of our people live in HDB flats. Singapore is well known for its achievement in public housing. That our public housing policy has achieved tremendous success should be attributed to MND's careful planning and its vigorous implementation of the housing policy.

Since the 90s, HDB has shifted its emphasis from quantity to quality in its public housing. To meet the demand of the people, HDB has improved both the exterior and interior designs of the flats and built many new facilities in the neighbourhood so as to build the best homes for the people. Thus, today's HDB flats are much better looking and comfortable than before. They are even comparable to private housing. The new generation flats are not only better designed and varied in their appearance, the lifts are also of better quality. Every floor is served by a lift. In order to improve and enhance the living environment of the people, the Government has carried out massive upgrading projects for the old housing estates.

In the recent upgrading programme, one of the items is to provide a lift exit for every floor. This is a boon for the elderly and handicapped residents. The HDB has spared no effort in bringing improvements to its housing estates. However, it has neglected the problem faced by about 10% of the residents who live in 4-storey flats. These flats are scattered in old housing estates, such as Clementi, Toa Payoh, Bukit Merah, Bukit Batok, Bukit Gombak, Jurong and Yishun. At present, these flats have no lifts. Recently, I carried out a survey among the residents in 27 blocks of such flats and found that around 58 of them are over 50 years old. They account for 14% of the residents. With the greying of our population, the number of aged people will become greater. This is a problem that merits our close attention.

The President in his Speech has also stressed that we have to find ways and means to tackle such problems before they become intractable. As there are no lifts, these senior citizens have to put up with the effort to climb the stairs every day. On my routine visits, I have taken some photographs of these elderly people. They are old, feeble and sick. They drag themselves up the staircases with two hands clinging to the railings for support.

Today, while most of our people are enjoying a high standard of living and staying in good and comfortable housing, there are still a minority of our citizens who live in old and low rise flats. There are two reasons why these people are reluctant to move out. One, they have built up close neighbourly ties with their neighbours. Two, some of them belong to the low income group, hence they cannot afford to upgrade themselves and move into bigger flats.

Therefore, I would like to plead for this group of residents and hope that the Government could install lifts for them soon so that they will be able to enjoy good facilities like other HDB residents. I suggest that HDB treat this matter with some urgency and find out how this can be done. Perhaps, a pilot scheme could be carried out first. I am willing to help by identifying these flats in my constituency for such a pilot scheme to find out whether it is feasible. If it is, then this can be extended to other constituencies. In this way, such elderly and sickly people can be better looked after. To others, this may be a small problem. But our President has mentioned specifically that the older generation has helped to build up today's Singapore and we owe it to ourselves to repay them for their contribution.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think now is the time. If this scheme is successful, then the 10% of our flat dwellers will be able to enjoy a better service. When we enter the 21st century, all dwellers would have been looked after by the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on another problem, namely, application for a flat. At present, an applicant has to pay a downpayment of 20% of the purchase price when he is invited to select a flat. This regulation has been in force for a number of years. Ten years ago, a 4-room flat was priced at $30,000-$40,000. 20% of this amount is $6,000-$8,000. But now, a 4-room flat is sold at an average price of $130,000. 20% of this amount is $26,000.

I understand that because of the shift in demand, HDB has stopped building 3-room flats. The only choice for the low income group is the 4-room flats. It is the same for first-time applicants. Thus, it is a big burden for them to fork out $30,000 as a one-off downpayment.

According to the HDB's statistics, there are 38,625 applicants for 4-room flats. Since the Government wants to help the low income group to own their flats, and to encourage young people to set up families, I suggest that the downpayment should be reduced from 20% to 10%, and the rest of the money to be paid later on in order to lessen their financial burden. In this way, we could encourage young couples to apply for 4-room flats. Therefore, we will be able to help those who cannot afford such a big sum of money as downpayment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister for National Development could consider my suggestions and make some modifications to the housing policy so that we could build Singapore into the best home for our people.

Next, I would like to touch on National Education. National Education was formally launched on 17th May this year, and it has become a very hot topic. Schools ranging from primary and tertiary institutions will be carrying out these programmes through their formal and informal channels, namely, through ECA and subjects such as moral education, history and geography to inculcate among our students national consciousness. This is laudable. But what about those young people who are not in school? How are we going to help them to inculcate national awareness? I believe the following could be adopted to imbue national consciousness in young people who have left school.

(1)Government departments and private institutions. All citizens who are working now whether in Government Service or in private companies must continue to receive National Education. National awareness could be instilled through talks, forums, exhibitions and the activities must be as effective as the WITs scheme. And it should be one of the items in work performance evaluation.

(2) Grassroots organisations. Grassroots organisations could play an important role in promoting National Education through talks, forums, exhibitions, debates and quizzes. The ultimate objective is to foster national identity and social cohesion among the various races so that they are loyal to the community and our nation.

(3) Mass media. The mass media has an influential role to play in inculcating national consciousness. They could do this through telecasts of historical drama series to enable our citizens to better understand our history and to foster a sense of patriotism. For example, episodes during the Japanese Occupation and other programmes like the return of Hong Kong to China are very good materials. We should also make use of the episodes on the formation and incidents leading to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia and the background and contents of the Water and KTM Railway Agreements between Singapore and Malaysia.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if our schools, Government Ministries, statutory boards, private companies and grassroots organisations successfully carry out their duties in National Education, we will be able to strengthen our national awareness and identity and to enhance our national solidarity. In the event the prestige or image of our national leaders is attacked by foreign forces, our people could close rank and stay united against any infringement of our sovereignty or attack on our national esteem. In this way, a Singaporean Singapore idea could be further strengthened and consolidated.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the motion moved by Dr Wang Kai Yuen, hon. Member for Bukit Timah, to thank the President for his Address on 26th May 1997. Sir, I seek the guidance of this House, especially being a new Member. I will do my best to add value to its discussions and deliberations. However, I also seek its indulgence should I unwittingly make a mistake or tax its patience.

Sir, our young are doing well at school. Few drop out from the education system. At every level, the results are getting better. The number going to the universities, polytechnics and ITE is increasing. In international tests, our students are coming out top. More youths are doing voluntary and community services. But not all of our young turn out well. Yesterday, my fellow hon. Member for Ang Mo Kio, Mr Inderjit Singh, raised his concerns on wayward youths. Today I would like to discuss further this topic of problem youths.

Problem youths appear to be a growing problem. News of problem youths abound in the newspapers. In the past year, there were many articles on youths hanging around shopping centres, game arcades and nightspots, whiling away their precious time, drinking, smoking and even fighting. A few days ago, the Straits Times carried a story of a 15-year old school dropout who was killed in a gang attack. A few days later, the New Paper carried another story of a youth who helped some friends to burgle his own house. Like Mr Inderjit Singh, I too had people telling me with great concern that they had heard of schools now having more gang problems.

We face a competitive future. Our economy is fast becoming developed. Our industries are becoming more high tech. Out ability to compete would depend on us having a large number of well qualified and skilled workers. But our population is small. This means that we have to make the best use of our people. Ideally, we should develop every Singaporean to his or her highest potential. Hence, we must view youth delinquency seriously. Every problem youth is a cost to society. First, if a youth goes wayward, efforts need to be made to help the youth to change for the better. Many I believe do, but still the time lost are wasted years of their lives and many people, especially the parents, may go through many moments of anguish. Then, if the youth does not change for the better, society will not only lose his potential contributions but may well end up taking care of the person's future needs.

Sir, my fellow hon. Member for Aljunied, Dr Toh See Kiat, yesterday afternoon pointed out to this House the pressure faced by our students. This pressure is often cited as a cause of youth delinquency. Students who cannot keep up or bear with the pressure would drop out of school. Often, these children develop into problem youths.

The news that the Ministry of Education is reviewing the education system is much welcomed and gives hope that some relief is on the way. The introduction of creative thinking, independent learning and new methods of assessment in the education system will make learning more enjoyable and interesting, and less tedious. However, it is my hope that kiasu parents will not fill up any freed time with more tuition and other stressful activities.

The introduction of National Education would also have positive effects on youth delinquency. Youths who lack a purpose in life are more likely to go astray. National Education will imbue our young with a sense of national identity and an understanding of the challenges that the country faces. It will help them to appreciate the vulnerabilities and constraints faced by Singapore as well as our strengths and opportunities. It will help them to realise that a good future is not pre-ordained and they have to work hard if they want a good life.

Our friendly neighbourhood Police Force could also be enlisted to help tackle truancy. Police officers on the ground could look out for youths whom they suspect to be playing truant. With neighbourhood police posts well distributed around the country, the police officers are ideally located to assist here. The police officer would ask for the personal particulars of the youth, noting the time and place where the youth was hanging out and the school he or she attends. The information could then be passed to the respective school to ascertain if the youth was playing truant. The errant youth should be counselled and his parents informed.

In its Addendum to the Address of the President, the Ministry of Community Development says that it will provide funds to build more before-and-after-school care centres. This is very much welcomed and timely. These centres provide care for primary and lower secondary students. If the student attends a morning school, he comes back to the centre after school. If the student attends an afternoon school, he comes to the centre in the morning. At the centre, the student is looked after and given proper supervision. The parents pick up their children from the centre after their work. With this service, no parents need leave their children alone at home and unsupervised while they are at work. These centres are especially helpful to families where both parents work. Given the encouragement to mothers to return to the workforce, the number of such families is likely to grow. To make the service affordable, the Government helps low income families by subsidising the fees. The Government also encourages the grassroots and voluntary organisations to be involved in the setting up and running of these centres. It is good to get the community involved in the care of the young. As more such places become available, the number of unsupervised primary and lower secondary students will decrease.

Sir, this leads me to the subject of neighbourhood youth centres. Whereas the before-and-after-school care centres cater to the primary and lower secondary students, I would like to propose that youth centres be set up to cater to the upper secondary students. Youth centres are purpose-built centres which are equipped with resources specifically to meet the needs of youths.

Let me elaborate. My fellow hon. Member for Ang Mo Kio, Mr Inderjit Singh, yesterday also referred to the experience of Taiwan which showed that youths in secondary schools are more likely to go wayward. I feel that this observation also applies to Singapore, though not for the same reason. The reasons are more general. Youths face many challenges. They live in a very competitive and demanding world. At the same time, they are in a phase of their life when they are trying to reach out to people, make friends and establish relationships. They are trying to form their individual identity. In this phase, friends are just as important as parents. They want to be with their friends. They need a place to meet and activities to occupy their time. Besides the home and school, youths today do not have many places around the neigbourhood where they can gather. This probably explains the lure of shopping centres and game arcades. The youth centres could provide an alternative meeting place for youths. Today, there are not many youth centres around the place. The community centres and clubs are providing some resources and facilities for the youths. But community centres and clubs cater to the needs of a diverse group of users. I feel that our youths deserve a centre of their own. In 1982, boys clubs were set up by the Police. These centres were developed specifically for youths who were already having problems. Two years later, these centres were taken over by the PA and opened to all boys. But what about the girls? Some of them do get into mischief too. A doctor friend recently shared with me that he was consulting more families with problem youths and many involved defiant daughters. He said that in many instances the daughters were getting to be very rebellious and difficult to handle. I would like to propose that the 13 boys clubs be renamed youths clubs or centres and more to be built in the neighbourhoods. The centres will serve and benefit all youths. The centres could be equipped with computers, study rooms and reading materials to help the youths in their school work.

As the school curriculum becomes more IT orientated, students will need computers to do their homework. The youth centres can also double up as the neighbourhood IT resource centres. Students who do not have computers at home can use the computers at the centre.

The centres should also be equipped with games and sports facilities for their relaxation. These could include basketball and badminton courts, table tennis tables and street soccer pits. The youths should be encouraged to run the centres themselves. This would provide them with opportunities to develop their leadership skills and to help themselves. Able students can be encouraged to help weaker students. They can study and do their homework together. The youths would then have a place to call their own, congregate, get help with their school work and find wholesome companionship and the right motivation and peer influence. It is to be hoped that with the availability of the youth centres, the youths would no longer find the need to use the shopping centres and game arcades as places to hang out.

As this is a time when youths undergo rapid personality changes, conflicts with their parents are likely to be at their highest point. The family environment often becomes very stressful. The centre could also provide the youths with a place to get away from family stresses. They will have understanding and sympathetic friends to talk to. The centres also help to reduce family stresses in another way. Parents will feel more secure knowing that their children are at the centres. They will be less inclined to doubt or accuse their children of mischief. Often times, such doubts and questioning aggravate what are already very difficult and stressful situations.

Sir, our young are our most valuable and important assets and resources for our future. I strongly believe that our youths need and deserve their own neighbourhood youth centres. I would like the Ministry of Community Development to include in its plan the setting up of neighbourhood centres.

On this note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen to thank the President for enunciating the Government's policies and priorities for the new term of Parliament.

As the President had said, since 1965 we have come a long way. In terms of GDP per capita, we rank the top eight countries in the world; we rank as the most competitive economy; we have the world's best workforce and the best port, airport and the best and most comprehensive public housing in the world; and we have an honest and competent Government.

As we look into the crystal ball to get glimpses of our future, we see tremendous opportunities and the promise of economic prosperity, despite keener competition.

People the world over greatly desire the standard of living, the peace, the equality and the efficiency that we enjoy as Singaporeans. And yet many Singaporeans, paradoxically, do not seem to appreciate or really treasure all that we have achieved together. Many seem to take our success for granted and worse still engage in constant gripe, grouse and quibbles at our policies, programmes and new initiatives. It is perfectly all right for citizens to criticise policies as long as they are constructive and responsible and if they look beyond their pecuniary interests. But sadly, the greater our economic prosperity, the more the signs and symptoms of the evolution of a self-centred and envious society.

When our asset enhancement programmes, such as our Main Upgrading Programme or Interim Upgrading Programame favour the less well-off Singaporeans, many living in private properties, for example, are envious; or a grant in favour of some younger Singaporeans for Executive Condominiums makes others furious or when Government gives all Singaporeans $200 under the CPF top-up scheme, there are complaints all round that the amount is too small.

Recently, HDB announced a number of changes to its policies on upgraders, first-timers and the fiance-fiancee scheme, so as to reduce the waiting time by weeding out the non-bona-fide and less urgent applications. And hell broke loose. We have an avalanche of letters to the Straits Times Forum Page to complain. One writer says that "couples will be forced to proceed with the marriage just for the sake of not losing their deposit (of $5,000)". Instead of deploring the un-Asian attitude of young couples who put in their names in the application without any intention of getting married, he says the $5,000 deposit policy would lead to forced marriages!

Another writer says that he is saddened that the HDB should set aside more new flats for first-timers than for upgraders. Yet another writer says that he feels strongly that the priority for ECs should be given to first-timers instead of upgraders or HDB Executive Flat applicants. These are only a few letters to the Forum Page. I am told that HDB received more than 4,000 letters a month, many with similar sentiments. What is happening to Singaporeans? With our increasing affluence, are we losing sight of a sense of community, a sense of nationhood, a sense of social responsibility and instead fending only for our own existence, our own upliftment, and at the expense of some less well-off fellow Singaporeans.

Adam Smith in his book "A Theory of Moral Sentiments" argued that a stable society was based on "sympathy", a moral duty to have regard for your fellow human beings. The market is a mechanism for sorting the efficient from the inefficient and it is not a substitute for social responsibility.

So what is going to happen to our nation that we call Singapore? Our Prime Minister painted two possible gloomy future scenarios at the Inaugural Polytechnic Forum last September, which was showcased at the recent Public Service Exhibition. One scenario is a "Home Divided" where income gaps widen and Singaporeans become cocooned in the pursuit of their own comforts, and become increasingly selfish and envious. The successful and less successful will live in two different worlds with no bonding between them or the Government.

The second scenario is "Hotel Singapore", where the best and the brightest Singaporeans leave for greener pastures, where there is no commitment, where there is no fighting spirit, no obligation to solve Singapore's problem; where there is a weak Government because the best would have fluttered away. Are Singaporeans ever going to wake up and buck these gloomy scenarios before they become hard realities?

The recent political row must have jolted, a little, many an apathetic Singaporean. I am not sure if it succeeded in sending shudders down their spine or to galvanise them to a national cause or crusade.

Our Prime Minister once said that one of his biggest responsibilities is to avert, at all costs, any crisis that could cripple Singapore. That is why on fundamental matters like water, we need agreements not just for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, but till the year 2061. And because of an able leadership and a competent Government, we have succeeded in averting any crisis in Singapore. But the paradox is that our overwhelming success incorporates our failure. Because we were so successful, Singaporeans are not able to appreciate in depth what national survival and sovereignty is all about or how precious it is for our continued existence and prosperity. National service does some good but we have not fought a war to know what it is like. And fragile Singapore cannot afford to fight even a small war as it will destroy all that we have built. So our success seems like an irony, a paradox for us all.

I was in Vietnam recently as part of BG George Yeo's youth delegation. As you know, Vietnam fought the war against the Americans in the 1970s and won it. And the Vietnamese won the war not by superior firepower or technology but by sheer determination, intelligent manoeuvring and using innovative techniques such as burrowing or tunneling and booby-trapping.

Today, a post-war generation, like our post-65 generation, is growing up in Vietnam. We met a number of them. They were very impressive. They have the same determination and drive and that "fire in their belly" that their parents possess. They all seem to have a common national rallying cause or crusade. That is, they want to succeed economically not just as individuals but also collectively as a nation. And that is what is most striking about them. For example, a final year undergraduate told me that when he graduates he wants to start his own business even though he has already got a job offer from a big company. I asked him why starting a business was more important to him. His reply was that if he started his own business, he has the strong determination and drive to see it succeed. And if his business succeeds, he and his family will be better off. And he quickly added, and I quote, "just as importantly I want to be able to create jobs for my fellow Vietnamese and if I make good money, I can contribute to the Vietnamese national infrastructure projects through the corporate tax that I will have to pay."

One would have thought that he would make a good students' union leader or a charismatic politician. But he spoke with such conviction that it was no idle talk and, in fact, when we exchanged notes with the Singaporeans in the group, it was evident that there were many other young Vietnamese who expressed similar sentiments. Later, we also learnt from the authorities that the young were indeed very committed to their country. Many youths across the country had volunteered themselves to build the all-important North-South highway in Vietnam. I am not sure if we get that kind of commitment from our youths, if we want to extend the CTE or the PIE!

So what must the Government do to rally Singaporeans behind the national challenges ahead and to promote greater cohesion? I think we can adopt three key strategies to make Singaporeans look beyond their own well-being.

Firstly, we need to evaluate the centralised structure of governance in Singapore and seek ways to devolve more power to the local community so that people can have a greater say in matters that affect them.

Charles Handy, a well-known management philosopher, in his book "The Empty Raincoat - Making Sense of the Future", expounds the idea of federalism, and he says, and I quote:

`If we want to reconcile our humanity with our economics, we have to find a way to give more influence to what is personal and local, so that we can each feel that we have a chance to make the difference, that we matter, along with those around us. We have no hope of charting a way through paradoxes unless we are able to take some personal responsibility for events. A formal democracy will not be enough. We have to find another way, by changing the structure of our institutions to give more power to the small and to the local.' He talks about federalism, which though an old idea, can still be relevant because it aims to be local in its appeal and in many of its decisions, but national or global in scope. It endeavours to maximise independence, provided always there is a necessary interdependence.

Our Government has already taken great strides in this direction by introducing the concept of Community Development Councils or CDCs. When CDCs are formed across the island and are fully functional, local governance will instill greater social responsibility and greater bonding amongst Singaporeans. We need to continually find new ways to devolve more powers to the local communities. The NCMP, J B Jeyaretnam, seems to push the line of giving more power to the people and yet he and his party do not strongly support the concept of CDCs. If they mean what they say, they should come out strongly in support of the CDCs.

The second key strategy that we could adopt is to have a national agenda, a national mission that could galvanise Singaporeans as one people to meet new challenges ahead. True, we have the Singapore 21 programme. Singapore 21 is the PAP Government's programme and pledge of what it will do for the people in the next five years. And the Government will certainly deliver what it has set out in the programme. In the Singapore 21 plan, what is clear is the Government's resolve, but somehow the role of Singaporeans themselves in this regard does not come out clearly. In other words, Singapore 21 is a necessary plan but not a sufficient plan. To supplement Singapore 21, we need a national agenda which could clearly spell out the role, the participation, the involvement of Singaporeans in achieving our national mission. That way, we can galvanise and hopefully energize Singaporeans to a national cause.

The third strategy, in the absence of national crises, should be to teach our people about our difficult past. The National Education programme is a good start. But we seem to be only reaching out to the school-going children, as many Members have pointed out already. We also need to do more, much more, in educating Singaporeans, and some Members in this House may need it, as Charles Chong has put it. So it is even more urgent that we reach out to them because many in this age group are more cynical and self-centred as they are oblivious of our past.

Sir, in conclusion, let us all work together and focus on building a new tomorrow. Let us build a greater nation where people look beyond themselves and their families. Let us build a new Singapore. I support the motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for Community Development (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the motion in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen to thank the President for delivering the Presidential Address in this House.

The Presidential Address first dealt with the future development strategy and direction of the country and then it went on to deal with National Education and the awareness of history. I think it is well-intentioned and very significant. It reminds us that we are not learning history for the sake of the past but we are learning history for the sake of the future. Therefore, I hope that the Ministry of Education, in formulating the curricula of the National Education, emphasises the need for students to learn from history for the future. Without forgetting the basic realities, they should be encouraged to look to the future, dare to innovate and dare to overcome obstacles and difficulties so that Singapore can climb to greater heights and survive and flourish forever.

On National Education and the teaching of history, I think the important thing is to remember we should not carry the history legacy or baggage to such an extent to miss new opportunities because we live in the past. In all the Asian civilisations, Chinese civilisation lay greatest emphasis on history. In the past, the Chinese courts employed official historians on their staff. As a result, what happened over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years were all very well recorded and documented. Those days, if you were a scholar, you must be conversant with history, and in reciting precedents. But in the 19th century, the situation had changed because China's closed feudal society was forced open by Western gun-boat. But at the same time, there was another country, Japan, which was also at about the same time forced open by the West's gun-boat diplomacy. So by the end of the 19th century, both countries (China and Japan) decided to learn from the West, and sent their scholarship holders to the West. But the progress was entirely different for these two countries.

On the one hand, the Chinese students were hindered in introducing what they learn from the West. I think because the decision-makers had a heavier historical baggage at that time. Even the reformists, like Kang Youwei ( ), advocated (zhong xue wei ti; xi xue wei yong) (Chinese learning as the foundation; Western learning for application). But, on the other hand, when you look at the Japanese, they were able to discard the historical baggage. They accepted new methods. The went on the new path. So today we can see that the Japanese economy has been leading by a few decades ahead of China while at the same time they are able to preserve their traditional culture and values which remain quite intact. This is not what we should forget when you study history. In other words, we should not slow down in our development while we remember history.

In the next 10 to 15 minutes I would like to point out six areas where we can learn from the past, learn from history. These are experiences derived from the past which will remain relevant as we proceed to the new age.

The first point is that our people, regardless of race, language and religion, should all live in peace and harmony. This is the basic of our foundation. This is what we learn from Singapore history. It will not change in the 21st century or thereafter. We must always bear in mind that divisive forces actually come from chauvinism, extremism and racism. If some people support chauvinistic candidates but, on the other hand, they say that upgrading by precinct will cause division among our people, it would be like "allowing themselves to set houses on fire, but disallowing others to light the lamp" ( ).

The second point we should learn from history is that a meritocratic, clean and honest government is the foundation of a democratic nation. Meritocracy and clean government cannot be taken for granted. It is a concept easy to utter, difficult to get. We will realise this when we go to some foreign countries. Why do I say this is the foundation of our democratic nation? I often listen to the BBC broadcast. In one programme, one BBC journalist reported the election in a Latin American country. He said that before the election started, something happened to the family of a villager. I think it was the mother who fell sick. He was so poor that he was unable to give medical help to the mother. So he had to go to a local politician for help. The politician arranged for a doctor, and the problem was solved. His mother's sickness was cured. No money was collected from him. But his name was recorded in the politician's book. But during the election, the book was opened up. The politician asked his cadres to go and look for those people whose names appeared in the book. Transport was arranged to bring them to vote for this politician. I cannot forget the BBC journalist's conclusion. This villager said they were so poor that they could only sell their votes. I would ask hon. Members, under this kind of a system, you have a form of democracy but do you have the spirit and substance of democracy? Our clean and honest Government practises meritocracy. Is this not the basic foundation of our democratic system?

The third principle and lesson that we must learn from history is that we must make the country rich and our people strong. We should not be overbearing nor should we be servile. This is our principle for survival. My comrade, Mr Lim Swee Say, talked about the mood at his hom in 1965 when we first became independent. I had similar experience. Nobody was celebrating. We all felt the same way as Lim Swee Say's father - "We all had it. We are all in trouble!" If recently the friction between Singapore and Malaysia had happened at that time, our country was poor and we did not have a strong people, then we would not be able to do what we could do today - responding to the Malaysians without being overbearing nor servile. How would we be able to face the situation? I think we in this House could be talking in terms of compromise with the other party. Right now, we have a strong economy. Through national service we have the Armed Forces to defend ourselves. So, we can be calm and professional in our response.

I would also like to add that we should also have a strong spirit that would not succumb to threats. I remember the former Czechoslovakia. Now it has become two different countries. In the 20th century the country had the most developed economy in Eastern Europe and a strong enough armed forces. But because they did not have the spirit of not succumbing to threats, so without a bullet being fired, that country was first conquered by Germany in 1938. The second time was in 1968. This time it was invaded by Warsaw Pact forces. We must have a strong nation with strong people, and a strong will that, if necessary, we will stand up strongly for our country.

The fourth lesson that we must learn from history is that community self-help is the way to social cohesion. Over the past 150 years, community self-help has been successful in various forms. The successful people return the money that they earn from the society back to the society, so as to help those less successful and less fortunate, so that the less successful will not fall behind. This was first done by the clan associations and other civic organisations. In the 1990s, the community self-help groups came in. As we approach the 21st century, the same spirit would manifest also in the Community Development Councils.

The fifth lesson that we must learn from history is that open competition and mutual benefit is the way for our country to progress and to make friends with our neighbours. In the 1960s, when many other countries were influenced by the socialist thinking and closed their market for fear of letting in neo-colonialism, we dared to open up to the whole world for investments. We achieved unprecedented success, an economic miracle. But, now, everybody has discovered our trick, and decided they should also open up their doors. So we have regionalisation. When you open up your door, we will enter and support your policy. We share our success with them and we are very generous in sharing our experiences of success with countries like China and Vietnam. Through this method, we are able to make more friends. With this strategy, I think we can still march ahead in the 21st century.

The sixth point is that the rule of law is a cornerstone of social stability and the well-being of the people. I was very surprised when I heard somebody saying that this is a country without the rule of law. A few years ago, when I was working as a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, I went to the Queenstown Remand Prison. There were many people who were detained without trial under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Like Mr Zainul Abidin, I enjoyed the movie `Godfather'. You see the gangsters and gangster chiefs in the movie. There are many of them in Queenstown too. They are still very proud in the prison. If we release these people, I believe that all our front pages of newspapers will be full of crime stories of Singapore instead of what we see in other countries. This is what I would call real fear. If we want to put them on trial through the normal process, we can ask the Italian judges or police officers how they get witnesses to testify against Mafia gangsters. This is a great problem, they would tell you. There, the mafia gangs know that without witnesses, they would not get incriminated. They do not worry about the rule of law. Two judges, because they were too thorough in their investigations, were blown up together with their bodyguards. This happened a few years ago.

Finally, Sir, like other Members in this House, I also hope that the people of Singapore create more space for public opinion. We should be less shy in expressing our views. We should share our views with others. If you release all those in the Queenstown Remand Prison, I think the people will be in real fear. Singaporeans are not in real fear when criticising the Government or its policies.

I feel that Singaporeans are shy rather than in fear. If we go to attend a meeting or seminar or conference, the seats closest to the speaker or lecturer are mostly empty. So people sit at the back most of the time. Only those latecomers have no choice but to sit in front. This is being shy, not being fearful about the speaker. We should not confuse shyness with fear. But if we want to be creative, we cannot continue to be shy. If we have any views, we have any good ideas, we must share with others. But of course, we must also be prepared to accept criticisms from others because we want to be creative, others also want to be creative. You have your views, the Government also has its own views and reasons for certain policies. You cannot take Government reply as vicious criticism and should not confuse shyness with fear. This is a psychological barrier we must break through. So long as we can express views which are not detrimental to our democratic system and racial harmony, then the Government will welcome the views and feedback of the people.

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

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Clarification, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, only now have I realised that Singaporeans are so shy. Just now, Mr Chan Soo Sen said that some people supported a chauvinistic candidate on one hand, and talked about the Government dividing the people on the other hand. I would like to know who were these people he was referring to.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: ( In Mandarin): I was referring to a certain group of people. I think Mr Low is very clear as to who I am talking about. He may be one of them. But I am not saying that he is the only one.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, rightly put, I am not the only one. But I do not know who supported the chauvinistic candidate. I think he is very sure. He knows about it. If you are a gentleman, come clean, do not insinuate.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Low. In the last election, the Workers' Party took part by fielding Tang Liang Hong as a candidate. Mr Tang Liang Hong's words, we are all very clearly aware of what he said. His words reminded me of what was often heard in the schools in the 60s from the chauvinists of those days: That the Chinese educated had no opportunity, that they were suppressed and oppressed, and that they must stand up. I feel that this kind of argument is not conducive to the principle of racial harmony. Since the Workers' Party found it fit to field Mr Tang Liang Hong as a candidate, I think it may not be the idea of Mr Low Thia Khiang alone. I think there might be other people who supported this idea. But I cannot list out all these names.

Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, I think this is a small little debate within itself. I would not allow any more further clarification.