PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (Fourth 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]

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I caught your eye, and I will not exhaust the 30 minutes that have been allocated to me. I would be short.

Sir, I would like to bring up two major issues which are critical to Singapore's long-term social and economic stability. These two issues need to be pondered carefully and we need to manage them effectively. First, we must pay particular attention to the lurking danger in the resurgence of fanatical groups and individuals within and outside Singapore. We cannot take Singapore's racial, religious and language harmony for granted.

Sir, as you know, many countries which have long progressive developments are now plagued by various types of fanatics. The first type, as you are aware of, is the religious fanatics who push for one religion over all others. The second type is the racial fanatics who demand for the dominance of one race over all others. The third type is the language fanatics who assert the supremacy of one language over others. Sir, you can see what has happened to countries such as Lebanon, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Cyprus and Northern Ireland. Many of these countries have long histories and today they are all broken. They are plagued by conflicts, issues and problems between people of various persuasions. They were thriving economies and culturally vibrant places, but if we examine and assess them they have become fractured by racial, religious and language conflicts.

Sir, young Singaporeans must learn from the sad lessons of these places and take steps to ensure that various types of fanatics are deterred to take root in Singapore. And history is obviously a good lesson and by examining the various episodes and problems faced by these countries, they are very important lessons that we all need to draw, appreciate and understand, so that in Singapore we can take pre-emptive steps to deal with these critical and crucial issues.

Sir, our social institutions providing education, housing and employment must take proactive steps to enable our young to respect and appreciate one another, irrespective of their language, race or religion. We must continue to actively immunise our younger generations to socially integrate through economic, educational and community activities. In short, we have to socialise our young to think, feel and be Singaporeans. I say it is not just sufficient for Singaporeans to feel and to think, but to behave and to act as Singaporeans. I feel that this is most critical and most important.

I am sure that all our social institutions will strive to achieve this objective by taking various conscious steps and different ways to encourage more multi-racial participation of people in various social and economic activities. I am of the opinion that it must be a conscious effort whether we like it or not because Singapore is a multi-racial society. We have peoples of various persuasions and this must remain an important and crucial thing within the backdrop of our minds.

Sir, we can further strengthen our bonds among our ethnic groups. The first place to start with is in the pre-schools in our neighbourhoods where effective integration and steps need to be taken, so that the very young, having to socialise with various ethnic groups, can participate in various activities which can help us build stronger bonds.

On a more serious note, my grave concern is on the potential danger of the rise of fanatical individuals and groups outside Singapore who can do harm to Singapore and Singaporeans. Worse still from a fanatical leader that we may have no control. In the face of this potential threat, Singaporeans must be alert and be street-wise to band together to deal with such problems which can arise. We live in an uncertain world, and anything can hit us at any time, but we must be prepared to deal with it graciously. And this I am sure Singaporeans will be able to respond. We hope that there will continue to be rational and cooperative leaders in the region who will work for the common good of all peoples in ASEAN and other regions. It is through this common bond of brotherhood in international relations, mutual support and understanding that we can build a better regional community, a better world.

Sir, I feel that Singaporeans and Malaysians all want to live and work as best friends and we have over the years cultivated very good relationship and we all want to maintain this positive relationship.

We have good people-to-people relationship over the years and I hope that we can continue to build on this and strengthen better mutual understanding and support of one another.

Sir, the second issue that we need to pay closer attention, I must say, is to enable the less better off to improve their stations in life. In our strive for material pursuits, we must not forget that we have social obligations to help those who are less better off and less socially endowed. In a social and economic marathon, there will always be people who are going to do less better and we want to ensure that they participate in the race and we should find ways to enable these people to achieve and to be in the race. We cannot afford to ignore them. To do so would make our society cold and uncaring. I look forward for more governmental contributions and together with community and voluntary efforts and corporate support, we can do more and help the less privileged and the less endowed. More Edusave scholarships and bursaries could be given to a larger number of families. I think the criteria need to be reviewed so that families that are outside the boundary can be included for help and education can be an inroad to assist them to achieve better lives.

Sir, for the common man, basic services such as health care, housing, education and transportation should remain affordable. As you are aware, more public services are to be restructured or corporatised. It is necessary for the Government to set up a body to monitor and check the charges so that we can ensure that the prices that are charged by these institutions are fair and accessible for the common man.

Sir, in conclusion, to make Singapore more versatile, we must work together as a team and promote the best of relationship with Malaysians and other peoples of ASEAN.

On that note, I support the motion

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of the Ninth Parliament.

The President has given a very comprehensive speech anchored on five pillars which will usher Singapore into the 21st century. These five pillars: create wealth, share success, invest in the young, look after the old, and build ties will be the guiding principles for all Singaporeans to work together for a better future.

As we move into the next millennium, Singapore will face two main challenges: intense competition and rising expectations of people. With greater liberalisation of trade and open economy, competition will be more intense both locally and in the global market. The rising expectations of people will also pose immense challenges to Singapore to improve our performance and provide better quality services.

To cope with these challenges, we need to focus on improving the quality of our environment, services, products and, at the same time, increase the productivity of our workforce. Quality and productivity must be the main thrust to make Singapore a world-class city.

I am very pleased to note that the President has emphasised the need to upgrade the physical environment and build Singapore into a city of excellence. In line with the President's call, I would like to focus on "How to develop Singapore into a world-class city". I will highlight three areas of concern: (1) Planning, (2) Design, and (3) Construction.

Sir, I will first discuss on the area of planning. We must adopt an integrated planning approach to make Singapore a world-class city.

First of all, integrated planning. Singapore has gained a world reputation for its forward and far-sighted planning of the city. Over the last 32 years, we have developed excellent infrastructure, buildings and amenities to make Singapore a city for business, living and recreation. The recent Development Guide Plans have also incorporated a variety of urban forms to make Singapore a vibrant and interesting city to work and live in.

The creation of the New Downtown at Marina South is an example of how integrated planning can help to provide Singaporeans with a vibrant and exciting environment.

I understand that the relevant authorities have been working closely to ensure that the plans meet the country's needs at the strategic level. I hope that more coordination and cooperation could be achieved at the operational level as well to facilitate developments in both the public and private sectors.

With the advent of information technology, more planning information can be made known to developers, consultants and contractors to avoid unnecessary delays in development and wastage of resources in abortive or corrective works. We should consider developing web sites for all Development Guide Plans so that all developments could be instantly updated. This would help developers, consultants and contractors to plan their projects more effectively and efficiently.

Secondly, our planners. Credit must be given to our planners who had taken bold initiative to develop Singapore into a city of excellence over the last 32 years. In the face of growing competition, our planners must strive to make Singapore a more attractive place for business and investment. We should continue to attract and retain good planners so that plans could be implemented and fine-tuned to make Singapore a world-class city.

Sir, I will now move on to the second area: Design. We must encourage more innovative and creative designs for our built environment. First of all, innovate design. More creative and innovative designs are needed so as to meet the rising expectations and aspirations of the people. In the next century, we will have more elderly people, and users will be more knowledgeable and demanding.

More user friendly, functional and maintainable designs must be adopted so as to achieve more comfort, higher productivity and better quality of life. In addition, buildings must be designed to be easily accessible and well-integrated with the transportation system and other amenities to meet the users' needs.

Secondly, private sector participation in HDB housing. The private sector should be further encouraged to participate in our public housing programmes to provide more variety and options to Singaporeans. At present, about 10-15% of HDB new flats are built using the design-and-build or design-plus methods whereby private architects are involved.

With more private sector involvement, more new ideas can be introduced to make HDB living more interesting and pleasant. However, HDB should continue to conduct quality audit so as to ensure that designs of HDB flats remain buildable, functional, practical and maintainable.

The combination of expertise from both the HDB and private sector will produce a new breed of public housing that will better meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans in the 21st century.

Thirdly, designs for enhancing community bonding. The HDB precinct concept should be further expanded so that communal spaces are specifically designed to promote social cohesion and community bonding of the people. We should adopt the condominium concept whereby social centre or communal space is created for residents to interact and develop bonding.

Eventually, more autonomy should be accorded to residents to take responsibility in maintaining their living environment. This joint responsibility will further strengthen the bond of the people, thus leading to a stronger community.

Fourthly, HDB upgrading programmes. The HDB upgrading programme has been a great success. Many Singaporeans have gained or are aware of the immense benefits of the programme. The Estate Renewal Strategy, Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes have successfully rejuvenated older estates and enchanced the quality of life of many residents.

A recent survey was conducted by the NUS School of Building and Real Estate to determine the impact of the Main Upgrading Programme on the quality of life of residents. The majority of residents surveyed (more than 70% of them) from eight upgraded precincts felt that upgrading has improved the quality of their lives.

Certain design features were specifically highlighted as having enhanced their quality of living. These included lifts at every floor, covered walkways, new lift interior and landscaped gardens. I hope the Government could consider giving an additional grant to incorporate these design features as standard items in future upgrading programmes.

Sir, I will now move on to the third area of concern: Construction. We must upgrade the construction industry. First of all, build a quality construction workforce. In order to develop Singapore into a world-class city, we need to upgrade the capability of our construction industry. The construction industry plays a significant role in contributing to the GDP of Singapore. In 1996, it contributed 8.5% to the National Economy. Despite this, the industry is plagued with problems of low productivity and labour shortages.

These shortcomings have adversely affected the quality of construction services and inhibited regionalisation efforts of the industry. We need to build a quality construction workforce comprising multi-skilled tradesmen, supervisory and professional staff in Singapore. The construction industry encounters much difficulty in attracting Singaporeans to work in the industry. This is attributed to the tough and dangerous working conditions at construction sites.

Many young Singaporeans shun the industry, thus leaving many construction firms with no choice but to rely on foreign workers. This situation is not desirable and construction firms are unable to maintain a stable pool of skilled construction personnel.

I hope the Government could provide more support to improve the image of the industry and encourage more Singaporeans to pursue a career in the construction industry.

More incentives such as tax rebates could be given to construction firms which employ Singaporeans. Incentives should be provided to encourage staff to stay with the same employers for a number of years. This will help firms to maintain a stable workforce, thus improving their productivity and quality of work.

Secondly, maintaining construction workload. To maintain a stable workforce, construction firms must procure adequate contracts. The fluctuating workload of construction firms is one factor which has prevented firms from employing more direct staff. More support and encouragement such as tender premiums should be given to firms with good track record and direct workforce. If possible, more design and build or negotiation contracts from the public sector could be awarded to these firms. In Japan, many of the large construction firms are able to maintain a large pool of direct workers (between 10,000 and 15,000 staff) due to their ability to obtain work through design and build and negotiation procurement methods. These contractual arrangements have enabled Japanese firms to achieve higher productivity and quality of work, thus winning their clients' confidence for future contracts.

Thirdly, safe working environment. We need to provide a safe and conducive working environment at construction sites. Statistics from the Labour Ministry revealed that the construction industry has the highest number of fatal accidents (43 cases) in 1995 as compared to other industries. These figures clearly show that more must be done to develop a safety culture in the construction industry.

The provision of a safe and conducive working environment should be the joint responsibility of the authorities, developers, consultants and contractors. I am glad to know that steps have been taken to set aside certain sums of money in accordance with the size of the contract to ensure that proper safety measures are taken and housekeeping is carried out to make our construction sites safe and tidy.

The Labour Ministry has been conducting safety training courses to address this problem. To succeed, we need the collective efforts of all parties involved in a construction project.

Fourthly, help construction firms to grow. To date, we have a total of 121 G8 construction firms registered in general building, civil engineering and piling works. These firms can undertake projects of unlimited contract value. However, not many of them have annual turnover of more than $100 million. In 1996, only $1.5 billion out of $16 billion value of contracts in the construction industry was from overseas market. This accounts for a mere 10% of construction services being exported to other countries. Many of our local construction firms are family based businesses which have limited resources to grow into big construction firms of international standing. Despite much encouragement, the growth of construction firms is slow.

I hope the Government will initiate the pooling of resources in the construction industry. Firms with high growth potentials should be given more financial incentives to upgrade and expand their operations. Incentives must be given to encourage partnership between construction firms, development firms and financial institutions to undertake overseas projects. To be able to seize the immense opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region, we must build a core group of contractors which have the financial capability and construction expertise to compete in the global market.

Fifthly, buildable designs and precast technology. I am pleased to note that the National Development Minister has recently re-emphasised and encouraged architects to use more simple-to-build designs and precast technology. These measures have proved to be very successful in Europe and Japan in increasing productivity and quality. In Singapore, HDB has achieved excellent results in adopting buildable designs and precast technology. There is an urgent need to spearhead the use of these techniques in our industry.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, to develop Singapore into a World-class City is a daunting task. We have the will, expertise and resources to achieve this goal. But, we need to focus on the three areas which I have mentioned: Planning, Design and Construction. With the support of a good Government, both the public and private sectors will be able to make Singapore a better home for all of us.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Cheng San): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak at this session. I rise in support of the motion by the hon. Member for Bukit Timah.

Sir, to my mind, the gist of the President's Address highlights the need for us to stand tall, to stand proud of and to stand up for Singapore. However, these are also areas where if we are not careful, we can be misinterpreted as being conceited, arrogant and insensitive. No, I am not saying that we should offer our other cheek, but instead let us put our shoulders to the wheel and stand together, graciously.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed on this point, allow me first to share with the House some of my thoughts about Parliament and I.

When I first took my seat here last week, I must confess that I felt not a little over-awed by the imposing stateliness and the dignity of the House, and the presence of some of the strongest pillars, some of the most important people in the history of modern Singapore and its success.

Almost before that feeling passed, I was struck by the realisation that I was now a member of this body charged with looking after and securing the future of our country and our people.

Together with the privilege of service comes the responsibility - no, the obligation - to give of our best to justify the people's trust in us.

As elected MPs, it is our sacred duty to strive to satisfy as many as possible the people's wants and needs - social, economic and political. To help them meet and overcome their problems, to examine and explore their views and ideas, and to help them achieve their aspirations and goals. In the multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural dynamics of Singapore, these are perforce, diverse and ever-changing and not always easy to handle. But we must try anyway.

We are the voice of the people and a vital link between them and the Government. If we do not speak up for them, who would. Though, of course, we must always be careful of the many different sensitivities at play.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this House, I intend to speak my mind, though I shall also mind what I say. Honestly and sincerely, no man can do more, and the people of Singapore deserve no less. We must not run away from our responsibilities just because issues raised or policies adopted may be unpleasant or unpopular.

We are Singaporeans, pragmatic and realistic. Our leaders have brought us thus far, that we can walk with our heads held high in any company, not by sweeping the dust under the carpet but facing adversity down and turning obstacles into opportunities.

Against all odds, Singapore has not only survived but also succeeded beyond expectations. We are eternally grateful to the early leaders for all they have done, for all their personal sacrifices. But we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. If conditions were difficult in the early years, they promise to be even tougher in the future.

Domestically, the people have higher expectations and demands. Ironically, this has come about because of the country's success. With the attendant higher standard of living and education, the electorate has become more demanding and critical. However, our society is still scored with sensitive cracks and fissures.

In this context, Sir, efforts by the Ministry of Education to make a success of our National Education Programme deserve all the support. It goes without saying that the teaching of modern history is not easy, especially when it is recent, when memories are still fresh and when it is filled with many controversies. All the more when it involved different racial groups which may have different perspectives to it. Facts are clear but not necessarily their interpretations. In other words, there are minefields. We need to go about it with care, which I am sure the Minister for Education and his capable team are aware of. We wish them well, for this is a formidable task. By all means, focus on modern history, but do not also forget the early history where our roots are also planted.

If I may add, since the purpose of us learning history is to draw lessons for the future, the Minister for Education may want to consider incorporating elements of our vision for the future in the NE programme. Understanding the pillars of Singapore 21, NTUC 21 and/or other agendas for action, will also be useful.

Externally, Sir, the competition for trade and investments, for talent and technology has become ruthless.

We can hope to continue the Singapore success story only if the people are united, pulling in one common direction for the common goal. For this great cause, I hope even the hon. Members of the opposition would join in. When it comes to the crunch, we should put aside personal interests and conflicts and stand up for Singapore.

This does not mean that we do not entertain different views and opinions, as long as they stay objective and constructive. After all, we are all Singaporeans and we all have a stake in this country.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir, this reminds me of the early hours of 3rd January this year when soon after the result of the election at Cheng San GRC were announced, I found myself reminding supporters of the defeated opposition candidates that we were all Singaporeans.

They have been heckling loudly and trying to prevent my colleagues and I from addressing our supporters in Cheng San and, through the medium of live television, fellow Singaporeans who had stayed up all night for the result. What I said to the opposition supporters in that tense moment, I said spontaneously. It was one of the first thoughts to have come to my mind.

I have since been told that my plaintive cry - that in victory or in defeat, we ought to remember we are still one people - had not only calmed down those vociferous opposition supporters but also struck a sympathetic chord in many fellow citizens. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad.

Yes, we are one people. And I say that in the full knowledge that there are substantial numbers of Cheng San residents, indeed many Singaporeans in other wards, who did not, and still do not, agree with much of what PAP says and does. This ability to accept that there can be differences between fellow citizens over political and other beliefs, differences honestly held - this tolerance, if you will - is critical to our staying united as one people.

The call from our national leaders for Singaporeans to forge closer bonds with one another, to feel as one nation, would ring hollow if significant numbers are made to feel ignored, sidelined or alienated.

Thus, I shall dedicate myself to doing whatever I can to help foster this sense of solidarity. Thus, I shall serve, to the best of my ability, even those who did not vote for our team.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe today, as we prepare for the 21st century, is an opportune time to reaffirm our belief in wanting to stay as one people, whatever our political and other differences. The role of the CDCs in community bonding cannot be over-emphasised. Neither should we underestimate the role of self-help groups, even the religious organisations. And collectively, they can help us make that difference.

It is also an opportune time because in the white heat of global economic competition, Singapore needs every of its citizen to pull together in the same direction in order to stay ahead.

This is not rhetoric. In the economic race between nations, no one country can afford to have less than total effort and total commitment from its people to do what it takes to produce goods and services which can sell in the global market place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that we Singaporeans can rise to the challenge. Yes, present times are unlike those early years when the very survival of Singapore was a question mark and people were ready to throw their support behind the Government unquestioningly. Yes, it would be much harder now to galvanise the nation. Today's generations have to be won over differently. That is our task, in fact, our test.

We have to think of creative ways to win them over. In that thinking mode, Sir, allow me to say that I am in full support of the MOE's effort at inculcating creative thinking in our students, towards achieving what Prime Minister Goh called a thinking school and a learning nation. Let us also encourage creative thinking, and equally important is the need for us to teach our students and our young constructive thinking. In my mind, critical thinking is incomplete without constructive thinking. I consider it a worthwhile challenge to do my bit to help win hearts and minds for the larger Singapore cause. I am here to serve and I shall. And it is my conviction, my firm conviction, Sir, that in the trying times ahead, we cannot afford to be divided. As Gladstone put it: `We must hang together, or most assuredly, we shall hang separately.'

Finally, Sir, briefly, on Singapore-Malaysia relations. Without doubt, relations between Singapore and Malaysia carry a lot of historical baggage. There was much bad blood too. The recent row, although it may have opened up old wounds, surely cannot be as bad as the ones experienced by our founding fathers of modern Singapore. They literally went through blood, sweat and tears to merge with Malaysia, and after having achieved that, only to find the two odd years nightmarish, what with race politics, communalism and communism as the harsh realities of the day. To some, it was even a matter of life and death.

Perhaps influenced by the spirit of amity in Asean then, the two neighbours were able to rise above the acrimony and the din, to benefit from cooperation. Singapore could not have invested so much in Malaysia if not for good faith and optimism in bilateral relations. Not that there was no competition. As the President said in his Address, we will have to compete while we cooperate. It is not a zero-sum game. It should be a win-win situation.

We all know the interdependence of both countries in many areas. And it is in appreciating that complementation that we had brought about mutual benefits. We all know, even blood ties flow both ways. What is it compared with the flow of water. Let us face it, we are two civilised, independent and sovereign states. Let us show the world we understand what that means and let us move on.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues in rising to thank the President for his Address which was succinct and yet all encompassing, spelling out the ingredients necessary to make Singapore our best home.

Yes, competition will get tougher by the day with our competitors building up capabilities in areas of our traditional strengths and moving into niches which we used to occupy. But their progress will also mean that there will be more opportunities for us and our companies to trade with them, invest in them and provide them with support and services. Therefore, Sir, keener competition is not without gains to our people provided we continue to upgrade ourselves, improve our productivity, persevere and be always united purposefully for a common destiny. I am glad that the priorities of the Government in the next five years are to continually invest in our people, fine-tune our education system and plan ahead to catch the market tide. But, Sir, economic achievement alone is not enough. We must also know our roots and our history in order to be proud of our own brand of Singapore culture and tradition.

Sir, pride for one's home, country and tradition is a unifying force never too early to imbue one with. I note with pride that we not only thrive economically, but we are also a thinking people and refused to be dragged into silly mud-slinging. Recently, Singaporeans have shown their mettle yet again in the face of a tirade onslaught by some members of our closest neighbour, Malaysia. Their ferocity and outburst were calculated to agitate, annoy and stir emotions. But Singaporeans remained level-headed and unfazed. They closed ranks and kept their cool.

Sir, it was an eye opener. To me, it is like a blessing in disguise. It makes Singaporeans, particularly our younger ones, more aware of our vulnerabilities and the need, despite our economic progress, to also know Singapore's history in greater details, the trials and tribulations that came before our success today. That it was never a breezy stroll, but a meandering path that was arduous and sometimes treacherous. Only then would younger Singaporeans look at each achievement with pride, gratitude and appreciation.

Sir, the National Education Programme (NEP) should come timely for all Singaporeans. Recently, I had the opportunity to attend, on behalf of the Government, the National Day Celebration of a very friendly developed country, the Netherlands. What I witnessed at the celebration deeply moved and impressed me. The guests at the celebration were mostly Singaporeans and many Dutchmen too. When the Singapore National Anthem was played, the audience was generally attentive but very few Singaporeans were heard singing `Majullah Singapura'. In contrast, as soon as the first beat of the Netherlands National Anthem came on the air, the Dutch sang spontaneously, in thunderous unison and their faces beaming with pride and joy. Obviously, they love their country and are always ready to show it expressively. Sir, we could learn from the Netherlands. I would like to suggest that the NEP include urging all Singaporeans to sing aloud our National Anthem wherever and whenever it is played, be it in the schools, community halls or at other public or private functions.

Sir, I would also like to suggest that the deeds of yesteryear heroes of Singapore be made an integral part of the NEP. It could feature philanthropists like Tan Kah Khee, Lee Kong Chian, anti-Japanese occupation hero like Major Lim Bo Seng, and even the retired "Tiger Hong" and the "Samsudin" of SAFTI who not only instilled discipline and patriotism in their charges, but helped mould the early batches of NSmen and lay a solid foundation for National Service. Our home-grown entrepreneurs and industrialists too should find a place in Singapore's history. What is most important of all is the struggles and success stories of our first generation of political leaders before, during and after independence. Sir, the NEP should not be confined only to schools. The mass media should play their part by running articles and stories on these great men, in particular, honouring their deeds and sacrifices. The real benefit would come with time when the young Singaporeans are imbued with the right values and are seen to emulate our true heroes.

Sir, the President has outlined the five pillars of excellence. I think our adequate hardware and sound infrastructure built over the years augmented by consistent upgrading and restructuring to meet market demands, should keep us in competition. I am not too worried about that. However, like my many colleagues in this House, I am concerned with the "software" aspect of nation building. How do we improve our social behaviour, nurture our young, care for the aged and build family ties? This aspect of growth has become increasingly important as we move to become a developed nation by the turn of the century.

Sir, eating at buffets is a common past-time for Singaporeans. Sometimes, it helps to bring a family and friends together and that is good. But the sight of kids piling up their plates, spilling food on the way back to their tables and not finishing them, all these sometimes under the eyes of their doting parents is, indeed, saddening. These people feel that since it is a buffet and they have paid for it, they have every right to the food including wasting them. Educating the parents as much as the children against such thinking is necessary, and I have no qualms that restaurants enforce the rule of charging wasted food strictly. Peer group pressure would also help. And in schools, teachers could promote etiquette awareness by discussing good social habits and chiding all forms of kiasuism.

Sir, affluence, the result of our forefathers and ourselves working hard, our frugality, determination and honest and able Government, has unfortunately given many young Singaporeans today the notion that life is blessed with opulence and abundance. That money is to be found in an ATM machine, and all you need is an ATM card or a credit card. Some parents prefer to spend all their time at work, with friends and entertainment. Instead of giving time to their children, they give them ATM cards or credit cards. So their children become free-spenders, and with substantial amounts of money at their disposal, they are attracted to branded goods and become brand conscious. The net result, trendy youth who indulges in vain pursuits of materialism and with scant respect for money.

Sir, we can conveniently blame social ills to society, to economic affluence. We look at the developed West and we console ourselves that they are no different. Yes, but we can be different. Recognising that these are weaknesses in our system brings us one step closer to a solution. I am therefore glad that the Government has planned family get-together programmes, such as the National Family week in June, where wholesome activities will be organised with the family in mind. It is now for Singaporeans to respond positively to these activities, which hopefully will jump-start them into holding their own family gatherings and interactions on a regular basis.

Sir, good dramas and plays will also help strengthen family ties. I remember the movie Julie Andrews' "The Sound of Music" was a hit. It has a beautiful story line. A father who ruled over his children regimentally discovered true love and rapport with his children through the children's nanny, who herself had to first contend with and win over defiant children. I hope this move will still be a hit today. Otherwise, I would be worried. Another good drama is the local "Under One Roof" which again centres on the family ties and neighbourliness. Its jokes are funny, sometimes exaggerated, but never need to be vulgar. It goes to show that we can still have good plays and dramas without having to spice them with gore, violence or sex.

Sir, care for the aged. The Government has in place various safety nets for healthcare protection. I would urge the Government to monitor closely the adequacy of each safety net, enhance and improve on them according to the needs of the people, lest they become irrelevant. There should also be more efforts made by National Sports Associations to promote sporting activities specially tailored for the elderly for greater awareness.

Sir, as GPC Chairman for MITA, I cannot end my speech without responding to DPM Dr Tony Tan's announcement two days ago that the Government has given art a big boost with the formation of a Committee to recommend how creative and artistic manpower in Singapore can be developed and with promise of financial support for the LaSalle College of Arts and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts. My GPC Members and I give our whole-hearted support to this move. Sir, as our economy matures and before the pursuit of materialism and wealth becomes an obsession, it is timely that we make space for the arts to ventilate, to flourish. It is accepted that arts is soothing, that it makes people more gentle and patient. It helps to remind ourselves that there is beauty in being a gracious people, in being appreciative of nature and the sublime.

Sir, everyone has a part to play in promoting art awareness. I would like to suggest that at the constituency level, the Government consider designating a place or places as Arts Corner where residents are free to show and display their artistic talents, whether in the form of paintings, poems, handicrafts, or even dancing. Grassroots organisations could help on a bigger scale by holding performances, operas or dances for budding artists, talents, from within the constituency on a regular basis. Artistes should be encouraged and given room and access for expression. Only then will Singapore not become a concrete jungle for the spiritual bankrupt, but a people of varied talents appreciative of the true meaning of life and living.

With that, Sir, I would like to thank the President once again for reminding us that it is not enough just to have handsome buildings and a world-class infrastructure. We also need to be gracious, caring and considerate people as we enter the next millennium, thereby making Singapore our best home!

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Marine Parade): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the speeches of more than 40 colleagues in this House, I think they have covered almost every relevant topic. All I can say is that "great minds think alike".

However, as it is said, "The wise man may have considered a thousand things, yet he is bound to make a slip one day. On the other hand, even a foolish man may occasionally hit a good idea." It is in this light that I am presenting my humble view to this House today.

First of all, I would like to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bukit Timah thanking the President for his Address at the Opening of this Parliament.

This Government is a cross-century government, because it will lead Singapore from the 20th century into the 21st century. Different ages and different times face different questions, problems and challenges. Every country, at different stages of development and different times in history, also has to face different kinds of problems and challenges. As such, the key to survival is to be able to overcome all the problems and meet all the challenges. In the ever-turning wheel of history, we have seen countless ups and downs, successes and failures.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to face the future challenges, as a citizen, I think there are two things we have to bear in mind. Firstly, it is to learn from the past for the sense of crisis which would motivate us to struggle for our survival. Secondly, we must make every effort to enhance our awareness for competitiveness.

At the time of separation from Malaysia, we were really desperate and everybody thought we had no chance of survival. But we made it. We actually found a way out against all odds. I think in this context, the sense of crisis played a very important role. That generation of Singaporeans all had a very strong sense of crisis or "crisis consciousness". Since separation from Malaysia, we worked very hard for more than 30 years. Today, with all the success and prosperity, Singaporeans seem to have lost their sense of crisis. Long periods of stability and development have brought to our people security and confidence. Is it good or bad? I think it can be both. Good in the sense that we have confidence and the courage to face our future positively. Bad in the sense that some of our people have become complacent and arrogant.

It is generally known in military strategy that, "An army burning with righteous indignation is bound to win, and an army puffed up with pride is bound to lose." This is precisely the reason why the hare lost its race against the slow-moving tortoise, in the famous fable.

In the 60s and 70s, we were an army of righteous indignation. We had no other options. We had to bei shui yi zhan ( : fight with one's back to the river) that is, fight to win or die, and pofu chenzhou ( : break the cauldrons and sink the boats after crossing) that is, cut off all means of retreat and be absolutely resolute to win or die. Now, what we must do is to prevent our people from an army which is puffed with pride, or like the conceited hare in the fable. Otherwise, we may end up "surviving the turbulent times yet succumbing in times of peace and happiness".

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible for us to recreate artificially the sense of crisis to stimulate the fighting spirit of our citizens, because the sense of crisis is a product of circumstances. So, I think what we should do is to try and enhance the competitive awareness among our people.

Why do I say we have to enhance our competitive awareness? This is because, I believe, basically, all our citizens do have the competitive awareness with them. However, I notice also that the competitive awareness of some of our people is either not correctly oriented or simply inadequate. For example, some people may ask: why should we want to be No. 1 in every field? Why must Singapore be fighting to be the first in everything? Some people say that Singapore is very small, competition is very intense and the pressure is getting more and more heavy all the time. I think this sort of thinking exists because these people have inadequate competitive awareness or they have failed to understand the real meaning of competitive awareness. They should understand that apart from internal competition, the greater competition actually comes from outside, or the external environment for survival. Some people do not fully understand that keeping our advantage or edge in the competition is our means for survival. That is why I believe that competitive awareness is one key component we must include in our proposed National Education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to enhance competitive awareness, first of all, we must know the various crises that we have gone through in all these years of our nation building. This is history. There was an ancient Chinese saying, "Taking history as an object lesson, we can tell the rise and fall of a nation." We must always be prepared for danger in times of peace. We must realize that although there is no great crisis or threat to us in the foreseeable future, the very keen global competition may well affect our survival and our future prosperity.

Today, we have a very good life, much better than that of 20-30 years ago. But the world today has also changed. We must make our people realize that world competition is becoming keener and keener. Our economic competitors are no longer the tortoises, because there are no more tortoises. We are now competing with hares. Take the case of Malaysia. It is now a hare which can run very fast and they have always been using the slogan Malaysia Boleh to encourage their people to be competitive. In certain areas like ports, airports, information technology, they are actually in direct competition with Singapore. So I feel that it is very important for us to enhance the competitive awareness among our people.

Sir, let me deal with two recent events which are very important in urging our people to reflect on our future. The first event is the kidnap and murder of Pai Hsiao-Yen, the only daughter of the famous Taiwanese television artiste Pai Ping Ping. The second event is the recent storm in the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, which we have all been talking about.

The case of Pai Hsiao-Yen shocked the entire Taiwan society. But it was just one of the many cases of chaos in Taiwan. We learnt from the newspapers that soon after the funeral of Pai Hsiao-Yen, there was news of yet another innocent young boy who was kidnapped and murdered. Not long ago, there were the case of rape and murder involving a feminist leader, Peng Wan-Ru, and the murder of the Magistrate of Tao Yuan County, Taiwan. All these cases remain unsolved. These are samples of the kind of social disorder in Taiwan which make the people there feel that they are living in fear and danger all the time, and these are real fears!

We all know that Taiwan is one of the four little dragons of Asia. Taiwan's development started earlier than Singapore, and at a faster pace too. In my opinion, the experiences of Taiwan provides us with a lot of lessons to learn from.

Not too long ago, Taiwan was also a very orderly society, but in just a short period of time, everything has changed. On television, we can see thousands and thousands of demonstrators taking to the streets, calling on the government to resign, because they could not solve all these crimes. We have also seen from TV the cries and appeals of Pai Ping Ping calling on President Lee Teng Hui to devote some time to look into law and order in Taiwan, and to provide the women-folk in Taiwan a reasonable space for survival, while paying attention to the international arena.

Sir, as it is said, "worms will hatch only from things which are rotten". Taiwan today has all the chaos that caused a lot of anxiety, and this is something that we need to study and learn from. The Taiwanese experience tells us that to move from order to disorder is easy, but to restore law and order from chaos is very difficult. It is just like a jigsaw puzzle. You need to spend a lot of time to put all the pieces together. But if you want to break them, it is just so easy. You can do instantaneously. In English, they use the expression: "to open up the Pandora's box". The consequences are unthinkable. It is beyond control. Once social order is in jeopardy, it will affect not only the confidence of the people, but the confidence of the investors as well. This will be detrimental to the competitiveness of a country. Now the Taiwanese are saying that they should resort to heavy punishment to deal with the social disorder. But we know that when politics and the underworld are tied up together, as in the case of Taiwan, to move from disorder to order is not easy. Here, I would like to refer to one article in the New News Weekly which says: " The ill fate of Taiwan is like a heavy object dropping into the water. It sinks deeper and deeper. In less than 10 years' time, Taiwan has deteriorated from a society of chaos to a society of avarice, and from an avaricious society into a cruel society. 1996 was the watershed. The number of serious crimes of violence suddenly jumped from 917 cases to more than 1,400 cases. Kidnapping and extortion cases rose from 92 to more than 150 cases. Taiwan is full of violence. It is no longer a country of petty thieves and small-time robbers. It is now a new barbaric country which is full of violence and gruesome crimes. This article is entitled "Who can save Taiwan?"

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the 60s, Singapore was also a country infested with kidnappers and gangsters. But because the Government had taken effective measures to curb the influence of the underworld, we are able to enjoy social order today. We should never allow the underworld the opportunity to raise its ugly head again to jeopardize our social security. Therefore, the Government must make all efforts to deal with criminals, to maintain good social order and security, to ensure that our people enjoy safety and freedom without any fear, or interference, kidnapping or blackmailing by the underworld. I believe this is a prerequisite for us to continue in our development.

The next point I would like to raise is the recent hiccup in the relations between Singapore and Malaysia. On the face of it, this storm stems from a sentence in the affidavit of Senior Minister Lee. But the actual development of the events shows that this is only the tip of the iceberg. From the accusations, insults, humiliation and threats hurled on our leaders by the Malaysian leaders and the mass media, and the way they go about rattling on endlessly, we can see that they are acting beyond reason and rationality.

Since March this year when the trouble first started, we read in the newspapers every day of their abuses at us. Yes, we are being scolded every day. In addition to all these abuses, some politicians are even calling upon their people to boycott the Singapore port, and to cut off water supply to Singapore.

We all know that cutting off our water supply is not an ordinary threat. Those who issued this threat know that they are actually threatening the survival of Singaporeans. In other words, they are giving the warning to us that our survival is in their hands. So long as they cut our water supply, we cannot live anymore.

As a Singaporean, my feeling is that we have not been treated as an independent, sovereign country. Yet, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, still said that it would be very difficult to maintain bilateral relations with Singapore. I think his true meaning is that it is difficult to have bilateral relations with Singapore according to his wishes. Of course, if he wants everything to be conducted according to his wishes, on his terms, then it will be very difficult indeed.

If two sovereign states want to build up bilateral relations between them on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, then surely there will not be any difficulty. Singapore has established bilateral relations with more than 100 countries in the world, and nobody has ever said that there is any difficulty in maintaining these relations. So, if you want to adopt the attitude of abang adik or the "big brother" attitude, or to take advantage of others, then you cannot blame others for being difficult.

Notwithstanding all these, I think our reaction is very rational. We are very firm and restrained in our reaction. We have already practised the Confucian teaching of "being resolute in the face of enmity". We do not repay resentment with resentment. In other words, we look at the facts as they are, and reason out what is before us. So long as we continue to adopt the attitude of not being arrogant, we will be able to calmly handle the challenges and provocation thrown at us (however unreasonable they may be) in a peaceful manner.

Recently, there was an article in the Nanyang Siang Pau of Malaysia which suggested that the Malaysian leaders should make use of this durian season to unfreeze our relations. In other words, the writer is saying that during this durian season, Singapore leaders can be invited to durian parties in Malaysia to enjoy the fruit and thereby untying the knots in the relations between Singapore and Malaysia. I do not know whether our Government leaders have received such an invitation. If the invitation is sincere, our leaders should consider accepting it. There is a Chinese saying: "Let he who tie the bell on the tiger take it off", meaning whoever started the trouble should end it. The important thing is that they should give up the abang adik ideological baggage and treat us with equality and respect. This is the basis on which the relations between two countries can remain good and cordial. As other Members of the PAP have already pointed out, this event is a lesson for us to learn and study. This is the ideal type of material for inclusion in our National Education.

Finally, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen thanking the President for his Address at the Opening of this Parliament.

In his Address, the President said that we must imbue in our people a sense of history and identity. We must pass on to them the same discipline, the same drive to achieve, the same indomitable will to overcome problems that the first generation of Singaporean leaders had, the qualities that have brought Singapore so far. Our first generation leaders lived through the tumultuous events, before and after independence. The post-independence generation grew up in a different environment - peaceful, stable and prosperous. Their experiences in life are different. Nevertheless, they must learn how we became a nation, how we are different from other countries and why we must always make a special effort to stay ahead of others in order to thrive.

The President pointed out that our schools will focus more on National Education. We will also get our students to understand the realities of living in this region, to realize that although our prospects can be bright, failure to stay competitive will dim them. At the same time, he indicated that we should be confident of our competitive advantages and we can face tougher competitions from neighbouring countries and the world over, without being daunted. In fact, the prospect of Singapore is better compared to any time in the past. We will upgrade our housing environment and improve our public transport system. We will safeguard our fair and open meritocracy system which is one of the core values we should uphold and protect. We will build Singapore into a gracious society. We will build a nation where everyone has a stake in Singapore's success, feels a sense of belonging and ownership. We should encourage talented people with strong ability to lead and drive ahead of our competitors. Of course, the successful Singaporeans should come forward and help the less successful. We have to foster greater social cohesion and resilience in the next generation. In this way, we will be able to realize our ideal and fulfill our wish to make Singapore our best home.

During the Address, the President has specially stressed the importance of education. He said our aim is not just to improve a few schools, but to raise the quality of education across the board. These include attracting more talented people to become teachers and to instill in our students the importance of lifelong learning, flexibility and creativity. RAdm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education, mentioned in his Addendum to the President's Address that there will be a pilot scheme to identify and help underachievers and slow learners at the lower primary schools. I fully support this idea. I also welcome his plan of raising the intake of students into engineering and science to 60% of total intake. This will meet the needs of a more technology-driven economy and to survive in the fiercely competitive world.

During the launch of the Seventh International Conference on Thinking at Suntec City on 2nd June, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong called on all Singaporeans to make learning a part of their everyday lives and said the country's future will hinge on the people's ability to do this. He mentioned that we should bring about a change in the mindset of Singaporeans. We must get away from the idea that it is only the people at the management level who should be thinking and the job of the ordinary folk is just to do what he is being told to do. There are many students who score "As" in their studies but do not have the desire to continue discovering new knowledge after they leave school. Therefore, 10 or 20 years down the road, their knowledge becomes obsolete and very limited in their horizon. This is indeed a great pity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I found that my analytical skills have grown through continuous learning from society, as I grow and mature. I was not one of those top students who always scored many "As" in my school days. Many top students who did very well in school turned out to be very ordinary after they had stepped into society. On the other hand, there are students who might not have done well in their academic results, but achieved great success later on in life. Therefore, it is important that those who are academically poor should be given the opportunity and appropriately guided to re-join the mainstream later on. "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" is indeed very important.

Eminent Harvard Professor Howard Gardner advised that using a uniform method to teach all the students, review and assess them, is unfair. The approach of education should be to assist every student to develop their talents and maximize their potentialities. Each student has his own different kind of intelligence and talents such as linguistic, logic and reasoning, mathematical, musical, artistic, ballet, and interpersonal skills. For example, I am not inclined to learning music, ballet or foreign language. But I seem to have the aptitude for logic, mathematics, and interpersonal relations. If we can make use of traditional education, traditional courses and traditional assessments during the 10 years of basic education, I think it should be adequate. Because our students will be able to learn some basic knowledge. However, when they enter junior college, polytechnic or university, we should consider adopting a more flexible "multiple intelligence" education system so that they could express their potentialities freely.

Let me quote my own example, my life experience. I found that I had an interest in politics, economics, culture and the arts when I was in Primary Five. I can still remember when I was 11 years old, I used to walk from Chin Swee Road to Hong Lim Park with my neighbours, carrying along with me a wooden stool to listen to the mass rally speeches made by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew or other politicians. I was quite impressed with their speeches. Today, my skill in making election campaign speeches was cultivated from the time I attended such rallies. When I was in Primary Five, I learned to help my parents to do business by selling books and stationery to my school mates to supplement our household income. I love to write, to paint, and to read. This was something I learnt when I was small, from my family background. I brought up this example to make the point that every student has his own talents and potentialities. The key point is how to help them to maximise their potentialities with our current education system, so as to ensure that every child will be able to maximize his or her potential. If we can find out their potentialities, we can provide them with the right opportunities, I think this will be a good thing to the nation. It will help us to face the fierce competition ahead.

As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said, when moving into the next millennium, the future of one country depends to a great extent on its people's learning abilities. I believe and support his view.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Addendum of the Ministry of National Development said that we would build better homes for the people. Singapore's economic growth is a visible fact and this has brought about a booming property market (which is a good thing). Because of the property boom, all properties, inclusive of HDB flats, HUDC, terrace houses and bungalows, have increased in value. However, my worry is - will the property market be a "bubble economy" like that of Japan? According to a report in "Asia Week" 1997 May Issue, the property prices in Japan were much higher than Hong Kong and Singapore in the past. However, owing to a big drop in prices, the property prices in Tokyo are now lower than Hong Kong, even lower than that of Singapore. Take a look at the Tokyo property price index.

The Asians have a traditional belief that working as an employee does not get you anywhere, just as in the Chinese character gong ( : the working class ), where the vertical stroke in the centre does not stick out at the top. No breakthrough! If you want to stand out among others, to make a lot of money, you would have to invest in tu ( : land). That is why, like the Singaporeans, the Japanese and the Hong Kongers strongly believe that investment in property is a safe hedge against inflation and the means to make quick profits. Therefore, to make money, you must buy properties, buy land. Taking a job and working day in and day out is no good, it gets you nowhere! Yet, many people fail to realize that buying property is an investment, and often a speculation where a lot of risks are involved.

Ever since the burst of "bubble economy" in Japan, property prices have been dropping continuously for six years, to the extent of more than 60%. The property prices now are just 40% of what they were in 1990. For example, a new 70 m2 apartment unit valued at 104.8 million yen (approximately S$1.22 million) in 1990 was worth only 40.53 million yen (approximately S$470,000) in March this year. In just six years, the value dropped by 64.27 million yen (approximately S$750,000). In other words, when the owner eventually had to sell away the property at a great loss, all his life-long savings were wiped out. At the moment, the entire residential property market in Japan is facing a situation of over supply. Now, properties in even the prime districts of Ginza and Shinju-ku are cheaper than those in Districts 9 and 10 of Singapore. Please refer to "Tokyo District 23 Special Issue May 1997 - Information on Residential Properties Weekly Issue".

My question is: our property prices have been going up rapidly over the past 10 years, will it one day be like the "bubble economy" of Japan? From the 1960s to the 1970s and the 1980s, there was always a cyclical curve of ups and downs in the Singapore property prices, every 9 to 12 years. However, from 1985 to now, during the past 12 years, our property prices were bullish all the way, and show no sign of down trend even today. Is this not a cause for concern?

Let me quote a few examples to show the trend in our property transactions:

In 1965, a freehold, semi-detached house in District 10 was valued at $45,000. Today, it is worth $2.5 million, appreciation of 55 times in 32 years.

In 1976, a freehold, semi-detached house in District 21 was valued at $180,000. Today, it has appreciated to $2.2 million, an increase of 12 times in 21 years.

In 1985, a freehold, luxurious condominium in District 9 was valued at $400,000. Today, it is worth $2.2 million, appreciation of 5.5 times in 12 years

In 1989, a freehold, semi-detached house in District 10 was valued at $880,000. Now, it is worth $2.8 million. In a short period of eight years, it has appreciated by 3.1 times.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when our nation is politically stable, society is peaceful and settled, economy is prosperous, property prices will certainly go up. This is natural and there is nothing wrong about it. However, what worries me is that even with the cooling measures adopted by the Government in May last year, it does not seem to have any checking effect on the property prices. Will the property market of Singapore collapse one day, like what happened to Japan? In the event of the kind of "bubble economy" appearing in Singapore, the property invested by Singaporeans with their CPF money will depreciate, and the savings for their old-age will be affected. I would like to know whether the Ministry of National Development has any measures to prevent this kind of "bubble economy" from occurring in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Trade and Industry mentioned in his Addendum to the President's Address that the Public Utilities Board would open up a competitive market for the power supply industry, and plans to build a pilot desalination plant. I fully agree with this idea. This is the time that we should carefully consider setting up a desalination plant. We should not forever rely on our neighbouring country for water supply, especially when our neighbour is always threatening to cut off our water supply, wanting us to submit to them. Such bullying tactics have disgusted the Singaporeans. The recent incident between Singapore and Malaysia had made me flabbergasted with the politicians in Malaysia. If Malaysia intends to have friendly relations with Singapore, then their political leaders should restrain themselves before they make any speeches. They should not demand that we must be sensitive to their feelings, while they do not care about our sensitivities at all. I hope the Malaysian political leaders will take note of this: whenever you point one finger at others, there are always three fingers pointing back at yourself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am proud of the way our Singaporeans have behaved in the face of all these provocations. We were cool, rational and united. We did not stage any protest or demonstration. We just avoid going to Malaysia. That is the right thing to do! Since they do not welcome us, why should we go there and incur their displeasure?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am proud and happy with our people for registering our protest in such a rational and silent way. We should inculcate in the mind of every Singaporean that we should be united and spontaneously rally behind our leaders in any similar incident in future. I believe the Malaysian politicians will understand. We have given them a clear signal. We should be vigilant all the time. Our water supply can be cut off any time. Even if we can source water from another neighbouring country, for the long-term interest of the people of Singapore, the setting up of a desalination plant is necessary. Therefore, I support the recommendation of the Member of Parliament for Chua Chu Kang to build a desalination plant.

At the same time, we should make everyone in Singapore deeply understand that "water is precious" and that any wastage of water should be regarded as a serious offence. Besides educating our people to learn to save water, we should also raise water tariffs to drive home the message that water is precious. If we can make everybody feel that drinking a cup of water is just as valuable as drinking a cup of Coca-cola or a cup of mineral water, and realize that water does not come easy in Singapore, then we can convince Singaporeans to treasure every drop of water, at all times. Raising water tariffs is necessary. But I hope that when raising water tariffs, the Government will take into account the predicament of the low income families. As mentioned by DPM Lee, the Government may consider giving these families a once-off rebate at the end of the year to lighten their burden .

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, clarification from Mr Peh. I do not know whether I was mistaken. He said that Malaysia can cut off the water any time. I believe this is not a very true statement. It is alarmist and I do not think it is being fair to our neighbour who is, in fact, very friendly to us and we have close ties with them. I do not think that the position is true that Malaysia can cut off water supply at any time. We have got two agreements, one expiring in, I believe, 2011, and the other is 2061. The matter could be brought up to the international court to be resolved if they attempt to cut off water. I believe that they will abide by the international court's decision. So I do not think it would be good to play up on this line and being alarmist and say that they can cut off water at any time. It will only flame and make the situation worse in the relationship between Malaysia and ourselves. I think we should encourage and try to cool the matter down, instead of trying to increase the flames by making statements that are not true.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Chiam that perhaps, legally, he may be correct. But is he not aware that Malaysians have threatened to cut off our water on several occasions and even in the recent past?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am really surprised that Mr Chng, a very senior Member of Parliament, should be saying that. He knows that all these threats come from, as the Malay calls it, kucing kurap, and none from their leaders at all. I think we should be responsible in what we say.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: In referring to the kucing kurap, are some of them Members of Parliament in Malaysia, Sir?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe Mr Chiam must have been very busy with his law practice that he probably did not have the time to read the Lianhe Zaobao. In Lianhe Zaobao, every day there are reports of people talking about this matter. Yet, he thinks it is not possible. With regard to the cutting off of water supply, it is not my speculation. I read from the newspaper that some Malaysian leaders had proposed to do so. Of course, whether or not it will be cut off, we do not know. Although the two agreements provide for water supply to continue until 2011 and 2061, it is very easy for them to cut off our water supply by using some excuses. For example, they can tell us that they are repairing the roads in Johor Baru and the pipes have to be removed. Three months later, there will be no water coming to us. I hope Mr Chiam will think about it. Do not take this matter lightly. It is not as simple as he thinks.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I have been listening to Mr Chiam since the day before yesterday, and I am very puzzled because Mr Chiam does not really state his stand on the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. He is only saying that we should have more trading relationship with Malaysia. He did not tell us his stand on this present situation of our relationship with Malaysia.

Perhaps Mr Chiam may be like the two other opposition Members, forgetting one very important aspect of the recent development in our relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, that is, the views of the Malaysian politicians on our people and our leaders. He could have been very naive in his thinking. He said that the Malaysians could not just say that they wanted to cut off our water supply. He may give the wrong impression to the people of Singapore. For example, the water supply problem, we should not take this matter lightly. We should not ignore the matter. I hope Mr Chiam could understand. At the same time, I am very happy because last Sunday, in the Lianhe Zaobao, we read that there are not many Singapore cars going to Malaysia while there are many Malaysian cars coming to Singapore. So from there, we can see that the people of Malaysia do love Singapore. They enjoy coming to Singapore. So I feel that the strained relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, to a certain extent, may be due to the adversary views of just some politicians on us. On the whole, I think most people in Malaysia still like to come to Singapore. In this respect, we should thank the people of Malaysia for their love towards us.

Another point is, as what Mr Goh Choon Kang had said just now, there seems to be no law and order in the Taiwan society now. I have many friends in Taiwan and they told me that this was only a temporary phenomenon, and after some time, Taiwan would restore its law and order. But now, Taiwan seems to be a paradise for criminals and why is it that in Singapore, it is hell for the criminals. Mr Jeyaretnam, the NCMP, seems to have forgotten this because Singapore is a society which is governed by the rule of law. Because we have very strict laws against criminals, therefore, in Singapore, only the criminals need to be living in fear. Yesterday, he was talking about the fear in Singapore which is a self-inflicted fear.

I feel that the NCMP should look squarely at the situation now in Singapore, as compared to that in Taiwan. If we do not have this rule of law, we would have been fighting or even throwing the microphones around here in this Parliament Chamber, like the way they do in Taiwan. The NCMP should not be worrying unnecessarily over imaginary matters and say Singapore is a country where the people are full of fear. The opposition Members and the NCMP should realise that we are now debating on the motion to thank our President for his Speech at the Opening of the Ninth Parliament. We should look at what we are going to do in the 21st century and not what happened at the general election. I think we should have more constructive opposition parties. We should discuss things like Singapore 21, our vision to make Singapore a better home for everyone in the 21st century.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I reply to that?

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam has the floor.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the last speaker got himself carried away in his enthusiasm, if it can be described as enthusiasm. What he perhaps does not understand is that I was talking about the rule of law. Rule of law does not mean that we have laws and that is enough to satisfy the rule of law. The rule of law is that, besides written laws, there are certain conventions, what the Americans might call due process of law, that have to be observed.

This morning I was questioning about the impounding of a passport and what I understand finally is that there was really no reason in law for the impounding of the passport. It is just that the Comptroller of Income Tax wanted some help but that was not what section 87 provides. I can go on giving several instances where the rule of law has not been followed in Singapore.

And then about the fear. Only this morning, I saw in the papers that after Prof. Woon, who was a Nominated MP here, urged students to speak up, there were some students who were standing up and saying, "Oh, there is fear. We cannot speak up because we will get into trouble if we speak up." I think we cannot try and blind ourselves to the facts in Singapore. If the Member wants examples of this fear, I can give him countless numbers.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: I thank the NCMP for giving me such a compliment by saying that I am a rather energetic person. Yes, I am indeed.

An hon. Member: Enthusiastic.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Enthusiastic, sorry. I think the NCMP has got me wrong, Sir. I did not mention about the rule of law. It was him. I did not bring it up. I said fear. You were mentioning about fear.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said that there was fear.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Yes, what fear are you talking about? I am saying that your fear is self-inflicted. There is no fear. If you have fear there will be no opportunity for you to make noise in this House. I think we should not turn the House into a House of grievances really. You have enough opportunities and there is no fear. We can guarantee you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, do you want to speak?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am much obliged. As regards the point by Mr Chng Hee Kok who says that some MPs have threatened to terminate the supply of water to Singapore, I would say that those MPs are irresponsible in saying that. They are irresponsible MPs over the other end.

An hon. Member: Who are they?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not know who are the MPs. I have not read in the papers about MPs threatening. Perhaps Mr Chng can supply their names.

As far as I know, no responsible leaders from across the Causeway have threatened to cut off water supply to Singapore. This issue of water supply is a very serious issue. It is not a case of cutting off water supply and we have to sacrifice our opportunity to bathe. It is a bigger issue than that. It is our life blood. Cutting water supply to Singapore means that you are trying to stop all activities in Singapore. It is not only to keep us alive by drinking water, our industries will be affected. Even our garden city, there will be no water to water the plants. This is a very serious issue. It is like declaring war on Singapore if they cut off our water supply.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think the main leaders from across the Causeway, the people who are in the know, will never say such a thing. It is a very serious threat.

There is a question: what is my stand on Malaysia? My stand is that Malaysia holds a special position as far as Singapore is concerned. I have already stated that. We have got all kinds of historical, political, social, ethnic language ties, whatever you name it. We are very close to each other, and we have a special position in regard to Malaysia.

I think if there is going to be National Education and it is going to be taught seriously in our schools, one of the subjects is that we should at all costs build up friendly relations with Malaysia.

An hon. Member: At what costs?

Mr Chiam See Tong: At all costs, in the sense that all efforts must be made to have friendly relations with Malaysia. There can be no other way.

An hon. Member: One sided?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, there must be mutuality. On our relationship with Malaysia, I think we should teach our children that we should have special relationship with them. Even Singapore was built up by Malaysians. In fact, the whole first generation of the Cabinet were Malaysians, except for Mr Lee. So I think we have a special position. I do not think that we should try in any way flame up or try to increase what has already been a bad situation. Singapore should show responsibility, restraint, and we should not at all times, as Mr Goh Choon Kang has said, reciprocate resentment with resentment. I think that is very good. We should do something, in fact, to reciprocate resentment with something to really cool them down and show them their mistakes.

Mr Bernard Chen (West Coast): Sir, can Mr Chiam elaborate on exactly what he means by "at all costs"? After that, he changed it to "all efforts".

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have already clarified myself. To show the urgency that we should have closer relationship. It may be a slip of the tongue, but the point is that we should make all efforts to have a closer and real bonding relationship with Malaysia.

Mr Bernard Chen: Sir, I do not think it is quite enough. We are talking about a very serious issue here. When he said "at all costs", it means at all costs. "Costs" to us, I would like to know what these costs are?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think Mr Chen is trying to flog the issue a bit too far. I have already stressed that there must be mutual benefits to both sides. There is no other way to have a lasting relationship if it only benefits one side, and that is very clear. There must be reciprocity of benefits. So if it benefits them, it must also benefit us. If we are trying to get one over them, as somebody said, if there is going be an abang adik, then it would not work. There must be an equal relationship for mutual benefit. The relationship must benefit both sides. I think I have made myself quite clear on this point.

Mr Bernard Chen: Sir, at no time did he say the word "benefit". We all know what "cost benefit" is. What I want to know is what costs are we prepared to bear in improving ties with Malaysia. Mr Chiam thinks that we should be prepared to face to pay all costs. I do not know what they are.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Bernard Chen reminds me of a lawyer in court, trying to cross-examine and get somebody to say something which he does not say.

Mr Bernard Chen: You said it. That is why I am asking.

An hon. Member: You should withdraw and apologise!

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have clarified myself. There is nothing to apologise and I would not apologise for it, because I have explained what I said. That is quite clear.

Mr Bernard Chen: It is not clear at all.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Unfortunately, Mr Chen is dealing with a lawyer and not a layman. I think he has flogged the issue too far.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I share Mr Chiam's sentiments that we should not inflame the Malaysians or aggravate the situation. Nevertheless, this is a very serious discussion. The point I am trying to establish with Mr Chiam is this. He is a lawyer. It is precisely because it is a legal document, and that is why we have the International Court of Justice. The question I asked him really is this. We did not take up the subject of water. It is the Malaysians who took it up. On and off, they make threats about cancelling the agreements or not supplying water. It is very serious. He is absolutely right. It is our life line. The point I am trying to establish with him is that since this is a legal document, therefore, as a lawyer, he must realise that at any time one side can breach the agreement. The question that I want to ask him is, when there is a breach of this water agreement, from his point of view, is it good enough for us to take it up with the International Court of Justice? And in the meantime, what do you do about the water?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am really surprised at what Mr Chng is saying. Malaysia is a country of standing. You are insinuating that Malaysia will breach an international agreement. Are you saying that? I do not think we should say such things. There is no inkling of Malaysia trying to breach an international agreement. If you suggest that, I think it is very bad for Singapore, not only for the Government, even for Singapore, to suggest a very friendly country that they intend to breach an international agreement. I have no fear that they will. They will never breach such an agreement.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Tang Guan Seng): Sir, I just want to seek a clarification.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have had enough of this discussion. This is a very important subject. I am sure we have more to say about this later, but I think we should not prolong this unnecessarily.

Mr Speaker: All right. Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.43 pm until 3.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate on the Presidential Address.

Sir, as the last of the maidens of this Parliament, I approach this lectern not without some trepidation. My trepidation is all the more because the precious few nuggets that one wishes to add have all been taken. Nevertheless, I persevere and I wish to address, in particular, the vision that the President has painted in his Address of Singapore in the next millennium. It is a vision of particular significance to young Singaporeans for it is they who will inherit Singapore 21. I, therefore, propose to address from the perspective of young Singaporeans three themes that have emerged in the course of this debate - materialism, National Education and multi-racial harmony.

Sir, every Member of this House has lamented the trend towards materialism among young Singaporeans. I would like to offer an alternative perspective. If, by materialism, we mean the drive to create and accumulate wealth, it is but, in my view, a corollary of our environment.

Domestically, we have enjoyed peace, stable Government and unprecedented growth. Our success has been calibrated in economic terms. Today, some of the fastest growing economies in the world are within the Asia-Pacific region. Singapore is linked to these countries through our regionalisation effort, and other efforts to economically integrate, such as AFTA and APEC. Global trade and investment have been given a boost by the conclusion of the Uruguay Round which has lowered tariff barriers to historic levels. These then are the ingredients of an environment burgeoning with opportunities for wealth creation. Is it then so surprising that young Singaporeans strive for material comfort?

Indeed, the first tenet of Singapore 21 is the creation of wealth - it underscores economic success as the very bedrock of our survival. Young Singaporeans have imbibed this message well. If they seem impatient, it could be due to youthful impetuosity. If they appear over anxious, it could be due to concern that opportunities lost will never be regained.

I urge those who look askance at such behaviour to cast their minds back to a time when they too were embarking on a career, starting a family, and situated at the wrong end of a stream of home mortgage payments. I believe the logic is compelling. Indeed, the problem could be worse if our young were in no hurry to go nowhere.

But our best home cannot be just an aggregate of a stream of economic benefits. Otherwise, patriotism would be reduced to a mere function of the ebbs and flows of the economic cycle. The intangibles are equally important - a sense of community that binds us together as a nation. It is a question of balance - an equilibrium between self-interest and group-interest - that tempers materialism with compassion and responsibility. Government has set the tone by emphasising the sharing of wealth, building of ties, and care for the young and aged, as part of Singapore 21. Are young Singaporeans aware of the problem and, more importantly, will they respond to the call?

It is perhaps best to hear it in their own words. Sir, at this year's Pre-university Seminar, more than 500 junior college students have spent the past few days contemplating their future in the 21st century. In a discussion on our nation's values and responsibilities, one group of students had this to say about managing materialism:

"Our scenarios suggest that there may be an optimum level of materialism that is necessary in society to keep the work ethic in a healthy state. However, it also seems likely that beyond a point this may be detrimental to society . While it may not be good to mechanically restrict materialism, there is certainly no need to encourage it by making materialism a virtue. We would suggest that Government and community groups try to highlight success in areas that have nothing to do with personal gain and recognise a broad field of accomplishments."

Sir, I think our young do recognise the need for balance and I believe we have good reason to be sanguine.

I turn now to the subject of National Education. I identify with that generation of Singaporeans born in the post-independence era. Most of us have a cursory knowledge of the events that shaped the birth of our nation. Some, who have persevered, would have a cerebral grasp of these events and their significance. Few, if any, would have a visceral appreciation - the kind our parents and grandparents would have, the kind that the preceding two speakers exhibited - of those turbulent and trying times. For us, the defining moments of Singapore's history are at best a series of tableaus.

In this regard, the introduction of National Education is a welcome initiative. It is important for Singapore that the parameters that define our existence as a nation are deeply embedded in our psyche. We may not have a nostalgic passion that is the privilege of our founding fathers. But Singaporeans, young and old alike, need to cultivate an abiding respect for our constraints, not as insurmountable hurdles, but as pragmatic limitations. I believe National Education can help us do that.

Having said that, I humbly offer three suggestions with regard to National Education for consideration by the Minister for Education.

Firstly, in the quest to instill national values in our young, we must take care not to be over-zealous. Over-emphasis on our vulnerabilities may imbue our very young with a pathological anxiety of the future. Worse, it may breed cynicism among youth that this is a mere propaganda exercise. National Education lessons should be balanced with a countervailing focus on our strengths. For example, smallness is not without its virtues. It means that we can marshall our resources well, that we can be more adaptable and, therefore, respond quickly to change. McKinsey, the global consultancy group, has mooted the idea of "bubbles of value". They note that successful companies pay special attention to identifying discontinuities early, in order to take advantage of money-making opportunities that may be short-lived. This also holds true for countries. As competition intensifies, windows of opportunities will narrow. Those who are nimble enough to seize transient opportunities will be successful. Our size can be an asset.

In short, I advocate that the NE curriculum should give equal emphasis to the problems that we face, and the strengths, such as a strong leadership and a united people, that helped us prevail. When older teachers regale students with their experiences, they should be encouraged to share not just the agony of hardship, but also the ecstasy of their triumphs. The object is to imbue Singaporeans with a spirit of quiet, pragmatic, confidence.

Secondly, Singapore's constraints should not be considered in isolation. Rather, the discussion should be in the context of the challenges faced by others. In a recent interview with the Straits Times, a veteran Russian political commentator, Professor Georgi Arbatrov, said:

"It is difficult to be a small country, but it is even more difficult to be a large country. In a nutshell, that describes the different challenges countries face because of their unique circumstances."

At a time of growing interdependence among nations, greater awareness of these relativities will serve Singapore and Singaporeans well. As DPM Lee put it at the launch of the National Education programme, "We must have the confidence that we can overcome our problems, but also the humility to know that we do not have all the answers for ourselves, much less for other countries". Armed with such knowledge, Singaporeans are less likely to draw invidious comparisons with Singapore when visiting others.

Thirdly, Sir, I submit a plea to the Minister for a moderation of the school workload. When I discussed the introduction of National Education with some of my constituents, one of the first responses was to ask whether it would be an examination subject and how much additional homework it would entail. National Education is too important an endeavour to let its impact be obscured by the weight of the school time-table.

The Addendum from the Minister for Education states that the school curriculum will be revised "to stretch but not overload" our pupils. It is an assurance that will undoubtedly bring cheers to the hearts of many students and their parents. We wait with bated breath for the outcome.

Sir, finally, on the issue of multi-racialism. There is a concern amongst young Singaporeans, particularly professionals, that we may be becoming a more ethnocentric society at the expense of our national identity. Policies and programmes of recent times may have unwittingly accentuated these anxieties. The establishment of Special Assistance Plan schools, the advent of community-based self-help groups, the introduction of ethnic quotas in HDB estates, and the formation of Group Representation Constituencies - each of these initiatives has a compelling rationale of its own. Each also has an inescapable ethnic dimension and taken together cumulatively, they may have contributed to this perception.

Sir, this concern is exacerbated by the educational underperformance of some communities. In a meritocratic system, these educational differences will be translated into socio-economic stratification along ethnic lines. It makes it all the more important for Government to guard against the emergence of divisive trends within our society and to take appropriate measures. In this regard, the efforts of the Ministries of Community Development and Education, the self-help groups, the CDCs and other civic organisations can help to uplift the underprivileged, disadvantaged, and mitigate these adverse trends and they deserve our wholehearted support.

However, Sir, beyond this, there is a call for Government to do more to emphasise our national identity to counteract divisive forces. Several Members have touched on various ways that this can be done. I would just like to add two dimensions to it. The first is in the arena of sports. Shouting oneself hoarse for 90 minutes at a soccer match can sometimes achieve a lot more bonding than hours of classroom work. Few spectacles can equal the Kallang Roar as a symbol of Singaporean unity. The people of Namibia celebrated as one the success of their national sprint champion, Frankie Fredericks, at the Atlanta Olympics. We have the resources; why not tap this avenue by encouraging Singapore sportsmen and teams? A champion team or individual can really capture the imagination of a people, regardless of race, language or religion.

Sir, National Education can also serve this purpose. It gives us an opportunity to study our history, and think about our common future. It is a chance for us to take ownership for each other's aspirations and concerns. In short, for us to think, strive, and unite as Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by sharing a memory from the 1960s. It is that of a $10 note bearing the image of four arms of four different hues linked together in solidarity. In those days, I had few opportunities to behold such currency, let alone use it. Nevertheless, those rare occasions have left a vivid imprint in my mind of our multi-racial society. Sir, I do believe that we must nurture and cherish these and other icons of what Singapore society is if we are to succeed in our quest to build a nation.

Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah.

The Minister for Law and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate is quite different from previous debates on the President's Address. MPs have spoken not only on domestic issues but many MPs have also commented on recent difficulties in Singapore-Malaysia bilateral relations. They have asked me for information on certain specific points such as the Points of Agreement (POA) on railway land. I will explain the details of the POA subsequently. But, first, let me respond to the comments made by Members on bilateral relations, and I will do so in a general way.

It is a fact that Singapore-Malaysia relations are going through a rough patch and we are at a low point.

Rough Weather and Squalls

Dr Wang Kai Yuen in his speech in moving the motion of thanks reminded us that the President, in his Address, said, and I quote: "From time to time we must expect rough weather, even in tranquil seasons and despite the most careful navigation". Indeed, Sir, Singapore-Malaysia relations have experienced rough weather and turbulence now for nearly three months. In this rough weather, there has been one wave after another. Let me recount them.

The First Wave

The first wave came after the Senior Minister's remarks on Johor were made public. Although Senior Minister made his comments in his individual capacity and in a private legal suit, the matter became a Government-to-Government issue. Kuala Lumpur sent an Aide-Memoire to the Government of Singapore. Vituperative and uncouth insults were hurled at SM. Vehement attacks were made against the Singapore Government and the Singapore people. Unrelated issues, such as KTM land and KD (Malaya), were brought up. But this wave subsided after Senior Minister apologised and promised to delete the offending remarks from his affidavit.

The Second Wave

The second wave arose after the Malaysian media reported that the Malaysian Cabinet had decided to freeze new ties with Singapore. Within 24 hours, KL clarified that there was no such freeze. But, since then, some bilateral activities have been cancelled or postponed by Malaysia, causing people to wonder if there, indeed, had been a freeze. For example, seven trainers from Johor who were training in our ITE were abruptly recalled and their training suspended. An official study visit to Singapore scheduled for mid-April 1997, to be led by the Mayor of Kuala Lumpur, was postponed indefinitely. Certain Malaysian Ministers also said that sports and cultural linkages would be suspended. One Minister even cancelled attendance at the opening of the "Destination Malaysia Tourism Fair" held in Singapore.

The Third Wave

The third wave came after the Straits Times carried a factual report on crime in Johor. The flurry of attacks started all over again. Threats were made to sever ties with Singapore and to cut off the water supply. One Malaysian Minister even warned our media to "stop it or suffer the consequences" and told Malaysian newspapers to mount a tit-for-tat media war against Singapore.

The Fourth Wave

The fourth wave started when one Malaysian Minister alleged that a drop in the number of Singaporean visitors to Malaysia was due to a Singapore Government directive. Another Minister jumped on this allegation the next day. All these were based on so-called "sources". And based on unsubstantiated sources and unfounded speculation, strong language was used - that Singapore was "confrontational" and "spoiling for a fight".

The Fifth Wave

A fifth wave appeared to be in the making last week when, with no prior announcement, some Singaporeans were prevented from returning to Singapore for several hours because of new immigration checks. Mr Speaker, that is surely the best way of discouraging Singaporeans from visiting Malaysia, far more effective than any Singapore Government directive could possibly be.

Other Aspects of Turbulent Weather

Of course, in between these big waves, there were other twists and turns, whirlpools and gales, such as offensive cartoons about Singaporeans going on sex holidays to Thailand and Indonesia. Singaporeans were also called uncivilised for urinating in lifts.

Malaysian Leaders' Position: Takes Time to Return to Normal Relations

Sir, throughout this period, Malaysian leaders at all levels have variously remarked that it would take time for bilateral relations to return to normal. Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said on 6th April, I quote: "I think it has to be given some time. I don't think we should rush into the situation and ignore the sentiments of the Malaysian public". This was despite statements by Singapore leaders that we were prepared to move on with relations. As early as 15th March, Prime Minister Goh had stated clearly that both countries should try to move forward and concentrate on the positive aspects of bilateral relations.

Sir, Singapore will do its part to improve ties, but it will leave it to the Malaysian leaders to set the pace. We will proceed at a rate that they are comfortable with. This has been our consistent position.

How have the Singapore Government and People Reacted?

Sir, during this squall, the Government and people have remained calm, measured and restrained. We have not demonstrated in the streets. We have not hurled obscenities at Malaysian leaders. We have not issued threats, or pilloried Malaysians.

But, as many of our MPs have said, it is important that our restrained reactions should not be misread or misunderstood - that we are weak, that we can be intimidated or cowed, that only one side has emotions and sensitivities.

The Two Countries have Evolved in Different Ways

Mr Speaker, in the thirty-two years after separation, Singapore and Malaysia have actually become two different societies. We have evolved different political styles and approaches. It is important to recognise these differences so that we do not misunderstand or misread each other. Such recognition will avert problems and difficulties.

True, there are many similarities between our two countries. But there are also fundamental differences in the way we have moulded our two countries and societies. These differences will always be there. And they will spill over into bilateral relations from time to time. The question is: Despite this complicating factor, can we work together for common benefit? The answer to that question surely must be - Yes.

Meetings of the Two Foreign Ministers

Singapore-Malaysia relations are too important to be allowed to drift. During this troubled phase, I have been in touch with my Malaysian counterpart, Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi. We have met twice, once in New Delhi when we were there for the Non-Aligned Ministerial Meeting, and recently last Saturday when Foreign Minister Badawi requested to meet me, when I was in Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting. In New Delhi, we agreed to keep the lines of communications open. We also agreed on the importance of not misreading each other's intentions.

In Kuala Lumpur, we discussed the allegations that Singapore had issued a directive to discourage Singaporeans from visiting Malaysia. I told him that such allegations were baseless. We also discussed the recent actions by Malaysian Immigration officers against Singaporeans. Foreign Minister Badawi and I agreed that both Singapore and Malaysia could benefit from bilateral cooperation and we agreed to keep in touch.

Since then, I should add that the Malaysian Foreign Ministry has given us some information and clarification of the measures at the Checkpoint and we in turn have sought for more details and further clarification.

Sir, the question is how do we take it from here and how do we get back to even keel. Singapore is committed to establishing a long-term relationship with Malaysia based on mutual respect, trust, reciprocity and mutual benefit. This is the way forward. As immediate neighbours, we are bound to have difficulties and differences. In fact, Prime Minister Mahathir himself recognised this when he said in Tokyo, and I quote:

"Naturally between neighbours there will be differences off and on, but over time, this feeling can be overcome".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure all Members will agree with me that good relations with Malaysia are important to both Singapore and Malaysia. There is a lot at stake between both countries. Cooperation will benefit Singapore and Malaysia, both of us. But it must be cooperation as equals and for mutual benefit. It cannot be on the basis of what a Chinese newspaper Guang Ming Daily in Malaysia said, and I quote:

"Being a tiny island, Singapore should know the importance of maintaining cordial relations with its neighbours. Failure to recognise this fact is as good as dropping a rock on its feet." What the Chinese newspaper implied is, we should behave like a small brother. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot be the basis for a durable relationship between sovereign nations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to go on to talk about the requests made by Members for details of the POA. But I understand that the Leader of the House has a procedural motion to make.