CONTRIBUTION BY FOUNDING FATHERS (Motion)

Mr Speaker: This motion is subject to the signification of support by at least one other Member. Does it have the support of any hon. Member?

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): I support the motion, Sir.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I beg to move,

That this House records with gratitude the contribution made by our founding fathers in building a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society and reaffirms these principles.

Sir, this motion is a result of the National Education Exhibition. As we celebrate our independence, it is timely to recall and recognise the contribution made by our founding fathers. They fought for independence and built a progressive, peaceful and prosperous Singapore. Those of us who have lived through the tumultuous years cannot but feel a sense of gratitude. How we made it to where we are today has been compiled in about 36 minutes in a multi-media presentation.

Sir, after the opening ceremony, the Prime Minister asked me how I felt. My reply was simple. The Exhibition has been an emotional journey for most of us who have lived through the period. How we made it is a miracle. Let me say this to the National Heritage Board and to MITA: every dollar spent has been well spent. They have done well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.26 pm

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am moving this motion out of conviction to acknowledge a debt to those who have made us what we are and to convey to the generation to come that these are principles worthy of emulation. Sir, an Indian classic Thirukural says it is not good to forget a benefit. We have benefited a great deal, Sir.

The principles which I have termed in this motion are principles worthy of following because without them, we will be torn asunder. I have discussed this motion with some friends. They felt it was timely. I agree with them. Sir, this motion deals with founding fathers, but allow me also to deal with our forefathers. Before the British came to Singapore, the Malays were already here. Singapore was part of the Johor empire. They came from China, Indonesia, Malaya and India. They came not to set up a home but to return to their homeland after a brief sojourn, making some money. Some died without even seeing their families back home. Many survived in colonial Singapore. Some of our forefathers went to their homeland and brought their families to Singapore. They lived a very frugal and spartan life. Their life was one of pain and suffering. Through their toil and sweat, they built a place called Singapura, our home, their legacy for the future generation.

Sir, we owe a debt to our pioneers that cannot be repaid. I hope in years to come, we can name one of our institutions after these pioneers. They deserve a lasting memorial. Our location has remained our greatest asset. It is God's gift to us, no man can take this away from us.

Without any natural resources, Sir, except its location and its people, the island prospered under the British rule. The strategic location of this island attracted traders from South East Asia and elsewhere. For decades, life centred on trade. More and more immigrants made this island their home.

Sir, with changing of the time, especially after the Second World War, the political landscape underwent change. It awakened national consciousness and our leaders realised that they had to be masters of their own destiny. The Rendal Constitution set the tone for elected government with powers still in the hands of the British government. This was in 1955.

The colonial office realised that the status quo could not be maintained. There were the student riots as well as the Hock Lee riots. Things started changing. Singapore attained self-government in June 1959. The PAP under the leadership of Mr Lee Kuan Yew formed the first self-government. In symbolic change, Sir, the Ministers were sworn in City Hall and not in the Government House. Subsequently, six months later, on 3rd December, Encik Yusof Ishak took office as the first local Head of State. And it was a historic occasion, for the first time we sang "Majulah Singapura". As a student, we were given a national loyalty card. Sir, I still have this card and this is a symbol of our loyalty. It reads, "Majulah Singapura, susunan kata dan lagu oleh Zubir Said."

Sir, we entered Malaysia in 1963 as a free people. We had to leave the federation in 1965 and became an independent republic. We went into Malaysia in the hope of building a Malaysian nation, but we did not succeed. We must never forget our stay in Malaysia which provided us a valuable lesson. When we became a Republic in 1965, we were not certain as to the future. The resolve by the leaders and the people has made us succeed against all odds.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is men like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr Lim Kim San, Mr E W Barker, Encik Othman Wok, Mr Hon Sui Sen and others we owe much. We also remember Mr David Marshall for his dream of Merdeka. These men are representative of their time. These men could have lived a fairly comfortable life from any calling of their choice but they decided to help the people in building a modern, prosperous Singapore. They literally risked their lives and limbs for Singapore. They were a product of history. They knew what it was to be treated as a colonial people. And let us hope that the best sons of Singapore would follow these leaders' footsteps, just not in the Administrative Service but also in politics, for our scholars must never forget that they owe a duty and debt to society.

Sir, we can overcome the present and future difficulties provided we have the resolve. In every society, the cream of the society decides the fate of the community. But we must never forget that there will be no cream without milk. It is equally important for us to dedicate the course of our society from which must come the leaders.

Sir, permit me to pay tribute to our civil service as well. People like Mr Howe Yoon Chong, Mr Sim Kee Boon, Mr J Y Pillay and others who gave their best beyond the call of duty, for no Government policy can succeed without a dedicated, honest, civil service. This House and the nation can be proud of our civil servants.

We also pay tribute to our citizens who worked hard, hand in hand with the Government, for no government can succeed without the support of the people. We can overcome difficulties provided we are firm in our resolve.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, multi-racialism is a strong thread of our national fabric, both for the majority and minority communities; in fact, all Singaporeans. We must feel at home and at ease with each other. In many countries, the so-called multi-racialism is at best a dressing on the dining plate. In some countries, minorities are persecuted, humiliated and suffer worst indignities. Our appeal to these countries is to respect and protect the minorities.

In multi-racial Singapore, our young children go to the same school, share the common goal and aspirations, learning each other's culture and mix with each other easily. These principles must be cultivated, but we cannot take them for granted. We must nurture them. We must not just be tolerant. Tolerance to me, Sir, is very passive. We must do more. We must be active. We must respect each other's beliefs and traditions.

Moving on to language, Sir, language is a very sensitive issue. We have chosen English as the medium of learning. Malay is our national language. We sing our national anthem in Malay. We have decided we must learn our mother tongue, Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, Hindi, Punjabi and other Indian languages. These languages will act as a ballast, to quote our Education Minister, RAdm Teo Chee Hean. These languages will help us preserve our heritage. Sir, the Government is committed to nurturing our mother tongue and it is prepared to change its policy whenever there is merit in the proposal.

Sir, moving now to religious harmony, this is the most sensitive issue. We have seen two riots which have religion as the basis of civil disturbances. Some of us felt very strongly and made representations to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill. And we are grateful for Parliament in passing this Bill that we have religious harmony in Singapore.

Sir, we are a people of different races and different religions. We have only one dream, the dream to build Singapore where people live in peace. The citizens have pride in our nation. Our young must find it worthwhile to stay and make their contribution to this country, their homeland. I say this because in many countries, religious strife has harmed the people and the country. We have built an honest and stable Government. Our people believe that there can be no peace and prosperity without a strong government. It is essential to have political stability.

Sir, I end my speech with a reference to the Proclamation of Singapore. Allow me to quote from the Proclamation:

`As from the 9th day of August in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five Singapore shall be forever a sovereign, democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.'

May I ask the House to support this motion, Sir?

Question proposed.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as an English-educated person, I wish to speak in Chinese today to express the gratitude I feel towards the contribution of our founding fathers in establishing a multi-lingual policy. After all Chinese is my mother tongue and a language which I deeply enjoy.

The recent economic crisis in all the Asian countries had noticeable ramifications at all levels. The tension between Malaysia and Singapore is one example. It arose due to economic and historical differences, with each country arguing and defending its own ground. The persecution of Chinese in Indonesia was another painful and traumatic event, heightening our awareness and anxiety toward inter-ethnic conflict. Against this background, the recent National Education Exhibition which related the growth of Singapore from a colony to its independence and the resilience with which our pioneers struggled to build this country, truly won my admiration.

The National Education Exhibition portrayed our society as multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual. That Singaporeans have for 33 years co-existed in harmony and collectively worked hard to develop this nation - amidst the throes of vast global transformations - is an accomplishment which we must all cherish and feel proud of.

But can we sustain this hard-earned harmony through future generations without trouble? The younger Singaporeans today have no understanding of the 1964 racial riots and are rather unaware about ethnic issues. Does this point to the success of our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual policy that made "race" not an issue at all or does it signal a lack of sensitivity towards ethnic issues?

What concerns me are two issues: education and language. Our education policy created a group of elites such that those who finally entered tertiary education are primarily Chinese. Even among Primary and Secondary schools achievers, Chinese in relative percentage terms still do better than the other ethnic groups. I do not think this is due to any discriminatory policy adopted by the Government. It reflects more the varying attitudes toward education among different ethnic groups and the lack of adequate resources in some families to allow the children to complete their education successfully. As such, I reckon that what Singaporeans have to be concerned with is how to strengthen and elevate the educational attainment levels of all the different ethnic groups.

The other concern is on the language issue. Till today, there are still many Chinese Singaporeans who share negative views about Chinese culture and its transmission. Despite the openness which the Government has adopted towards the four official languages, Chinese being one of them, there are many Chinese who will not embrace and accept their own language and heritage. These in particular are the English-educated who regard English as Singapore's main language, a superior language which was passed down to us from the colonial days.

Consequently, when the Chinese-educated community organise a talk or study group and invite eminent scholars to come to share their insights on Chinese culture, such an event would be regarded as a chauvinistic activity when it clearly is only a cultural and academic exchange. The recent cultural symposium organised by Lianhe Zaobao was essentially an experience for some Singaporeans to find their lost heritage. Twelve hundred participants were there to seek intellectual stimulation and a diversity of views on life from four eminent personalities. I personally was appreciative of the effort the Lianhe Zaobao gave to encourage this high level of cultural dialogue. In my view, such an event represents a form of cultural renaissance and does not represent narrow-minded ethnocentric chauvinism. Moreover, Chinese culture being one of the world's greatest cultures, has been highly regarded by scholars in America and Europe do we then judge their enthusiasm as misplaced? What the English-educated did not realise is the fact that in an increasingly Westernised city-state like Singapore which is dominated by the English language, the Chinese-educated also feel neglected.

But the Chinese as a majority group in this country must not disregard the sensitive reactions of the other groups. One specific example was the recent discussion by the Nanyang Technological University on the creation of a Chinese Cultural Institute and cultural elite. A non-Chinese felt strongly enough to write to the press pointing out that this move directly contradicted the early principles of a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. Other individuals asked: if we talk about a Chinese cultural elite, what about Malay or Indian elites? Or should each of these cultures in their search for cultural excellence, at some level also promote the larger Singapore culture by encouraging the elites in each group to build bridges of linkages to help our diverse groups achieve an even higher level of consensus?

I personally feel that the issue of race cannot be broached by the intellect or conceptual theories. I grew up in Little India. During the 50s to the 70s, the neighbours I contacted were Malays, Indians and Chinese. Because my parents had always related to different ethnic groups, this exposure had made my brothers and I develop a high level of acceptance of other races. This is the reason why till today, I have close friends from different races. I may not clearly understand their cultures, but this ignorance has not prevented our friendship from developing. I raise this example to express a fact that the barriers between races must be removed by interpersonal relationships through communication. Such communication must be sustained over a long period, to allow us to develop from different experiences our respect and friendship for one another. The kind of heart-linked relationship for one another is the best assurance against racial conflict.

At this juncture, I make a call for all principals, teachers, parents, Government and community agencies to organise more light entertaining events in order to create the opportunity for different ethnic groups to meet and have the chance to correct their biases for and misunderstanding of one another. We cannot merely "talk" about multi-racial society; we need to give time to organise activities to "act out" our beliefs and encourage more noble bridge makers to take the lead. The Racial Harmony Day is only a symbolic event, what is more representative of our harmony is the creation and continuity of multi-racial relationships at all levels. At the present, we are asked to be open and welcome foreign talents to our country to help our economic development. With their arrivals, the diversity in our multi-cultural society takes on an additional dimension, making it all the more necessary that we keep developing the heart-linked network to achieve overall social cohesion.

If we can objectively adopt a larger perspective on global cultures by recognising that the search for all cultural sources is like digging a well: that as we dig deeper, we will find that all different sources from the well will lead to one undifferentiating source. If so, why do we not adopt a tolerant attitude towards accepting our commonness? If we start digging our multi-cultural wells based on this reckoning, we will finally reach the Big Singapore Culture which will be a mix of tradition and modernity, East and West, people's culture and elite culture.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, I had not intended to speak. I jotted down some points, but I thought the motion moved by the Nominated Member was so self-evident and worthy of support that it was not necessary for me to speak. However, I do rise now to raise some concerns for the future. I share very much the gratitude, expressed already, that we build from our good days of racial harmony in the past and I share a pride in that Singapore, when it was in Malaysia, stood for Malaysian Malaysia, and then stood for Singaporean Singapore to act, as our pledge says, regardless of race. But I am perhaps more cautionary for the future. One of the lessons I extracted from history was that we should not take harmony for granted and that there are possible concerns for the future.

We stand in good stead because the Constitution promises, in Article 12, protection of all citizens against discrimination based on race. But I must share with this House a perception that we have moved from the idea of a pledge, regardless of race, to a policy of acting with due regard to race. I think this perception is wrong. I think there is no change in Government policy. But I do share some concerns that there may be, and I stress the words "may be", unintended consequences of some existing policies. I hope I am not misunderstood here - policies which in themselves may be nothing wrong, maybe good. But there have been concerns raised at various youth seminars I have attended in this last year that I wish to share.

First, and I think this touches very much on NMP Mdm Claire Chiang's point, the Speak Mandarin campaign. As far as I understand from the interpretation, she suggested that English-speaking Chinese Singaporeans, such as myself, were wrong to regard English as superior. I think she is right. English is not superior to Chinese. But neither is Chinese superior to English, nor to any other language. I think that there is nothing wrong with each race trying to learn the language which they associate with their mothers, even if their mothers do not speak that language. But I am concerned of the unintended consequence of this policy. I have heard many anecdotal stories of unthinking individuals who, in the name, the misused name of the Speak Mandarin campaign, switch to Mandarin when there are Malay, Indian or others like me, non-Mandarin speaking colleagues, present. This is an exclusionary practice. Must all Chinese Singaporeans speak Chinese? Is English language only for work? What if, as I do, I think, dream and write from my very heart in English? As I said, I do not claim that English is superior, but I do not think I am less Singaporean because I do not speak Mandarin and Chinese, and I am Chinese.

I tried my best to learn about Chinese history, the overseas Chinese from English books. I hope my child will learn Mandarin because that is the school rules now. But I do not think I enjoy a lesser place in the sun, and I do not think that is what Mdm Claire Chiang was saying.

The second unintended consequence which follows from this is the concern of SAP schools. Mr Shriniwas Rai, the NMP, said that our schools tried to build multi-religious, multi-racial, multi-lingual harmony. I think that is true. That is what we are trying to do. I think it is good to promote bilingual students among those who can cope with two languages as first language. Do not get me wrong. SAP schools themselves are a useful thing. But there is a concern that the inter-racial and cultural mix in such schools is reduced, the understanding and interaction of the bright and young is limited to those who are predominantly of one culture, one race. We must remember that schools are not about purely what we learn from books but what we learn from each other, from fellow classmates. The skills of citizenry, of getting along, are built in school. This must include in Singapore racial understanding. So we need to search for a balance in these policies, and to guard against unintended consequences which we may face in the future.

The third is of ethnic self-help groups. The Government has said that it thinks this is the best way to mobilise self-help. I think self-help groups are a fact of life which many people embrace at present. But it should also be emphasised that ethnicity of race should not be the only basis of volunteering your service, or volunteerism. People may and should increasingly volunteer for a common cause, not for a common race. There is a need to foster community across ethnicity. So when I see initiatives such as the Prime Minister's call for civil society or for CDCs which are based more in geography, or neighbourliness, this is good. Further along, we need to encourage self-help groups to have more joint projects and, if I may voice a suggestion, that one day further down the road, we should set a sunset clause for ethnic self-help groups, that in the end Singaporeans should help Singaporeans, not just those of the same race or ethnicity.

Connected with this, the debate that is happening in Indonesia must touch us. One of the commoner suggestions in this debate is that identity cards or other official materials which describe a race should have this removed. Our ICs are similar. I wonder if this continues to be necessary. I point out that this is highly artificial given that our rules, as I understand them, follow the paternal line only. So there are classification problems for some people of mixed marriage who may continue to be registered in whatever race their father is despite how many other races they are married into.

The connected concern is with newer Singaporeans and PRs. Many are racially similar from China, India or other countries in the region around us. But we must question if these newer immigrants understand the heritage that Mr Shriniwas Rai has talked about in moving this motion. Do they assimilate to this multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-lingual belief in Singapore? Do they understand? It is not just our children, a newer generation, these are newer arrivals. Tensions may arise between them and us, the older Singaporeans, and the basis should not be on race, on where we come from, but on citizenship and where we are going together as a nation.

I have tried to look forward to the future and now I turn to the present. I have two concerns. The first is whether we should be thinking about how this economic downturn differently affects different races, and the efforts of help to all these people to upgrade themselves, whether they are Chinese poor, Malay poor, Indian poor or other disadvantaged groups, through their self-help and education, these efforts should not be wiped out in the present downturn. They should be monitored and this economic hardship should be evened out and helped along. Otherwise, as we learn again from other countries, economic hardship, if it is uneven, can lead to racial jealousy.

The other present concern I want to share with the House is our efforts as a country, Singapore, to assist other countries in the region. I think we would be right to condemn the violence against the Chinese in Indonesia. But we, as a nation and a people, would be wrong to stop the condemnation from allowing us to help the genuinely poor and starving in the countries around us. The victims of famine and violence are not just Chinese. There are other races too. And we should provide assistance without regard to race, people to people, as good neighbours, as human beings, because human rights are being violated.

As I have said, many of these policies which Government has put in place, I understand, and I think many Singaporeans support. I have tried to share some of the dangers of unintended consequences. We have a good base and I join Mr Shriniwas Rai in supporting this motion. It is a good base, however, and all history is, to build towards a future, not to sit back and take for granted. The greatest tribute to the past is that we move on from racial tolerance to racial harmony to racial understanding, and perhaps, at least in my view, to a future of a non-racial Singapore, a society in which race is no longer a factor to be considered in life, either for merit or demerit, but a society in which we are truly individuals and truly judged on our merits.

The Minister of State for Communications (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Rai and Mdm Claire Chiang were touched by the National Education Exhibition. The historical events and lessons depicted by the Exhibition had moved him to move the motion. I think this is a commendable act and I agree with him that Singaporeans ought to feel a sense of gratitude for the contributions made by our founding fathers and indeed our forefathers. This is the kind of values we want to promote in our society.

Mr Rai is right in saying that every dollar spent is well spent on the Exhibition. Everyone that I talked to, who has watched it, tells me that it was good. But their experiences vary. Some of the older Singaporeans were so touched that their tears flowed. The younger ones were less so. Mdm Claire Chiang tried to explain why. Although the younger ones equally enjoyed the show and felt that the production was good and entertaining, we cannot expect them to have the same degree of emotions as the older ones. The lessons, however, are no less relevant today. Mdm Claire Chiang and Mr Tay spoke about the concerns they have. Let me just respond to some of these concerns, and after that I would like to go on to something which I think is even more important.

I agree with Mr Tay that we should not take harmony for granted. He expressed concerns about some policies, like the Speak Mandarin campaign, self-help groups, SAP schools, and so on. I am glad to hear that he realises that there is no intention to look at the policies from the racial angle. He knows that the intention for these polices is really to help build a stronger nation. If he takes the Speak Mandarin campaign as an example, he would agree that mother tongue is very important and if we lose this part of our culture Singaporeans will be less rooted. He talked about SAP schools. Again, here it is important that we want to promote the mother tongue, and he thinks that because of that, racial mix is reduced. But let me remind him that if you go to our housing estates, if you participate in our grassroots activities, you would notice that the racial mix is there. So our children in fact have got many opportunities to mix, interact, and get to know one another, even to appreciate one another's culture. I think the elected MPs would know, if you look at the cultural functions and activities that we organise, they are all multi-cultural, and the different races actually participate and learn from each other's culture. Even in schools, I believe that multi-racialism is taught very early and the schools also provide the environment to promote interaction.

On the self-help groups, I think he would agree that at this point in time it is perhaps the best and most effective way for Singaporeans to help each other. Even in self-help groups, from my experience, a particular self-help group is not closed to other races to take part or participate in its programmes. But in order for us to draw the maximum support and involvement from Singaporeans, self-help groups are there to provide this most effective approach. Therefore, I would say - although I understand his concern about unintended consequences - that he be rest assured that the Government, the people and the organisations concerned know what they are doing and there is no question about the importance of multi-racialism.

His concern about crisis affecting different races and whether it is uneven and so on, I think here again it is a question for the Government and the nation as a whole to tackle and I do not see any imminent problem in this area. I am also glad to hear that he talked about the need to extend humanitarian aid to neighbouring countries regardless of what happened. If you have followed the news, that is what we are doing. I have no problem with what he has talked about, like, for instance, the need for immigrants to assimilate into our society and our culture.

But, to me, to debate Mr Rai's motion, it would be pertinent to ask ourselves how our forefathers would react to our expression of gratitude. Put yourself in the shoes of our forefathers, and if they hear about this debate, how would they feel? If you allow me, Sir, I would submit that they would probably have the following response:

"My son, we are happy that you feel grateful for what we have done for you. But we will be even happier if you truly understand how we have got here today and carry on doing the right things to protect, preserve and build upon what we, as a nation, have achieved thus far. We had come to Singapore in search of a better life. Our success did not come about by chance. We had worked very hard and through our sweat and blood, we had earned a good living for ourselves and for our families. There were oppositions along the way. There were people, and perhaps they are still around today, who wanted to lord it over us. But we took our destiny into our own hands. It was not easy because we are small. How did we make it? We made it by promoting harmony and unity among ourselves, by sheer discipline and hard work, and by implementing the right social and economic policies. But most important of all, we made it because we stood up as a sovereign nation, pursuing a consistent foreign policy of mutual respect, mutual cooperation and mutual benefit. As a small state, if we cannot speak and act as equals among bigger nations, then we will be forever at the mercy of others. Therefore, never, never forget this crucial truth. The day you forget this will be the day you begin your downward journey as a nation. Do not let Singapore go down, even if we have to lose our lives, or we will never come up again."

Sir, our founding fathers had painstakingly built up Singapore, our homeland, to what it is today. It behoves us to defend, protect and build upon it. I am taking advantage of Mr Rai's motion to remind Singaporeans what our response should rightly be, following this expression of gratitude towards our founding fathers. I think Singaporeans would agree with me that this is the best way to say, `thank you'. I think there is no disagreement here that this should be our right response, although concerns have been expressed.

Let me just say a few words in Mandarin in response to Mdm Chiang's speech.

(In Mandarin) Nominated MP Claire Chiang felt that the lack of national consciousness among our younger people was probably due to language problem. Perhaps, in the past, we had not done enough to inculcate in our younger generation knowledge pertaining to national consciousness. But I think the main reason is that the younger generation of Singaporeans have not gone through the type of hardship and sufferings experienced by our founding fathers during the war, the difficult lives in the post-war era, and the struggles in our early days of nation-building. Since they have not experienced such difficult situations, they naturally would have different views, different mindsets and different feelings. So we should go one step further in strengthening the inculcation of national consciousness in our young.

However, I agree with her that in the promotion of racial harmony, the important thing is to have more interaction and communications among the different ethnic groups in our society. This is correct. It is for this reason that our policies, whether in public housing or in community development, are such that we constantly encourage inter-ethnic linkage whereby people of all races would live together in the same housing estate and in one big community. Our activities are always aimed at encouraging people of different ethnic groups to have further understanding and interaction with one another. Of course, I also agree with her that we should have mutual tolerance and accommodation for one another. This is very important.

On the motion before the House today, I feel that apart from urging the younger generation to recognise the contributions made by our founding fathers and reaffirm and record our appreciation for such contributions, we should also think of how our founding fathers might react to our expression of gratitude. They may say, "Well, we are very happy to see that you are showing gratitude but, more importantly, you must realize how hard we had fought to bring Singapore to what it is today. As a small nation, Singapore is very vulnerable. You must work hard to see that we continue to have a place in the global environment."

If we remember how our founding fathers had struggled and endured to bring us to the enviable situation we have today, we must not let them down. We must continue to persevere and carry on building on the strong foundation that they have built for us. I think this may well be the best form of expressing our appreciation for what they have done for us, and indeed the best way of saying `thank you' to them.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): Sir, I just want to make some remarks on Mr Simon Tay's comments.

As the Vice-Chairman of CDAC, I would like to explain that a self-help group like CDAC is not based on racial segregation. Although our purpose is to serve the Chinese community, students from other racial groups are allowed to join some selected programmes. For instance, our Students' Service Centre allows students of other races to participate in our training sessions. Many people probably have the wrong impression that self-help groups, based on ethnic communities, could divide our people. I think we had discussed this when we set up CDAC at the very beginning. But from experience we found that the most effective way for a racial group to help themselves is to let themselves produce and create the momentum so that they realise where their weaknesses are, and work out the programmes to upgrade themselves. If each self-help group has done its best, putting them together, it would be able to raise the level of progress of all groups in the whole nation, which need the necessary help, to a higher level.

Let us look at history. When our forefathers came, I think they came as a group. We have Chinese clans; we have Indian clans. We have other groups. They probably operated and worked within their own group. They have contributed to the growth of Singapore today. And if you look at what we have in the commerce sector, we have the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Indian Chamber of Commerce, the Malay Chamber of Commerce. I was involved in the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for more than 10 years. I can tell you that if we mix all the traders under one roof, it is very difficult to work because sometimes the problem may not be a common problem. So it is not the most effective way to find a solution and to discuss common problems. But with these three basic groups and on top of it, there is the Federation of Chambers of Commerce for Singapore, which groups the three basic groups together, I think that is a good arrangement. The fact that we have three separate commercial groups is not a policy of racial segregation.

Let me say that a beautiful painting is made up of different colours. Different races in Singapore, be it Chinese, Indian, Malay or Eurasians, are different colours. We paint the different colours on a piece of paper and as a painting, it looks beautiful. If you mix all the colours into one and paint it on a piece of paper, it is one colour. It will be a dull picture.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I expected, when I saw this motion, it has turned out to be a song of praise of those who have been in charge of the affairs of this country since 1959. The mover of the motion says he was so moved, he got emotional, and so he decided he must give vent to his emotion and move this motion in Parliament. I am glad that the two other speakers who followed him have brought him down to earth a little bit. He was floating on cloud nine, as they say, moved by his emotion.

But I do not quite follow who he is referring to as founding fathers. He mentioned a host of names. Are they the founding fathers of Singapore? Is that what he says? Or are the founding fathers the people who turned Singapore from what it was a swamp in 1819 when it was first spotted into what it is today? So let us be clear as to who we are talking about when we talk about our founding fathers.

One would have thought, listening to the mover, that before 1959, there was no racial harmony, there was no religious harmony, the different races were at one another's throats. Let me assure those who were perhaps not here, in Singapore that is, not even on the planet, in those days there was nothing of that sort. No doubt the British had their divide and rule policy, but in spite of that, the races did get along well together, and I think Mdm Claire Chiang said that herself about growing up in Little India. So it is not as though it was only after 1959 that we have had racial harmony, religious harmony, multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism. I question whether those values, those terms, still apply to Singapore.

As has been expressed and this is something that I fear myself, there is a growing tendency towards compartmentalisation in Singapore. I know the Assistant Director of the CDAC tried to explain that the CDAC is not just purely Chinese. But we have the MENDAKI, we have got SINDA, we have got CDAC and now the Eurasian community thinks it has got to have its own and they set up their own. So the impression is that the different communities have to look after their own affairs, promote their own growth in this place and should not look to the other communities, that they themselves are responsible for what they are.

That is not going to help, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in creating a Singapore identity. We talk about culture. Yes, we have got the Chinese culture, we have got the Indian culture, we have got the Malay culture. But what is the Singapore culture? Is there such a thing as the Singapore culture here? Or is it just making of money, that is Singapore culture? Have we tried to find a synthesis, as someone said in a letter to the papers, of the various cultures into a unique Singapore culture? Is any attempt being made or are the people who try to write something creatively slapped down because the authorities think it is a criticism? And how do we maintain religious harmony in this place? By telling the clerics that they are not to speak on any issue concerning society, otherwise they would be thrown into prison. Is that religious harmony?

Let us examine all these platitudes that have been thrown about. Is any attempt being made to examine the society as it is today you will hear some of it when I move my motion to see what kind of a society we have become? And there is a great responsibility on us now for our children and our children's children. What are we going to pass to them?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is time that we consciously tried to avoid talking about the different races in Singapore and made an effort to talk about just Singaporeans. I have many a time said that I cannot see the need for showing the different races, the classification in our identity cards. When I am asked to fill up a form, and there are so many of these forms everywhere, you invariably find the box "race" and I enter the term "Human" because we must realise that whether we are Indians, Chinese, Malays or whatnot, we belong in the end to one human race, and that is what we are. And so I hope that we will try to create a oneness of all our people to gather in one single purpose and not keep them compartmentalised and say to them "you are responsible for your own development" and each community will take care of its own development.

I proposed at the last sitting of Parliament that we set up a Board of Equal Rights and that was laughed at and dismissed, "We don't need it in Singapore." We do, because if we believe that everyone is entitled to his right without regard to his race, religion or what else, then we should have a proper body who will examine any complaint that he is being discriminated. That might help in creating the impression and sending the message to our people that we are truly interested in creating a one people united together, a one people, not four different peoples, united together in one common purpose, not our own separate purposes or our separate courses.

I read, some four or five years ago, that the present Senior Minister who was then the Prime Minister speaking in one of the cities in Central Asia, said he was presiding over four fish tanks and there were different fishes swimming in different tanks, and he has got to see that they were kept separately. Let us try and get all the fish into one tank and live in Singapore as a single one people with one purpose, one aim and make an attempt to evolve a Singapore culture.

Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just like to join in this debate hoping that I could clarify some of the confusion that happened during the discussion. As to who our founding fathers are, I think we should be referring to those who have planted the seeds of multi-racialism, multi-culturalism and racial harmony. The Malays were here. They had the island to themselves. The Chinese came here to escape famine. The Indians came here to work. The British segregated us and so did the Japanese. It was our first generation leaders who took the decision to put all these together and established as a principle of this nation, multi-culturalism, multi-racialism and racial harmony. These are the people we should thank for and be grateful for what we have today.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to several Members who have spoken. I am a bit surprised with Mr Jeyaretnam's stand. I thought that this was a very civil, courteous act. We will not get involved in party politics, but he must get involved.

I think I want to take him to pre-1959 and I will take the historical process. I have read the Hansard before coming. I have done my homework.

Mr Jeyaretnam: How much of the Hansard have you read?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: It does not matter, Mr Jeyaretnam. Let us talk history.

In 1955, when Mr David Marshall formed an elected government, he felt that the Chinese and Malay schools had suffered deprivation. English was the supreme language, and this disadvantaged more than three-quarters of our people. The frustration of the Chinese students, the Tamil and Malay-speaking students could not be expressed by those who spoke English, and there was an All-Party Committee of Inquiry. Prior to 1959, you had no right of audience in this House if you spoke a language other than English. The rules of the game were changed, and that is what I call multi-lingualism.

I speak with some fervour, Sir, because I took some risks. In 1986, my Hindi community wanted Hindi to be recognised. Prior to that, the then Prime Minister said, "No. If you are an Indian, you study Tamil." We formed a protem committee. We convinced the Government that our Indian students from non-Tamil background were losing culturally. So Government allowed Hindi and other Indian languages. And nowhere in the world such a minority community was given equal right with Mandarin and Malay. Is that not equality in multi-lingualism?

I was surprised, again another aspersion by Mr Jeyaretnam on self-help groups. As Dr Ker has mentioned, if Mr Jeyaretnam was aware, he would not have made this allegation. I confess that I am not in favour of a communal set up, but there is no other alternative at the moment. I am the Secretary of SINDA and I declare my interest. As Dr Ker has pointed out, SINDA and CDAC are working together and eventually I hope, not 10-15 years but maybe 50 years from now, we can disband these bodies and we can all have a national organisation.

You may laugh, but these are the realities of Singapore politics. I give you an example. We have Malay and Eurasian students in SINDA. We have non-Indian teachers teaching these students.

Of course, I have told the Prime Minister several times that all the four umbrella organisations should work together. We are moving in this direction.

Sir, on SAP schools, I share some of the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Mr Simon Tay. There is this danger which we will have to address. SAP school students will grow up, their best part of their life, isolated without having the benefit of mixing with the other communities. Of course, they play on the playing field and in surrounding areas. But in the school, they are left by themselves. My good friend, Zainul, was together with me in the University. We used to speak in bazaar Malay. We could exchange views even though we came from different backgrounds because we came from schools which have multi-racial students. My fear is that the SAP school students will be isolated. We must try to take some steps to correct this imbalance.

Sir, several Members have spoken. What is Singapore culture? Singapore culture is not massing together into one, but each culture blossoms, taking into cognizance that there are different values, different cultures, different languages and different religious backgrounds. We cannot force one culture on the other, but we can co-exist. And we hope in years to come, we can create a Singapore culture. Nowhere in the world is there a mixture of so many races and languages and coming out with one. Even the Americans have tried it. They are still trying it. It is years, decades, centuries. So we have to live with this reality.

In Singapore, we are a different community. We must not just tolerate, as I said earlier, we must appreciate and understand and take positive steps to inculcate in our youth the value of respect and understanding. And that is why I think the Government did a wise thing because nowhere do we have one community living in segregation. I think it was a very wise and bold decision. I think it was Mr Dhanabalan who initiated it and we should live by it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been a long day. I have many things to say but I do not want to hold up the Members. I would ask this House that this is an act of civility. Let us vote unanimously on this resolution and show our appreciation. And as Dr Chen has pointed out, the best tribute we could pay to them is to live and improve upon them. The British never came here to give us multi-racialism. They came and they were very honest. They came here as a trading company, the East India Company. It was only in 1955 we started moving. That was why I made it very clear. I have clarified who were our forefathers. As regards our founding fathers, I refer to post-1955. If Mr Jeyaretnam remembers, I mentioned Mr David Marshall because he was a true son of Singapore. I am proud of him.

Sir, may I ask the House to support the motion?

Resolved,

That this House records with gratitude the contribution made by our founding fathers in building a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society and reaffirms these principles.