SINGAPORE 21 (Motion)

Debate resumed.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to register my whole-hearted support for the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education.

As both the Prime Minister and the Chairman have stressed, Singapore 21 is not the Government's concept of what Singaporeans should do in the next century. Neither is it an economic blueprint. It is what some 6,000 Singaporeans have expressed as the Singapore they want for the future.

As the Minister has elaborated, Singapore 21 highlights five key ideas which initially appear to be so obvious. But are they really that obvious? Are these key ideas merely motherhood statements? I believe the acid test is the extent to which we apply these evergreen ideas as guiding principles for our lives as an individual, as a society and as a country.

Sir, many may ask what is the relevance of Singapore 21 to the crisis. Is Singapore 21 a vision that can be discussed only when buoyant economic times allow us that luxury? No, it should be a set of guiding principles that we adopt regardless of the economic situation. I believe the challenge is to consistently live by these principles and not just during a crisis.

In fact, we do not start from a zero base and the Singapore 21 spirit is already being felt. Allow me, Sir, to elaborate on how directly relevant this is to the current crisis. The recession from the regional turmoil has injected a sense of reality to the vision. Our response as a people illustrates beautifully how ideas and concepts can be translated into practice and demonstrates the extent to which we relate to each other, our community and Singapore at large.

Firstly, the crisis has evoked a sense of national pride and collective will. Sir, the cost-cutting measures were no doubt driven by the Government but they relied heavily on each and every Singaporean's conviction and will to, firstly, bear some pain in order to regain our competitiveness and, secondly, to contribute towards Singapore's ability to progress beyond the crisis by agreeing to be reskilled and upgraded. Of course, we are not out of the regional woods yet but a nation of mentally prepared and willing Singaporeans is a necessary and meaningful prerequisite.

Secondly, the crisis has heightened our sense of responsibility towards each other. The people sector comprising many self-help, voluntary and community organisations are already in full swing, reaching out to Singaporeans in need in a variety of ways. For example, many Community Development Councils are already assisting retrenched workers in job searches while others help out with basic essentials such as meals and groceries.

Most recently, on May Day, some 60,000 Singaporeans under the `Love Singapore' banner, walked to raise funds for some 24 charities as the crisis has made fund raising a challenge. This, to me, is a moving tribute to how when the going gets tough, the tough goes walking.

Thirdly, the crisis has caused us to revisit the values we know so well. Sir, many a family is facing the pressure of coping with the crisis, particularly if there has been retrenchment or prolonged unemployment. Family members tighten their belts in a collective effort to reduce household expenses. Frequently, extended family members chip in with financial assistance and, more importantly, moral support.

I was particularly touched by a retiree's response to how he reacted to his son's plight when the latter had to settle for a less-paying job. He reassured his son that, firstly, he was willing to forgo his monthly allowance, and, that secondly, his respect and love for his son remained the same as long as he had tried his best. This thoughtful father is prepared to adapt to changing circumstances and has done a great deal to relieve his son's stress.

Sir, even without the crisis, most Singaporeans already experience a certain amount of stress brought on by the increasingly competitive global marketplace and fast changing technology. As we know, stress is not necessarily bad. An athlete will be quick to tell you that without subjecting himself to punishing goals, he would not be able to break records.

Most of the causes of stress can be traced to a narrow definition of success. How often do we subconsciously look at others through glasses that count in dollars or through the houses that they own? As a society, our history has revolved around building a vibrant economy in a short period of time, thus leading to a lot of emphasis on economic and material achievements.

Over time, we have unwittingly defined success very narrowly, only by good grades if you are a student and the ability to make a lot of money if you are a working adult. This narrow definition of success in turn affects our self-worth or self-esteem. And low self-esteem will lead us to think that we do not matter to our family, friends, community or even country.

Sir, we all know that children can easily feel unworthy. For example, it is one thing for parents to encourage their children to work hard for good academic results; it is another to condemn them because they are not as bright as their cousins. At one focus group discussion which my Subject Committee had, although there was consensus that society as a whole must widen the notion of success, there was some resignation to the inability to change collective mindsets. I believe this is not something a campaign can address, although obviously, the Government can help influence and change mindsets. It really begins in each and every one of us as we are the collective judge of how we view each other. Mindset changes may take a long time but raising awareness to the need for a change is definitely a good starting point.

This brings me to the close of my speech where I would like to urge all Singaporeans to assume collective ownership and responsibility for the Singapore 21 movement. For it is when we feel responsible for our own destinies that, with some facilitation by the Government, we can hope to remain truly cohesive as a nation.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): Sir, let me speak on the topic "Every Singaporean Matters". In an age of globalisation, where nations face tremendous pressures from outside, there is also a tremendous transference of values that we, as a young nation, have to contend with. The debate that we face today on the recommendations of the Singapore 21 Committee is crucial because we need to prepare now for the future. I commend the Singapore 21 Committee and all participants of the discussions organised by the Committee for coming up with this document. What we have before us is not just a collection of views of the Committee, but the collective wisdom of many, many more people, about 6,000 in all, who care about the development and future of our society.

I rise therefore to support this motion. The recommendations put forth raise further questions on how we can obtain the best future for Singaporeans, transcending all levels and across all boundaries that separate us as individuals. The preparations we make today are our legacy to the next generation, and with the steps we take now, we must ensure that future generations applaud our actions in ensuring not only their survival but also their prosperity.

The range and complexity of issues arising from a world without borders impose challenges that require us to form new attitudes as we are forced to address issues - issues brought about through the transference of outside values, that we never had to face before. This is the cost of progression to a knowledge-based industry, a progression that is necessary to ensure us a place in the international economy and community.

With the call for foreign talent echoing through the past few years, especially in the past few months, at a time of economic crisis, some of our people have been afraid that Singaporeans would be marginalised in the Government's bid to attract foreign talent. We should not take lightly the recent emotions raised by this spectre which came bubbling up to the surface when Singaporeans were losing jobs. I appreciate their concerns. Somewhere, if our people do not understand, then the message put out has gone astray, so we have to give our vision greater clarity and transparency, and areas of friction have to be addressed. We have to answer difficult questions; what do we mean by foreign talent, should remunerations of foreigners and Singaporeans of equal talent differ, are the goodies provided to attract foreign talent also available for Singaporean talent, what kinds of foreign talent do we need, are controls in place to ensure that "riff-raff" of the world are sifted out and what are these controls. These are just a few of the questions which need to be clarified. In the end, the phrase "Every Singaporean Matters" must be believed by the people because we can only rely on ourselves to make sure that we matter.

But it is quite easy to ask questions and raise concern but it is not easy to find the solutions. On the issue of foreign talent, we have to help Singaporeans see the big picture too. To start with, the number of foreign workers is controlled by the quota system. So, the majority of workers in Singapore will always be Singaporeans. Foreign talents are brought in not at the expense of Singaporeans. Instead, we need foreign talents to help enhance our competitiveness and competitive edge and create even more jobs for Singaporeans. I suppose we need to do a little bit more work to convince Singaporeans that we do need to welcome foreign talents.

Sir, what our labour movement is doing, together with the Government and the employers federation, is to help create skills among Singapore workers, especially the older workers with low skills, so that they remain relevant and able to function in the knowledge-based economy. To me, this is how our society tries to meet the needs and protect the basic interests of the older Singaporean workers, for the best welfare we can extend to our fellow Singaporeans is to create jobs for them and enhance their employability. In this respect, I applaud the Government's decision, announced by the Prime Minister on Labour Day, to give more funds to NTUC's Education and Training Funds (ETF) and Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) so that more Singaporean workers can benefit from skills training opportunities. Sir, it shows that we do care for our people.

If Singaporeans are to believe that each and every one of them matters, then the voice of each sector of society must be heard and taken seriously by society and by the Government. We must be respectful of each other and each sector of the society, respect for them as being a group of intelligent fellow citizens. If we mean to tell people that they matter, they must be informed first before certain actions that can affect them are taken. Take SingNet's scanning of the vulnerability of the computers of its 200,000 Internet subscribers without first telling them about it. I appreciate SingNet's explanation, but somehow, there is this feeling that customers should be the last to know. Sir, this must change.

Then take the case of Tampines Town Council's decision to charge $300 per session to a group of women who exercise weekly at a public park in Tampines. If the town council needs to charge a fee to cover some maintenance costs, it should consider a reasonable fee. And if it is true that the town council had wanted to charge as much as $300 per session to the group of 40, then I think it is much too much. I believe there is no racial undertone here. And there should not be any such thing. But we are talking about people in the age group and racial background who are most vulnerable to the heart and related illnesses, who need to exercise, and should be encouraged to do so. The Residents' Committee of the area can help them organise better, and these such groups need to be told of their responsibility and obligations in using public places like the park in Tampines.

But whether the Straits Times has sensationalised the matter or not, it is something that must be ironed out. What we need to do is therefore to include, and not to exclude people. It will help make our people feel that they do matter, and we are serious about strengthening family and social cohesion. I can only read out the reaction of a 16-year old youth on this matter to remind ourselves of the need of not losing sight of the big picture. Mr Safarudin Abdul Rahman was quoted by the Straits Times to have said, "Relax-lah, this is an open space for public use. What's this talk about one people, one nation, one Singapore?".

Sir, as recommended by the report, we have to widen our definition of success but how we are going to do that has yet to be looked at. One of the crucial areas where social change can occur is in our schools because it is there that we prepare our children to become the citizens of tomorrow. Our education system has been geared towards examinations and paper qualifications and, therefore, society sees paper qualifications as the ultimate measurement of success. How are we going to change this? This is a very important question. We are going in the right direction when we start to look into making project work one of the requirements of university admission. We can go further by looking at introducing project work and open book examinations at the different levels of streaming. These encourage more thinking, analysis and creativity than the kind of examinations we have today which only encourage rote learning and a blinkered vision. We have to look into the best teaching methods in the world and work this into the training of our teachers. We could also look into giving our teachers wider exposure in different styles of teaching by exchange programmes with schools in different countries. At the same time, it provides our teachers with an international outlook that they pass on to the students they teach.

We can also look into increasing the number of and improving the standards of specialty schools that we have. Singapore has the potential to become the regional hub for fine arts because of our centrality in the region and because we have the resources to ensure quality education, facilities and facilitators. We can talk about Government financial support to set up facilities, to pay world-class lecturers and to subsidise genius but this kind of aid will never be able to achieve what it has set out to do. All the money in the world will not persuade Singapore and that each and every one of them matters in the blueprint of Singaporean achievement. What is crucially needed is acceptance, acceptance of Singaporeans that are different. We recognise only those who have made it in terms of financial gains or reputation and all the recognition that we give to those who excel also gives rise to a sense of failure in the rest. What makes a musician successful to Singapore society - only when he is recognised as a great musician internationally. Are the other Singaporean musicians failures? Have they not succeeded in their own terms? We cannot be afraid that if we stop the continual praising of those who have become the best internationally, that the rest of Singapore will stop striving to be the best!

On the other level, the self worth of any individual can be strengthened by his family. To have strong family bonds can ensure an individual's success in any field and his confidence to take different paths in his life. Failure can only be felt within when your family designates you a failure, but this will never happen in strong families that recognise the worth of each family member.

The lynchpin of any strong family normally revolves around the woman, perhaps contrary to the belief of society. In the roles of wife, mother and daughter which sometimes occur at the same time or in different phases, women determine whether family holds together through each period of stress. Much more has to be done to assist women in the workplace. It is not only the setting up of flexible working arrangements for women. There has also got to be a change in the way our society looks at women who work. Women are sidelined in their careers once they demand flexible working arrangements, as if these are intolerable conditions to be imposed on the company. This goes to the roots of the way our society is structured. I think probably it is time for us to look into how we look at this issue.

When we look at our older workers, we have extended the retirement age to 62, as our people live longer and in better health. We also need to find ways and means to allow our older workers to continue working with dignity and self-respect. The Government should look at other ways of persuading companies to keep their senior employees beyond the mandatory retirement age of 62. One way is perhaps to look at reducing company tax with every such worker whom the company continues to employ.

Sir, overall, when we look at the achievements of Singapore, we have developed most in the economic realm. Though the Government has done everything possible to ensure that these achievements profit every citizen, it remains a fact that some have succeeded better than others, and that there is a marginalised sector of Singapore society which has not integrated. What we have achieved in economic terms must now be supported by social integration and cohesiveness, especially when we are faced with the homogenizing effect of globalisation. It is from the values of our society that we define ourselves as a nation, rather than an economy.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some of the points that were made by Mr Hawazi just now. I do so because I do not want this issue to take a life of its own, especially when the facts are quite contrary to what has been reported in the Straits Times.

It is a very good story, sensational in many respects and, in fact, if it were true, then I think it would lend credence to the views of some people that some parts of Government are still very bureaucratic and very unreasonable. But let me give Members of this House the facts, and then we can take it from there.

I am a Member of Parliament for Tampines GRC. The festival park in question is in my constituency and, therefore, I think I am in a very good position to give Members the facts. First of all, the group in question has been exercising in the festival park for the last two years with no problems, no payments, no complaints. So the question of payment of any amount does not arise at all. So, what happened? Two weeks ago, there was a letter of complaint that reached the Residents' Committee. The Residents' Committee had to act on that complaint because the resident complained that when she wanted to join that group, she was not allowed to do so. The Chairman of the Residents' Committee together with other members then approached the group in question, asked for clarification, suggested that they join together. There was an exchange of words, I believe, arguments ensued, heated words were exchanged, and they parted without any solution.

I was kept informed of the situation. My worry, frankly, was because the group in question was a group of Malay women. I wanted to make sure that the group would be able to continue with their activities in a way that does not exclude anybody. So when the group met me about two weeks ago, after the incident with the RC, I suggested to the group that they should register their intention to use the park with the Town Council, so that we are able to make sure that the park is properly managed and that there is no clash of activities. I also told the group that they are free to use the park without any charge on condition that they allow members who wish to join them to do so. I have heard nothing more from the group, until I saw the report in the Straits Times which took me entirely by surprise.

What happened? Obviously, the group must have been unhappy with their altercation with the RC and went to the press. The press asked a few questions of the Town Council. The Town Council answered a few questions, such as, "Do people have to pay to use the park? Do people have to pay to use public facilities?" The answer is "Yes". "How much do they have to pay?" Amounts that range from $10 all the way to $300, if it is a very elaborate affair like a wedding. Lo and behold, a report comes out that you either pay or go away.

I think this was a very serious matter which was of great concern to all of us. First, because we do not want to exclude anybody. But, second, we want to make sure that the facilities in the constituency are available for use by all residents. After all, the residents are paying conservancy fees to the Town Council and the Town Council has to make sure that the facilities are properly used. But it is a municipal matter. It is not a big issue. And we thought we had resolved the matter. Until it became a big issue because the issue now is a question of paying $300 or go away. There was never any question about payment. There was never any question about asking the group to go away. All that was asked was to make sure that the activities of the group are regularised and that the residents are allowed to join in.

This has become an issue that has caught a lot of people's attention. It has become an issue ranging from whether people should pay to use public facilities, to why one group is discriminated against. I think it should not be an issue in this debate, and this is the reason why I would like to clarify this point. It is a municipal issue which should have been resolved. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the reporters and the newspaper in question decided to blow it up and turn it into a big issue. The facts I have put before this House are what is known to me. Unfortunately, it may have stopped a good story from being written. I have made the clarification twice. On Sunday, I made this clarification. A small report came out. Some of you may have missed it, but the newspaper decided to follow up with another story today. I have made another clarification this afternoon to the reporter. Since Mr Hawazi has raised it, I am making another clarification, and I will see what happens tomorrow. But let us not get distracted from a serious issue before this House, which is a debate on Singapore 21 which talks about what Singaporeans want Singapore to be in the next century.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall focus my speech on national issues and stay away from municipal issues!

Sir, I rise to support the Committee's efforts in charting a new paradigm - to secure Singapore's success in the 21st century. In particular, I am happy to note that there has been an extensive consultation process across a wide range of individuals and institutions. Indeed, this goes to strengthen a key element of our success thus far, and that is consensus building. It is important as we move into the information age in the new millennium, that we not only continue but also widen our net for feedback gathering in this spirit of consensus building. This will ensure that Singaporeans can both feel and play a direct part in the future of our country. It makes Singaporeans responsible for their destiny, and strengthens our cohesiveness and unity as a nation.

It is indeed heartening to note that the S21 Committee has continued to stress the value of strong families as foundations for our future success. This has been the hallmark and underlying strength of our society since independence. With the rapid progress and modernization permeating through our society today, it is critical that the family should continue to be a source of strength, and that we do not go down the path of unbridled individualism leading to social alienation and dislocation of individuals, as is happening in other countries.

There remains a source of concern that the rapid and fast-changing Singapore society today, with its many stresses and burdens on the individual, has led to fragmentation of the family unit over the years. Now, we are striving to refocus the definition of success in terms of economic well-being and material wealth. We are extending it to other enviable pursuits like job satisfaction, the arts, culture and community activities. We are also encouraging Singaporeans to embrace the knowledge-based economy (KBE), and to engage in life-long learning, develop an interest and participate in civic activities.

Sir, in the midst of all these, it is timely to remind ourselves that we have to continue to uphold the pre-eminence of the role of Asian family values, even as we move towards a radical transformation of our societal values in future. Positive values such as filial piety, respect for our elders, ethics, honesty, integrity and nuclear families should continue to play a significant role in our lifestyles in the next millennium. The basic building block of our society has to continue to be the family and not the individual. The individual can grow and express himself in the KBE environment, but only as far as the bonds of family, the community and the nation remain intact.

I believe that all the goals that form part of the S21 Report are necessary for our future success in the next millennium. My question is: is what we have laid out in the Report enough to enshrine the family as the fundamental unit of our society and secure the primacy of our family based values? Indeed, one of the recommendations in the Report, that the Government could encourage flexible work arrangements, such as part-time work, working from the home and job sharing deserve more emphasis. As the biggest employer in Singapore, perhaps the Government should lead the way. I would like to suggest that the Government consider introducing flexible work hours, or even a 5-day work week in certain non-critical public services in the next millennium. This would also serve to encourage employers in the private sector to follow suit and to change their reward and remuneration system to one of efficiency and productivity, as opposed to time spent in the office, as is currently the arrangement.

More flexible working hours or a 5-day work week has not impeded the productivity of USA, for example, which is currently the most productive nation in the world. It has served well to present the individuals there the opportunities to spend more time pursuing civic and community activities, engage in KBE activities through continuing education, and develop interest in arts and culture. More importantly, for Singapore in the next century, it would allow more opportunity for Singaporeans to spend time with their family such as for leisure pursuits to build up intergenerational bonds. I would like to suggest that although this concept of a 5-day work week may be radical to Singapore, it would tie in and allow for the gradual achievement of the goals in the S21 Report, which as a package involves a series of changes in mindset, personal evaluation and lifestyles.

Sir, I am conscious of the fact that Singaporeans have been conditioned for many years to think of success in economic and material terms, and also to look to the Government to solve most of their problems. This has led to a curious paradox that there is a "dependency effect" where the general population generally expects the Government to step in to solve problems at both the personal and the social levels. I am certain that every Member of this House would have encountered this in their experience interacting with residents. And it is ironic that at the same time, these residents also complain that the Government is too nannying and interventionist.

It is therefore timely to encourage Singaporeans, as reflected in the Report, to take responsibility and pride for their lives and their community. It is also worthwhile to stress and encourage a culture that allows for greater risk taking. Instead of just recommending that society gives second chances, and be more tolerant of failure, I believe that the Government could also play a greater role than merely encouraging Singaporeans to pursue alternative interests in the arts or sports. The Government and the civil service could give greater recognition for mature degrees when considering employment, for example, and also consider revising bankruptcy laws to make it easier for an individual to turn failure into a success. As an example, an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley who has had many failures is not viewed as a failure but indeed as a very experienced person, as he has had accumulated a wealth of failures and experience. In addition, to encourage entrepreneurship in Singapore, the Government could also review the prohibition of registering offices or businesses in HDB dwellings, so as to allow for wider proliferation of KBE business activities, and greater opportunities for families to interact.

Sir, in the Singapore of the 21st century, we can easily envisage that a large proportion of our citizens would be living abroad at any one time. They could be away on business or posted overseas as our companies regionalise or even globalise. They could be pursuing academic studies or even be on holiday abroad. They could have retired and choose to reside overseas. Singaporeans would be highly mobile in the next century. In order to make Singapore the home where the family, community and societal bonds are meaningful to these people and to encourage them wherever they are to have the heartbeat of Singapore, we have to allow for greater civic and community participation at all levels. The spirit of inclusiveness and consensus building that created this report has to be extended to those living abroad. In time we may even consider reviewing our immigration policy to allow Singaporeans who had previously left to return home, as they may then identify and want to contribute to Singapore's continued success.

Sir, I fully support the recommendations of this Report. However, I am somewhat concerned that there is a lack of concrete implementation strategies. Although there is argument that society will only move as fast as it is ready to do so, I believe that the Government's role to nurture society in the right direction is significant. In this respect, I therefore recommend that the Government consider commissioning a full review of how the recommendations of this Report can be adopted and implemented by the civil service and the many Government agencies and the Community Development Councils as well as through the private sector. This will ensure that we can put our first foot forward in the door towards the success of Singapore 21 when the new millennium starts.

The Minister for Community Development (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, I had outlined to Members of the House three developmental thrusts that my Ministry would pursue to build social capital for the future. To recap, we will intensify efforts to build strong and stable families. The S21 reaffirms our belief that the family is a fundamental building block of our society. My Ministry is fully committed to this philosophy and vision. Second, we must anticipate and address the challenges of our ageing population. And third, we must strengthen the social service sector as part of the national effort to build a dynamic and vibrant people sector.

MCD's Commitment to S21

The five Key Ideas developed by the Singapore 21 Committee will give my Ministry fresh impetus in these three areas of focus. Collectively, the five Ideas articulate a concrete yet robust vision of the kind of society that our policies must strive to realise. Indeed, many of my Ministry's core functions are aligned with what S21 seeks to achieve. Our rehabilitation programmes for juvenile offenders, the protection we give to victims of family violence, and the assistance we provide to the less able and less fortunate members of society, all support the idea that Every Singaporean Matters. The basis for this assistance has been that everyone deserves a second chance and should be helped to become a responsible citizen, contributing to our nation. The guiding philosophy remains that people should be helped to help themselves.

Equally important, MCD has, over the years, forged a close partnership with voluntary welfare organisations, self-help groups, religious organisations and other civic groups that provide social services. Many are involved in the running of welfare homes, halfway houses, family service centres, day care centres for the young and old, and other social service facilities. They serve their fellow Singaporeans tirelessly and selflessly, regardless of race, language or religion.

Our experience with the people sector also suggests that when the community and the Government work in close partnership to serve the community, we reach more individuals and families better than either party could on its own. Services would be provided with greater compassion and be more meaningful to recipients. However, this partnership has not developed overnight. It requires a high level of co-operation and collaboration on both sides and a mutual respect honed over time. It also demands a common vision and a shared commitment among a wide spectrum of civic groups from diverse backgrounds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is committed to developing and strengthening new partnerships with the people sector. We believe that this is important not just because we rely on the people sector to provide core social services, but also because the people sector is an important arena to bond Singaporeans and to shape a sense of shared responsibility and ownership for our collective welfare.

MCD's S21 Initiatives

Over the course of this year, my Ministry will launch three initiatives to signal our commitment to making the S21 Vision a reality. First, in the area of developing active citizenship, we will spearhead the establishment of a national body to promote volunteerism as a way of life in Singapore. The National Volunteer Centre as it is tentatively called will be a promotional and resource centre for individuals and corporations who want to be part of the volunteer movement in Singapore. The Centre will work with volunteer activists to involve more Singaporeans in community and social service, and enable our citizens to play a more direct role in serving the public through a bottom-up process.

Secondly, in the area of strengthening families, MCD will hold a series of public forums in June and July this year to discuss the findings of the recently completed National Survey on the Family. Through these forums, we hope to generate public interest and discussion on family issues close to the heart of Singaporeans, and in the process, identify policy measures and specific programmes that will help to make the Singapore family stronger and fulfil its care responsibilities better.

Finally, on the elderly front, we will launch a Stakeholder Consultation Programme to tap on the views of service providers and key partners serving the elderly population. This programme will help to ensure a thorough and comprehensive review of eldercare services and will form an integral part of the Elderly Services Masterplan review the Ministry will be carrying out later this year.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sir, we can expect the people sector to grow in the years to come as a greater diversity of civic organisations come into existence. Each of these new civic organisations will bring with them their unique identities - their own raison d'etre, and their own strengths. With increasing numbers, we should also expect a more diverse and more vibrant people sector. This diversity need not be viewed with alarm or alacrity as long as we are united by a common national vision. Instead, we should see this as the maturing of Singapore society and a growing desire on the part of Singaporeans to contribute to their wider communities. By harnessing the resources of the people sector, and by forging new partnerships with the new pairs of Helping Hands, I am confident that we can build a stronger, more vibrant Singapore.

Sir, I support the motion.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that we are on the threshold of a new millennium. We are indeed a new generation of Singaporeans forging into that millennium into a bold new future of our own making. It is an exciting prospect and the first step in this long journey has begun with the release of the Singapore 21 report. In reality, it is the report of not just the Committee but of the thousands of Singaporeans who have contributed their views. It is a well-thought-out vision, and deserves the unwavering support and commitment of all of us in Singapore. But the report is only a sketch outline which needs filling up. This may be why some people have unfairly called it "a collection of motherhood statements".

For acronym loving Singaporeans, the report begins aptly with an acronym - "KBE". Pre-independence, it would have stood for "Knight of the British Empire". In the early years of independence, it could have stood for "Kneel before you eat". Many Singaporeans were so poor they did not know where their next meal would come from. And they could only kneel and pray, or beg. In later years it probably stood for "Kiasu but efficient". Not all of us are proud of these antecedents. In the new millennium, we want "KBE" to stand for something dignified, grand and meaningful. The report says it stands for "Knowledge-based Economy". I hope it stands for "Kindness blossoming everywhere".

Kindness and graciousness are two very rare commodities in any modern urban society. They are rare because the practice of it has been forgotten. City life is stressful, lonely, quick-paced and cold. City life is to be endured because of the material benefits it brings to the family. But city life in the end is dehumanising. The city inhabitant is a faceless, anonymous digit in the crowd. He lives only for himself and ensures that whatever he does is to guarantee the survival of his family and his kin and himself. In such an environment, kindness and graciousness do not grow. In such an environment, the buffet tables get swiped clean two minutes after they are laid out but mountains of wasted food are left to be cleared later. Queues are for jumping, free textbooks are for grabbing and waiters and maids are for venting out the frustrations. It is a heartless and compassionless society and nothing to be proud of.

In the nick of time comes this report, this vision - before our community becomes too much like the ugly, urban society I have just described. A knowledge-based economy is one which values everyone and gives everyone a role and a place, a name and a face, kindness and grace. In a knowledge-based economy, there is no job that is despised. Even the humble cleaning worker, the waiter, the plumber and the taxi driver are knowledge workers, not just the IT men. Prime Minister Goh in his May Day Rally speech three days ago has already mentioned the cleaner and the taxi driver. Today, let me mention the plumber and the waiter.

First, the plumber. He is a mere plumber if all he can do is to tighten a faucet. That we all can do. Hence, we get very incensed when we call the plumber into our homes for what we think is an emergency and he charges us $100 for tightening the tap. The plumber is a knowledge worker, however, if he is able to ascertain the whole cause of the so-called emergency on the telephone and give good advice without home visit to the householder who really has only to tighten the tap. The plumber is a knowledge worker if he not only looks at the dripping tap but is able to give the householder some tips on what she can do in future to prevent a recurrence of her problem. In many developed countries, such knowledge worker plumbers can earn as much as university professors and no one could quibble about their fees. The S21 message must be therefore that these plumbers and anybody like that are as highly valued as the scholar and the PhD.

Next, the waiter. In our society, tradition and social history have always put the waiter down at the bottom of the hierarchy of workers. The waiter holds a low image of himself and quickly hops away to another job, even if it is a lower paying job, when he can. It does not help that the restaurant owner who employs him uses him as an excuse to make more money. How so? I refer to the often questioned but never objected to practice of putting peanuts and pickles in front of you even though you did not ask for it and to charge you exorbitant prices thereafter. I refer too to the practice of the so-called "service charge", a compulsory 10% charge on your bill irrespective of whether any real service has been rendered. And all these charges are supposed to go to the waiter, but seldom end up in his pocket.

A knowledge worker waiter deserves good pay. The ordinary waiter who waits listlessly should be paid a minimum. The knowledge worker, however, who helps his customer to choose dishes which suit his pocket and taste, who is able to tell what ingredients are in the dishes he serves, who can indicate what sauce goes with what meat and what tea or wine with what meal - that waiter should be handsomely paid. For that to happen, we must do away with the service charge and hidden charges like the peanut and pickle payments. Nobody who gets paid the same irrespective of what he knows and does is ever going to be encouraged to build up his knowledge and improve himself.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.34 pm

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): As a developing nation, we need to strive to do excellently in everything we do - whether it be waiting at tables, turning taps, teaching, nursing or governing. We need to constantly remind ourselves not to slacken when we work or others will take our places. Our workforce has been ranked number one in the world for 19 years consecutively not without reason. Yet, we know that work is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Our workers are not simply cogs in a well-lubricated economic wheel. Man does not live by bread alone. We have seen to the building of recreational facilities, theatres, sports stadiums and entertainment centres for the worker to use in his leisure hours. These are not enough if he has no time for leisure either because he works too long since he has to earn enough to keep the family going, or because the work week is unduly long. These are not enough too if the costs of the facilities and the pleasure spots are too high. There is a need for us to build more and better facilities for our residents and to constantly upgrade and improve them instead of letting these facilities run down to obsolescence. Of course, we cannot have our population go soft and interested only in working less and playing all the time. A proper balance between working hard and playing hard is needed. And here, I support Mr Chew's earlier call that it is time to review the 51/2-day work week and the 11-day only national holidays - policies we adopted when we were fighting to establish ourselves in the world.

With more free time, our people can relax and improve the quality of their family lives and families will be stronger. There will be healthier workers and less money spent on sickness and disease. With more free time, there will be more active citizens. Volunteers will be more forthcoming to help out in the charitable, grassroots, community and civic organisations that we have. In developing the people sector, more civic involvement and greater participation of the citizenry (and that includes corporate citizens) - we need to realise that time and energies are limited. On the other hand, we need to pass the message that everyone can contribute, however little he thinks his talents or resources are. We also need to expand the definition of what is a worthy cause. Many people do not find it difficult to volunteer time and effort or donate money to charitable causes like the National Kidney Foundation or the Singapore Cancer Society because these are what I call "natural charities" which tug at the heart. But for society to function, there are other causes which require workers and monetary support too. There are the Residents' Committees which work to build bonds and friendship amongst neighbours; and the community centre workers who labour to provide inexpensive leisure and cultural programmes for the populace. Indeed, there are also the people who are our watchdogs to ensure that we vigilantly upkeep the quality of our environment and nature reserves, the safety of our food and consumer items, the protection of consumers from manipulative marketeers and investment con-men.

What can Government do to promote the people sector and encourage these meaningful civil groups? There we have lessons to be drawn from our very efficient and capable network of grassroots organisations. How did we build this up so quickly and so well? More generous Government funding is a key factor. More recognition for the workers is another and this recognition does not have to take the form of material benefits. The Consumers' Association of Singapore, which I head, is a case in point. Every year, the Government gives us a grant capped at 13 cents per head of population. And in practice, this comes up to less than $500,000 a year. Three quarters of this go into salaries. There is very little left to do the actual work of cost monitoring and consumer protection, even though we have very strong support from the NTUC, the unions and co-operatives on this matter. I have asked for more from the Government. I have a formula based on consumer spending index and I hope that this can be done. Of course, the Prime Minister has been very generous in offering CASE a Government grant of one to one match. But in the two years since that generous offer, we have hardly raised more than half a million dollars. In a good year, it is already hard enough for heart-tugging charities to raise money. But in the two years or so, we have raised little partly because of the economic crisis. It will take forever at this rate to raise the $5 million we need to match the $10 million endowment fund that we have planned for.

That leads me to my last point and with that I will end. Fund raising is an important activity for many civic organisations. We cannot depend solely on the Government to fund these activities of course, or to ask the Government to help these plans work. Ultimately, we need an army of volunteers and responsible businessmen who will gladly give some of their time and resources to help make sure that the thriving market economy we have does not slide unwittingly into an exploitative and lubricious one, where the wolves and the heinous are always lurking to sell you useless gadgets or ostrich eggs (or perhaps buy shares off you) at a ridiculous discount because they play on your vulnerabilities. I call on my fellow Singaporeans to answer the call to come forward to make their lives count. At the end of life, it is not how much you have earned that counts, but how many lives you have impacted.

With that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education.

As first impressions go, one of the very first must be the attractive cover - showing four young children. We can deduce from this that it must be a long-term plan. We do not see pictures of skyscrappers, MRT trains and ultra high-tech factories - we can deduce from this that the Committee was not looking into the economic well-being of Singapore. It presupposes it.

As we look at the title "Together, we make the difference", the two bigger words are "We Make" - suggesting that the future is in our hands; it is up to us to put in the effort. As we turn to the inside covers, we find hundreds of names - every Singaporean contributor matters, and deserves acknowledgement. No contributor too unimportant, no idea too insignificant, no stone too small to leave unturned. It is a heartening first impression.

Sir, as reports go, it is a slim volume, yet it says a lot. It is said to be a compass, not a blueprint, and yet, it does not look like a simple compass, pointing in all directions. It points in a certain direction - that of a Great Singapore Society. This social compass contains five values that we should support, values that have already been elaborated on by the Minister. These values are in addition to the ones we already have, ie, meritocracy, strong and clean government, racial and religious harmony.

Sir, the idea that "Every Singaporean matters" together with the idea of the "active citizen" are likely to be much discussed - for they require a change to the current mindset of the people, including those in the public sector. For example, one suggestion is to look at "success" more broadly from the one based on academic and material achievements. According to the view of the Committee, "there is no job too low that excellence cannot dignify". Embracing this idea would lower stress, increase self-worth and presumably, make for a happier individual. The dilemma between a less stressful life and retaining the drive is partly resolved by this means. You should drive only as far as your abilities can take you. Failure, it is suggested, is an option - and an opportunity must be given for trying again. Not only must second chances be provided for the new generation of technopreneurs, we must also provide second chances to workers - to retrain, to be put into new jobs.

This message is particularly important. But it is not easy to deliver. Not only must the people be convinced for themselves, it must also extend to their aspirations for their children. Several years ago, a concerned parent came to see me bringing in tow his daughter who, despite her excellent grades, was not offered a place in the Law Faculty. They wanted to appeal. Every time I asked the daughter why she wanted to read law, the father interrupted, and gave many reasons. It got to such a stage that I asked the father for permission to speak to the daughter alone. Without her father present, the daughter spoke eloquently - on why we should not offer her a place - she was more interested in Art and Design. But her father thought that there should be a lawyer in the family, having had a hard time with lawyers in the course of his business dealings. I then told the father that, unfortunately, the appeal was not successful.

I recounted this incident to show that the task of changing the mindset is likely to be an onerous one. And that much of it may lie with parents' aspirations of what they want their children to be. So it is likely to be a major exercise, probably taking a couple of generations for Singaporeans to adjust to this new idea.

The Committee rightly points out that the lead to be taken by the Government is critical. The curriculum, the scholarship schemes, the resources to cater to the unusual and extraordinary talents that may otherwise lie hidden. These require major resources and commitment. To take a simple example, the move away from simply transferring information to one where each and every child must be brought to give of his or her best requires a much smaller staff/student ratio. It requires experienced teachers - teachers who can recognise the talents in each and every child. Yet, this is the way that we must necessarily go.

Several other examples can be mentioned to re-adjust the mindset. The Gifted Programme should also be used to take in those who have talents in music, or art, or poetry. President's Scholars can be selected for arts or music courses. Overseas Merits Scholars can be sent to various famous institutions of music or art to develop their undoubted talents.

At home, regional centres of arts and drama should be set up to bring such talents closer to the people in the various estates. As many of the Members in this House have observed, nothing brings more pride to a parent than to see his or her child performing on stage. It is at the time when they choose their career that they make objections.

Sir, I understand that the S21 Committee is not setting any deadlines, or providing any detailed plans or targets. That is a matter for the Government, and for the Members in this House to note. In the weeks and years ahead, we can expect that there will be opportunities in this House to debate these issues further.

Sir, the Committee deliberated for over a year, held many meetings, obtained feedback from over 6,000 interested individuals, active citizens. I believe this House and the people of Singapore owe a great debt to the Committee members and everyone who were involved in the exercise.

The Committee has identified the values that would make the pursuit of happiness for each and every Singaporean a reality. Reading the report, I am reminded of an intriguing question once posed by a political scientist. He asked, "How can we construct a society so that anyone, no matter what his gifts, can reach seventy, look back at his or her life, and be able to say that it has been a happy life, filled with deep and justified satisfaction?".

I believe the five values point that way. How? Because by pursuing these values, it is possible for anyone to say:

1. I was a good parent to my children, and they are good to me;

2. I was a good neighbour, an active citizen;

3. I always did my best, according to my gifts and abilities.

All these are achievable by anyone, unlike fame, wealth or material success. It also emphasises the point that the pursuit of happiness is a social concept - that we need to have participated in the social order to achieve happiness.

The happiness of every Singaporean can be realised, if we take these values seriously - the Government, the people, everyone.

Sir, for those reasons, I strongly support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, last year, I heard of Singapore 21 being mentioned, but did not really know what it was all about until I received a copy of the glossy Singapore 21 Committee Report, with plenty of coloured pictures and printed words with double spacing, which makes them easy reading. I notice that the Singapore 21 Committee was initiated by the Prime Minister and was headed by a Minister. The five subject sub-committees were all having co-Chairmen who were all PAP MPs, except for two who were NMPs. It is copyrighted by the Government of Singapore. My reaction to the report is that it is another piece of government publication to make the Government look good.

The five subject sub-committees have approached some 6,000 people and must have collected a lot of feedback but I believe no Opposition members or representatives were interviewed. Some of these feedback must have been quite controversial because the government is not willing to accept them, for example, the voting rights of Singaporeans when they are abroad. The Government refuses to accept the feedback which calls on it to allow Singaporeans who are abroad to vote at the General Election. Obviously, the Government views this kind of suggestion as not being advantageous to it. For those who are abroad, my feeling is that, given a chance to vote, they shall probably vote against the government. On the one hand, the Government tells the people that "Every Singaporean Matters" and wants Singaporeans to believe that. But, in reality, the Government refuses to implement a policy to show that "Every Singaporean matters".

I cite another example to show that the Government does not care for the minority or marginalised people. A few years back, I asked the former Minister for Education to implement compulsory education in our educational system. He refused to do so. His excuse was that every year, only about 2,900 children do not attend school at all out of a cohort of about 50,000 children. The Minister said that it was not worth the Government's while to have a whole section in the Ministry of Education to police and enforce a policy of compulsory education for those children. If the Singapore Government really cares for every Singaporean, then it will not abandon nearly 6% of our school children who do not attend school. I am a staunch believer that every Singaporean counts. If the Government believes that too, then it must immediately implement the policy of compulsory education in our school system.

With regard to "Every Singaporean matters", I agree with the subject committee's call to the Government to lead the way. The Government must call upon all its employees, whether in the Government departments, polyclinics, hospitals or the police force, to show respect for every individual. Only by taking this attitude can the Government demonstrate to the people that it really believes in "Every Singaporean matters".

In Singapore, despite the fact that it has invested a large part of its budget in education, there are still about 700,000 of its workforce who do not have secondary education. If Singapore is going to be a land where opportunities are available to all, the Government must make available the opportunities to workers who have missed their secondary education to complete their secondary education. I have seen two cases at my meet-the-people session where Singaporean adults have only primary six education. They wanted to continue their studies but just could not find a Government school that will take in over-aged students. They could enrol in a privately run school, but the fees were rather high. I believe that the Government should revive the night schools to cater for over-aged persons to further their secondary education.

Whatever it is, the Government must make available real opportunities to all Singaporeans to train themselves to the fullest of their ability, especially to the older Singaporeans who, for whatever reasons, have missed the opportunity to complete their secondary education the first time round. A second, or even a third chance should be made available to them. Whilst the Government wants to promote a knowledge-based economy, there is a proportionately large number of our workers who still do not have secondary education. This anomaly sticks out like a sore thumb. The Government should solve this problem.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications (Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Sir, Mr Chiam has, usual to his characteristic style of taking a swipe at the report, started very well by commenting on the coloured pictures and the double spacing. To suggest that the report is another piece of Government publication is to insult all Singaporeans who have contributed to the report. I think he owes an apology to the Singaporean public because this report is a culmination of all the efforts that we have put together for the last year and a half to cull feedback and opinions on how Singapore's future should be. We also asked all Singaporeans, including the Opposition Members, to provide their responses and feedback. In fact, Mr Low Thia Khiang did submit a report and his name appears in the report. Had Mr Chiam been vigilant and open to Minister Teo's request for feedback, he would have submitted a report and his name would have appeared in it and he would not have criticised the report altogether.

He raised several other points regarding voting overseas and compulsory education. I think we have to bear in mind that at the end of the day when we solicit feedback, it does not necessarily mean that all feedback must be implemented. It is true, as RAdm Teo has mentioned in his interview, that there were heated discussions in the subject committees about overseas voting and other feedback that we have received. But in the end, what was important was that we arrived at a position as a Committee, not as a Government, that this is not something which is desirable. If someone truly has a stake in Singapore, he would come back and vote in Singapore and not overseas.

He talked about "Every Singaporean matters" and it is time for us to show respect to every individual and he wants the Government to provide the lead. This is very unusual. He has always asked the Government not to intervene but, in this instance, he wants the Government to intervene. I think we have done our best through the campaigns that we have started. MITA has a movement called the "Small Kindness Movement" to ensure that in the interaction between members of the public and the public sector, kindness, graciousness and courteous behaviour are shown towards our public. I think the movement is quite successful.

As for workers training, it is obvious that the Government has taken every effort through the NTUC's SRP to ensure that those who did not avail themselves of the opportunity to receive a decent education be given a second chance to upgrade themselves to get the skills required to be world ready, and to be ready for the knowledge-based economy which is coming. I think the onus is on the workers to avail themselves of the opportunities. Recently, PM Goh, in the May Day Rally, further committed to workers training by giving more money to NTUC so that they can run more of the SRP programmes to reach out to more workers. I think the Government has done their fair share to ensure that all Singaporeans have enough opportunities.

If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, move on to my main point.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I just want to inform the Member that we have no compulsory education in Singapore.

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I stand by the same position given by the former Education Minister - I presume he meant Dr Tony Tan and also the current Education Minister, RAdm Teo Chee Hean - that it does not serve us well to have compulsory education. The numbers are small and I think given the thrust that we have in Singapore, very few parents would opt out. And even if they do opt out, they do go to an alternative system. At the end of the day, there is no reason for us to have an administrative mechanism to ensure that the 2,900 students receive compulsory education. As the Minister said, what are you going to do? Are you going to arrest the parents because they do not send their kids to school? We have to better utilise our resources to serve the greater good.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean, in one of his many e-mails to the Singapore 21 Committee members, referred to us as his co-conspirators. I am one of the co-conspirators. It was a conspiracy but of a very different kind from those which we have lately heard of in the papers. It was an openly held and transparent conspiracy which everyone in Singapore was involved. And I think for many, it was a liberating process which allowed them to discuss and think about how our nation will develop and evolve. Many heeded the call of our Prime Minister to search for, and develop, the "heartware" of the nation because how our nation grapples with its own challenges, constraints, and strengths mattered to them.

Allow me first to thank the many Singaporeans that my co-chair, Mr Chan Soo Sen and I met in the many focus group discussions for their candid views and suggestions. We spent many nights listening to stories and suggestions. Some stories were poignant. One polytechnic student, for example, told us how she is already facing the challenge of having to take care of both her parents and grandparents. Others told stories that reminded us of the strong gotong royong spirit which we, as Singaporeans were, and, I believe, are still famous for. To me, this exercise, though time consuming, was necessary, because we needed to hear from Singaporeans themselves how they felt about the dilemmas posted to them. For me, this exercise proves that Singaporeans have a lot to say about their country and, more importantly, that Singaporeans care about their country. We have put in a lot of effort to elicit wide-ranging participation and views. Let us build upon this effort in inclusiveness.

When we started the S21 exercise about a year and a half ago, we were mindful of the trends and challenges facing our society. We have an aging population; there are calls for a more relaxed lifestyle; increasingly, Singaporeans leave home for jobs overseas, while many foreigners settle in Singapore to work; and there are indications that our upwardly mobile population wants to play a greater role in nation building. Casting these trends as dilemmas forced people to think hard about the choices that will need to be made. In the discussions, forums and seminars which we conducted, we found ourselves going over old ground. I realise that for us, as a nation, to move forward, we have to look backwards and re-learn the lessons of the past. The values, strategies and visions which have served us well thus far are still relevant and, in fact, very important for us to move into the 21st century as a nation. The emphasis on family, meritocracy, consensus, multi-racialism, hard work and perseverance remains central to our S21 discussions.

The Singapore 21 process is, therefore, a work in progress. It is an iterative exercise in nation building. We have been able to improve the material well-being of our people, to create jobs, to build homes, and to give pride to a people of a new nation. Now, it is time to deal with the emotions and the attachments that we, as a people, have for this country, what we call and what Dr Lee Tsao Yuan calls the "Singapore Heartbeat". How do we make our people feel for our country and their fellow citizens? This is the challenge of Singapore 21 and of every Singaporean.

I support the five key ideas of Singapore 21. But I think these ideas must be tempered with the basic realities of the Singapore that we know today. Some have argued that the five ideas amount merely to motherhood statements. I would rather see them as statements that reaffirm our basic core values. In our eagerness to infuse the nation with a new sense of optimism and enthusiasm, we cannot afford to forget the strengths and constraints that continue to define our life as a nation. Our proved policy and programmes aimed at ensuring that every community progresses and retains their own cultural identity cannot be undermined. The concerns of the various communities cannot be glossed over. Our emphasis on meritocracy and multi-racialism must remain the cornerstone of our existence as a people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the key ideas which have attracted some attention is that of active citizens. We want to build a civic society, but we have always had a civic tradition. There are many groups and civic organisations which have emerged and have done their part to develop a civic movement. These groups provide grants, welfare services and run other programmes because they believe that it is for the public good. Today, as we encourage more Singaporeans to be active citizens, we must continue to emphasise the need to take heart the interests of the larger Singaporean community. Being active means different things to different people. Some may volunteer their time to a charitable cause while others may actually start a new movement to address problems such as child or spousal abuse. Many others also contribute by giving ideas and suggestions, as can be seen by the many articles that appear in the forum pages of the Straits Times. So there are ample opportunities for Singaporeans to be active and to be a part of the process of nation building. Many Singaporeans have laboured and given their best to help meet the needs of others. For example, we are seeing in the Malay community many undergraduates and even JC students giving free tuition to those who need it. They do so because they want to help their community and help the nation. These are active citizens.

Every Singaporean is important to us, and everyone matters to us. But everyone has the duty to put his best foot forward. We will continue to need to balance the needs of the individual against the needs of the nation. In a family, everyone matters and everyone is important. But most of us would agree that parents should not go out of their way to reward a child who makes no effort to fulfill his potential and who refuses to contribute to the family's well-being. Indulgence spoils a child. Yet, at the same time, most of us would agree that overly strict and over-bearing parenting approaches kill the creativity and the spark in a child. Hence, everyone matters because everyone gives his best to the nation.

Like other social arrangements in Singapore, the institution of the family is being reshaped by very broad social trends. In particular, we are seeing a shift from multi-generational families towards nuclear ones. These changes in the family form will no doubt have an impact on the types and number of tasks performed by the family, but they need not spell the death of the family as the centre of emotional well-being of its individual members, or as a "place to come out of the storm".

When I was in the US, I was amazed at how the American students would find all sorts of ways to get back home during Thanksgiving to spend time with their families. It was not the turkey dinners and the cranberry sauce which pulled them back. It was the sense of family and the ties which these students have with their parents and siblings which brought them back together every November for this annual ritual. Similarly, parents in the US make sure to attend their children's graduation. It is a proud moment for the family to have a member receiving a degree. These displays of family affection belie the strength and robustness of the institution of the family. Families will need to make adjustments to the changing demands of society. But we cannot afford to lose that sense of the family as a place of support, nurture and renewal.

I believe it is the family that shapes the community. How a child feels about himself depends largely upon how he is made to feel about himself at home. It is the home that provides the comfort and the solace for facing failure and the sense of triumph when a child has achieved something. It is the family that provides the safety net for the child to experiment and fail and try again. It is the family that is most tolerant of failure and most able to nurture the child. Our parents are more firm than our teachers and also more forgiving. A child grows up according to the values and the signals he receives at home. If his family values excellence and hard work, the child will invariably have those values in him.

Similarly, the family also provides a zone of comfort for our old. I have met many older residents of my estates who want their children to live near them. Some may want to live near so that they can help take care of their grandchildren. In this way, they transmit the values which will help our young and also our families. Others help the family stay strong by assisting in some household work. I believe our older citizens help out because they believe that it is the right thing to do to strengthen the family. In return, many young parents understand that the responsibility of taking care of their aged parents essentially lies with them. This sharing of responsibilities between the young and the old has proven to be successful. Hence, as the family comes under stress, we must continue to find ways to ensure that these roles continue to take place albeit in different forms.

As more Singaporeans seize the opportunities abroad, the family will come under increasing stress. Yet, these opportunities will provide the material comfort which many families yearn for. Many families, no doubt, will need to perform a balancing act, as they pursue these opportunities. But my one sense is that the family ties are indeed very strong in Singapore. We must make sure that the ties continue to be strong as the forces of regionalisation and globalisation will bring new challenges to the institution of the family.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, S21 means different things to different people. My colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, and I chaired a feedback session on S21 recently. We had calls for greater creativity in schools, changes in our education system, and balancing the needs of Singaporeans and foreign talent. But along with these calls, there was a sense that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Participants want changes in the education system but do not want to imperil the strengths of the system. They acknowledged the need to recruit world-wide, as this will boost our own local talent. In other words, the participants knew that we need to tread carefully with S21 so that we will not undermine what we have achieved thus far.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, S21 has been an interesting and rewarding experience for me. It has helped to remind me of the core values and ideas that hold this nation together. It has helped me to place the key ideas in the context of a larger and wider spectrum of ideas and values which have shaped this nation. As we begin to innovate and find new ways to strengthen the social glue that binds as a nation, we cannot forgo the strong traditions which we have built over the years. I am confident that the key ideas of Singapore 21, taken together with our commitment to ideals such as multi-racialism, meritocracy, honesty, hard work and a sense of excellence, will provide a powerful framework for our nation building effort. Thank you.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very happy to join in the debate on the Report of the Singapore 21 Committee headed by RAdm Teo Chee Hean. This is the Report put up by the Committee after more than a year of hard work, collecting information and views of the people from all walks of life in Singapore. Once this Report is endorsed by this House, everyone in Singapore should work hard to translate the vision into reality and turn Singapore into a dynamic international metropolis.

Sir, the Report of this Committee refers to strong families as our foundation and future. This is very important. The survival of a country depends very much on family cohesion. The family is the basic building block of society. If we have a sense of belonging to the family, we will also have a sense of belonging to the nation. We all know that it is not just the house or physical building owned by the family, but it is also the emotional and blood bonds, feelings and care that make the house a home or a family. It is this common sense of belonging to Singapore, the common vision that we share, our commitment to such vision that make us as a country and a nation.

At times, we may be overseas, but our heart is still with Singapore. So if every Singaporean can strengthen his own family cohesion, it will also help to enhance our national cohesion. A small country like Singapore will become an international metropolis. I am very optimistic about it.

The Committee's Report wants to turn Singapore, and Singaporeans, into a higher level of economy, technology and greater prosperity. But if the people are unable to maintain their own family cohesion, to preserve their own family values and traditional cultures, to maintain religious tolerance and racial harmony, we will become the rootless floating duckweed when we enter this state of international metropolis. Our lives will be empty. We will have no direction. So I feel that every Singaporean must build his own family cohesion as early as possible, spend more time with their family members, and try to strike a balance between our pursuit of material lives and our efforts to promote the growth of our family.

I always tell my children that even if one day they can become outstanding Singaporeans, their basic values must not be shaken or changed. My children graduated from NUS and have gone overseas for further studies. I want them to accept the good values, good culture, and good technology from the west. These will be of great help to them when they eventually step into society to earn a living. But I want them to continue to preserve the traditional values of their own culture, including the five core values of Singapore and the traditional values of the Chinese culture. I am glad that my children, while accepting the future challenges of life, have not changed their values. I have told them that when they have given full play to their talent, they have succeeded, their material life has changed, they can have a big house, a big car, even a Porsche, their life, thinking and values should never change.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a year and a half ago, I bought a Porsche Boxster. I believe many people were very surprised. They felt that the Porsche Boxster was simply out of tune with this old conservative fellow like me. Perhaps, Porsche Boxster gives one the impression of being contemporary or trendy. But I like sports cars because I appreciate them as a piece of art. But I have not changed my values and thinking just because I have bought a Porsche. My children feel that at their age and without a strong economic foundation, they should not own a Porsche or enjoy an expensive sports car like this. Their thinking is correct. So I spoke in jest to the agent of Porsche that the marketing of Porsche should not just be targetted at the young people, they should start giving publicity to create the impression that those who have the means, the middle-aged people, should also drive Porsche. I think the agent will seriously consider my suggestion.

Sir, I have given this example so that we can accept a new culture, new technology, new science and even a new material life, but we must always preserve our own values. Singapore 21 vision wants to transform us into a dynamic metropolis. The standard of material life of Singaporeans will be upgraded to a higher level. Materially, it is a good prospect for Singapore and it is what our Singaporeans want to pursue. But we must ensure that when the material life has changed, our new generation of Singaporeans will be corrupted, and their original fine traditional values will not be changed. So I would like to remind the Government that when we are pursuing this Singapore 21 vision, we must continue to inculcate in our young people the five core values. Otherwise, when the 21st century comes to Singapore, Singapore may have succeeded in becoming an international metropolis but it will also become a rootless duckweed or a kite without a string attached - aimless and disoriented.

On the other hand, we also encourage our old people to look after their grandchildren. When their parents are out at work, more often than not, the young children are being looked after by the maids. In the developed Singapore, young parents will continue to work outside to maintain their family life and economy. Grandparents will naturally become the best choice for looking after their grandchildren.

After I became a grandfather, I began to realise the joy that I have in spending time with my grandchildren. I feel that older people can continue to work and contribute to the family, the society and the country, especially when most of the elderly people are very healthy and strong. If you want them to completely retire at 55 or 62 years old and do nothing, I think it is a waste of manpower to Singapore. So whether it is the Government departments or private sector, we should consider encouraging older people to continue working. If they prefer to stay at home, we should encourage them to look after their grandchildren. It is a good arrangement.

I always tell my wife that while I have been quite successful in my business, my success pales in the face of what she has done in looking after and bringing up the children. So I hope that she will be able to make good use of her experience and methods to continue looking after the grandchildren. I feel that our third generation can also grow up to succeed like our second generation. I think that will be an ideal situation. So I hope that the Singapore 21 Committee will continue to preserve the fine traditions of Singapore, and that is, we must look after both the spiritual and the material aspects of life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the S21 Committee has also stated that everyone in Singapore matters. We must be more open in looking at success, not just to measure success in terms of economic or academic achievements. I agree with this view of the Committee. In the past, we were stressing elitism and scholarship, scholars and successful people. I do not deny the importance of elitism. I do not deny that scholars are successful people. But if we over-emphasise elitism and scholars, we are actually hurting the pride of 95% of Singaporeans. Because we cannot deny that these 95% Singaporeans who are neither elite nor scholars are also successful people in their own ways and they may also have the potential to become outstanding people one of these days. In other words, if we over-emphasise elitism, scholarships, the success of scholars, and so on, 95% of Singaporeans will feel or be made to feel that they are failures. Therefore, if a country or a company is facing difficulty, the responsibility will rest on the shoulders of only a few people. Most Singaporeans will not share such a responsibility or participate in solving the problem. I am glad that this Committee has taken an open view on the criteria for success. I hope that we will not use the same kind of mindset or measure as the only way to measure success of a person.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I can be said to be a rare species in Parliament because I am the only non-graduate among all the Members of the ruling Party in this House. Although I am not a graduate, in my past few years in Parliament, I think I have performed equally well on the same kind of work done by my colleagues in this House. I always feel that although I may not be a graduate, I want to do as well as the graduates. So my pressure is greater because our society has this kind of mindset about elitism and scholars. I am not one of the elites and I am not one of the scholars. I have been relying on my hard work, my pragmatism to work hard and to achieve my success, and I am proud of my own achievements.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I entirely agree with the S21 Committee that everyone matters in Singapore. That is a very important point. To me, every Singaporean is important to the country. Every Singaporean can also play his own role, and contribute to the success and development of Singapore. As a matter of fact, anybody can become a successful person, be it a hawker, a driver, or an ordinary worker. We must let every Singaporean give full play to his own talent and potential and let the society, the country, his own family, benefit from his talent. While we are marching into the 21st century, we must exercise more tolerance to accept the failures of other people. We must continue to encourage those who are not successful to continue to attempt. That will make Singapore more successful in the 21st century.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the S21 Committee mentions about the Singapore heartbeat, to make all Singaporeans feel passionately about Singapore. With more intensive globalisation and regionalisation, more Singaporeans will go overseas. To ensure that when they are overseas, their hearts are still with Singapore and regard Singapore as their home and make contributions to Singapore, we must strengthen our social cohesion. The Ministry of Education has decided to introduce National Education to our primary schools. I think this is a very wise move. If everybody in Singapore understands the history and the thinking of our leaders in Singapore, the new generation of Singaporeans will be able to understand the challenges facing us and will also be able to appreciate our vulnerability in this environment. This will be very important in building up mutual confidence within the people and the country.

I agree with the Committee to urge Singaporeans overseas to have more contact with one another, and to form more friendship clubs among themselves. More Singaporeans overseas will be able to exchange ideas to help each other, to meet together so as to promote and celebrate our own festivals and our cultural heritage. I hope that our TCS network would facilitate overseas Singaporeans with the means to access our TV programmes, news reports and bulletins, and all kinds of entertainment programmes. TCS should simplify its procedures for application and payment of fees. Through these TCS channels, we will be able to unite them together to enhance their cohesion with the country in Singapore. Today, we cannot just depend on laksa, mee siam, roti prata, bak kuh teh and Teochew fishball or char kuay teow, to retain the emotional ties of Singaporeans overseas. Because when I was in Shanghai, Melbourne or Palo Alto in the United States, I could easily enjoy the local food in the open-air Singaporean restaurants. Therefore, in the 21st century, like in the past, if we were to depend on Singapore food to retain our roots, that would not be enough and not realistic.

At the same time, it is also mentioned in the Report that we must let Singaporeans cultivate the international vision from young and encourage our students to cultivate the spirit of adventure. I would like to stress the meaning of venture spirit. Many people say that entrepreneurs should have the venture spirit but the so-called "venture" has normally been wrongly perceived as a kind of "big stake gambling". I think that is wrong. I hope that our schools would inculcate in our students the venture spirit. We should have very special ways of teaching. I feel that venture spirit is something out of boldness, it is a kind of courage, and a kind of optimism for future vision. It is a kind of ideology; it is not 50-50 gambling, not fatalism but a sure-win kind of spirit.

So with this kind of spirit, when we are creating or endeavouring to achieve something, we train our entrepreneurs to make a decision. At times, it takes some very strong nerves to make major decisions that determine our fate in the future. When we are facing adversity, we must be able to use all our efforts and talent to overcome it. So we must have a great ambition in our career and business, and translate our ambition into reality. It is not empty talk. It is not just talking without doing it or just dreaming. So you can say that a genuine adventurer is both a dreamer and a realist, because he is able to translate his imagination into reality. Later on, after the children have grown up, when they start their enterprises or when they have to make some major decisions, they will not treat the venture spirit as a big-stake gambling or a life-and-death battle in life.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the S21 report. However, while we strive to realize our vision for the 21st century, we must never lose sight of the five core values and the excellent traditional cultures of the various races, racial harmony, religious tolerance, the vulnerability of a small country, and the support of a clean government. I hope that in the 21st century Singapore, the successful Singaporeans will continue to help the less successful Singaporeans to make them feel the warmth of society and let them feel that Singapore is a place that they want to live in. This will be very important to the cohesion among Singaporeans.

Finally, I would like to quote the late paramount leader of China, Deng Xiao Peng who called upon the 1.2 billion people of China to learn from Singapore. He said, "We must adopt the strategy of "grabbing with both hands". With one hand, we grab the materialistic civilisation, and with the other hand, we grab the spiritual civilisation." I hope that even after we go into the 21st century, Singapore will remain a model for China and other countries to emulate.

I support the motion.

Dr Lily Neo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand to applaud the excellent work done by the Chairman, the members of the Singapore 21 Committee and all those who have contributed to the very comprehensive report on how we may strengthen the "heartware" of Singapore in the 21st century.

The five areas of study revealed many important observations and I am glad that the Committee has put forward many apt and appropriate responses to them. Sir, if we can act constructively on the various recommendations offered by the Committee, Singapore would definitely be an even better home for its people in the next century.

I am particularly drawn to the section on "Strong families: our foundation and our future" and I cannot agree more with the "Subject Committee Recommendations" which say,

"With an ageing population, there will be fewer working adults to cater for the aged parents. To ensure that this does not strain the family too much in the future, some messages must be taught and absorbed now:

1. Lead a healthy lifestyle to prevent illness in old age.

2. Save for old age. Plan our finances now.

3. No one is too old to learn. Focus not on what we cannot do, but on what we can.

4. The elderly are not a burden, but a resource. Whatever our age, we can still contribute."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like us to go on to the next steps and translate the recommendations into reality. I would suggest some further ways to translate the recommendations into practice in this area. I felt that for us to realise our set targets and ideals, careful planning, good management and critical follow-up must be put in place. We must, therefore, set up the machinery for committees with dedicated members, who have clear visions of our needs, to follow and implement the above recommendations through one of our Ministries.

On "leading healthy lifestyles", island-wide dissemination of information on healthy living and preventive care is required. Provision in this area is very much lacking now and should be given much more emphasis if we were to attain our goals. In the past, there was more emphasis on providing care for the results of ailments. The more correct path is on preventing the onset of ailments in the first place. We must, therefore, put constructive ideas to work and reap the resultant benefits.

On "saving for old age", apart from re-enforcing the mindset of self-reliance upon retirement, providing for and encouraging participation in different types of insurance and annuity packages for old age savings should be enhanced. To encourage more people to save for this purpose, the Government should seriously consider tax exemption on interest earned on annuity.

On "no one is too old to learn" and the "the elderly are not a burden but a resource", a lot will depend on how we can change the mindset of the people, and on the creation of opportunities and making these opportunities available to the elderly. Many of our elderly want to continue contributing to the society and are willing to learn. They, however, cannot find the avenues to do so. I suggest that we identify the vocations that are suitable for them, create, or even leave niche areas for them to fit in. We may then also have to create the channels to train them. If I may say so, there is no reason to exclude them as part of the future knowledge-based economy of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beseech this House to wholeheartedly aim for the "Singapore - Our Best Home" dream. The many recommendations made by the Singapore 21 Committee are but a foretaste of this dream. Nevertheless, it is a dream we can realise. Yes, we can realise this dream with a people who are focused on a vision and are willing to work and chase it with a united and wholehearted effort.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Minister Teo Chee Hean.

In the mid-80s, the Government developed Vision 1999 which was the blueprint the second generation leaders embarked on to make Singapore a global city and to bring about high standards of living and material well-being for all Singaporeans.

Sir, today, we have achieved much of what they had set out to achieve, and much more. We are admired the world over by our perceivably miraculous economic achievements. Sir, in spite of our material and economic success, or perhaps because of its over-emphasis, we have not given sufficient attention in developing the heartware of Singaporeans, as the Minister has pointed out in his opening address.

Although we rank among the top few countries in the world, in terms of GNP per capita, we have a long way to go before we improve our social norms, like keeping our public toilets clean or being more considerate in how we stuff our plates in a buffet meal. Although we have one of the world's most successful home ownership programmes in the world, we have a lot to do to deepen the rootedness of Singaporeans. Although we have an able and honest Government in power for many years, we have much to do to generate active participation of Singaporeans in civil life and in community development.

Sir, it is therefore timely that the Singapore 21 Report has been tabled in Parliament. I would like to congratulate Minister Teo and his committee and all Singaporeans who have contributed for their excellent, comprehensive, innovative and thought-provoking report. While the report reaffirms our ideals of meritocracy, racial harmony, strong leadership and a Government free from corruption, it articulates a vision of five ideals for every Singaporean.

Sir, I would like to touch just on one ideal which, to me, is indeed very important in shaping future Singapore, that is, building stronger families. We are all aware of the concept of a family unit as the building block of society. Strong families would lead to stronger social fabric and stronger Singapore. And yet, the family unit and each constituent family member will be pulled apart in different directions in the years ahead. The dilemma has been well described in the report.

Sir, first, the working parents. Although as individual Singaporeans, we have all become more affluent, our pursuit for more affluence will certainly be stepped up. We have become slaves of technology - the pager, the handphone, the computer, the e-mail - all these have made us do much more in much less time. All these mean that, as an individual, we will work harder than ever before to better ourselves to become more affluent so that our families can have it better. Ironically, the very desire to do better for ourselves and our families pulls us away from our families. Working harder means less time spent with the family. When husbands and wives spend less time together, more misunderstandings occur and carried to its extreme, divorces will increase.

Second, children. With society's emphasis on education and rapid advances in IT, it will make growing up for children a stressful experience. The peer pressure and competition will mean that parents will need to spend much more time with their children. When parents cannot be around because of their work, their children will be open to more influences, perhaps undesirable influences, in this era of Internet and digital convergence. Our moral fabric, our Asian values, our traditions can indeed be diluted and perhaps disappear altogether.

Third, the elder parents. The elder parents will find themselves in retirement villages in a world of their own, fending almost for themselves as their children are busy with their own careers or their own nuclear family.

Sir, the S21 Committee makes broad recommendations as to how everyone, individuals, society and the Government, can contribute and do their part in building strong families. But what is going to be extremely difficult to do is whether families can find the balance between building careers and affluence with building a strong and caring family, against a backdrop of economic and social pressures that exist in Singapore. And this is the crux of the issue. Our Government, and quite rightly so, has pushed for economic success and excellence in every sphere of activity for more than three decades. Could we in the near future let up and say it is good enough to run in the second league? I think it is not going to be that simple.

While I agree that individuals and society must do their part, I think the Government must steer the move to build strong families with the same vigour it has demonstrated in building our economic success. This would mean that fundamental changes to policies and radical approaches would be necessary. Various Ministries presently cater to different aspects of family life in Singapore. For example, the Ministry of National Development, through HDB, caters to various needs of housing for families, looking into multi-generational flats, and so on; the Ministry of Health looks at family healthy lifestyle, and so on; the Ministry of Education looks into the needs of children; the Ministry of Manpower, among other things, is looking into how to provide flexible work arrangements.

Sir, it is not enough for each of these Ministries to work in isolation to tackle different aspects of family life in Singapore. What is necessary is to initiate bilateral and multilateral inter-Ministry committees so that various aspects of family life can be looked upon from a holistic point of view as policies then can be formulated in building stronger families.

Sir, the Singapore 21 Committee, as the Chairman has explained, does not set any milestones or targets and for the reasons he has explained, and we agree with him. But I feel that building strong families is a very important aspect for Singapore's continued success and existence. I would like to urge the Government to follow up the Singapore 21 Report with a Family 21 Committee so that more concrete and targeted measures can be worked out and we can take Singapore into the 21st century with stronger families which will lead to a stronger Singapore.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): Sir, I rise to register my strong and wholehearted support to the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education and the Chairman of the Singapore 21 Committee, RAdm Teo Chee Hean.

As Co-Chairman of the subject committee on Less Stressful Life versus Retaining the Drive, I have had the benefit of being part of the Singapore 21 process. It has undoubtedly been a very rewarding and enriching process as the dozen or so members of the committee deliberated and argued passionately with one another over the dilemma. Discussions held with focus groups of people from a wide range of backgrounds were also intense and sometimes even heated, but at the end of the day, it was always all smiles for everyone. Why? Because all participants knew it was for Singapore and its future. The key idea that came out of our discussion was "Every Singaporean Matters". Let me briefly share with this House what led to this idea.

Our Committee recognised that Singapore, as a small nation, is inextricably tied to the global economic system and, therefore, has to meet the challenges of competing within the constraints of the new global arena, or perish. Thus, Singapore has no choice and the economics of survival is, and will always be, Singapore's key priority.

That Singapore has not only survived economically, but also actually flourished against the odds, is a legitimate source of pride for Singaporeans. Singapore can now look beyond survival and aspire towards being a world-class city.

This phenomenal success, however, has come with a cost - stress. Singaporeans complain about information overload, pressures on time and the sense that they are losing control. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, my co-chair in this Committee, has earlier spoken about stress faced by children and students in school. Adults too are subject to stress both as a worker and as a parent. Added stress comes from having to juggle these roles within time and energy constraints.

Stress also comes from what some people term "the system" in Singapore. These include a preference for paper qualifications over work experience, the equating of staying late with working hard and older workers feeling threatened by younger ones.

The policy on attracting foreign talent is also felt as a source of stress. While Singaporeans appreciate the need for talent at the national level, they cannot help but feel threatened at the individual level. Lower educated Singaporeans fear their jobs may be lost to lower-priced, better educated foreigners.

For those who took heed of the Government's encouragement to go regional, added stress comes from the need to re-align family commitments and schedules, and adapting to an alien culture.

At home, the pressure faced by school-going children translates into pressure on the parent, especially during examination times. Adults also face the pressure of keeping up with the Joneses, for instance, making sure that their children keep up with the rest, matching Reebok with Reebok and Montessori with Montessori.

As a citizen of this country, Singaporeans subject themselves to high expectations from the State itself. Regular exhortations by leaders to excel are cited as sources of stress. Then, there is also the feeling that the individual Singaporean is being forced into prescribed moulds, which in a way reinforces the sense of helplessness among some Singaporeans.

A survey conducted by the Singapore 21 Committee indeed found that more than half of Singaporeans feel keenly and were anxious about the rapid pace of change here.

There is a general consensus that success is defined too narrowly in Singapore, based on academic and material benchmarks. And as individuals derive their sense of self-worth from these benchmarks, the resultant effect is stress. The narrow boundaries of these benchmarks unfortunately cannot accommodate many people.

While on the positive side, this narrow definition has helped to maintain our country's competitive edge by the pursuit of excellence in the academic sphere and at the workplace, it has also led to some undesirable social consequences. Some of these ill effects include being an unforgiving society, a culture of risk aversion, under-utilisation of talent and the loss of buzz.

It results in people unconsciously applying a narrow view of the achievements of others by virtue of they themselves being narrowly judged of their own success in life by others. There is a lack of diversity and a tolerance for second chances. As a result, passion in what one likes or enjoys doing is compromised for something which is accepted as a conventional norm. A potentially first rate violinist becomes a second-rate, say, economist instead! People become afraid to take risk because of fear of failure.

Now, in our pursuit of a knowledge-based economy where creativity, innovation and technopreneurship are encouraged, the old way we look at success is no longer relevant nor healthy for Singapore. We need a new mindset in how we look at success. It must extend beyond material and academic success to embrace achievements in all fields of human endeavour, so that people do not treat the pursuit of material life as an end in itself. No job, whether it is a cleaner or a gardener, should be viewed as too low where one cannot apply knowledge and excellence to it.

As individuals, we need to realise that stress and drive are not at opposite ends. After all, not all stress is bad. Like cholesterol, we should optimise good stress and get rid of the bad. We need to learn to de-stress and not succumb to distress.

We have to be passionate in the pursuit of our own goals and have the courage to choose our own path, even if it is one which is not frequently travelled.

I recall being fascinated by Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to conquer Mount Everest, when I was a student. By coincidence, his achievement is being disputed in the papers today. His passion, dedication and obsession to his pursuits - which included climbing the highest mountain in the world at 28,028 feet, the height at which modern jetliners today typically cruise - often struck awe and admiration in me. Today, of course, we have our very own Khoo Swee Chiow who, as if conquering Everest was not enough, is now intent on leading a team of Singaporeans to the South Pole. Then, there was David Bellamy, the botanist. I used to enjoy watching him on television, either picking up some worms or fingering some leaves in some off-the-beaten-track places. It was evident that both had natural passion for what they were doing. Because of that, watching them at work became enjoyable too.

Like Sir Hillary and Bellamy, having a sense of passion for what we do is now a quality which we need to cultivate, as the new millennium draws near. Our country's dependence on human resources makes the need for passion even more pertinent. If we couple working hard with a strong passion in whatever work we undertake, the result can be astounding. Because with passion comes not only dedication but also creativity and the desire to innovate, and be different from others. Passion which is akin to "intense interest" paves the way for "true expertise" to eventually emerge, as Prime Minister Goh puts it. Being the best we can be then comes quite naturally. This is what we need in our pursuit of a knowledge-based economy.

Along with this, if our society could begin appreciating unconventional accomplishments, such as those who successfully climbed Everest or become a renowned violinist, and if our Government helps lead the way in propagating the message that talents and abilities are not just confined to top-notch scholars or bankers, and if we begin to readily accept that failure opens doors to successes and there is room for second chances in our pursuits, then there is hope that we can get individuals to unleash the best in whatever areas their potential leads to. There is hope that everyone could believe that each has a role and part to play and their contribution, no matter how small, is valued. Then there is hope for Singaporeans to accept that "Every Singaporean truly Matters".

Sir, I have just briefly spoken on one of the key ideas of the Singapore 21 Vision - Every Singaporean Matters. I am sure my other counterparts from the Singapore 21 Committee will elaborate on the other four. As the Prime Minister stressed during its launch about two weeks ago, unlike Vision 1999, this is the people's vision and not one crafted by the Government. It is forceful, comprehensive and inspiring, motivated for change forged by 6,000 serious Singaporeans who have gone beyond material and academic pursuits to emotional, spiritual, cultural and social fulfilment.

As Asad Latiff puts it, it is a product of social tripartism - a partnership between the public, private and people sectors, what if I may call, a new tripartism formula for the 21st century. This is where we need to construct a new model to harmonise the three sectors in such a way that we pull and involve each and every Singaporean so that each and every one of us could make the difference.

Together, we have forged the new Vision for the 21st Century but to make the difference we must now act on it. In conclusion, allow me to quote Joel Arthur Barker, a renowned futurist. He said, "Vision without action will remain a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with Action can change the world." Let us together make the difference for Singapore.