SINGAPORE 21 (Motion)

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question (4th May, 1999),

"That this House endorses the Vision for Singapore in the 21st century as set out in the report of the Singapore 21 Committee "Singapore 21: Together, We Make The Difference", contained in Paper Misc. 2 of 1999, as the basis for strengthening the heartware of Singapore and meeting the aspirations of Singaporeans.". - [Minister for Education].

Question again proposed. 1.08 pm

Mr Chuang Shaw Peng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, first of all, to commend the Minister and his Committee for having completed such a comprehensive, well-written and visionary report. Back in 1997, when the Prime Minister first launched the Singapore 21 Committee to look into the five apparent dilemmas, my intuitive reaction was that the Committee was endeavouring into areas which are philosophical in nature and very broad in scope. Many lay people may find it difficult to understand and appreciate. And I personally have expected the five subject committees to come up with five different reports after holding separate meetings, forums, interviews and surveys. But I must say that I was pleasantly surprised to receive the final report in a form that integrates the derived wisdom of the five dilemmas and successfully translate them into five easily understood headings and expressed in such an easy language.

The report, without being dry and stuffy, tells a story to our Singaporeans, like what the parents do to their children, how as a united people we can strive towards achieving our dreams while strengthening the social cohesion, political stability and the collective will, values and attitudes of our people.

This is an important story. Like any well-run corporation, a country needs a mission statement, a vision, so that it can galvanise its people's energy to constructively achieve its goals. The S21 report, in my opinion, is the mission statement.

Frankly speaking, the contents of the S21 report, although initiated by the Government, do not suggest that it comes from the Government alone. The 6,000 people involved over the 1 1/2 years have contributed to create a dream state, an utopia in a modern form for Singapore. If we achieve it, we would likely have a socially and economically advanced nation where individuals, whether local or foreign, will be pursuing goals in life without undue stress. The families and communities are closely-knit together to provide a strong emotional and moral platform. The people in the private and public sectors will work and support one another as if they are merged together. As the Minister stated yesterday, we do not know how long it will take. But until this happens, we will continue to hear people lamenting that life in Singapore is too stressful. People still cannot get away from their stereotype aims - the 5Cs. And very few would aspire to become artists, musicians, sportsmen, or even entrepreneurs because there is either no money in these professions or too much risks in them.

In the meantime, everybody will be chasing after higher paying jobs, speculating in shares and properties, like what they have been doing in the last two days. And many have taken for granted that life is a rose garden. Then suddenly, two years ago, the Asian financial crisis hit us. Things changed drastically. It makes many to rethink about the value of keeping a job, about getting help from the family and community, about what businesses we should be in and how Singapore can survive and prosper in the face of new challenges in this fast changing world. The timing to have this S21 Committee to study the dilemmas cannot be more perfect. The crisis environment has made everyone dig deeper into their soul to reflect and search for solution. The impact of this report will be far less, if it were presented in better economic times.

A good part of this report is devoted to the strengthening of family ties and community bonding. When one faces difficulties in terms of employment and business operation, all these become apparent and important. I can guess now that more Singaporeans have realised Singapore's ability to sail through this crisis better than others because we could act as a people to resolve difficult problems. We could cut CPF and pay, reduce taxes and fees. We have built up a strong foundation in family ties, community bonding and a strong reserve with good fiscal policies that we now have time and energy to utilise this window of opportunities to launch a new direction and platform to move to the next level of prosperity.

Many westerners have argued that the Asian culture tends to be too selfish and too family-oriented. It only takes care of the interest of the family members and ignores the societal issues evolving around them. Well, Singapore has proved them wrong. By adhering to our culture of having strong extended families with Government policies constantly calling for and reinforcing these values, our society is relatively more peaceful, self-enhancing and supportive. Asians tend to care for their elders more partly because of the culture of respecting the elders, and also because they realise how much the elders have sacrificed to provide shelter, good education and opportunities to the younger ones. The desire to bring honour to their family also provides the impetus to compete and excel. These cultural values, as can be easily seen, have driven the Asian economy well. We are in the middle of these cultural settings, and we probably do not feel the merits just as much.

Recently, I chanced upon talking to a Singapore lady residing in USA. She cherished the extended family support she used to get, particularly during her confinement period, that is, within one month after giving birth to a baby. In Singapore, many mothers will enjoy the close attention of their family members during the confinement period. They are served with tonics and special food. They are given massages. And many do not even have to leave the house for the whole month. In the USA, many mothers would have to do all the household chores immediately after being discharged from the hospital. And they all have to bring their barely one-week old baby to the supermarket. I wonder how many of our women would like to choose the American way of life over Singapore's.

Next, let me speak on the topic of an aging population. There is no escape that Singapore has one of the fastest aging populations. This is a demographic fact. Fortunately, Singapore has a policy of making everyone to save for his or her own old age. The savings through the CPF scheme will make our old age relatively comfortable. But I wish to share with this House that, according to the latest studies by scientists, modern science would prolong our lives substantially. Many of us may have the chance to live up to the 80s, 90s, or even 100. If we retire at 55 or 60 years old, we would have many years to enjoy if we have sufficient savings, or we will suffer if we have not enough savings. Hence, we should all expect the pattern of life to change. The retirement age will be pushed further because of relatively good health. But for one to be useful beyond 55 or 60 years old, we have to train and re-train several times over. Therefore, I support the concept of life-long learning, as suggested in the report and I strongly endorse that Singaporeans of all ages must be given opportunities to upgrade and to renew their knowledge and skills.

A long time ago, most of our forefathers came to Singapore in search of opportunities. They were pushed out of their homeland for one reason or another. They also brought along their skills and talents. Through hard work and thrift, many managed to seize the opportunities and they prospered. Now, the stage is different. Our people face a lot of external competition because of globalisation. Hard work and thrift are necessary but they are not sufficient to succeed. We need more education, more ideas to create more opportunities, and more synergies to create wealth. Hence, we need the foreign talent policy.

With a small population, Singapore cannot generate enough talents to achieve the economies of scale. We need talents, and we need them badly. Everyone knows USA is a world leader in technology. But if USA had not opened its doors to talents from Germany, Russia and Asia, it may not do as well as it is doing now. However, America has now reached a stage where it has become the world's most powerful magnet, attracting talents from all over the world with the possibility of fulfilling an unlimited dream. And that is the American heartbeat to the world.

Therefore, while we talk about attracting foreign talents, we need to ensure that our own talents will not be attracted away and eventually abandon us. There is no denial that we expect our local and foreign talents to shuttle between Singapore and a country like USA. To make them feel attached to Singapore and continue to contribute to Singapore will be quite a tall order. Not only do we need to let these talents feel the Singapore heartbeat, we may have to make our own heartbeat louder than others. That leads me to argue that we have to change some of the social order here.

The Singapore 21 Report calls for opportunities for all and for the more successful to help the less successful. On this point, in my opinion, we have a long way to go. There are, I think, some emotional and moral issues we have not addressed, that is, the way people are treated. The people will always feel attached if they are treated fairly and with compassion. It is difficult to cultivate loyalty if the relationships are not fair. The relationships here may refer to contractual relationships between big companies and small companies, between banks and their customers, between the employers and employees, etc. In numerous instances, there exists a situation of the big bullying the small, and the powerful bullying the weak. There are hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans out there who do not have much education and they do not know very well about the legal aspects. But they still need to enter into contracts if they want to make a living. With contracts written in fine prints and biased terms, their lives can be crippled easily. Even for those who can read, the situation is not much better because the big boys will always draft such contracts that the risks and rewards are not appropriately distributed. The law and order situation in Singapore has, in some ways, given the advantage to the big boys.

To attain the goal of making every Singaporean counts and opportunities for all, we as a people should strive towards a fair and just society, which will in turn bring out the best of each person. To this end, I am glad that Singapore has moved in the right direction. It adopted the UK's Fair Contract Term Act 1977 to protect the consumers. If we can implement this concept more pervasively and extend to all aspects of life, we may become one of the fairest and most just societies in the world. This will add a lot to the reputation of Singapore as a global centre and will enhance our heartbeat substantially.

In another matter related to fairness, I think the relatively high percentage of people surveyed who feel that they are second-class citizens could be a true reflection of the real feelings of our people. They probably harbour such feelings even before the foreign talent policy was introduced. Manifested in various forms in the past, our society is often said to be pro-foreign. Many contracts go to foreigners. Sometimes, foreign products and services are preferred to the local ones at a higher cost. So, when it comes to jobs, the natural mindset is that they will go to the foreigners too. Yes, many locals might not have been as good as the foreigners. Many foreign companies are bigger in size or older than our whole nation. Naturally, they will have the products and services to beat us. If we do not give opportunities to the locals, then effectively, we have no self-pride that we can do equally well.

Therefore, I hope the Government will remove the "Buy IBM" mentality to allay the fear that Singaporeans have for foreign talent. The "Buy IBM" mentality refers to the situation where the data processing managers would always choose big names like IBM because it is well-known. If something goes wrong, it is not the fault of the manager. This mentality has helped to build up risk-aversion and it permeates throughout the whole society.

Coupled with unfair terms of contracts, as mentioned earlier, the whole process has created a "Head, I win, tail, you lose" situation. In a society laden with these shortcomings, you can expect the social and economic costs to be high. Therefore, I strongly support the Singapore 21 recommendation that we should overcome our kiasu attitude and give everyone a fair chance.

On the topic of active citizens, I wish to relate one incident I encountered recently. A very prominent local businessman discussed with me about the experience of being an NMP. In his opinion, being an NMP could be a burden to the conduct of business because NMPs could offend the civil servants in the course of parliamentary debates. I do not think so personally and, so far, it does not seem to be so. I think the civil service is mature enough to accept constructive criticisms. They are able to make a differentiation between official and personal business. In Chinese, we call it dui shi bu dui ren. The Singapore 21 report also aptly says, "There should be no loss of face by the public sector if good ideas come from the people." As a matter of fact, I am quite satisfied with the response from the politicians and the civil servants to the issues I have brought up and debated in this House so far.

Hence, based on my experience as an NMP, I do not hesitate to echo the call of the S21 Committee to get more active citizens to participate in the civic life of Singapore so as to have a dynamic people sector to complement the private and public sectors. Today, there may not be enough Singaporeans who can be classified as active citizens. With clearer OB lines and encouragement, I am sure more and more Singaporeans will realise that they have a stake in our nation and by getting involved and making their contributions, they can make the nation prosper and they will be the ones who have it all.

Lastly, I wish to request the Minister to look into producing the report in other languages with equal quality and substance.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for Community Development (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (In Mandarin): Sir, I strongly agree and fully support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education. This Singapore 21 Vision has already been set out very clearly in the book and I do not wish to waste the precious time of this House to deal with the materials in this book itself. I would like to just raise a point of emphasis and a point of reminder.

Firstly, a point of emphasis: If we want to achieve the S21 vision, we must ask what we can do for S21 and not what S21 can do for us. In other words, we must be pro-active. We must ask ourselves what we must do to achieve Vision 21 and should not confine ourselves to just wishing the realisation of S21.

Some people commented that the five ideas in the S21 Vision were obvious and there was no need to take such a long time of one and a half years and involve over 6,000 people and many working hours to churn out these apparently obvious proposals.

A few days ago, I met a friend who said that the time that the Committee and the 6,000 Singaporeans had spent, if calculated in terms of dollars and cents, would be a gigantic sum. But I feel that the people who advance this kind of argument just do not understand. Yes, if we only talk and never do anything about it, then this argument may be valid. If we talk and just stop there, it would have been a waste of time. But this is only a beginning. This process of the 1 1/2 years of talk was to reach a consensus to facilitate future action. We do need to spend time and energy to obtain this consensus. As a matter of fact, all the members, including myself, of the S21 Committee and all those Singaporeans who have participated in these meetings, unanimously agree that the S21 Vision is something that we must translate into action. It is not something that we just talk about and forget about it. The point is: what can we do and what action can we take to translate the vision into a reality? What efforts must we make to achieve this? This is the question that we should ask ourselves.

Of course, if we want to achieve our vision, we must practise what we preach and strive for positive results in whatever we do. If we do not do anything, if you just doubt the sincerity, shun your responsibilities and just indulge in empty talks, big things you cannot do and small things you do not want to do, then we will be losing the golden opportunities available to us. Therefore, I hope that we will not just sit tight, talk and do nothing. We should stand up and think about what to do, what action to take to realise our vision, our ideal. That being the case, let us prepare ourselves to take up the challenge, and put the theories into action. I think our responsibility can be summed up in these words: "Be a good man/woman. Set up a good family. Serve the community. Be passionate about the nation." So start with yourself and your family. Set it right. Let our children have a good foundation, a good learning environment and a good model to emulate to build up good character and conduct. It is only then that we will be able to reduce social problems correspondingly. A knowledge-based economy and good work attitude would then have a chance to take roots. If you extrapolate this kind of good conduct, good character to others, you will have the mood, ability, passion and heartware to think about how to look after the less successful people in society so that we can build up a caring and gracious society.

We must remember that we are young and energetic - but fortune may change. There may come a day when you and I may need the help of others. If we can take the necessary action in our early days to build a gracious society and a society with care and compassion, then with this kind of ethos in place, it will be easier for us to get help. Also, since we have already given, when we want to take something in the give-and-take spirit, we will be able to take without having to feel embarrassed. So, you have a sense of security, it is a good home that we want to build. The family, of course, is a key cornerstone of society. This is undoubtedly so. In the Confucian teaching, the five relationships, ie, the King and the subjects, the parents and children, brothers and sisters, husband and wife, and friends, three of these five relationships involve the family. Our Malay and Indian compatriots also have similar emphasis on the family. In fact, I note that the Malay and Indian friends are even stronger in their family cohesion.

That being so, there is no need for me to emphasise more on the importance of the family. However, I wish to point out the potential of the concept of Tri-generation Network in the 21st century. At the present moment, it is not easy to have three generations under one roof. The success of our home ownership scheme has enabled our young people to build their own families once they get married. However, even if the three generations do not stay together, the Tri-generation Network should still be maintained. The Network has great potential and importance in our society in the 21st century.

Yesterday, Mr Peh Chin Hua also referred to this point. In the 21st century, we would have this "sandwiched generation", whose ages are in the 30s and 40s. They have, on the one hand, to be filial to their parents and, on the other hand, to bring up their children, while simultaneously building up their business and career. These people are facing tremendous pressure. Without proper support, I think this "sandwiched generation" would become a "besieged generation". But if the grandparents can chip in to take the role of looking after their grandchildren, then the pressure of the sandwiched generation can be alleviated. At the same time, we have tri-generation cooperation - grandparents help look after the grandchildren, thus playing a key role which help gain the appreciation of their children in the "sandwiched generation". If we have this kind of strong three-generation ties, then family cohesion can be strengthened.

30 years from now, when I am in my 70s, with Tri-generation Network, I would command better respect as an old man in the family. If I just sit down at home and do nothing, I think my children will not respect me. They would then not be filial to me. I feel that in the 21st century, we must reiterate the important status of the grandparents. In this connection, I have suggested to the Ministry of Community Development and the People's Association that we should promote Grandparents' Day celebration to more grassroots organisations during this year's Senior Citizens Week. We have Father's Day and Mother's Day. Why can we not have a Grandparents' Day? Mr Loh Meng See did this in his community centre last year. I think this is an excellent idea. We should extend this Grandparents' Day to other grassroots organisations. Once Grandparents' Day is established, more people will better appreciate the importance of grandparents, and the grandparents in the 21st century will be able to play a greater role and get greater respect from their children and grandchildren.

If we can all play our roles and do what I have just set out earlier, I believe we will be able to move forward with peace of mind, with the knowledge that whenever we encounter any setbacks, we will be able to fall back on our gracious social environment, whether at home or in society, to take a break and recover from the setbacks. We will then be able to make a come back from our setback, create another tomorrow, and become a great hero again. If we can do this, we will be able to attack as we advance and defend as we retreat. This will be of great help and it will give us great confidence in realising our vision.

The concerns raised by Mr Chuang Shaw Peng can also be solved. Since we are confident we can attack as we advance and defend as we retreat, we will have greater confidence and lesser worries. We will not worry unnecessarily and will not be so kiasu. We will have greater spirit of enterprise and broader vision. We will be more prepared and able to realise the vision of S21.

Now, a reminder. We must always remember that we are a multi-racial society. We must seek strength through diversity. Why do I want to bring up this diversity and multi-racialism? Recent discussions about SAP schools, language policies, and employment criteria gave me mixed feelings. I think the most important point here is that all these talks and arguments remind us that if we want to realise the five ideas in the S21 vision, we must never forget that Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. This fact is so today and it will remain so tomorrow. In the 21st century and even in the 22nd century and beyond, it will remain the same - multi-cultural and multi-racial. Since nation building, we have done a great deal to achieve racial harmony. Our multi-racial people have already benefitted much from the heritage and wisdom in our multi-racial society. This is in fact the strong point that we have for nation building.

In future years, we must also continue to take advantage of this heritage. We can all see that the five ideas in our S21 vision are founded on multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. We must continue to strengthen and preserve this heritage. If we cannot do so, how can we say that every Singaporean count? If there is no racial harmony, how can we have a strong social foundation? How are we going to create opportunities for all? And how are we going to have a Singapore heartbeat? How are we going to have active citizens making a difference to society? Therefore, I must reiterate and remind our people that we must have pride in our own culture, and we must also respect the cultures of others. This is the essence of a multi-racial society and country. It is also the cornerstone for our future regionalisation, globalisation and networking strategy. If we cannot even handle our own multi-culturalism today, how are we going to globalise, regionalise and to face more cultures and more ways of doing things in the world outside? I think this is a very basic issue. This is not something that we have discovered only today. But it is always the magnanimity that we have seen and observed over the years.

From my own personal experience, I would like to throw more light on this issue. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was educated in the Chinese stream in my younger days. The Chinese school at that time was different from the present Chinese school. In the old Chinese school, there were no Indian or Malay students. We were all Chinese speaking and our English was not very good, and we could not even read the English newspapers properly at that time. In spite of all that, at that time, I had a lot of opportunities to read the writings of the writers and scholars of Singapore and Malaysia in Chinese. Through their works, I was able to understand and respect the cultures of other races. For example, I do not know whether hon. Members of this House are aware that one Prof. Hsu Yun Chiaw had compiled and translated the Malay classic Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals. I still have a copy of the Chinese translation. This book tells us about Malay history from Sri Vijaya to the Malacca Kingdom. Through this book, I was able to understand the Malay culture, its progress and advancement. At that time, we were able to read fables of Sang Kancil, the mouse-deer. Sang Kancil is very intelligent, very alert, but is very small and will not harm others. Though it is not big enough to attack others, others will find it difficult to bully the mouse-deer because it is very alert. So it is able to start up good schemes to extricate itself from situations and run away from its predators. Having read these fables, I think I learnt a lot of lessons.

From the Chinese version, I have also read about the epics of Mahabarata and the Ramayana. I do not know who were the Chinese writers in Malaysia and Singapore who translated these into the Chinese language. In an episode in Ramayana, Lord Rama's wife was abducted by a demon. In order to save his wife, he had to leave his country. At that time, he was the King. Before he left his country, he asked his younger brother to look after the country. He said that he would return after rescuing his wife. His younger brother said, "I do not have the wisdom and ability to rule the country on your behalf. But I know, brother, this is something that you must do. So I will just do my best. I will sit beside your throne and put your sandals on the throne. You remain the person who is ruling the country. I am only your agent, your servant, acting on your behalf." That is what the younger brother said to Ramayana. You must have respect for the elders, you must have shame, you must have a sense of right and wrong. So this is a story that portrays all these values. It is a very useful and meaningful lesson for us to learn. When you do not have the legitimacy, you cannot have the moral ground, and you cannot succeed.

Reading these, one realises the many parallels between the cultures and teachings of our ethnic communities. Being in SAP schools will not stop students from learning about the Malay and Indian cultures if there is a will to learn. We must know more about one another and we must strengthen our solidarity and through different ways and means, we must promulgate the values which are common in all of us, so that we will not lose our direction in future. When I was young, the influence that I had was very useful to me when I grew up. When I was older, I went overseas, I met foreign friends. Because I have always lived and grown up in a multi-racial society, when I meet foreign friends, whether they are from Africa, Asia, America, Europe, I am able to mix well with them. Because I come from a multi-racial society, I am interested and respectful of other cultures. So when my friends talk about their countries and their history, I listened with respect, with curiosity, and with the desire to understand more. So we can talk well, we can mix well, and we can interact well. I learn from them and learn a lot of good things and benefit a great deal.

At the same time, I also gain some understanding and knowledge about their history and culture. And this proves to be helpful to me when I handle overseas projects. It is very easy for me to communicate with them. If you do not understand a certain country, and you need to talk to their businessmen, to the clients, it will be difficult. But, if you understand the country and its culture, it will be easier for you to communicate with the people from the country. So we must always remember that we have a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. This is a great cornerstone, a great advantage, and a strong point. We must do all we can to preserve this advantage, this strong point, so that we can achieve even greater success in future.

In short, when we talk about the S21 Vision, we must build on what we have achieved. We must have self-cultivation, family cohesion, service to society and loyalty to nation. We must continue to enhance our multi-racial harmony and social cohesion. It is only then that we are able to lay down a very strong foundation for our society and country. We will be able to strengthen our family, so that we can attack as we advance, and defend as we retreat. We will have greater confidence in our action. All our people are more united together in realising the challenge and ambition of S21.

Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the motion in the name of the Minister for Education on the S21 Vision.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my younger days, whenever my parents and I walked past the Robinsons Departmental Store at Raffles Place, we just could not pluck up enough courage to walk through the entrance to enter the store. The only luxury we had was to peep into the store through the main entrance. Why did we not dare to enter the shop? Because at that time, Robinsons was perceived to be a departmental store for the ang mohs. At that time, Singapore was still not our home. We had to be careful about what we could do and could not do.

Yesterday, the Member for Jalan Besar said he had the courage to do so. We saw his photograph with his Porsche in the newspapers this morning. If this was 30-odd years ago, people would call him lau hero or since he would be much younger then, people might call him lau Yankee. At that time, the Cricket Club opposite Parliament House was a typical club for the Englishmen, and not far from there stood Raffles Hotel, also another place where the locals did not dare to set foot on. Why? Because Singapore was then still not our home. Today, Robinsons, the Cricket Club and Raffles Hotel are places where Singaporeans patronise freely. Why? Because Singapore has gained independence. It is now our home.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore today, foreigners throng our public places. They came to Singapore, and together with Singaporeans, they create wealth and prosperity for themselves and for Singapore. We have loosely referred to these people as "foreign talents". But some Singaporeans think that by admitting foreign talents, we are marginalising our local talents. Some perceive that by labelling foreigners as talents, we give the impression that Singapore has no talent and has to rely on foreign talents. I am of the view that Singaporeans who have this misconception are small in number, but we should try to correct such misconception. Clearly, Singapore is a country that values talents, foreigners and Singaporeans alike. Singaporeans themselves appreciate talents too. The Star Search Contest is a good example. We could see that the two comperes that night were not born and bred in Singapore. But they won Singaporeans over with their wits and showmanship. The Star Search winners on that night were also not born and bred in Singapore. Singaporeans rated them highly just the same.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Asian financial crisis struck at the time when we were drawing up our vision for the 21st century. Singapore was also affected by the crisis. Singaporeans begin to worry that their jobs may be taken over by foreigners. They fear that foreigners will compete with them for their children's places in schools. For this reason, some Singaporeans have misgivings about foreigners. The worries of this group of people are understandable and can be overcome. We only need to ask ourselves: has the Singapore Government ever neglected the interests of Singaporeans? Has it not placed great importance to the progress of Singaporeans? The Government has gone through great lengths to attract foreign direct investments to create job opportunities for our people. To ensure that workers have the skills for the new industries, the Government has been disbursing funds through various channels, including the NTUC which runs a series of skills redevelopment programmes to raise the skill levels of the workers. Some companies employ foreign workers to meet their expansion needs. But then some Singaporeans think that foreigners have robbed them of their chances of getting the job. This is not true. By employing one foreigner, it may bring more job opportunities for Singaporeans. Let me illustrate.

When we take an SIA flight, we would have noticed that the cabin crew consists not only of Singaporeans but also other nationalities. If the flight is bound for Tokyo, there will be Japanese SIA girls. If the flights are to Taipei and Hong Kong, there will be Hokkein-speaking or Cantonese-speaking SIA girls from Taiwan and Hong Kong. Singaporeans enjoy the value of these foreign SIA girls. They appreciate these foreign talents and find every excuse to strike up conversation with them. Foreign passengers also appreciate them because the native accents of these foreign SIA girls make them feel very much at home. If we have more Japanese, Koreans, Americans and French flying SIA because of SIA's efforts to make them feel at home, there will be more demands for flights to these destinations. Consequently, we would need more foreign SIA girls and even more local SIA girls. So these foreign workers do not take away our rice bowls. On the contrary, they have created more job opportunities for our local people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the idea of opportunities for all, that every Singaporean should have the opportunity to give full play to his potential and be recognised for that, is what we have been striving for. Over the last three years, many of our taxi-drivers, bus-drivers, cleaners and healthcare workers have been picked as model workers. They received their awards from the Prime Minister. This year, another 100 workers from our seaport and airport will also be receiving the Model Worker Awards from the Prime Minister. How many countries honour their workers in this way? We will nurture local talents to develop their full potential. But we also need foreign workers. This is because we do not have enough talent. While we make use of what we have as much as possible, we must also adopt an open mind to embrace foreign talents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in ancient China, bright and ambitious scholars sat for the Imperial Examinations to earn a place in the Imperial Court. Very often, the emperor would eye the scholar who emerged first or what we call the zuan yuan to give him the hand of the princess. The emperor knew that the zuan yuan was the best talent in the country. Similarly, company bosses sometimes marry their daughters to their employees whom they consider to be of high calibre. On the same logic and reason, why should Singapore not bring in foreign talent? I believe Singaporeans would understand this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the five ideas of the Singapore 21: Every Singaporean Matters; Strong Families: Our Foundation and Our Future; Opportunities for All: The Singapore Heartbeat: Feeling Passionately about Singapore; Active Citizens: Making a Difference to Society; and Together, We Make the Difference are inter-related. The five basic beliefs are spin-offs from our Shared Values. The Shared Values are Nation before Community and Society above Self; Family as a Basic Unit of Society; Community Support and Respect for the Individual; Consensus, Not Conflict; Racial and Religious Harmony. As we strive to realise our vision in the 21st century, our shared values still stand. We must not lax in upholding these values.

This reminds me of a family trip I took a few years ago. My family went on a trip to the United States and Canada with a tour group consisting of about 30 Singaporeans. Throughout the trip, we heard a constant stream of grouses among Singaporeans of this group. The SIA flight we took was delayed due to some technical problems. When we arrived in the United States, the airline gave every passenger a box of chocolates as a token of its apology. A Singaporean was heard saying, "They think that we can be appeased with a box of chocolates! We should sue the company. We should fine them $300. Get compensation from them!" This is how Singaporeans feel about matters.

The second year we went on another trip to the Silk Road in China. There were some 60 Singaporeans in that group. The train took us through the Gobi desert. Throughout the journey, as the group members took in the magnificent sights, they could be heard heaping praises on Singapore's policies and the way of doing things. My daughter asked me, "Well, these are all Singaporeans. Why do they have so different views?"

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a reality of our society. As we discuss the Singapore 21 ideas, we must concede to the vulnerability of the Singapore society. Singapore is a society with few communities. Recently, the discussions on the Chinese elite, the SAP schools and the scholarship controversy remind us that for Singapore to successfully move to a knowledge economy and realise its 21st century ideas, we must work very hard. We must increase the common ground of our multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society. Most importantly, we need to go back to our basic values. We must not give up our basic values.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 30 years, the ideas of Singapore 21 will bear fruit. By that time, Admiral Teo would be in his 70s. If by then we have the chance to meet again, we will still agree that it is because of our pragmatism and diligence that Singaporeans are able to realise its vision and scale greater heights.

I support the motion.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, thank you for catching your eye and for giving me this opportunity.

Sir, the Report by the Singapore 21 Committee which was headed by our Minister for Education and 10 other Members of this House has received wide support from the public since it was launched by the Prime Minister on 24th April 1999.

Sir, this is not a political manifesto. It is a study by both the PAP and non-PAP MPs, namely, my two NMP colleagues. More than that, it has seen the participation by some 6,000 Singaporeans whose contributions the Committee has rightly acknowledged. These people come from different organisations and they included Members of this House. I see the names of Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr S. Iswaran and many other names, some familiar, some not familiar. Sir, the contributions have come from community leaders, self-help groups, professional bodies and civic bodies. In fact, they cover the mood of Singapore.

There have been active public discussions and it should be so. The public interest has been aroused. Sir, I was very touched and impressed by last Saturday's Insight Report by two Straits Times' journalists, Warren Fernandez and Chua Lee Hoong. Both of them were in fact members of the Committee. It reflects the thinking of young Singaporeans about Singapore. With your permission, Sir, may I quote:

"Every Singaporean must matter as an end in itself. And every Singaporean will matter only when other Singaporeans let them feel that they too are valued. Put in this context, the ideal that `Every Singaporean Matters' is no mere motherhood statement. It is a bold, radical, ambitious view of how Singaporeans want society to be, and what it must do to make it so."

This epitomises the values that many Members have tried to raise in this House.

Sir, I would urge all political parties to join hands with the Government because on Singapore 21, we cannot afford to be partisan. We must develop a strong sense of attachment to this country. As the Prime Minister has always said, we must have a passion for our nation. This is where our roots lie and this is where our children's future lies.

Sir, in seven chapters, the Committee has studied the problems we are facing and also provided the answer. The five dilemmas that the Committee faced are as follows:

1. Less stressful life vs Retaining the drive;

2. Needs of senior citizens vs Aspirations of the young;

3. Attracting talent vs Looking after Singaporeans;

4. Internationalisation/Regionalisation vs Singapore as Home;

5. Consultation and consensus vs Decisiveness and quick in action.

Out of these five dilemmas have come five ideas and these five ideas are worthy of consideration by this House.

Sir, it is important for us to create a vibrant Singapore where every citizen feels for his country and is prepared to do his utmost for the country. This is our heartland. This is our motherland. Citizens, whether born in Singapore or those who decided to make this their home, have only one dream, to see Singapore prosper and that people enjoy a good life.

Compared to the other countries, Sir, we are a very young nation. Future generations of Singaporeans will look upon us. They will ask if we had laid a strong foundation. If the answer is positive, then they will credit us and strengthen the system. If we are weak and divided, they will never forgive us for our sins of commission. Singaporeans must provide emotional anchors. And let me quote from the Report:

"Singapore is home because of emotional and social anchors in the country. Family, friendship, fond memories of growing up, landmarks, well-known areas and buildings - all these provide a feeling of familiarity and comfort in the midst of rapid change."

Sir, Members will recollect that some years ago this House endorsed the Shared Values. These are important values. One of the values is consensus building. The Government must encourage the process of consultation. Some people feel the process of consultation is a mere public relations exercise. They are wrong. When Government leaders do not agree with the proposal or criticism, I urge them that they should not become adversarial. Take Catherine Lim's episode. One of the MPs could have replied. But it would occupy more space than it deserved.

Sir, let me touch on another political innovation of Singapore which is a creature of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and I refer to the GPC. It is a very novel institution, still young in Singapore. I remember President Wee in his address to Parliament years back said that the GPC's role would be enlarged. The Prime Minister also said that the GPC's role would be increased to gather views from the public. I would urge the Government to seriously consider how the GPC's role could be further increased to reflect the public view. I would also urge the Government to give the GPC financial and administrative assistance so that it can be more effective.

Sir, before a Bill is introduced, the Minister would often take the GPC into confidence. The GPC could organise feedback with interested groups to study the issue. This is a valuable institution and we should try to see how this body could be further strengthened.

Similarly, Sir, the House has seen two Select Committee Reports submitted and I refer to the Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill and the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill. Both these committees received numerous public proposals. It shows that our public is concerned. It shows something more. The Select Committee, the Government and this Parliament are concerned with the public views. The public views were in fact incorporated in the law. Indirectly, the public has become law makers. Very few countries have this institution as we have it here.

The next issue which I would like to touch on is active citizenship. The Report says, and I quote again:

"We will benefit from greater responsiveness, more consultation and a wider range of views and ideas. The crux is how to do so without losing the efficiency, decisiveness and collective action that has enabled Singaporeans to thrive. How do we build more mutual respect, trust, ownership and participation, so that our many contributions and efforts will combine together to steer Singapore to a brighter future?"

Sir, the consultative process has already started some years back and it is being strengthened. Before any public policy is introduced, our Ministers, MPs and community leaders get the feel of the ground, listen to public views and then take into consideration these views when the policy is formulated. This is a good policy and we should see how we could further strengthen this.

What I would urge the Government to do is when a public proposal is accepted, the Government should acknowledge publicly that this is a public proposal and give credit to the people who have introduced it. In this way, the public would be encouraged to submit their views.

Sir, I would urge both the Government party and Opposition parties to come to terms with the fundamental values that we share in this country. They are our sovereignty, national defence, multi-racialism and multi-lingualism. To question these values is to destroy the very fabric of our Singapore society. We must take steps to strengthen these values. I remember that some years back, when the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill was introduced, some people felt that it was an infringement. We have seen that, because of this law, there has not been a single case of any religious disturbance. It just goes to show how farsighted the Government was. In many countries, the opposite is the situation.

Some Singaporeans feel that if they do not agree with the Government's policies, they would be black-listed. This is indeed very sad. There must be mutual respect and trust between the people and the Government. We must allow diverging views to appear and try to work out a consensus. But we must at the same time admit that not all views can be accommodated. So those whose views are not accepted must see it in this perspective.

Sir, we can only have a vision and a dream if we have a strong and stable Government. We have seen the fate of weak governments and, worse of all, coalition governments.

Sir, we must evolve our own political culture. The British system is adversarial. We should encourage, as I have said earlier, consensus building. We must institutionalise these into our political process.

Sir, on this note, may I urge some change in the thinking. In many of the former British colonies, we call the ruling party as the government party and the opposition party as the opposition. A better phraseology would be to call the Government party as the majority party and the opposition as the minority party.

Sir, the title of the Report "Together, We Make the Difference" is very apt. These five words are pancharatna which in Sanskrit and Hindi means five jewels. In Malay, I think it means the same.

Sir, let me share my own experience with one organisation with which I have been involved. I would like to disclose my interest that I am a member of the Hindu Advisory Board and a former member of the Hindu Endowments Board (HEB). The HEB has been involved in many community projects. We have seen active participation by the Hindu community in various projects, whether it is in the area of education, social or medical. Because we have a strong leadership. This has come about in the last 15 years when Mr S.R. Nathan was appointed Chairman. He transformed the whole of the Hindu Endowments Board into a very dynamic organisation. He and his successors, like V.R. Nathan and V.K. Rajan, built on this base and today, numerous projects are undertaken by the Board and people from all walks of life have come to support the projects. It is therefore important that the country has dedicated leaders who can provide impetus and inspire the community to greater heights to serve the people.

I move on to the subject of strong families. Although we have strong family ties, we cannot run away from the fact that the extended families are slowly diminishing. We must come to terms with this issue and a study has to be made as to how we can resolve this problem. As economic necessity dictates, both parents are working. The children have to be looked after by somebody else, either a maid or relative. But the maid cannot substitute the mother.

Sir, I am glad the Minister for Community Development has told the House yesterday that family ties will be further strengthened. I am heartened by his remarks. I also agree with my Parliamentary colleague that we should seriously study the five-day week proposal. My proposal is this. The rest day could be any day from Friday to Sunday. If a person works from Monday to Saturday, he could have his rest days on Sunday and Monday. In this way, we would not disturb the economic life of Singapore. I am glad that some firms have started it. On this note, I join my friend, Mr Chan Soo Sen, in quoting from the Indian epic Ramayana jaha sumti taha sampti nana . which simply means where there is unity of mind, unity of purpose, there is peace and prosperity.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): I rise in support of the motion as proposed by the Minister for Education.

Sir, recently, I had a meeting with my grassroots leaders to discuss the S21 Report. To my disappointment, my grassroots leaders told me that not many Singaporeans are particularly excited or keen on the ideas presented in the S21 Report. This confirms the assessment by our Education Minister that Singaporeans scored poorly in the five ideas as proposed by the S21 Report.

The Singapore vision has apparently not sparked much discussion as evidenced by the lack of coffeeshop talks or comments in the forum page over the last two weeks. I think the Singapore heartbeat is missing. The Singapore heart is suffering from "cardiac arrest". We need to take immediate action to jumpstart the heart and guide the heart to function properly.

To develop passion for our country, we must rally the hearts of all Singaporeans to pursue the same vision of Singapore as a home worth returning and, if need be, fighting and dying for. To achieve this, I would like to suggest three areas to activate the Singapore heartbeat.

Firstly, Singaporeans must have good hearts. As the Chinese saying goes, "hao xin you hao bao". Singaporeans must have good hearts that show compassion for others in all situations.

At home, we must make a concerted effort to strengthen our ties with family members and relatives. The rapid nuclearisation of families and the fast pace of living have reduced the contact time of family members. This will have an adverse impact on the kinship among family members We need to refocus our attention on our families, and take the responsibility to strengthen family bonds.

Sir, I am concerned about the increasing number of cases of family break-ups and neighbour disputes that I have attended to in my meet-the-people sessions. Some Singaporeans are too engrossed in the pursuit of materialistic needs at the expense of their families. Some have relinquished their responsibility to look after their families to pursue their own goals. I am particularly disturbed to hear of cases of children "dumping" their parents.

With a fast aging population, it is vital for us to address this fundamental issue of family responsibility. Although Singaporeans are facing intense competition, we must not take our family members for granted. We must always remind ourselves to spend time and build bonds in our families. My neighbour told me this morning that at the rate we are working, all of us will "wear out" very quickly and face serious problems when we age. I am glad that the S21 Report has emphasised the importance of family bonding. At the end of the day, our families matter more than anything in life.

At the workplace, we must build friendship with our colleagues through care and concern. Our hearts must transform our deeds into creating a caring and vibrant working environment for everyone. We must learn to work in teams so as to improve our work culture, productivity, and job satisfaction. To succeed in the next century, all Singaporeans must develop a Singapore Work Culture, which emphasises on teamwork and cooperation.

Sir, having a good and caring heart will enable Singaporeans to feel passionate about his or her country and its people. It will make Singaporeans deeply rooted to Singapore.

Secondly, Singaporeans must have a positive attitude. A good heart will develop a good attitude. This is the key factor of success in life. We must adopt a positive attitude in life. We must develop an inner drive to achieve our goals in life. With a positive attitude, we open our minds to further enhance the quality of our lives. From young, children must be cultivated to have positive attitude in learning. This skill will provide the necessary impetus for the young to develop a passion for learning. With a positive attitude, there is no barrier to knowledge acquisition. Singaporeans must learn that the acquisition of knowledge is not only for economic purposes. Knowledge will also keep the mind healthy and, as such, improve our quality of life. But how do we train people to have a positive attitude?

A total approach is needed to inculcate a nation of people with positive attitude. It must first start from the family to the school and finally to the workplace and community. Benchmarks must be set to guide all Singaporeans to develop a positive attitude. It is about time Singaporeans took the responsibility to change their attitude and mindset to further enhance their quality of life.

Thirdly, Singaporeans must lead meaningful lives. Singaporeans must believe in doing good things for their fellow countrymen and enriching their lives. As highlighted in the radio, today's education does not focus on the heroic deeds of good leaders and Samaritans. Children are not given enough exposure to have mentors in their lives. As a result, they may not be able to develop a passion to pursue their real interests and goals in life.

This is the setback we suffer in focusing on Mathematics and Science in our education system. A grassroots leader recently made this comment: "Singaporeans have good scientific minds but lack the human touch." Our logical minds have sometimes retarded our development of friendships and pursuit of other interests in life. This is aggravated by the pace of working resulting in the unhealthy stress situation in Singapore. So, there is a need for all Singaporeans to redefine life. There must be ample opportunities for Singaporeans to lead a meaningful and fruitful life.

Sir, recently, a colleague of mine told me that he has visited a retirement village in the United States and was shocked to hear the conversations among the residents in that village. All the conversations by the residents were focused on their sad stories or regrets in life, such as not having spent enough time with their children, failing to achieve their goals in life, having a poor attitude towards work, not having enough friends, regrets for ignoring a healthy lifestyle, and being left alone by their family members.

I am sure Singaporeans do not want to end up in such a situation of regrets. Since the launching of the S21 Report, I wonder how many Singaporeans have bought a copy of the Report or read it. I would urge all Singaporeans to take the first step into their future by reading the Report. Let us rejuvenate the Singapore heartbeat to lead a better life.

Finally, I would like to suggest a punchline for the S21 Report to guide Singaporeans to achieve their vision in the 21st century - "Have a good heart, adopt a positive attitude, and lead a meaningful life!"

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Sir, ten years ago, the Prime Minister set an agenda in "The Next Lap" for Singapore to work towards in nation building. Despite the economic crisis, we can consider that the lap has been completed in record time. On the 24th of last month, the Prime Minister launched Singapore 21 to set the vision of a shared perspective of what Singaporeans want, as a nation, to become in the next millennium.

While in the last three decades, the engine that drove Singapore forward was provided by the Government, the Singapore 21 aims to have every Singaporean as a participating factor, so that they will be the co-motivators in deciding what direction our country should move towards. There will be many discussions and debates in the next few months on this very ambitious but nevertheless essential exercise. All this is necessary if we desire to continue our success in bringing ourselves forward to become one of the most advanced global cities in the world. We will aspire not only to attain a high standard of living, but also become a culturally and intellectually rich advanced country. In the global context, the timing cannot be more critical as well as more exciting.

The world-wide changes we have seen and are currently experiencing are so phenomenal that one is hard put to predict what sort of a world we will be living in, say, 10 to 20 years' time. The acceleration of change, especially in the last decade, has been so rapid that the state of the world affairs has far surpassed what the futuristic author, Alvin Toffler, had envisioned in his then ground-breaking and revolutionary book, Future Shock.

Singaporeans of this generation are very fortunate. The world has never had so much to offer to an individual in terms of technological advancement that affects almost all aspects of our lives. Also, we are living in one of the most stable and most peaceful periods in our history. This is especially true in Singapore where we are moving into an era of great opportunities and excitement, the result of many painstaking formative years of nation building.

I am a product of the 20th century and I consider myself extremely fortunate that my most formative and productive years coincide with the Singapore success story within the past three decades. It has been most exciting and fulfilling, but I am convinced that the success story is only at the beginning. We have arrived at the base camp. We still have the highest peak to reach. Singapore 21 provides the direction. We have to possess the courage, stamina and, above all, determination to reach our final destination.

The policy of meritocracy has worked well for Singapore. The concept of drawing out the best to lead Singapore, whether in the Government or in the civil service, cannot and should not be faulted and should continue to be so. However, in the past, identifying the best has always been through assessment of their academic excellence. Generally speaking, I have no qualms about that. However, Singapore is a very small country. We must harness every one with potential to contribute and although, by and large, if one attains high academic excellence, in other words, if he or she becomes a scholar, it is logical to consider that he possesses a certain high level of intelligence and ability to excel in his various undertakings. However, it would be a big mistake to ignore the fact that there are many successful individuals who have not been known to achieve academic excellence and yet have been able to excel in their chosen fields. History has proven that outstanding achievers are not necessarily top academic achievers. Notable examples are Einstein, Edison and Winston Churchill. Bill Gates was an average Harvard student who dropped out of school to start his own enterprise. More revealing is that in the Fortune 500, very few CEOs are actually scholars. In fact, quite a number of them were high school dropouts.

In Singapore, we have numerous examples, such as technopreneur Sim Wong Hoo, banker Lien Ying Chow and entrepreneur Kwek Hong Png. They cannot be classified as top academic achievers but nevertheless, they have been extremely successful in what they were or are doing. This is because, to achieve success, knowledge alone is not sufficient. It is talent, creativity, perseverance and, above all, a burning desire and passion to succeed. These are elements that drive a person ever forward to fulfill his dreams. In fact, looking at our financial, industrial and business sectors, many individuals who make tremendous contributions in driving Singapore forward are not people with high academic qualifications from top universities all over the world, but many make up the lack of formal education by perseverance, creativity and a passion to succeed in whatever they do. It is, therefore, very important that while trying to emphasise the importance of turning out scholars and high academic achievers in our education policy, it should not be so rigidly structured that those individuals who, for whatever reason, whether the lack of opportunities to attend a good school or those who have been affected by family problems in their childhood and, as a result, were unable to attain good academic qualifications at a young age, are written off as non-achievers. By doing so, we shut them out as potentially important contributors to our nation's progress and the Singapore 21 vision.

I believe, in Singapore, anyone who has the aspiration can have his ambition fulfilled. I personally had to overcome great odds to complete my secondary as well as my tertiary education, not so much academically, but I had to overcome extreme difficult circumstances beyond my control, such as bad timing and having missed out on the opportunity to go to a good and decent school or a top university. Yet, I was able to overcome all the odds and stayed focused to pursue my own dream. I can remember vividly once the whole class was asked what we aspired to be in the future. When I said that I wanted to be an architect, my form teacher sarcastically said that I was dreaming an impossible dream. In a way, I did succeed in fulfilling that dream. For that, I have to consider myself fortunate to have chosen Singapore as my home and that gives me the opportunity to be what I am today. At the present time, so much emphasis has been placed on education. I believe that very few of our younger generation will have to go through what I have gone through to obtain their academic qualification, and finding their place in the sun.

Singapore 21 recognises that every Singaporean's contribution is important in the total scheme of bringing Singapore to the highest level that we can attain as a nation. The Singapore of the 21st century must be a country for everyone. It should offer the opportunity to everyone to fulfill their dreams at whatever level and in whatever situation they are fitted into. I support the idea of imbuing every Singaporean with a sense of belonging and that he is not being left out as a peripheral digit or that he is just a supporting cast in the drama of life. We must not marginalise the ordinary folks. Every citizen has something to contribute to our society and nation, whether at the highest office in the Government or just a humble hawker at the food centre. We need executives but, at the same time, we cannot ignore the contributions of clerical officers. We need engineers to keep things running smoothly, but we also need artists to feed the hearts and souls of our people. The satisfaction of achievement should be shared by all, CEOs and blue-collar ordinary workers alike. The concept of one working for the collective good of the entire nation is an empowering one and bears emphasising.

Recently, there has been a lot of debate on foreign talent, but the issue here is not whether it is foreign or local. The operative word is "talent". In achieving the target of equal opportunity, no one should exploit this system, whether local or foreign. Real talent must always be recognised and utilised. Those who inflate the true worth under the guise of having talent, whether foreign or local, cannot be accepted. We should make Singapore a place where opportunities are given to those who set out to seek, work and to achieve. This is significant as we want to have a genuine foreign talent to take root and flourish. A transient foreign talent cannot add much value to Singapore. I touch on this issue because, in order to give confidence to all Singaporeans, it is imperative that they should feel comfortable with the idea of foreign talent. In order to enable us all to achieve the goal of Singapore 21, we need talent and committed individuals, whether foreign or local. Given our limited human resources, we have no other alternative. Perhaps that is what made the United States a nation where most people around the world aspire to settle and chase the American dream. Perception is just as important as reality. If people perceive that the United States is a land of opportunity where dreams can be made to come true, then they would go there and make that as their final destination. We should set out to emulate and make Singapore a place where opportunity is abundant and those who dare to dream would be rewarded, a place where everyone, no matter how humble their background, can find their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and reach their goal in life. We will have our own Bill Gates, our own Michael Jordan and the success story of rags to riches.

I must commend the Committee of Singapore 21 for coming out with such a comprehensive and far-reaching Report. As the objective of Singapore 21 is to harness the best ideas from every Singaporean, the Committee should continue to assist in gathering all the feedback from ongoing discussions, forums and seminars to ensure more ideas and contributions, to crystallise the agenda that will be the pathfinder to guide Singapore into the next millennium.

Sir, I support the Minister's motion. 2.38 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to put this debate on Singapore 21 (S21) in its proper perspective. When I asked Teo Chee Hean to chair the S21 Committee, I saw it as part of a continuing exercise to build the Singapore nation. In the first phase of our nation building, we concentrated on giving Singaporeans a physical stake in the country. For the next phase, we have to grow the emotional roots.

The Report of the S21 Committee is not an end in itself. It must be implemented, and strengthen the process of nation-building. For Singapore is not yet a nation. It is only a state, a sovereign entity.

A state is not necessarily a nation. Harvard Professor Rupert Emerson, in his book, From Empire to Nation, defined a "nation" as:

'A single people, traditionally fixed on a well-defined territory, speaking the same language and preferably a language all its own, possessing a distinctive culture, and shaped to a common mould by many generations of shared historical experience.'

By this definition, Singapore is not a nation. We do not all speak the same language, nor do we share the same religion and customs. We have different ancestors.

We have to accept the hand that we were dealt with - 600 square kilometres, no natural resources, densely populated, and a disparate collection of people, most of whom had migrated from other parts of the world.

But Senior Minister and his generation overcame great odds and laid the foundation for the Singapore nation. They emphasised multi-racialism and gave every race an equal opportunity in Singapore. This multi-racial country has lasted 33 years, beyond the skeptics' expectation. But whether it will last the next 100 years will depend on whether the different races can gel as one people, feel as one people and pulsate with the same Singapore heartbeat.

I raise this question because it is important for us to debate the Singapore 21 vision against the background of nation-building.

Nations - Jews and Serbs

Nations which have lasted 1000 years have an almost homogeneous population sharing the same culture and religion, speaking the same language and practising the same customs. They descended from the same DNA pool. Such a people will instinctively group together when threatened. They will fight together and, if necessary, die together, in order that the tribe they belong to will survive.

The Jews are one such tribe. When Israel was threatened, Jews all over the world rushed to support it. Israeli reservists overseas dashed back to defend the country.

The Serbs too form a nation. However reprehensible their ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, they are standing up to NATO as one Serb nation.

To Serbs, Kosovo is hallowed ground. It is their Holy Land. Kosovo had been Serbian territory as early as in the Middle Ages. It was lost in a humiliating defeat to the invading Ottoman army in 1389. Following the Ottoman conquest, ethnic Albanians moved into Kosovo, thereby displacing the Serbs who were of Slavic stock. The racial composition of Kosovo changed, from majority Serbs to majority Albanians. Today, 600 years later, Serb nationalism has reared to reclaim Kosovo.

It is said that the Serbs would no more think of yielding Kosovo to Albanians than Jews of handing over Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

Tito's Yugoslavia - Not A Nation

There was never a Yugoslavia nation. The break-up of the former Yugoslavia illustrates that a nation is not just a collection of peoples under a common constitutional framework.

Yugoslavia was cobbled together after the Second World War in 1945 by Marshal Josip Tito. It comprised six republics (Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina) and two autonomous regions (Kosovo and Vojvodina). The Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians and Montenegrins came from the same Slavic stock, but they belong to different tribes and backgrounds. Kosovars are mostly ethnic Albanians. The Albanians and Bosnians are Muslims, while Serbs are mainly orthodox Christians.

Soon after Tito died in 1980, Yugoslavia began to disintegrate. Belgrade could not hold the different tribes together.

Open violence broke out. Finally, independence was declared by Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, one after another, between June 1991 and April 1992.

The Bosnians are Slavs, like the Serbs. But despite this, Bosnia fought a war with Serbia from 1991 to 1995, and became independent under the US-brokered Dayton peace accord. Islam divides Bosnians from the Christian Serbs. The Bosnians were converted to Islam in the late Middle Ages by Turkish occupiers.

Yugoslavia was not a homogeneous nation. So it broke up after strongman Tito died. Yugoslavia lasted only 45 years.

Singapore - Racial Riots

Singapore is not a homogeneous nation either. However, there is one consolation, Singapore is too small to break up into two or three separate countries. But racial riots can tear the country apart.

When the racial riots broke out in 1964, I had just started work as an Administrative Officer in the Prime Minister's Office, then housed in City Hall. Othman Eusofe, my colleague from Raffles and University, had also just started work in Land Office, also housed in City Hall. When news of the riots broke out, the offices were quickly cleared and everyone was told to go home immediately. I went downstairs and met Othman in the lobby. Both of us wondered how to get home. The streets were chaotic with cars and worried people.

I did not know how Othman made his way home. I was then living in a HDB flat in Queenstown. There was a colleague in my office who also lived in Queenstown. We decided to walk home. Fortunately for both of us, as we were somewhere near the YMCA in Orchard Road, a friend of my colleague came by in his car. He gave us both a lift home.

Do not think that racial riots would never break out again in Singapore. They could be caused by chauvinistic leaders. They could be triggered by insensitive handling of racial issues by an inept government. They could be instigated from outside.

That is why we need safeguards such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Internal Security Act.

These legal instruments in themselves are useful. They help prevent subversive and communalistic acts. But by themselves, just these Acts alone do not guarantee that Singapore would not be divided along communal lines. In a crunch, where the interests of the tribe and the state diverge, can we be sure that the sense of belonging to a state will be stronger than the primordial instinct of belonging to a tribe? Are Singaporeans of different races prepared to lay down their lives for the sake of Singapore if there is a divide amongst the races?

Edward Osborne Wilson, a Professor at Harvard University, in his book "On Human Nature", observed that, historically, when Maoris fought for land, alliances were based on kinship. They would consciously and explicitly expand against the territories of the groups most distantly related to them. In other words, expansionist on the basis of how close you are in kinship. In 1837, when Hokianga warriors arrived at one fight already in progress between two sections of the Nga Puhi tribe, they were undecided about which side to join, because they were equally related to both.

I suppose it was the same with the Chinese in Singapore before the Speak Mandarin Campaign. Those in one dialect group would instinctively support their own members in a dispute with members of another dialect group.

Today, we see the same phenomenon in Indonesia. When a Madurese has a casual fight with an Ambonese in Jakarta, it would soon become a general fight between Madurese and Ambonese. The instinct of belonging to a tribe is most overriding.

Singapore - Serving The Nation

In Singapore, we have many pools of DNA. To build a nation out of these different pools is not easy. We can never remove totally the divide between the different races. The Chinese would not want to adopt Malay customs, culture and religion nor do Malays and Indians want to be assimilated by the Chinese. The Eurasians too are happy to be what they are. But we can work to lower the divide. It is a long process. It may take us at least one or two generations before we can confidently say that we have built a successful, multi-racial nation where the races will fight together to advance their collective as well as each other's interests. It boils down to trust - whether one race trusts another to protect its interests. We must try and build up this trust.

This cannot be done through nice-sounding slogans and motherhood statements. It will be built only when we have gone through fire together, and have helped one another to survive. The older generation of Singaporeans have at least fought the communists and communalists together. They have also fought for Singapore's independence. The bond between that generation of leaders and Singaporeans is strong and unshakeable. That generation also feels an instinctive moral obligation to serve the country.

But the younger generation of Singaporeans have had no experience of hardships, let alone racial riots and external threats. Their lives have mostly been plain sailing. So their bonds to Singapore and their sense of service to the country are not as strong as the older generation's.

When Tony Tan came back from his recent trip to the US, he explained to me why he had proposed tuition loans instead of scholarships for our bright students to study abroad. He had met a group of our scholars in Boston. They peppered him with questions on how they could break their scholarship bonds instead of how and where they could serve on their return to Singapore. Tony was totally dismayed. He proposed that scholarships be replaced with tuition loans. He was not thinking of using public funds. He was thinking that these scholars would have to borrow from the banks at market interest rates. Then when they come back, they can apply to any organisation to get a job, and it is up to that organisation to take over the loans from the scholars. So I understood better the context of Tony Tan's proposal for tuition loans to replace scholarships.

If, indeed, more and more bright students from Singapore, more and more able Singaporeans think of their self-fulfilment first, there will be no future for Singapore.

Yes, it is important to do one's PhD to maximise one's potential. The organisation can wait. Yes, it is important to do research in a world-class institution. Singapore can wait. But if most of our ablest think that way, can we ever build a Singapore nation?

When Lee Hsien Loong graduated from Cambridge University, his professor encouraged him to stay back to do his PhD in Mathematics. He came back. He wrote to his professor that he felt his country would need his services.

I too wanted to do my PhD after my graduation in 1964. The PSC would not let me. I was under a bursary bond. So I joined the Administrative Service.

Later, in 1976, the late Hon Sui Sen invited me to stand for election. I was not a natural politician. I am still not a natural politician. But I felt an obligation to say 'yes'. I had no political ambition. But if my country needed me, I could not say 'no'. Without the bursaries and scholarships, I would not have done so well in life. I felt an instinctive obligation to do national service.

Singapore - A Society of Overlapping Circles

I support the powerful, emotive statements of Singapore 21. I wish to caution, however, against unrealistic expectations and quick results. A strong dose of realism is necessary. A nation is not built in one generation, much less a country made up of different races and religions, who until recently, were living in different racial enclaves.

Historically, the Chinese, Malay and Indian communities lived in distinct neighbourhoods. Even among the Chinese, the different dialect groups had their own cantonments. So we had the Cantonese in Kreta Ayer, the Hokkiens in Telok Ayer, the Hainanese in Middle Road, and the Teochews in Boat Quay. Staying together according to language, race, religion, dialect groups provided an important security and comfort zone.

Even today, there is still a tendency for racial enclaves to form in HDB estates. Hence, we had to introduce a quota system in 1989 to ensure that every public housing estate is a microcosm of multi-racial Singapore.

If I may use an imagery, our society is made up of overlapping circles, like the People's Association logo, four circles overlapping with one another. Each circle represents one community.

What we can do is to maximise the overlapping area of the four circles. This is the area where all Singaporeans, whatever their race, work and play together. It is an open level playing field with English as the common language, and equal opportunities for all.

Outside this common area, where the circles do not overlap, each community has its own playing field. In this separate playing field, each community can retain and speak its own language and practise its own culture and customs. This practical approach of nation-building whereby every community has two playing fields has given us multi-racial harmony.

This approach helps us to build a harmonious nation out of diversity. But as the divide between races is always there, the national heartbeat may become separate heartbeats over time.

Britain and Canada - Devolution of Powers

Let me use Britain to illustrate my point. In 1707, England, Wales and Scotland came together to form Great Britain. They were joined by North Ireland in 1801. After almost 300 years, you would expect Great Britain, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish feel more British, and for Britain to become more of a British nation.

But till this day, England, Wales, Scotland and North Ireland still field their own teams and compete against each other in the World Cup and other international football tournaments. Each will cheer for its own team, not the other teams.

And tomorrow, 6th of May, the Scots will elect their first Parliament to sit in Edinburgh in 300 years. At the same time, the Welsh will be voting for the first elected assembly in their history.

The Economist of 1st May 1999 said,

"These developments do not signal the re-birth of Scotland and Wales as independent countries. But they do signal a historic and welcome shift in the way Britain is governed."

But why should Scotland and Wales want their own Parliaments if they have become more British? Can anyone be so sure that devolution of power would not go further and that 100 years from now, there would not be an independent Scotland? Or Wales?

Look at Canada. The Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867, more than 130 years ago. But many of the French-speaking Canadians in Quebec still refuse to identify themselves with the English-speaking Canadians. Their ancestors had come from France, not Britain. Quebec has held two votes on separation from Canada to form an independent Quebec. In the first vote in 1980, 40% of Quebeckers voted for independence. In the second vote in 1995, the percentage has risen to 49.6%.

Making Singapore Work

So I come back to the basic point: the tribal instinct and shared DNA are stronger than the sense of shared future in a country made up of different tribes.

But we must try and make Singapore work, and build a Singapore nation. This is a never-ending challenge. The task is not going to get easier. In fact, it is going to get more complicated.

To sustain our economy and to let our society flourish, we need to import foreign talents and offer some of them PR and citizenship. Our population will become more cosmopolitan. The city will become more international.

Newcomers every year have to be integrated into our society. We have to create in them the same strong sense of belonging to Singapore as the thorough-bred Singaporeans.

Our task of nation building is enormous. But we must persevere. If we do, we can and we will eventually become one family, one people, one nation.

In his book, "From Empire to Nation", Professor Emerson also qualifies a nation as:

"a community of people who feel that they belong together in the double sense that they share deeply significant elements of a common heritage and that they have a common destiny for the future".

We can, over time, imbue in our diverse population a sense of community, trust in each other, a commitment to Singapore, and a passion to make it work. We can maximize the significant common elements of our different ancestral heritage as well as our common Singapore heritage, and together, build a nation where we will share a common destiny. We can create the Singapore tribe.

Sir, I support the motion. [Applause.]

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, by way of clarification, ask the Prime Minister a question?

Mr Speaker: All right.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Talking about Kosovo, the Prime Minister prefaced his observations by saying "however reprehensible ethnic cleansing may be". May I ask him whether he condones what is going on in Kosovo today, the driving out of the Albanians by the Kosovian military?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, from my statement, the Member should know the strong feelings that we have over this ethnic cleansing and the very fact that I have spent the entire speech concentrating on nation building and creation of a multiracial society in Singapore must suggest in a very obvious way to him that we cannot condone ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, or anywhere else.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But you said "however reprehensible it may be."

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.07 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm