SINGAPORE 21 (Motion)

Debate resumed.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, we have just heard a sobering and challenging speech from the Prime Minister. I agree fully with PM that for Singapore, it is fundamental that we have racial harmony, for without racial harmony, we could not have many of the things that we aspire in Singapore 21. Racial harmony is crucial and all Singaporeans will have to work towards this in the years ahead.

As we enter the next millennium, we will be facing more complex issues which would require us to work together as a cohesive people to meet tougher competition from various societies which also want to make progress just like us. And with limited resources available, competition will get tougher and we will have to find a place within this arena. Unless we concertedly work as one people, it will be difficult to improve our quality of life. What are some of the crucial issues we will be confronting? I will name a few of them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

3.35 pm

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): First, we will have to meet increasing aspirations of the younger generation of Singaporeans whose life expectations have changed, and it is understandable that they aspire higher and through these aspirations, we hope to meet their needs. Second, the decline in population growth which can slow down our productivity, and with the greying of our population, we are bound to face a slowing down of Singapore and we need to find ways to address this. Third, the value conflicts between individual needs and collective interests leading to individualism is one of the issues which we need to take note of and to find ways to tackle. Fourth, the displacement of the less skilled and able from the job market because of relocation of the labour intensive industries. Fifth, the emergence of a new under-class who may feel that they have problems of access to education, health and housing and our related provisions. Sixth, under-achievement can be wrongly tied up with language, religion and race.

I would like to take three major critical issues for us to ponder and to see how we can find new strategies to meet these challenges. First, the danger of a growing social gap. In the last decade, we have witnessed the restructuring of social service provisions. Although the whole objective is to make services more efficient and to reduce waste, such a policy direction will be effective only if the provisions remain affordable and accessible. Sir, the danger is that these basic provisions will become more expensive and hence may be out of reach to the working-class. It is therefore important that such a run-away increase can be moderated and public service monopolies should be checked to ensure that their charges are reasonable. In this respect, Sir, the move towards knowledge-based economy must be planned in such a way that the adults and children of working-class families can also benefit from it. Educational facilities and training should be both accessible. Various steps must be taken by Government and other bodies to ensure that they have an opportunity, like others who are better off, to take advantage of the knowledge-based training right from a young age.

To leave the training and education of the young working-class to the dictates of the market will in the long run cause social divide and thus marginalise the less well-off sector of our society. Translated in real economic terms, the less better off sector will have less opportunity to move up the economic ladder. We should seriously look at this to see what we can do to ensure that there is an opportunity for upward mobility for people at the lower rung of the society. They will remain economically trapped. In short, the glass ceiling effect would be prevalent and this will make our society less permeable to those at the bottom of the ladder. This can become the social virus which can affect the social health of our society. If we are not careful, the gaps between the better-off and less better-off can widen and such a state will not be helpful to community building. I feel that in such a circumstance, the Government must intercede and mediate to deploy resources for them so that they would have a chance to make progress in their life. This is tremendously important, particularly where we have a large working-class base.

On the question of the effects of individualism versus collectivism, I would like to make the following observations. We have witnessed the consequences of the promotion of extreme individualism in some developed countries. In these places, individual needs override group needs. The collective interest of the group is set aside. The `me first and others second' type of mentality has created serious problems for their societies. Many self-interest groups are formed with each having their own agenda and jockeying for power and resources. The law of the jungle prevails and the fittest survive. Decision-making becomes too problematic and in the end, societies suffer because of protracted conflicts. People are afraid to do the right things that work. I am sure we do not want Singapore to move in this direction, for if we do, our society will be easily fractured, as we are more vulnerable to the pulls of multi-racial sentiments. So, the practice of merit-based rewards and the public good approach in our public policy must continue to be pursued by us without compromise. This is fundamental for us and merit is the basis by which we work. We are subjected to this tremendous pull and push from various quarters in the community and pandering to group and racial sentiments would lead to a divided society.

Finally, Sir, the question of race, language and religion. Failure could be fudged in the context of race, language and religion. We must be mindful and always be on the guard from time to time on the question of race, language, and religion as this will always be used as an excuse for one's or a group's failure. This is also very relevant to Singapore itself because we are a multi-racial society, and hence we will have to appreciate the underpinnings of these problems.

As I see it, one's ethnic background, be it Chinese, Indian or Malay, could be advanced as the cause of one's low station in life and poor performance, and that is a danger that I see. This is a very tempting reason, especially in Singapore's multi-racial society where Indians and Malays are the minorities. Once primordial sentiments are excited, it could lead to racial prejudice and dissension. That will spell trouble for all of us.

Therefore, it is fundamental that we make sure that every Singaporean, irrespective of his background, be given equal access and opportunity to social provisions which will help him to develop his potentials to his fullest. I think this is very important for Singapore, particularly in a multi-racial society. Institutions and organisations must be seen above board and they must have tremendous integrity in its delivery of services and that they are seen to respond on a fair and just basis without prejudice towards different ethnic groups. That is a challenge for the various social institutions that we have in Singapore. Institutions must be managed by people with integrity, who mean good for Singapore and unless and until we have people of integrity in the various social institutions and who are conscious of the backdrop and problems that our PM has mentioned just now, we will have a divided Singapore and that in the long run will be worse for all of us. We will be no better. Therefore, in the context of Singapore, we must ensure that we work towards ethnic harmony, religious tolerance, appreciate one another as Singaporeans, and collectively work for a common purpose so that Singapore will be able to survive and manage. And that is indeed the challenge for all of us.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, may I first congratulate whoever put together this Report on the attractive dressing up of the Report. We have become accustomed in Singapore to the public relations job that the Government is so competent at. But that is about all that I can find to commend in this Report. I am sorry if I take a view which is at odds with almost all the other speakers. But I have to say what I feel about this Report.

Sir, this Report abounds in platitudes and it echoes what we have heard from our leaders in the Government all these years. That is not surprising if one looks at the members of the various committees. The co-chairmen are all members of the ruling party except for two who are nominated by the ruling party. It is no wonder that ---

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, may I ask the Member if I may have the floor to clarify a point?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do you want to give way, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, I am not. So it is not surprising that it should echo what we have heard all these years. I have not had the time to go through this Report from cover to cover. I have been away. But from what little I have read of it, I can find no mention of the term "an open society" as a desirable goal for Singapore, and yet this was the vision of our present Senior Minister when he was speaking in the Malaysian Parliament at the end of 1964. To him, an open society was absolutely essential for the progress of the nation, and yet today planning our vision for the next century, there is no mention of an open society as being an essential need for our nation.

I have said that it abounds in platitudes. But may I first say a little bit about the way this Report has been brought about. The Minister, in his opening statement in moving the motion, said that the task of the Committee was to strengthen the heartware of Singapore and to develop a consensus on the kind of society which Singaporeans want for the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how do we develop a consensus on the kind of society which Singaporeans want for the future? One would have thought one could only develop a consensus if we invited Singaporeans to enter into public discussions and debates on the values and goals of the society that they live in. One Nominated Member talked about public discussions that have gone into it. I cannot recall any public discussions on S21. Were there any meetings called for the public to attend and to take part in formulating what the goals and values of the society should be? Nothing at all. It is said that views of 6,000 people were sought, but I see that they included community leaders and others.

An hon. Member: And Low Thia Khiang!

Mr Jeyaretnam: I cannot find Low Thia Khiang's name in the Committee's Report as one of the members of any Committee.

If we want to know what the vision should be, we should get down to the man in the street. We should ask him what is it that he values as a goal for the society. We may not agree with him but we at least give him a chance to speak. And that is what Mr Lee, I think, was trying to encourage when he urged an open society in 1964.

Later in his speech, the Minister talks about the five key ideas and says every Singaporean matters. I say amen to that. If every Singaporean matters, then the views and opinions of Singaporeans should be sought publicly and openly, and this was never done.

I would commend to the Government - I am sure they must have read it - an article that appeared in the UK magazine, The Economist, 17th April this year. The article is headed "Happiness is a Warm Vote". It reports on a survey carried out in Switzerland by two members of the University of Zurich. They asked the residents how satisfied they were with their life as a whole. The results apparently showed up some revealing things, and it showed that the people who were given more direct participation - they call it direct democracy - in shaping the policies of the country were much happier than those who were given less participation. It is not that in Switzerland that they are not given, but apparently direct democracy varies from one canton to another. In some cantons, they have more direct participation. And it was found that they were much happier than people in other cantons. The article ends, "A happy country it seems is one where politics is not just a spectator sport."

So the lesson that one can learn from this survey is that if we wish to motivate our citizens, if we wish to drive them to greater heights, then we should give them more direct participation in the policy making. And, of course, we know that in Switzerland, they have a referendum for almost every new law that they wish to pass or make any changes. The citizens feel that they are part of the country and they are asked their views on what should be done for the country.

The Report reproduces part of the Prime Minister's speech at the National Day Rally in 1996, where the Prime Minister is reported to have said, "I say to all Singaporeans, you have to feel passionately about Singapore. Being Singaporeans should resonate in our hearts and minds." May I ask, when does one feel passionate about anything? Does one feel passionate when one has had no hand in the creation of something of which one is asked to feel passionate, if one is made to feel that he is an outsider, he has got nothing to do with the creation of that thing? Or does he feel passionate when he is invited to work together to create whatever he is asked to feel passionate about? I should have thought the answer was obvious. Singaporeans would feel passionate if they felt that they were being consulted, they were being listened to and they were being given a hand in formulating the policies and goals for this society.

Another statement in this Report that I found amusing was that it says that Singaporeans must all put on our thinking caps together to find answers. This is all, as I said, great words. But the Report is abysmally silent on how we reach these goals. How do we get Singaporeans to feel passionate about Singapore? How do we get Singaporeans to find answers collectively to the problems of the country? The Report is a complete silence. And then it says again somewhere, "we must become active citizens who are participants, not mere observers in building the Singapore we want for the future."

Yes, we agree. But what do we propose should be done to make Singaporeans become active citizens, participants, in building the society we want for the future? One would have expected all that in this Report, but there is nothing in it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have, in this House, moved a number of motions, attempting to place before the House what I thought were necessary for Singapore's progress into the 21st century. One of these was my motion on the removal of fear. You cannot, Mr Deputy Speaker, just poo-poo the idea that Singaporeans are living in fear. It is a reality. One encounters it everywhere. And unless this fear is removed and Government goes about it deliberately to remove the fear, Singaporeans will not participate actively in building the society. Singaporeans will not feel passionate about the goals that the Government has laid out for them. The Minister says that Singapore 21 is not a Government concept. I beg to disagree. It reads very much like what the Government wants the people to be. It is social engineering all over again of our society for the 21st century. It does not come from the citizens.

In Singapore, it would appear that the rule is: you can only participate within the parameters that we lay down, that is, the Government, the ruling Party, lays down. If you step outside the parameters, then, you suffer; you pay the consequences for that. Can you get Singaporeans to be involved and participate actively if that is the rule? Yes, you will get Singaporeans who are only anxious to make their own progress joining in. But Singaporeans who feel passionately about the goals and values will not join in if they are told this is it, these are the four lines, and you must work within it. No self-respecting person will want to come into that.

I say this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from experience that I have found from the time I went into politics in 1971. The Opposition have been made to feel that they had no place in Singapore, they were not Singaporeans, they were the enemies of the people. When I was in Parliament in 1981 to 1986, I was told by the present Senior Minister, then the Prime Minister, that I had to be destroyed because I was against the system. Of course, the question is: what was the system that I was against? It was not the democratic system. I was against the system that was operating in Singapore. So this is it.

In Singapore today, and it has been over the last 40 years, anyone who gets out of the line, steps out, is dealt with very harshly. It would appear that loyalty to Singapore is equated with loyalty to the Government and to the PAP. But that conception has to be erased completely. People have to be told quite deliberately that loyalty to Singapore can mean, and may mean, at times differing from whatever the Government puts up as the goal or policy for Singapore and they would be allowed and given every opportunity to voice their views. That is not possible in Singapore. So I do not know how we can talk about the vision for the next century or the next millennium without first freeing our people from the straitjackets into which they have been put.

We have got to loosen up, and that has no place in this report at all. We should allow public meetings. We should not prosecute any Opposition politician because he seeks to address Singaporeans on issues that concern them, because he has not got a permit from the Police. If that is how Singapore is going to be run, then we are never going to get Singaporeans feeling passionately, becoming active participants and deciding on the goals. We must remove them from being just passive spectators, unable to do anything about deciding the country's policies and its future, into people who feel that they are active players and they can only do this if you remove all the restraints. If you do not, we will continue as we have over the last 45 years, and this talk about the vision for Singapore 21st century will only remain as mere words, platitudes with no political will on the part of the Government to bring it into reality.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what the Prime Minister said just now was very touching indeed. I agree wholeheartedly with what he has said.

The five ideas of the Singapore 21 Vision are great ideas that will guide us into the 21st century with a strategic direction. They represent the values of the individual, the family, society and the country. It is like a compass that will guide our people of different races to work together to give of their best, to go through weal and woe to build good homes for Singaporeans. To do this, we must try to put these five ideas into simple language to inculcate in the minds of our people so that we can all remember these ideals and translate them into action and reality.

Looking at the five ideas of S21 Vision, I would suggest 20 simple Chinese characters to summarise them and highlight the common goals that we have worked out for ourselves and to inspire every citizen to participate in our efforts to realize these ideas. These Chinese characters are: quanmin heyi, baojia guben, zhongzhi chengcheng, zhanchi weiguo, gongquang yuanjin, meaning "the entire people united as one, maintain a strong family as a foundation, unity is strength, spread our wings for the nation, together we create our vision."

It is often said that "Heaven has its purpose for every person who is born on earth". That is to say, every one is a talent. To realize the much-esteemed personal values, we must persevere in continuously upgrading the intellectual and educational level of our people so that every citizen, irrespective of race or station in life, will give full play to his talent and give of his best to contribute to society and the nation. To put it simply, we aim to have the entire people united as one (quanmin heyi) to achieve a prosperous and peaceful Singapore.

A cohesive family is the foundation stone on which the nation is built. To put it simply, we must have strong families as our foundation. Family is not only the foundation of the country but also a strong spiritual pillar for the individual. Whenever we are faced with a crisis or in difficulty, the first thing that we think of is the home, the family. Therefore, the family or home is not only our residence but also our shelter and a place for us to rest.

We also frequently say that "When a family is in harmony, everything can be done well". That is to say, the family is the core on which the bonding is maintained. It is the basis for our survival. It is also the motivating force for our success. When we are faced with all the future challenges and changes in circumstances, we must maintain a strong family as our foundation (baojia guben), as our unshakeable conviction to enhance cohesion in attaining our ideal goals.

However, opportunities do not come from thin air. Rather, they are the result of tons of hard work. There is a famous Hokkien saying to the effect that we must slog it out in order to win. That is a successful motto for many business people. But if you want to attain the ideal state in which everyone is given the opportunities in the highly competitive 21st century, depending only on individual efforts is not enough. As the Prime Minister has said, we want to turn Singapore into a combination of the individuals, the human resource, the thinking and other resources to turn Singapore into an international metropolis. In other words, what we want is a dynamic first-class and creative city of the world. It is only in such a city that everyone and every talent will have the opportunity to give full play to his potential. Whether we can realise this idea or not, I think the part played by the Government is very crucial.

We know that in some countries where those in power are arrogant, narrow-minded and very exclusive, public opinion is never taken into account when policies are implemented. Then the intellectual and the wise, whether at home or overseas, will distance themselves from the tyrannic government. In such circumstances, whatever dreams you may have will remain just dreams. There is no chance of these dreams becoming a reality. Although this is not the style of the present Government of Singapore, we must remain very vigilant to ensure that the high officials who are over-ambitious and impatient do not have this kind of a problem and completely disregard consultation with the people. Otherwise, we will be sowing the seed of evil and the people's heart will be lost.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all along I endorse the Government's decisiveness and high efficiency for the development of our economy, culture and education. But when we are evolving into a knowledge-based economy of the 21st century, if we depend only on the Government or the few elites in the Government service, we will not be able to handle the excessive information explosion in this IT age. Therefore, the Government must adopt a more open attitude and maintain closer relations with the civic organisations in order to get more reliable and more accurate information and also constructive opinions for the formulation of state policies as points of references. Of course, as citizens, we will also benefit from the enlightened policies of the Government.

For the sake of national interest, we should also support the Government in its meritocractic approach. We should not only welcome foreign talent, but also share our experience and knowledge with them. This will also enhance our expertise and skills. If we can pull the collective wisdom and strength of all the people together, we will be able to realise our ambition and vision, and this is the meaning of "unity is strength" (zhongzhi chengcheng).

I believe that Singapore has many citizens who are currently working overseas under the regionalisation or globalisation initiatives, or studying for higher degrees. This is to ensure that they can have better lives for themselves and their family, and to become outstanding citizens of the country. So a good man shall cherish high ideals to reach out to the world. This is a very true statement. Being physically outside Singapore, it is inevitable that they may be somewhat dissociated from their homeland. However, so long as Singaporeans, especially the young ones, can feel the esteem and concern of the country for them, and can always keep in mind the motto of "spreading our wings for the nation" (zhanchi weiguo), their hearts will always be with Singapore - our homeland.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to encourage our people to manifest their spirit of active participation, we have to take care not to induce them to follow blindly, to participate in some meaningless controversial arguments or to do things which may undermine our national unity and racial harmony. Our idea is to create a good vision for ourselves through collective wisdom and collective efforts. What we should stress is to encourage every citizen to take part actively in community development and welfare work. Our common goal is to create our own vision together (gongquang yuanjin).

So to realise the ideals of S21 is an ongoing heartware project. Therefore, we should use our "heart" to realise the following:

(1) we must work wholeheartedly as a united people for the nation;

(2) we must have a loving and caring heart to ensure family cohesion;

(3) we must have an enthusiastic heart to deal with people and to create the collective will to build a world city;

(4) we must have a loyal heart to the nation, then we will be able to extend our will beyond the boundary of our country; and

(5) we must have a persevering heart to ensure that we are able to give full play to collective wisdom and efforts to create this common vision.

I hope that my humble suggestions will stimulate and encourage more views and opinions on this subject so that we will be able to translate these ideals into a simple language for all to remember easily and for all to realise it in due course.

I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr David T. E. Lim): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Like many of the other Members in this House, I listened to the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon and was greatly encouraged. The Prime Minister had taken the trouble to read the S21 Report from cover to cover. Not only that, he had taken the time to reflect on its import and messages. He came to this House and he encouraged us but at the same time cautioned us that there are still forces within our society, from our heritage, from our history that can divide and break us up. But he ended with an encouraging word that if we concentrate on those overlapping circles and shared interests, we can build a nation out of a country.

Sir, I contrast this with the remarks by Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam which sought to discourage us and to pour cold water on this debate. And the irony of it is that he admits that he has not yet read the Report but has only taken a glance at it. He reminds me of what a consultant once told me about why some meetings are not productive. And he says that when you go to such meetings, there are only two kinds of people, those who are talking and those who are waiting to talk. I presume that Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam has been waiting to talk and now that he has spoken, he has left. But he has failed to listen and read. Mr Simon Tay wanted to make some clarification. I do not know if he still wants to do it. But if he does, I will give the floor to him.

Mr Simon Tay: I am obliged to the Member. A simple clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. He was making a clarification with Mr Jeyaretnam. He has not asked to make that clarification now. Can you please proceed?

Mr Simon Tay resumed his seat.

Mr David Lim: I am sorry he is out of order. It is a pity that Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam is not here. Otherwise, he could make his clarification. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam's main point is that we do not have an open society in Singapore. He complains that the opposition politicians cannot speak without a permit. But earlier this afternoon, during the Question time, I thought he distinctly said that we should make sure that we enforce the law so that people will not have disrespect for the law. It puzzles me as to what he is now advocating, whether he advocates that opposition politicians should be given special differentiation to disregard the law or whether he encourages them to wilfully disobey the law because that is the model of the opposition he advocates.

Sir, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam says that the Report is full of platitudes. Indeed, if we all adopted his attitude, it would only be just that. If we read this Report and do nothing about the ideas in them, then all these statements will be lifeless. They would just be slogans that all of us would know about but none of us would care much about.

But if we act on these ideas, then they will come alive. The challenge for us is that every Singaporean must examine each goal, and ask ourselves whether we truly believe what is written in this Report. When we say that every Singaporean matters, if we believe it, will we change our behaviour towards others? If we say that we want strong families, will we set time aside, as Mr Seng Han Thong does every year, to go for holidays with his family?

One aspect of our vision is about making Singapore a centre of opportunity. We have to act on this too to make it a reality. At this juncture, what I would like to do is to take a pause and just thank all the members of my subject committee - it was a committee on attracting talents versus looking after the needs of Singaporeans - and all the people in Singapore that we met and talked with. It was a privilege for Mr Seng Han Thong and myself to have led the discussions and to have been educated in the process.

Sir, in practical terms, being a centre of opportunity means making Singapore a place where every Singaporean can have a good job, and do and enjoy the things he treasures the most. It is the practical way to give meaning to our belief that everybody matters and everyone makes a contribution.

But jobs and opportunities do not fall from the sky. We have to make them happen. Good jobs are created by talented people. But the best of our talents are mobile. If there are no opportunities here, they will seek opportunities elsewhere. And if they go, who will be left to create the opportunities in Singapore?

So it is a circular cost and effect. If we get it wrong, it will be a downward spiral. But if we get it right, then we can create good jobs in Singapore. Our talented people will stay and they will create even better jobs.

To get it right, we must be able to keep pace with the rest of the world as it races along. We cannot do this alone. As a small country, we will always have the problem of not having enough people to go around in every sector of the economy. From biochemists to bankers - we simply do not have the critical mass to be self-sustaining.

Mr Chuang Shaw Peng pointed out earlier this afternoon that even in America, with 260 million people, they are self-sustaining in talent. If we go to the Silicon Valley or the Boston Belt, we will find that not every talent there is made in America, but they come from all four corners of the world.

So to succeed, we must maintain a porous border which allows talent to flow freely in. Yes, they will come to tap the opportunities which we offer. But in that process, they will create even more opportunities for all Singaporeans.

I am glad that from the newspaper reports, TV shows and radio phone-ins, most Singaporeans support this policy of attracting foreign talents. This House has also debated this issue in the past, and I am glad to see that we are all of one mind on this issue. But there are still many Singaporeans who still have doubts on how we should go about doing this. We must lay these doubts to rest so that we can get on with the task of building our society.

Some doubt whether the people who come to Singapore are real talents. Others question whether there is fair play, if PRs do not have to do national service. Such doubts are not unexpected. Fairness is important. We opened up this subject perhaps at the worst possible time when we are in the midst of an economic crisis and rising unemployment. So we can well understand the emotions which welled up and the personal interest that participants took in the subject matter.

But it would be wrong to let our emotions overplay such doubts. There are controls and safeguards in place through our employment permit system. And we must recognise that market forces will always check potential abuses. Private employers will not hire people who have no talent and who create no value. For them, the issue is not foreign or local, but who can do the job, and who can create more value for the price paid? The best man or woman gets the job.

When I did a radio phone-in session a couple of weeks ago, a lady called up. She said she was a hairdresser and she was being pushed out of the market by cheap imports from neighbouring countries. Sir, I have been to the same hairdresser for the last eight years. I have never quarrelled with her over the price she charges me and, in fact, I often tip her. She knows every bristle on my head. She knows exactly how I want it cut and she will stay late, if I am running late that particular day, just to cut my hair. She gives me service and she beats out all the foreign competition. This is the way we must move ahead.

Sir, on the common misconception that PRs are not required to do national service, this is not so. Yes, for practical reasons, first generation PRs are often exempted from NS, mostly because of their age, and the impracticality of training them together with 18 year olds. It is a bit hard for a 40-year old, a bit heavy in the middle to keep up with the younger ones. But their male children, the second generation PRs are not exempt.

A final protest against foreign talent is that immigrants make us work harder. They are the cause of our lost dream. The better life we thought we would enjoy at the turn of the century seems to have faded away. We cannot relax, we cannot enjoy life.

Sir, these feelings may be real, but the logic is false. Immigrants are not the reason why we have to work hard. It is the global economy. We compete, or we fall away. But our dream is not dead. We can still find fulfilment and satisfaction in life, if we work hard, if we work smart, and we broaden the definition of success.

In the end, blaming our problems on others would not solve it. If we lose out on a promotion, is it because the other chap is foreign, or because he is better? Competition cannot be avoided. It is better that they are here to compete with us than somewhere else competing against us. It is better that they are here to help us build new capability.

Sir, the basis of competition has changed. There is a powerful new trend which we must recognise. And to see this, we need to go back a chapter in our history. In the 60s, many newly independent countries had a sense of new found pride and nationalism. Thinking that they had come of age, they raised tariff barriers and locked out the foreign investors. They thought by doing so, they would protect the infant industries. The result was that they lost out on investments and their growth was slow.

Singapore did the reverse. We removed all barriers and we even gave incentives for foreign investors to put their money here in Singapore. At that time, we were called names. I remember as a young student in Australia, and this was already into the early 70s, receiving pamphlets saying that the Singapore Government was exploiting its people, that we were selling out to the big businesses and that we were prostituting the people of Singapore. They called us stooges, lackeys, all kinds of names. But the result was growth and prosperity for Singaporeans and for Singapore companies. Our local companies today, local successes like Serial Systems, JIT Electronics, YCH, would not be around today without the MNCs, without IBM, without Motorola, without DuPont, without these large companies creating the baseload for their enterprise to flourish. But those countries which shut out MNCs lost out.

Today, the same pattern is repeating itself. Only this time, the issue is not investments but talent. Some countries are shutting their doors to talents, thinking that this is a better way to protect the jobs of their citizens. They are wrong. We must not fall into this trap. We continue to attract MNCs to Singapore today because they can bring the needed talents to create new activities in Singapore. If we shut out their talents, their ability to hire the right people, they would go elsewhere and we would lose out a whole generation of growth. That is something that we might never survive.

The truth for Singapore is that we must always compete to succeed and compete we can. We heard on May Day from Mr Lim Boon Heng that BERI and other rating agencies have rated us the best labour force in the world, the best for the last 19 years. Our economy is rated as the second most competitive. Our management talents are much sought after. Our kids outperform kids from developed countries. We have good people and a good foundation from which to move on. Only we must never tire of learning.

Our Subject Committee made several recommendations on life-long learning which we hope will bear fruit. I am happy to note that MOM is working out a Manpower 21 plan which will bring life-long learning to life. I think we can trust MOM to look after us. But it takes more than just MOM and the Government to bring about life-long learning. After all, Singapore 21 is about everybody acting on what he believes. For example, employers play a part. They must focus on building strong companies, and not just on raising stock prices. One practical way to do this is by continually upgrading the skills of their staff.

Families can play a part too. For re-training is often difficult for older workers, family members can provide encouragement and emotional support for other members who are struggling to learn new skills. But in the final analysis, it is the individual himself who must want to learn. We cannot force people to learn just as we cannot force parents to send their children to school. The Government can provide funds and facilities. But ultimately, it is up to Singaporeans whether they have the right attitude towards learning and towards competing.

If we truly believe that our future lies in making Singapore a centre of opportunities for all, then we must have the courage and the resolve to act on this conviction and welcome foreign talents, with a Singapore 21 attitude - an open mind and a big heart. For after all, we ourselves are a nation of immigrants. Take away the foreigners and new citizens in Singapore today, and you will immediately stunt our growth. Take away Singaporeans of one generation ago, those of us who have one parent at least who was born overseas, and I would not be standing here speaking to you today. Take away two generations and a third of our civil service might well disappear. Take away three generations and the first Cabinet would have only comprised Senior Minister Lee and one other Minister. We would have had no Singapore.

Singapore in the 20th century has earned itself the reputation of being a miracle economy. In the 21st century, our hope is that we, an immigrant people who have made Singapore our home, will earn the reputation of being a distinctive people, one who are united in our quest to make a nation out of a country. And it is towards that hope that I support this motion.

Mr Bernard Chen (West Coast): Sir, the publication of Singapore 21 - Together, We Make the Difference is very timely as we are only seven months from the new millennium. The book spells out the ways we need to follow to achieve this vision. Every one of us has a key role to play and we can succeed only if all of us continue to work together. I would like to direct my remarks to the Singapore Heartbeat and share with Members of the House a bit of my own experience. In doing so, I hope to pinpoint the essentials required to keep the Singapore Heart beating.

I was born in China at the onset of the Second World War. My parents brought us to India where we stayed for four years. After the war, we returned to Hong Kong, my father's birthplace. In those days, Hong Kong was rebuilding itself from the ravages of war. There were opportunities. There were also difficulties. In 1955, my father was retrenched. He decided to come to Singapore to find a job and managed to get one in an insurance company. The family, comprising my mother and four sons, came over a year later. I was also a foreigner. I am not too sure whether I have got the talent, but I was a foreigner.

Singapore in the mid-1950s was a turbulent place. Strikes and worker clashes occurred almost daily. The racial harmony that we see today was not in place. The education system, torn between English and Chinese, was in turmoil. The economy was not doing well and living standards were low. I still remember that during the first two months of our arrival, the Singapore Traction Company (STC) was on strike. My brother, Kenneth and I, have to wait almost two hours to catch a bus operated by Hock Lee Bus Company to school (St Anthony Boys' School) and back home in MacPherson every day. Somehow, we pulled through the 50s and early 60s, despite the trauma of self-governing, communist confrontation, racial riots, the merger with Malaysia and the subsequent separation in 1965. Things began to pick up in the late 60s. The past 30 years saw the making of Singapore into a prosperous city state, with a multi-racial and multi-religious backdrop, in which all of us live in harmony, each one contributing in his or her own special way to nation-building.

I used to wonder what was on my father's mind during these turbulent times as he grappled with making a living to support the family. In his own time, he had travelled worldwide and stayed in many places. Why did he finally choose Singapore, despite the uncertain and difficult conditions then? Why did he not move on to greener pastures as many have done? It could not be that he became rich, because he did not own his first apartment until he was well into his 60s. He had many alternatives, yet he opted for Singapore. In a few years before his death in 1976, in reflecting on his life, he told us his reasons for doing so. First and foremost, he found that he belonged. At long last, he could say that he had a home which he could call his own. A home is where you have a family, living happily together. You have relatives and friends who you can turn to in times of happiness which you share and when in difficulties, you can help each other out. Although life was difficult and there were plenty of challenges, the support given by the family and friends was crucial for him to shape the sense of belonging.

My father never longed for what he did not have. Rather, he took great satisfaction in what he had and he treasured them and shared generously with his family. Above all, he was grateful that his family benefited from an increasingly prosperous Singapore, which offered both security and better well-being. All his children and grandchildren in Singapore are in one way or another beneficiaries. For myself, I have benefited greatly from Singapore as I have all my secondary and tertiary education paid for by way of bursaries and scholarships. Like the Prime Minister too, I was offered a PhD Fellowship from the university in Canada where I studied, but the PSC also called me back to serve. I must say that I am glad that I came back. My father died a happy and contented man.

Singapore's landscape has changed beyond recognition in the 23 years since his death. Our economy has prospered and with it much higher standard of living. However, some fundamentals remain unchanged over these years. We are still a small country, despite the reclamation of more land. We remain a multi-racial and multi-religious society. As the population grows, we find that we are getting more crowded and getting into one another's way more often. As we look beyond our shores to expand our economy and seek regional and global markets, we have become more exposed to foreign influences, not only in terms of economics but, more importantly, the different cultures and values that such exposures brought along. In fact, nation-building, as the Prime Minister has said, which was already difficult in the 60s and 70s, has become more complex and challenging as we move into the next millennium. We have to reckon with the domestic forces at work, resolve the conflicts and overcome the constraints, at the same time, taking into account the external influences that affect our decisions and choices. One thing is certain, our job of nation-building is getting tougher.

As I reflect on my father's words and his deeds and reading Singapore 21, I could see some parallels. First, the family is the foundation and an essential unit in nation-building. It is a reflection of the society at large. Without cohesive and harmonious families, no nation will last long. On the other hand, strong families will go towards strengthening the nation especially in times of need. The successful formula to a happy family is love and respect among the members. There has to be a large dose of give and take, and every willingness to work together for the common good. It is no different for society or country, except that it is even more necessary to recognise the characters of a multi-racial and multi-religious society. We have to be more tolerant to each other's ethnic background, and respect each other's beliefs.

I was often asked by overseas visitors how all the races in Singapore could stay so happily together. I have to tell them that we have to work hard at it. Racial and religious harmony does not come automatically. In fact, sometimes they do not even come naturally. We have to go out of our way to make it work and make sure that it continues to do so for a long, long time to come.

Second, there must be equal opportunities for everyone in Singapore, regardless of race, language or religion. Only in this way can we inculcate the commitment and sense of belonging to the country we all call our home. Every Singaporean will then be allowed to strive to reach his or her maximum potential. Not all of us could achieve the same success in life, as we are all made differently. But all of us should in time achieve the same level of commitment to our society, to our country, whatever position we may be holding in life.

Singapore 21 states emphatically that every Singaporean matters. I would add that every Singaporean matters, no matter what success he can achieve as long as he has given of his best.

Third, we must play our part as citizens of Singapore actively. It is not enough to confine our attention to our immediate family. Our friends and neighbours deserve our attention, especially in times of trouble. We may need them when our turn comes. It is only by overcoming troubles together that we can appreciate what we mean to one another. In doing so, the bonds between all of us will strengthen with time and we will be ready to face new challenges together. In a city state where we live in close proximity with one another, the need to look after our neighbours becomes even greater. The Residents' Committees, the Town Councils and the Community Development Councils are all vehicles to enable us to reach out to our fellow citizens, building up a lasting friendship and be ready to come to one another's aid in time of need.

My father was too busy making a living for the family to contribute some of his time to society. I guess he would have been pleased to know that two of his sons became Members of Parliament after his death, and make up in a small way what he did not do.

Commitment and belonging cannot be lectured into our hearts and minds. Rather we must develop them from within. Singapore 21, therefore, must not be just a campaign like the many campaigns that we have come across. It is a soul-searching process involving the examination of the fundamentals we hold as Singaporeans. We must open ourselves to the emotive and spiritual dimensions in arriving at our own decisions. We must be able to transcend the materialistic objectives and look at where our hearts take us. We should not bemoan what we do not have, but treasure what we have already got. The quality of life ultimately depends not only on material well being but, more important, emotional and spiritual fulfilment. Ultimately, citizenship is not just a passport to vote and avail ourselves to the benefits. More important, it signifies where we belong. Once we establish this belonging, the commitment to work and fight for one's country will come naturally.

The development of this sense of belonging and commitment can take a lifetime, as one goes through the experience of trial and error. For younger citizens who have yet to go through this experience, my advice is to open your hearts and minds, and ask the fundamental questions which have been posed in Singapore 21. Consult those who have gone through life, especially your parents and your older friends and relatives. You may be able to shorten your learning curve. Remember that the grass may look greener on the other side of the fence, but usually it turns out not to be so. Many of our younger Singaporeans lament that they do not have the time and space to do their own things, and think that they can do better in other countries, including owning big houses and driving big cars that do not cost an arm and a leg.

These things may be important for a while but, ultimately, one must go back to the fundamentals of home and country. As my father did 40 years ago, he chose Singapore for him and his family. He had no regrets. Those of us in the family who followed him have no regrets either. Ultimately, the Singapore heartbeat is for all Singaporeans to maintain and strengthen. To my fellow Singaporeans, young and old, only you can make the final choice.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after listening to Mr Bernard Chen's moving speech, I think there can hardly be any doubt that the Singapore heartbeat is one which is tangible and not merely a nice catch phrase nor a platitude.

When one attends National Day Parades and we see the tens of thousands of Singaporeans in their jubilant elation and the celebration of our national birthday, the sense of pride in the country and its achievements, when we hear everybody in the stadium reciting the National Pledge and saying "We the Citizens of Singapore", or when we see everyone standing to attention when the National Anthem is played, we all know that something stirs in our emotions, and that sense of emotion and that sense of attachment are not merely a passing phase, an emotion of the time, but that it is something real, something tangible. In other words, the Singapore heartbeat is not, as Mr J B Jeyaretnam said, a platitude, but I believe that it is a real emotion, a patriotism, a loyalty, to this country which we call home.

When I am in an airplane flying back to Singapore, especially after a long trip abroad, and when I see the first buildings, when I see the greenery of Singapore, when I see the port, the ships, I cannot help but feel a sense of familiarity, a sense of comfort, a sense that I am coming home. The Singapore heartbeat is all of these emotions, but it is also more. It is based on an understanding that Singaporeans are distinctive as a people, that the Singapore culture is unique, evolving, and that we have a distinctive national identity.

I feel this most when I travel abroad, because it is very obvious that I do not speak with an English neither an American accent. And particularly when I lapse into the lah of Singlish in private conversation, my nationality is given away immediately. One can spot a Singaporean a mile off whenever he or she opens his or her mouth, because of our accent. Similarly, I do not speak Mandarin the way the PRC Chinese or the Taiwanese do. I speak Mandarin not very well perhaps, but I do speak some Mandarin in a way in which Singaporeans do, with a very unique Singapore accent.

It is not just the accent. It is not just the chicken rice nor the laksa. But the very ideals and ethos of a Singapore that believes in meritocracy, in multi-racialism, in a clean government and efficiency are as much part and parcel of the Singapore identity, and I believe very much part and parcel of what we are, those of us who have grown up in Singapore. All this is part of the Singapore heartbeat.

But if all this is already happening, then the question is: why the emphasis on the Singapore heartbeat and the Singapore 21 vision for the 21st century? If it exists already, then why this continued focus? For two reasons: first, we cannot take it for granted that the heartbeat will grow stronger and, in fact, globalisation could cause the heartbeat to grow weaker and not stronger. Second, there needs to be a nurturing of the heartbeat, for it is not as strong and steady now as we would like it to be. Listening to the Prime Minister this afternoon, we realise that there are still cleavages in our society that we need to work at, and that we need to build on, for, as he has said, we may be a country, but we are not yet a nation.

In 1989 to 1990, I spent one and a half very happy years in Vancouver. It was there that I learnt how to golf and ski. The ski slopes were just 45 minutes away from my house. And during the winter and spring seasons, the first thing I would do when I woke up would be to look out of the window at the ski slopes, check out the weather and if fine, load the skis on my car, take a quick breakfast, and I would be at the ski slopes in 45 minutes. Needless to say, it is not that easy to ski in Singapore!

In the summer in Vancouver, I went fishing, I went hiking. The mountains around Vancouver are glorious, and so are the golf courses. My husband and I seriously contemplated staying in Vancouver, and we actually went around looking for property, but eventually we came back. It was not an easy decision to come back, because life was good in Vancouver. There was not the kind of stress that there is in Singapore. So why did we return? Because it was only in Singapore that we felt that we could really contribute to society as equals, and not as second-class citizens. We felt that we were Asians and we wanted to be in Asia where the opportunities are.

Similarly, I have relatives in Shanghai, cousins of about my age. And I often wonder whether it is merely an accident of history that I was born in Singapore with the opportunities which I have, which they do not have, for each of my three cousins spent many years in the villages, in the farms, having a very hard life working on the farms. Two of them did not have the privilege of going to the university simply because of the time in which they were born, about the same time as I was born.

What is the difference? The difference is that I was born in Singapore, and being in Singapore, I had the opportunity to go to school, to go to the university and hence on, to do what I am doing now. And that is the reason why we came back. It is because, in Singapore, this is our home, we can contribute in this country in a way which is very difficult to do elsewhere. It is here, I think, as Mr Bernard Chen mentioned, that we have had the opportunity, and for those of us here in this House, to be educated and to do what we have done and to be where we are now.

But although we feel this way, we cannot be sure that succeeding generations of Singaporeans will feel exactly the same. There is definitely a generational difference. For those who are highly skilled, highly mobile, the world is their oyster. Why should they return to Singapore? And that is the question that I think many young Singaporeans are asking themselves today, particularly those who have gone abroad to study. Why should they return to Singapore?

In the S21 vision, we recognise that there will indeed be many more Singaporeans who will go abroad either to work or to study. And this is not only inevitable, in fact, it is desirable because of the fact that Singapore must internationalise in order to continue to prosper, if Singapore companies must go abroad in order to be able to expand and to compete. Therefore, the Singapore community in future will comprise not just the Singaporeans here but also the Singaporeans who are abroad. And we want the Singaporean community to be inclusive and not exclusive, to recognise that there will be many more Singaporeans who will be living and working abroad.

But what is the difference? The difference is that in our vision, Singaporeans, no matter where they are in the world, should have an emotional rootedness to Singapore, that they consider Singapore as home, and that there is a loyalty and attachment to Singapore that will remain with them no matter how long they have lived or worked abroad, and because of this attachment, that they will want to contribute to Singapore in some tangible way. They could be working for a Singapore company overseas. They could be working for a company that is doing business in Singapore. Or they could simply be helping to promote goodwill for Singapore. Whatever it is, it is this issue of the emotional rootedness to Singapore that we are concerned about and we want to realise in the S21 Vision.

How do we nurture the Singapore heartbeat, so that it grows strong and steady? The Singapore 21 report contains a number of recommendations such as consciously preserving landmarks and buildings that serve as emotional anchors. It talks about developing national icons. It talks about fostering a stronger sense of national identity. The PM mentioned the need to continue to build bridges among the races. What I would like to add here is that there is one more bridge that we need to consciously build, and that is the bridge between the public, private and people sectors. The title of the report is "Together, We Make The Difference". S21 is about the "we", it is about community, it is about bonding as a society. But unless we are careful, this one cleavage between the public and the people sectors in particular can hinder the achievement of the S21 Vision.

It saddens me when I come across civil servants who consider NGOs and other groups in the people sector as an unruly, disorganised mass. Likewise, it also saddens me when I come across people in civil society who are cynical about Government initiatives and projects, who are cynical about the S21 report as yet another Government report and that it does not signal any real change. In other words, there still exists a mistrust between the public sector on the one hand and the people sector on the other. This gap needs to be bridged, and we do need a mindset change.

The Singapore heartbeat is not about many hearts beating in dissonance, each to its own rhythm. It is not about the public sector doing its own thing; the private sector doing its own thing; the people sector doing its own thing. Rather it is about many hearts beating in resonance with one another. Each sector has its own strengths and its own weaknesses. We need to support one another, build one another up, and not criticise and tear down.

Cannot Government replies, regardless of whether they are in the Forum page or otherwise, be polite and civil? Cannot the Government acknowledge good ideas which came from the people sector and not from themselves? And cannot the people sector forget the Catherine Lim affair, treat it as an incident of the past, and let us together begin a new page of partnership?

I would urge the public sector as a start to give its response to the recommendations in the S21 report and to make these responses public. In fact, to go one step further, publish responses to the recommendations in the subject committee deliberations, so that all the efforts of the subject committees themselves do not just disappear into a black hole. For the people sector, I would say, be involved, be engaged in at least one activity, people sector activity, regardless of whether it is charity or it is a group such as preserving the environment.

The essence of the Singapore heartbeat is about caring - that we care for our families, that we care for our community and that we care for our country - this island that we call our home. This caring, which is so much a part of the Singapore heartbeat, is the very essence of the vision that we hope will be realised in 21st century Singapore.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of Minister RAdm Teo Chee Hean.

Sir, looking at the glossy cover of the book "Singapore 21, Together We Make The Difference", it reminded me of two things.

First, the confident and somewhat smiling faces of the kids, our future, looking out of the jigsaw window of a complex and global environment, reminds me of what Senior Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew asked some time back - whether there will still be Singapore 100 years hence. I also wondered what Senior Minister will have to say about vision Singapore 21. We know that on two occasions when Senior Minister was asked about his experience with multi-racialism and nation building, he choked, almost to tears. SM Lee's experience then must have been very heartwrenching. PM Goh has just shared his piece of mind with us and I totally share those sentiments.

To my humble mind, what is embodied in "Singapore 21, Together We Make The Difference" speaks volumes of the same concerns PM Goh and SM Lee have for Singapore's future. Personally, I am confident that we will be able to make the difference, and make a success of what Singapore stands for, not only for those children's generation but that of their children's too, stretching more than 100 years.

But before I sound over confident or even rhetorical, allow me to remind ourselves that all is not perfect, as things normally are. There may be many trials, and even tribulations, if we do not know how to manage the challenges that await us.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure Members will remember Singapore is not short of vision. Neither were we short of challenges. Remember the Battle for Merger, the fight against communism and communalism? Remember our "Survival" days? Remember The Next Lap and Vision 1999? All in all, we have shown that our vision statements were not mere dreams. We have also one by one overcome those challenges. We have been pragmatists, pragmatic idealists, if you like. But we also realise that the challenge of nation building is more than a marathon. In the words of PM Goh, unending.

PM Goh has also sounded a note of caution, a dose of realism, in this debate. I think it is most timely.

Do we not see the subtle hint of those possible 'blues' in the cover of the book? After all, as Minister Teo Chee Hean said in his opening remarks yesterday, I quote, "for those who think that conflict is a thing of the past, one need only to think of Kosovo .". And if I may add, the gory picture of an Indonesian Dayak (or was it a Malay?) carrying the dismembered head of a Madurese will remain vivid in our memory to remind us that the ugly head of ethnicity is still lurking around, even in these days of cyber technology and KBE.

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I too went through the riots of 1964 coming face to face with bloody racial violence. I was in Secondary 3 then and I will never forget those senseless scenes. It was at Victoria Street near where the Lavender MRT station now is that I saw Malays or Malay-looking youths being maimed and perhaps even killed, with bicycle chains, iron rods and acid bulbs. And at the end of that longest journey home for me to Geylang and Joo Chiat, I saw Malays hitting innocent Chinese, particularly a trishaw rider, with blood streaming down his swollen face.

From that day onwards, for my sake and that of my children, and generations to come, I swore to do my utmost to make sure racial riots and violence do not return to Singapore.

Nation building is never easy, especially for a state whose population is as diverse as that of Singapore. However, I believe that it is those kinds of challenges that will bond us together further, if we are united in our sense of purpose and direction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the title "Make the Difference" also reminds me of another sense of mission, that of the Malay self-help group, MENDAKI, in fact the Malay community called "Making the Difference" (showed cover of the MENDAKI book).

No, the Malays are not making a claim of copyright. Minister Teo Chee Hean should be reassured that they are instead most happy to share that symphony of purpose. For sure, we share a common destiny. After all, the slogan "Making the Difference" also emanates from Prime Minister Goh's National Day Rally speech earlier this decade.

Whether the Malay community or Singapore 21, the rallying point is similar. The message is clear: Let us get our act together to make a success of our `Singapore Uno'. Together, as a more cohesive, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious Singapore, we have to tackle the challenges of the next century and the next millennium head on.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today, at the 2000 year old Great Wall of China, is a Millennium Countdown Clock which calls on its people to "seize the moment . build the motherland".

I feel the same sentiment about preserving and enhancing our island state Singapore when reading the Singapore 21 book.

Although the Singapore 21 Committee chose not to call it a blueprint, the possible `blues' notwithstanding, I agree that the ideas around the five pillars of Singapore 21 will serve as an important compass to navigate our future.

The "broad strokes" of "every Singaporean matters, strong families, opportunities for all, the Singaporean heartbeat and active citizens" all add up to the sense of unity in diversity.

This also reminds me of the broad strokes of calligraphy given to me by the renowned Pan Shou called: He Xie or Harmony.

However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is not to say that there are no shades of differences or problems here. For example, the debate over SAP schools, after over 10 years in existence, still lingers. So with the question of Malays in the army. Or, recently, the unhappiness felt particularly by the minorities about racial discrimination in employment.

I have no problem with the official clarification given over such issues. I understand the need for SAP schools but feel reassured that more will be done to ensure that the SAP students are not isolated in their understanding and appreciation of the importance of multi-racialism.

Similarly with the Malays in the SAF, I welcome the statement made by DPM Dr Tony Tan reassuring us that the SAF will not allow anyone to be discriminated because of race. The NTUC resolution on May Day last week against any form of discrimination in employment is also timely.

However, there will still be the need to continue to monitor such issues so as not to allow them to divide us Singaporeans. Even policies that impinge on multi-racialism, including those on racial integration in HDB estates, school enrolment, multi-racial representation in grassroots organisations, need regular revisits either for fine-tuning or revision so as to facilitate better cohesion in our multi-racial society.

Finally, Sir, multi-racialism is too important a pillar for us to take for granted. It is critical that we ensure that multi-racialism prevails and be strengthened from time to time. It is an unending process. It is a heartwarming part of the Singapore heartbeat.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the motion on the Singapore 21 Vision.

Sir, I support the motion and feel fortunate that I have been involved in the S21 process for the last 18 months. Our last 30 years of nation building has been largely successful because of the style of governance we have had during those years, where the Government played a dominant role and many decisions being top down driven. The style of governance was necessary because of the political and social environment of those times.

Looking ahead, the governance of Singapore is going to be much more complex than before because of a number of reasons. Firstly, we are heading towards a knowledge based economy but the complexity is not because of the content of such an economy, but rather how we must be organised to participate in it. Second, the world is becoming increasingly borderless and many of our people will be able to choose to live and work in most of the appealing parts of the world. Similarly, many foreigners will be living and working in Singapore, thus influencing the behaviour of Singaporeans. Third, our people are more educated today, well travelled and more exposed to the cultures, values and systems of other worlds. They will be able to and will want to play an increasingly important role in how the country is run. Fourth, as we progress, the needs of people become more sophisticated and as we clearly know, basic needs like food, shelter and job having been fulfilled will give way to higher level needs like self-esteem, individual rights and spirituality.

Sir, managing the affairs of the country in the future will therefore become a more difficult job because the focus of governance will become much wider compared to the last 30 years. This is because new issues have to be addressed if we really want to make Singapore the best home for everyone.

Our past system of relying on a few good men alone will not work well. We will need many more minds to come together to offer solutions. Our formula of over dependence on the Government was acceptable in the past because both the Government and the people were comfortable with this arrangement. Today, both the people and the Government need to accept that their roles will have to change and both must find a happy balance of the formula that will work in the future. Major mindset changes need to take place first. The Government needs to let go while Singaporeans need to take more interest to do more. This must be a joint responsibility of the public, private and the people sectors.

Sir, my subject committee studied the issue of "Singapore as a Home" thoroughly and the reason is, as Singaporeans internationalise, there will be increasing pressures on them to make choices as to where they would live, work and raise their families. We felt that if we wanted Singaporeans to call Singapore their home, a number of conditions in our country must prevail first. The most important of these is that each Singaporean must feel that he or she has a stake in the country and as a stakeholder, there must be a sense of ownership of what goes on here. For this sense of ownership to prevail, everyone must participate in the running of the country. If every Singaporean makes it his or her responsibility to contribute constructive ideas and solutions and be willing to be accountable for the outcome, then I believe we will be successful in bringing Singapore to a higher level of progress in the future.

Sir, I therefore feel that this sense of ownership and being a stakeholder is the most important prerequisite if we are serious about realising the Singapore 21 Vision. We, as citizens, must have a buy-in to the vision. This does not belong just to the Government, not to the public sector alone, but to all of us. If we cannot achieve this sense of ownership, then I am afraid we will fail in developing this notion of Singapore as our Best Home and we will not get closer to realising our vision.

Sir, our subject committee, very early in the process, identified the concept of emotional rootedness, as Dr Lee Tsao Yuan mentioned earlier on, as being the most important approach of developing the type of attachment that we want for Singaporeans. Physical rootedness of being physically present in Singapore alone is not enough. No matter where one's physical location is, one's sense of belonging, emotional attachment and loyalty should be to Singapore. Emotional rootedness refers to the degree of psychological commitment to the country. A high degree of emotional rootedness suggests a passionate and intense sense of belonging, commitment and loyalty to the country.

As Singapore globalises, a larger proportion of our talented people who are highly mobile will grow. The danger is that their physical absence from Singapore might reduce the emotional commitment to the country and may result in a higher rate of emigration. The solution therefore is to encourage a high degree of emotional rootedness so that Singapore will always have a special place in one's heart, as a home. It is only then that we can achieve the Singapore heartbeat that we have talked about.

Sir, in developing the goal of the Singapore Heartbeat with the vision of Singapore as a Home, our committee focused on how we could strengthen the emotional rootednesss of Singaporeans and we realised that there are many factors involved in creating the sense of belonging.

The best home must provide the best hope for its people. There must be confidence and not fear of the future. Singapore should offer a good quality of life, not just for those who we traditionally classify as being successful, but also to all citizens. No matter what one's race, religion or background is, there must be harmony, unity of purpose and a transcending sense of national identity. These common attitudes and attributes will uniquely identify the Singaporean community of the future.

People of all races must make special efforts to learn of the beliefs and peculiarities of each other's practices and ways of life. They must make it a personal responsibility to be aware of the sensitivities and to promote a spirit of tolerance and understanding.

Sir, in this respect, I would like to touch on a few of the recommendations that our subject committee made. Firstly, on encouraging the community spirit to blossom through more bottom-up initiatives. Sir, we have many grassroots organisations, the main ones being Government or PA-driven. They have been very successful in serving the needs of citizens, particularly those living in the HDB estates, through organisations like the Residents' Committees. The Community Development Councils are also starting to be very effective in promoting community bonding. There are also many other non-Government linked volunteer organisations like the Lions Club, the Buddhist Lodge and many others who have played a very important role in promoting community bonding. Our committee, however, felt that the participation rate of Singaporeans in such organisations and in performing community service is far too low. In fact, a survey that was conducted by the S21 Committee also showed this.

More encouragement and latitude should be given to people wanting to organise themselves in community service activities. We hope to see more community activities and civic organisations through bottom-up initiatives with people with a common interest getting together spontaneously, rather than being asked to do so. These will complement the many existing organisations that we already have. These organisations should not be Government-driven and the people sector must take the responsibility for forming such organisations to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

Secondly, everyone is important and we must broaden the definition of meritocracy and success. Sir, the practice of meritocracy has served us well in the past. It has enabled the best and the brightest to rise through the system, irregardless of race, family backdrop or gender. However, the system may no longer work as we move towards a different type of environment where being academically smart alone is not enough. Sir, for us to succeed in the future, we feel that the current definition of meritocracy is too narrow, focusing only on academic and economic excellence. This definition and the practice of meritocracy and the way we define success along the same lines does not allow every Singaporean to develop to his or her full potential. If we look back in history, the best leaders in the world are not all scholars. On the contrary, many did not have straight `As' or impressive paper qualification. A true leader possesses many qualities consisting of both IQ and EQ factors and I feel that it is about time we modified our practice of meritocracy to include the new EQ measures, which I can agree, are difficult to measure. But this needs to be done. Our current scholar system which was set in place many years ago needs to change so that we will be able to select leaders of diverse backgrounds and not those of the same mould to lead the country. We have to move away from stereotype role models and include both non-scholars as well as those who have talents other than being able to score well in examinations as examples of successful Singaporeans whom we value.

Sir, every Singaporean has a role to play and as long as everyone tries to achieve his or her full potential, we should be proud of them. Not everyone will make it to the top, neither can such a society exist because we need people at all levels of society for a country to function. We therefore should respect and give equal opportunities to everyone no matter what they do for a living. It is about time that we practised meritocracy with a heart, appreciating and recognising that every Singaporean is important and must feel as such.

Sir, the third issue that I would like to talk about is one of racial harmony and the Prime Minister has touched about this earlier on. I would like to share with the House some of the issues that came about as we went through our process of getting feedback from the various focus groups. In the early stages of our discussion, I sensed a more in-depth study was needed on this issue, especially from the perspectives of the minority communities. I therefore decided to conduct further focus group discussions with the minority communities. I had a total of three such discussions and I would like to share the findings with this House. And I also feel that we need to discuss these openly and address them if we truly want to achieve excellence in the area of racial harmony. While legislation has been used as one tool to ensure racial harmony in Singapore, I feel that we need to go beyond rules and regulations to ensure that all races interact and live happily with each other so that our fundamentals of a multi-racial and multi-religious society will continue to exist for a long time to come.

Sir, from the minorities' point of view, there are a number of issues. First of all, awareness and sensitivity. If each one of us does not make a special effort to know the sensitivities and peculiarities of each other's way of life, the danger is that we may end up offending others without realising that we have done so. In this respect, there is fear among the minority communities that I spoke to that this lack of awareness is starting to emerge in our society. For example, one issue raised is that while most members of the minority communities understood the need of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, some felt that it is inappropriate for the members of the Chinese community to break into speaking Mandarin when people of other races who do not understand Mandarin are present in group discussions or in a meeting. Many have felt offended, but are not expressing this concern openly. Similarly, not knowing that Muslim's food preference has to be halal could result in a big problem. Sir, a parliamentary colleague of mine thought that I am Tamil speaking. I did not feel offended, but rather amused at the lack of awareness and understanding of who I am after so many years of multi-racial society. If this trend continues, we may see an erosion of the values that we have put in place for a multi-racial society and this needs to be addressed.

The second issue that came out during the discussion with the minority communities was the SAP school that has been much debated before. The issue is not that the minority communities do not support the concept of SAP school. But the worry is that the future leaders of our country would have gone through a system of education without having much interaction with people of the non-Chinese race. These same people would then be responsible for making policies that affect other races. How can they be conversant of the sensitivities of each of the minority races if they never had a real experience of mixing with them?

The issue is not whether SAP schools are necessary. But with SAP schools present, how can we resolve this issue of not being aware and hence potentially making mistakes affecting sensitive racial issues in the future? Our subject committee recommends that the twinning of SAP and non-SAP schools be done as a solution. Perhaps, all ECAs should be done at a twinning level if we want to ensure true interaction. Substantial interaction needs to happen throughout the year if we want to make a real difference. Doing it once or twice a year during multi-racial day is not enough.

Sir, the third issue that came up was the effect of the ethnic based self-help groups. Whilst the objectives are good, they have resulted in less help across ethnic and racial lines. In fact, the current practice creates a real danger of the various races being alienated from one another. Sir, I feel that when I grew up, there was much more inter-racial interaction and we did not highlight the differences among the various races and therefore our inter-racial bonding was strengthened. Today, our children are growing up with a greater awareness of the differences because of the way we organise, either in schools, for example, in SAP schools or in certain schools where students studying the same mother tongue are put in the same class, or through the various self-help groups. Our subject committee has suggested that we promote more inter-racial interaction by having an umbrella body for all self-help groups, so that the various races can contribute towards each other's efforts. We all need to think and see ourselves as Singaporeans first.

The fourth issue that came out is the practice of meritocracy. One unintended impact of our practice of meritocracy, which I must admit, is a transparent system and applies equally to all races. It is because the members of the minority races, the Malays, Indians and Eurasians, do not perform as well as the Chinese in the academic measures of examinations, they end up not being selected as scholars or to key positions in Government, because of the way we practise meritocracy by academic excellence alone. While the long-term solution has been correctly identified as one of uplifting the academic performances of the minority races, which the self-help groups are trying to do, I believe if we can change the way we measure success and practise meritocracy to include non-academic measures, this unintended effect can be easily resolved.

The next issue that I want to discuss, and this affects not only the minority communities, was brought up during our other focus group discussions, and that is our education system. Many Members have spoken about the competitive and stressful education system. That, I must agree, has served us well in the past. Our system of education, however, needs to be fine-tuned to remove those elements that are not tolerant to failures and are not forgiving to those who are late developers. I am referring to the early streaming in our schools and the subsequent streaming throughout the system which I feel will result in a class society in Singapore in the long-term, if we are not careful.

While the intent of streaming was to segregate students into various capability levels and let each group develop at its own pace, I feel that in implementing, the educators, the parents and the society have created a system where emphasis is placed on making the good better, and with the best resources being used so that they will continue to improve and score well and the school's performance will improve. We treat those who are streamed into EM3 and into the Normal (Technical) stream as failures too early in the lives of our children. In my opinion, we have yet to see this class society developing in Singapore because this will only happen when the children who went through this system become parents and have children of their own. And I see real danger of this happening in the future if we do not put in efforts to change the system that we have.

I would like to share with the House two real examples that I came across. One was during the focus group discussion that I had with one of the minority groups. A young man aged mid-30s, told me that he was streamed into EM3, and then into Normal (Technical) stream and he later went to ITE. He told me that he felt very frustrated that he was treated as a failure and as an outcast and he felt very angry with the system. He even contemplated suicide at one stage of his life. Because of his frustration, he felt that he had no place in the system in Singapore. However, fortunately, he self-motivated himself and wanted to prove to everyone that he is not a failure, and that the system was wrong in classifying him as one. Today, he holds a Masters degree and he is doing well in life. He is still bitter with the education system and fears for his children if they have to go through what he went through.

In another incident, during one of my meet-the-people sessions, the parents of a 9-year old boy came to see me and they sought my help to appeal for their son to be transferred from EM3 to EM2 stream, and pleaded with me that if their son remained in the EM3 stream, his life would be destroyed forever. And they made this comment in front of the child. Our system is not forgiving and every one is responsible for this, including our educators, parents and society.

The issue of self-esteem is also a serious one and I have seen this in the faces of those who came from the lower streams. I would like to refer the House to an article which appeared in the Straits Times on 12 July 1998 regarding the Gifted Programme. It reads, "Being Gifted is fine, but what if you are Normal." This article was written by a 20-year old undergraduate who was selected for the Gifted Programme in 1998. Let me quote from the article to illustrate my point on our education system:

"Recently, a friend of mine who taught both the GEP [which is a gifted programme] and the non-GEP students as a relief teacher told me she thought that they were quite different when it came to self-esteem. The GEP students were much more self-assured and spoke up more often in class. Girls in the normal stream were vocal, rowdy but have little self-esteem. However, we want to say it is not true that the practice of streaming and its effect of slapping labels onto students does draw invisible lines that shape our self-confidence or the lack of it."

As we segregate our children in the various streams, they miss out on the opportunity to learn from one another. Putting all the slow learners together is a self-defeating approach. Let me quote from the article again:

"As far as I know, there is not much interaction among the different streams. It is almost an "us against them" sort of mentality sometimes."

Hopefully, allowing the students to work together will let them understand that they are alike in many ways. And this was after this writer made a recommendation that they should be spending a lot more time together rather than separate from one another.

I would also like to highlight that coming from a person who went through the system, and who went through the better part of the system and feels this way about it, speaks volumes about the need to change. Let me quote the writer again:

"But the weeding out procedure of our education system which may be the most efficient is not entirely perfect since it is difficult to measure the potential of an individual. Slow starters or those who do not qualify as gifted in Primary 3 or 6 miss a precious opportunity."

This is the reality of our education system and of how all of us, the schools, the parents and society are treating those who are not academically well-off and late developers. We have to change if we are serious about the notion of "Every Singaporean matters". I am hopeful that the Ministry of Education will look into these issues when they implement the "mass customisation" approach to our education system, which the Minister for Education spoke about during the Budget debate this year.

In conclusion, I would like to add that we have set the stage for changes in the way Singapore should be governed in the future. Many recommendations we have made will require mindset changes among all sectors of society. We must ensure that every one feels they have a useful role to play in the development of Singapore and that they are valued as individuals and as a community. While our past approaches of nation-building have worked, the same approaches cannot ensure continued success in the future. Ultimately, we must all adopt a sense of responsibility and ownership to want to make a difference and the key ingredient that will make this work is the trust that the people, public and the private sectors have in each other. I am confident that we will make the necessary changes because I see a determined PAP leadership who wants to make these changes and who is sincere in sharing this vision that we have defined as a nation.

I am grateful for being given an opportunity to be involved in the S21 process and in helping to define the S21 Vision. I believe that the people are wholeheartedly behind this Vision. The 6,000 or so people we consulted, each represents many more Singaporeans because we consulted leaders from various sectors of society, and together, I strongly believe we have reached out to a significant proportion of Singaporeans in arriving at our Vision.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education.

The report by the Singapore 21 Committee could not have been more timely. As we prepare to face the next millennium, it is right that we should collectively, as a nation, take a step backwards and define what we want for the country in the years ahead. Although Singapore has a relatively short history, we are, nevertheless, a country with our own identity, and well on our way to becoming a nation that all of us, whether we be Indians, Chinese or others, can be proud of.

In the last 30 years, we as a people have gone through many milestones in our collective memory. We can think of us struggling for independence or fighting with the communists, or overcoming the evils of communalism, or struggling with calamities and disasters, such as the Hotel New World collapse, and, most recently, the SilkAir crash of MI185. Whatever these events, we cannot deny that the common experience has got the people closer together, either in common suffering or in common celebration.

Our achievements in the last 30 years have made Singaporeans extremely proud of themselves. A pride that sometimes bordered on arrogance and is seen as such by many outsiders. While arrogance is not an attitude we want to encourage of our people, it nonetheless reflects the pride which our people have for this country. Taken in the right spirit, it is an attitude we want to preserve and build upon so that our foundation as a nation becomes stronger with the passing years.

The vision statement of the Singapore 21 Committee, in all its component parts, must surely lead to the question of strengthening the country as a nation; a nation with an identity that over time would become strong with a heart beating strongly for it. How do we ensure that? How will opportunities be perceived? The Committee has, among other things, argued quite rightly that the Singapore of the 21st century must provide every opportunity for Singaporeans to pursue their personal rainbows, whether it be the arts, sports, entertainment or other areas. Singapore of the future must continue to be a place where opportunities abound and where we can find here, the same optimism as our forefathers did.

In seeking to provide these opportunities, one argument is that we must practise an open door to encourage talented foreigners to come. By bringing in talented foreigners, they will be able to contribute to our continued growth and prosperity, and in the process, help create a thriving city which provides opportunities for all. The logic behind the argument of foreign talent is hard to fault. I am, for one, all in support of us bringing in foreign talent if, in the process, these foreigners can work towards the fulfilment of the Singapore dream. However, while most discussions in recent months centred around the principle of bringing in foreign talent to Singapore, little has been said of the question of who is a foreign talent, and how can foreign talents be introduced to this country without unduly upsetting the present social balance.

Indeed, nobody denies that foreign talents can make a positive contribution to the Singapore economy. If a Nobel prize laureate were to set up home in Singapore, he would indeed qualify as a foreign talent. Alternatively, if Bill Gates decides to migrate to Singapore, he too would qualify as a foreign talent. Realistically, it is unlikely that Singapore would be attractive enough for such people. For them, they are successful and there are very few reasons why they want to pull themselves out and relocate to Singapore.

If we are not talking about people in this class, one would suppose that we are talking about those who are good in their respective fields but who are not necessarily in the top band. Nonetheless, these people may have the skills and expertise to make a contribution to Singapore. If, by definition, foreign talent refers to these people, the question that many Singaporeans have asked is, how can we identify these people as the kind of people with the talents we want. In its common usage in recent months, foreign talent has come to be loosely treated as being synonymous with those who have studied at some respected universities overseas and may have, perhaps, acquired some working experience which may be of relevance to Singapore. Possibly, some of these people may have also acquired some proven track record as well. And so it is that over time we have welcomed into our country many of these people from China and India and elsewhere who possess these qualifications.

Sir, as I have said, I have no objection to foreign talents coming to Singapore to make a contribution. However, one must be very careful in the way in which we collectively understand what foreign talent means. If foreign talent merely means taking on board someone with a post-graduate degree, with some relevant working experience in some ritzy merchant banking house or manufacturing concern, I am not sure if these people would qualify as true talents who can make a positive contribution to our country.

The issue, as some Singaporeans have seen it, is one of acquiring the relevant experience and expertise that Singapore needs to propel the country into the 21st century. If to acquire the experience and expertise would mean going overseas to study and gaining the necessary working experience before returning home as a talent, then we may be sending a different message to our people that it is not good enough to go to our local universities and start their working career here. This could well be an unintended effect of what we want to achieve in the long run, and would put the local graduates in a disadvantaged position, vis-a-vis those who went overseas to study and to work. The irony deepens even further if as a result of his inability to qualify for a university in Singapore, the person chooses to study overseas and make a success of it, acquires the relevant experience and comes back as a talent. We may well ask how different is this person from the local boy who spends his time faithfully in Singapore. Unless we have a proper yardstick to define who a foreign talent is, we may all be deceiving ourselves if we merely employed someone with some qualification and treat him as a talent when our own people can do the job just as well.

Sir, if we are not able to carefully sift between the foreign talent and those who merely want to come here to seek out opportunities for work, we may sadly end up in a situation where Singaporeans may find themselves out of a job simply because foreigners have displaced them by having the right assets, even if they may not be true talents.

On foreign talents, most Singaporeans would readily accept the position if a foreign CEO was brought in to run a local company. However, one must realise that a foreign CEO who is asked to take charge of a company must have capable officers to help him fulfil his mandate. A foreign CEO, who is brought in to run an organisation, would more likely than not be forced to replace the middle management with his own appointees as well, since he needs to perform to prove his worth to the organisation. The CEO's appointees may not necessarily be local employees. In fact, they will, in all likelihood, be foreigners whom he is familiar with. These managers who come in would equally be encouraged to find their own team members who can help them achieve their mandate. And so the displacement may just go down the corporate chain. The question is, how can we ensure that in the process of seeking these foreign talents to create opportunities for us, we, by our own actions, are not unwittingly displacing Singaporeans who are equally able and capable of doing these jobs? In trying to create a vision where we provide opportunities for all, the Government must be clear as to who these foreign talents are, the type of opportunities these foreign talents can create for Singaporeans and the assurance that these are true opportunities and not lost opportunities.

For us in Singapore, it is very important that the perception of opportunities remains among Singaporeans. Singapore should be a place where opportunities continue to abound. Otherwise, it would be very difficult indeed to maintain the strong heartbeat for Singapore that we want all Singaporeans to have.

Home is where the heart is, and home is also where opportunities are made available. Where the members feel they do not belong, it is no longer home, and where there is no home, there is no heartbeat.

Many of us speak passionately about Singapore and its future. I can understand this as Singapore is the only home we know. Like it or not, our destinies as a people are tied together. We have to make a success of this nation. There is no alternative. I agree with the call of the Government that we must continue to keep the heart beating strongly for Singapore. As our people go overseas to work or to study or even migrate, the diaspora of Singaporeans around the world does not matter for us as long as wherever they are, whatever they do, these people can continue to know and remember their place of origin.

Turtles go to the beaches of Trengganu, I am told, to lay eggs once a year. And after the eggs are hatched, they will scramble to the sea and travel all over the world. But wherever they are, the turtles always know their place of origin and will make the journey back faithfully to lay their eggs, to perpetuate themselves for posterity. Equally, the Jews and the Chinese are spread all over the world. They will always have a deep remembrance of their place of origin. It is this association and connection with their place of origin that has built up the bonds and the ties that will hold the people together in a crisis.

We want Singaporeans to develop a stronger sense of belonging and commitment to this country, whether they live in Singapore or overseas. We must embrace this common vision of what this country stands for, what its values are and whether it is worth returning if one needs to. At the end of the day, there must be a conviction that this country is a country worth fighting and dying for.

I agree that all of us can actually play a part in shaping this country. The more successful Singaporeans must carry the additional duty for other Singaporeans to help them embrace this common vision. This vision of Singapore as a place we call home.

Sir, I was at a constituency dinner recently. The function was organised for the purpose of bringing together senior citizens from old folks homes to Tampines Central for dinner. And I can assure Members of this House that we did not charge them $300 for coming to Tampines. Anyway, the elderly citizens who are residents of these homes are there because they have no one to turn to. They are essentially abandoned by their children. Although they are abandoned by their children, there was no lack of love that was shown for them by the many volunteers who were there to help. I could see how these residents tenderly looked after and gently escorted the old folks whenever they needed to leave the table. These are all volunteers who give their time freely for community service. And it is impressions like these that essentially warm my heart and make me realise the true meaning of calling Singapore home, a place where we all feel as one big family in this country.

For Singaporeans living overseas, we must endeavour to keep the heart beating beyond the first generation. Singapore, unfortunately, does not have a history long and deep enough for it to have a cultural DNA that Singaporeans, no matter where they are, can pass from one generation to another.

Beyond the first generation of living overseas, children born of Singaporean parents would no longer have any attachment to Singapore unless they spend some time at home. If we are prepared to accept a diaspora of Singaporeans, then I would encourage and urge our Government to give some attention to see how we can keep this heartbeat going for Singaporeans overseas.

Sir, our gathering here today marks a milestone in our national history which signifies renewal as well as change. We alone hold in our mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of ill-will and distrust among fellow Singaporeans, and all manner of differences in the name of a much better future we want to create for ourselves and our children. These commitments spring forth from the beliefs for which our forebears fought so hard to establish. We dare not forget today that we are heirs of the first revolution. The revolution brought on by our pioneers has given us life in Singapore as we know it. Let us go forth from this time and place to tell our friends and our foes alike that we intend to keep the heart beating strongly for Singapore and for many more generations of Singaporeans to come. Let every nation know whether they wish us well or ill that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of Singapore. This much, we must pledge.