SINGAPORE 21 (Motion)

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

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

Question again proposed. 12.55 pm

Mr Cyrille Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to commend the Minister and his team for an excellent S21 Report. Many Members of this House have debated extensively on the Report. I will focus my speech on the "Opportunities for All".

Sir, in the Report on "Opportunities for All", it was mentioned that as a society Singaporeans must give a second chance to those who want to try again, and Singaporeans of all ages will always have opportunities to upgrade and renew their knowledge and skills.

The NTUC has always subscribed to this principle. Through various schemes, we have been encouraging our workers to upgrade their skills and be relevant to the workplace and society. Examples are the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP), the NTUC-Education and Training Fund and other funding schemes. Many workers have taken opportunities available to them and have benefited from the various schemes, getting for themselves trade certificates that are recognised nationwide.

However, while the NTUC, together with the Government, is stressing the need to give the lower income Singaporeans a second chance, there are still many cases of older Singaporeans who have been denied such chances when it comes to a crunch. Age seems to be the main determining factor of entry into many companies, for example, those from the wafer fabrication and semi-conductor industries.

Regardless of how skilful, flexible and adaptable an elderly Singaporean may be, he may still have very little opportunities in contributing in such companies. Many recruiting companies have specifically asked for younger workers, even though there are older workers with relevant skills. As a result, such good paying jobs go mainly to the younger job seekers. We must not forget that our older workers are willing and ready to try again.

I would like to give a scenario which is very common in Singapore, particularly now when restructuring exercises are conducted by companies adversely affected by the recent economic downturn. A skilled worker in the electronics industry was retrenched at the age of 45. Probably, he is the sole breadwinner of the family. He has the necessary skills and even the certificates. However, in job fairs conducted by recruiting companies, he is told, although he has what it takes to fit into some of the recruiting companies, that they are looking for young individuals who are below the age of 40. Sad, but true, that mid-career workers who are retrenched are facing such problems. Does it mean that if I am a skilled worker, but over 40 years old, and retrenched, I will have to settle for a low-paying cleaner's job, a packer's job, something that will not tap into the knowledge and skills that I had acquired over my 20 years of working life?

We are facing a growing pool of older workers, and we, as a nation, must not see that as a problem, but to capitalise on it as an opportunity. Such older workers have a wealth of knowledge and skills that the nation can tap on, instead of facing premature redundancy in society. Statistics show that in the electronics industry, 61.2% of those still looking for a job said that they cannot meet with the minimum age requirement set by recruiting companies.

Singapore must remain committed to developing the full potentials of its citizens, as stated in the report on "Opportunities for All". I think it is time for us to examine the next step. And after realising the potentials of our citizens, through training and upgrading, how can Singapore, as a nation, make use of these human resources to further push the country another step ahead?

Finally, Sir, human resource personnel should not be allowed to make a mockery of our plans for life-long learning.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Marine Parade): (In Mandarin): Sir, before I go into the subject matter of this debate, let me take this opportunity to give my response on the issue of SAP schools. This issue has been discussed on many occasions. However, I think the more important thing is whether or not we could have a feasible policy. Some people suggested that the SAP schools and the other schools could become sister schools where some common activities can be carried out. However, I feel that even if it is done in this way, some people will still feel that it is not enough. In my view, a more direct method would be like what Senior Minister proposed not long ago, that is, to allow some top students from the minority groups to study in the SAP schools, that is to say, to break through the present situation in which only Chinese students are studying in the SAP schools.

I support such a proposal because this would eliminate some of the doubts which people have on the SAP schools. By so doing, we would allow the top students from the various ethnic groups more options to study in a number of top schools other than the handful of traditional "branded" schools such as the Raffles Institution, etc. This would not affect the original mission of the SAP school.s. It is a positive development. It is an enlargement of the roles of the SAP schools. As in the days of the old Nanyang University (Nantah) which also had the Malay Studies Department, it did not affect the characteristics of Nantah at that time. So I feel SAP schools today would be willing to accept this proposal and this is perhaps the time for the minority ethnic groups to indicate their willingness to participate in such a proposal.

Now, I would like to speak on the Singapore 21 report and to give my personal views on it. We can be said to be at the threshold of the 21st century. As we are stepping into the 21st century, this Singapore 21 report has highlighted two major dilemmas that we will be facing. First, the dilemma inherent in our social structure and the other is the dilemma that will come with our globalisation effort to develop Singapore into a cosmopolitan city. However, both these dilemmas concern one very basic question, that is, how to enhance our social and national cohesion and to reduce the centrifugal force.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Goh mentioned the basic conflict in our social structure, that is, the tension or perhaps we could say the pulling force in our multi-racial society. This is an inherent conflict. Secondly, while we are globalising and developing Singapore into a global city, on the one hand, we have to encourage our people to venture overseas and, on the other hand, we spare no efforts to attract foreign talents to come here. This has actually created a conflict between the centrifugal force and centripetal force. To the bona fide Singaporeans, those who were born and bred here, they have a very special passion for Singapore. This was stated in a sentence from the poem entitled Ascending the Tower by the famous poet of the Tang Dynasty, " ", Wang Chan, which translated loosely means, whether a person is doing well or not, he would have a special emotional feeling for the land on which he was born and bred. Therefore, we can see that many of our Singaporeans who were posted overseas would become very homesick during the festive seasons. They would miss the dear ones in Singapore, and also from time to time, they will miss the food we have in our hawker centres in Singapore. How do we enhance this feeling of Singaporeans so that they can feel passionately about Singapore, even when they are overseas?

Apart from the very naturally nurtured feelings for those who were born and bred in Singapore, I feel that the most important thing is that we have to make everyone feel that he loves his country and the country loves him. Everyone should feel that he has a share in this country. On the national level, we have this Home Ownership Scheme. That is a very good example of how to make everybody feel that he has a share in this nation. National service has also reminded every citizen that he has a share in this nation and that is why we say everyone has a responsibility in the destiny of the country.

In order to enhance our people's sense of belonging and ownership, I feel that the Government should enlarge this policy to reach to the people, particularly in the business sector. We should encourage more companies to have this "Employee Shares Ownership" scheme, that is to say, let the employees own shares in the company they work for. Nowadays, some companies are already implementing this system. Every employee, irrespective of the position in that company, would have some shares in the company. So they are both employees and shareholders of the company. This would naturally give them a stronger sense of belonging for the company. If this company has only a small minority of senior officers owning shares in the company while the vast majority of the employees have none, and you want these employees to develop a sense of belonging to the company, I think this would be a very difficult task.

It is like an army going to war, and after the war, all the credits go to the general, and his soldiers who risked their lives fighting in the frontline were given no recognition at all. How are we going to cultivate in them a sense of belonging, and I am sure that the morale will be very low too. However, to make a person cultivate his sense of belonging to his country, I think it concerns not only the materialistic aspect. Spiritual and cultural factors are equally important. In this aspect, I must emphasise the importance of a cultural sense of identity. As a multi-racial society, we must pay particular attention to the sense of cultural belonging of the various races, that is, to allow all the communities to feel comfortable in their own cultural environment. Just as what Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in this House yesterday, Singapore is not a nation yet. Therefore, we have to work harder in forging a national identity to promote better unity among the various races and to establish in them a sense of loyalty towards our nation.

However, while we are seeking a common identity, we should also allow diversities to exist. We should allow the various races to preserve their own cultural traditions. This is, in fact, our current policy. Culture is the spiritual pillar of the individuals. That a person has a strong passion for his country, to a large extent, is due to the foundation of his cultural identity. A cultural sense of belonging would enhance his feelings and passion for the land on which he lives. Any differences in the various cultures would undermine our unity and it is something that we could not completely eliminate.

What we should do is to try and forge better consensus and to have a better sense of belonging. What I want to say is that the policy which is implemented by our Government, that is, obtaining consensus while maintaining diversity, is a correct policy. When we are moving towards the 21st century, we should try and strengthen this policy and not to weaken it. It is not feasible to try and have a homogenous society because each race and community will treasure and defend its existing culture, habits, traditions, customs, language and religious beliefs. To the Chinese community, which is the majority here, or the minorities such as the Malays or Indians, it is the same. For example, our Malay brothers have this saying, biar mati anak, jangan mati adat. Cultural tradition is actually the soul of the tribes, or we could call it the tribal soul. They value this tribal soul more than their children. Multi-culturalism is actually an important component part of the Singapore heartware.

I feel that in our multi-cultural social environment, this is also a very important factor to attract foreign talents. Because I discover that many permanent residents or new citizens from other countries who come and settle down in Singapore actually do not come directly from their native countries. Many of them have actually gone to countries which they believed to be ideal societies such as the United States of America or Europe. After staying there for some time, they came to Singapore and eventually decided to settle down permanently in Singapore. Why? It is because of this multi-cultural environment which makes them feel very comfortable and at home.

In some of the activities or gatherings organised by the Residents' Committees and at the new citizens' oath-taking ceremony organised by the Immigration Department, I would normally take the opportunity to ask these new citizens why they have decided to migrate to Singapore. Generally, they will tell me that they perceive that in Singapore they would receive equal treatment and equal opportunity. Most of them are bilingual in their mother tongue as well as English. In our multi-cultural environment, they feel at home and very comfortable. It is very easy for them to merge into our society here. On the other hand, in other countries, they may be able to earn a living, but they could not help having this feeling of being second-class citizens. This type of personal experience was mentioned by Dr Lee Tsao Yuan yesterday.

On 3rd May 1999, there was a report by the Straits Times entitled "Racial Tone to US Handling of Spy Story". In this article, it mentioned that just because of one isolated incident where a Chinese scientist was alleged to have stolen their secret and passed it to China, now everyone in the United States is saying that all the Asian migrants, particularly the Chinese in the US and those who have obtained US citizenship, are spies from China and their loyalty for the United States is in doubt. I believe that many foreign talents would come to Singapore from the United States or the European countries not without a reason.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on our present policy of forging an identity while maintaining diversity, I must reiterate that this is a correct policy. When we are moving towards the 21st century, what we need to do is to strengthen this policy. However, we cannot deny that, as I said just now, every race and every nationality would have its own identity, and there is a certain conflict between the existing "tribal soul" and the "national soul" that we want to establish. As we cannot use a pressure cooker or a big melting pot to melt all the races into one, the conflict between the tribal soul and the national soul would take a long time to be amalgamated. What we need to do is to maintain the present situation of harmonious living among our races. We have to enhance the communication, mutual understanding and unity among the various races. That is to say, our present policy must be maintained and sustained.

In this respect, I feel that we need to have a very strong Government to maintain such a pluralistic policy. In our present situation of harmonious living among the races, to a large extent, credit must be given to our strong Government in giving equal treatment to all the various races, and to protect the interests of the minority groups. In the past few decades, the Government has been hitting hard at the racists and tried its best to eliminate the conflicts among the races to reduce the centrifugal force and to enhance the centripetal force to promote unity among the various races. We have emphasised participation of all citizens. In such a complicated social structure like ours, we need to have nothing short of a strong Government. Whether it is in the family or in a company, we need to have very fair and strong parents and management to avoid confusion. I think it is the same for a country.

Sir, while we are moving into the 21st century, we need to have a consensus. I believe the Singapore 21 Committee led by RAdm Teo held various discussion panels and dialogue sessions and in the process, the consensus has been forged. This is definitely of great help to the enhancement of the Singapore heartware and definitely beneficial to our development in the next century.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Lim Boon Heng): Mr Speaker, Sir, a Straits Times journalist, after hearing the Prime Minister yesterday, wrote in her column this morning: "why the sobering message?" She reflected not only her views but those of some of her colleagues as well. This, after what I thought was a very clear message from the Prime Minister, supplemented by personal accounts from other Members, that our society is one with many fault lines. These fault lines are fundamentals as we continue with nation building.

The journalist said that the Prime Minister did not give examples to explain why he delivered his sobering message. Yet, I thought he gave many, from other parts of the world, to remind us that our fault lines can give way as disastrously. At least one Member, Mr Zainul Abidin, gave the example of Malays in the SAF as one indicator of our fault lines.

Sir, is there a gap between those above 50 years of age, and those a generation younger in their 30s? Have we so succeeded in blurring ethnic lines that the younger generation already accepts race as a non-issue? As a Backbencher in the 80s, I attended several clan functions. For one who is English-educated, it meant hard work preparing to speak in Mandarin, and there was always not enough time. There was only one Lim in the Backbench, me. How I wished there were more, so that the load could be shared. At one of these functions, I said I wished there were more Lims in Parliament. I did not get to finish my sentence to express my sentiment, because I was drowned out by the applause! All I could do after that was to meekly say that I wished in future there would be more Lims. And, again, big applause. So, it taught me that whilst we have enshrined equality of race, language and religion as the cornerstone of our nation, we disregard the fault lines at our peril.

Then, last year, as part of our May Day celebrations, we put up a live TV programme. As we did not have the money to put up separate programmes in the four languages, we insisted that TCS 8 agree that we have items in English, Tamil and Malay, in addition to Chinese. Of course, everybody knows that TCS 8 is a Chinese channel. We thought we were being sensitive to the minority races in making sure that it was a multi-lingual programme, but we got a very negative reaction from a Berita Harian journalist!

If we need a more recent example to remind us, it is the emotion with which Members spoke in this House on the subject of SAP schools and the nurturing of a Chinese elite. If we use the Prime Minister's imagery of the four interlocking circles, the emotions raised over SAP schools pose us a very pertinent question: How much non-overlapping space will each circle allow the others?

We should all be very pleased if the primordial forces the Prime Minister referred to have mutated to benign forms, like spent volcanoes. But the Prime Minister reminded us very clearly yesterday that dormant volcanoes can erupt, and with great force. This is why we must set realistic expectations about Singapore 21. We must start with the correct assessment of what we are, and build from here.

Singapore 21 is about building a nation with hearts that beat as one. It means citizens feeling they belong here so deeply they will defend it. It is about developing roots, a thick web of roots, so that the tree will stand even when the storm is fierce. What does this mean in practical terms? Our roots are our families, our friends, the networks we form through churches, mosques or temples, the networks we form through other community organisations, and the bonds we develop through friendship struck in school. It is also about getting Singaporeans to feel they too have created a piece of Singapore.

Sir, by any account, the S21 Committee has reached out to a very large number of Singaporeans. Yes, the Committee practised "consultation" and distilled what 6,000 Singaporeans have contributed into one document. But there will be the balance of the 3.1 million Singaporeans, who are not among the 6,000, who will feel that they have not been consulted. Indeed, Mr Chiam reflected this the day before yesterday, when he said his party had no part in it!

There will be some among the 6,000 who are left dissatisfied because their pet ideas are not included in the final document.

There will be expectations of greater consultation as part of public policy formulation. So we have to understand what is possible, and what is not. Those of us who work in the trade unions engage union leaders and workers in numerous dialogue sessions, as many as our diaries would permit us. Yet we cannot avoid the comment from time to time from some union leaders that there was a lack of consultation! So let us be quite clear that consultation does not mean every citizen is to be consulted, and that every point each citizen brings up will be included, because it is impossible.

Yet every citizen wants to participate and feel part of Singapore. But participation does not only mean being directly consulted. Participation also means doing things ourselves, for our benefit, and for society. I think this is far more important. We have to create that sense among Singaporeans that they play a part actively in our society. Never mind what priorities Government may have, so long as we are able to contribute what we think is meaningful to ourselves.

There is a group of Singaporeans who participate in this way, through community groups and voluntary welfare organisations. They go beyond discussing issues and expecting Government to do something about it, to make things happen themselves. And they do not wait to be invited.

If we want something done, will we shake out of our inertia, and do something about it? The older generation of Singaporeans had no choice but to do things for themselves, be it to set up funds for the needy, or to build schools. If a poorer educated group of Singaporeans could do so, there is absolutely no reason why a better educated group now cannot.

It all depends on whether we are prepared to make the effort. Sir, let me cite a simple example. You might even regard it as trivial. 26 of my primary one classmates meet once a year, with our form teacher. We are a real mixed group of people - workers, shopkeepers and one politician! How did it happen? Was it started by the school principal, or by the teacher? No, we were brought together by three close friends from the class. They had met regularly every Sunday since they left school. One day one of them thought it would be a good idea to organise a class get-together. So from the names in an old school magazine, they set about contacting the class. They called up people with the same name in the telephone directory, sometimes getting scolded for their trouble! There are more than one person with the same name, and those with the name "Lim Boon Heng" in the directory are not mine. The three of them did not wait for others to act. They took the initiative, and even now each year, they organise the get-together. So my point is, if we feel strongly about something and are prepared to do it, we can, and we can make a difference, and we enjoy doing the things that matter to us.

Sir, I said developing roots also mean the bonds we develop through school. Here, I believe that there are considerable merits in the old school system, when a child can study from primary one right through to `A' levels. I went to one such school. Twelve years in the same school must surely allow stronger bonds to develop than a six, four or two years stay in different schools. And it is not just bonds of friendship of students in the same year, but inter-generational as well. So should we review our systems and do those things which would allow Singaporeans themselves to develop such bonds?

Sir, I said the sense of belonging to Singapore means doing things ourselves. It depends on each of us. And there are many things to do. If anyone is looking for ideas of what to get involved in, let me point out one - the support system for the elderly, in view of the ageing population. It is an area where Government has not got itself too deeply involved as yet. It is an excellent area to be left for those who want to see the development of a civil society.

There are already some practising the spirit of civil society. They are the grassroots organisations, the unions, the co-operatives and the voluntary welfare organisations. There are many who sacrifice a lot of time to do things for the good of others. My definition of civil society may be different from others. Some think civil society excludes government or the establishment. I have no such qualms. I believe in getting things done, either by ourselves or with Government and the establishment. If it helps to get things done by working with Government, I see no objection to it. The satisfaction is in getting things done, not in the exclusion of Government.

Rooting Singaporeans also means getting Singaporeans to feel that this is the land of opportunity. Some Singaporeans migrate because there are better or more exciting opportunities elsewhere. These are Singaporeans who apparently have the self-confidence to compete as foreign talent elsewhere. On the other hand, we have Singaporeans - mostly descendants of migrants or foreign talent - who object to foreign talent competing here. If we are to be a land of opportunity, we need the talent mass here for it to happen. So the vision of Singapore 21 means we Singaporeans developing the self-confidence to compete with foreign talent on our own turf, absorbing foreign talent, and moulding them into Singaporeans, and if not possible, pro- Singaporeans. It is this critical mass of talent that will enlarge that sphere of opportunity for our younger generation. If we are able to bring the best and brightest in the world like a magnet here, then our own will be able to compete with them and derive the satisfaction of competing with the best. Just as some of our top talent right now feel they want to compete with the world's best elsewhere. So I think it is for us to bring talent here to Singapore and not to exclude them.

Having said this, I think, to me, it is quite clear that the Prime Minister is right. It will be a long road to S21, and we must persevere in this effort, for our good, for our children's good, and for our grandchildren.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Bukit Timah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the motion standing in the name of RAdm Teo Chee Hean and the Singapore 21 report presented by the Committee.

As mentioned by Prime Minister Goh yesterday and many of my colleagues who spoke before me, the basic principle of this report is how to cultivate in our people the sense of loyalty towards our nation. That is on the basic foundation established by our first generation of leaders in Singapore. They have taken the decision to build up Singapore on this foundation. What decisions will the second generation leaders and the third generation leaders take?

I think the most important reminder to us is the pledge that is being taken by our students every morning at the flag-raising ceremony. Although this pledge was worded by our first generation leaders some 30 years ago, it is still relevant to us now, and I believe it will continue to be relevant in the next century. The pledge reads: "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation."

I remember that at one political gathering, some people commented that the survival of Singapore was an accident in history. But if you look at our nation building and our survival, it can be said to be the result of a very important decision taken by our leaders. We live by this decision. We treasure this will to build up our nation. It is not the responsibility of just the Government but the responsibility of everybody. The second generation leaders and people, the third generation leaders and people, do they still maintain this will of survival? So when we are talking about a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society, the feasible way is to be like in the past, to exercise tolerance, mutual respect, mutual understanding of one another's culture, to observe the festivals and the religious celebrations of the various races. Just like what the Prime Minister said yesterday and what my colleague, Minister Lim Boon Heng, and Mr Goh Choon Kang have said, we want to forge a common identity while maintaining diversity. This is something which is repeated over and over again in our Parliamentary debate. This is characteristic of Singapore. We can treat this as an advantage but it could also turn out to be a disadvantage to us. It depends on how we want to continue with our policy.

Recently, we have many Parliamentarians from the Commonwealth countries coming to Singapore for the CPA meeting. I asked them what they felt was the characteristic in Singapore that they found to be most attractive. Almost everyone of them told me that the most attractive feature of Singapore is our multi-racial society. They were amazed that our people who are dressed in the Malay national dress, the Chinese or western dresses were happily chatting away at a common function together, using English as the common language. Yet, in the next minute, they would turn and speak in their own languages to people of their own community. It is simply fantastic!

One expert who has been doing research on the history of the various countries remarked that he envied our bilingual policy. We are an amalgamation of the strong points of the various races. Singapore is one of the very few countries in the world where the people could have command of a first language and a second language which are of completely different backgrounds - our Chinese, English, Malay and Tamil. Other people consider this as some great assets to us. Then why do we want to give them up?

The most important thing is that we must learn to forge a common identity while maintaining diversity. As what Prime Minister Goh has said, we must be able to communicate among ourselves in English and, at the same time, allow the various communities to maintain their traditional cultures and customs. And this is an advantage and a unique characteristic for our future survival. So in places where there are differences, we should have mutual tolerance and understanding.

In the past 30 years, we have succeeded in maintaining harmony. I feel that in the future, we could still maintain this racial harmony. Now we have this S21 Report. Many people are asking why we need to discuss this Report. Have we not lived harmoniously all this while? But our leaders have very good foresight. They feel that even in this peaceful time, we have to be prepared for any crisis that may come in the future. We must learn how to overcome all the problems and challenges in our process of nation building.

Under such major premises, I would like to deliberate on some details of the Report. In the last few days, we have been discussing how to make everyone identify with the nation. Because of the upgrading of their educational and skills level, and the globalisation of our economy, many people feel that they are now citizens of the whole world. This is inevitable. According to some preliminary survey, about 10% to 20% of our people have such a feeling. But the majority, the other 70% to 80% of our people, are busy hovering around the basic things in life. They want to have a stable job, a stable society, a pleasant living environment and a house or flat of their own, and have no problem in their daily needs. Perhaps, some people will ask: why are they not concerned with this S21 Vision? Why are they not participating in the discussion on this issue? It is not that they are not concerned. They are actually concerned with the matter. One elderly person told me that when we are on board a plane, our life is committed to the pilot. We would not ask the pilot whether he has been adequately trained, how many hours of flying time he has clocked, is he experienced, or is he confident that he would fly us all safely to our destination. We do not need to go into all that. So in our case, we have elected our leaders. They are the talented people. They have the ability to lead us. We are in good hands. It is not that we are not concerned. But we feel confident, because we have a good Government.

I have contacted the People's Association and the Ministry of Education to find out what are the feelings of our people, the ordinary citizens of Singapore. Singaporeans are very busy. They are busy attending classes, training, busy with their family and a lot of things to do. And the People's Association reported to me that last year, for the RCs, the CCCs, the CCMCs, ie, the grassroots organisations, the participation rate was 7 million. Of course, many people participated in more than one event. On the average, our Residents Committees conduct some 200 to 300 activities in a year. The Sports Council told me that the participation rate was 1.2 million in their activities last year. The National Arts Council said its audience was about 700,000. Besides, we have the activities organised by NTUC, the welfare organisations and the religious organisations. I think we could easily gain an entry in the Guinness World of Records.

I can safely say that Singapore is a nation where the people are actively participating in various community works. Just now Minister Lim has also mentioned that participation could be of different levels. How do we make them feel that their views and ideas are being reflected? As I said just now, we must recognise that there is a limitation in every country, particularly in our country, taking into consideration the environment around us. Under such circumstances, we need to elect some able people to lead us. It is not possible for the people to be directly involved in all activities.

Our children, irrespective of their background, are assured of places in the school. Every child will have a place in a school. There is no one in Singapore who has to stop schooling because of financial difficulties. I believe that our political leaders can make such a promise. There is no one who has been denied medical treatment because of financial difficulties. There is no one who has no place, nowhere to go to, no place to stay in. I think if we conduct a thorough survey, we can be found to be quite a successful nation.

With respect to religion, not many countries in the world can have a Sikh temple, Chinese temples, Catholic churches, mosques or Protestant churches, all within the radius of one kilometre, as in our Waterloo Street area.

Someone told me a very interesting observation. She noticed that a good number of believers who had gone to worship at the Guan Yin Temple at Waterloo Street, passed by the Krishnan Temple next door, and spontaneously took out some money and dropped it into the donation box outside. This is a very special situation in Singapore where our people respect one another, and respect the religions of the other races.

Just now I mentioned that in the schools, our students are actively participating in all the activities. How do we maintain such a practice? In a family, my Parliamentary colleagues have already deliberated on it. So I do not want to waste time repeating it. But I want to mention one point. Whenever we talk about the family, foreign talents, and an aging population, these are the key issues. We are Singaporeans and if we do not want foreign talents, how many babies have we had in Singapore? In the 70s, it was about 22 to 23 per thousand per year. In 1997, it was about 15 per thousand per year. According to a Japanese report on International Statistics, this figure will be dropping every year. The birth rate may drop to 12 per thousand per year. Can we find a way to break through? We always talk about solving this problem of an aging population. But have we given a thought to increasing our birth rate? Now that most women are working, can we encourage them to have more babies? So this is one area we need to look into. The mindset of our people is such that many people are thinking that they are citizens of the world. But the majority of our people are still identified with Singapore. Then, when we have foreign talents, how do we make them settle down in Singapore and merge into our society?

The younger generation of Singaporeans must understand this. We have our limitations. We have to be sensitive of our environment and we are a small population. If we want to maintain our position as one of the top ten countries in the world in terms of economic development and standard of living, I think we must attract foreign talents and we must feel that everyone of us has a share and a part and role to play in our society.

Another point I wish to raise is that just now, when we talked about participation and we said that we are a closely-knit society, one thing we can improve is that we may perhaps set up or establish a systematic "Emotion Contact Station". While we are all busy, very naturally, we take our interpersonal relationship for granted. Many voluntary workers told me that they have been volunteering for their whole life. People who have been donating blood for the past 20-30 years have enjoyed some priority when they go for medical treatment in the polyclinics or hospitals. When they reach the age of 60, their blood will not be accepted. So at 61, they cease to be blood-donors, and simultaneously all the special treatment previously given to them will be suspended. I would like to say that when we want to cultivate the spirit of care and concern, it is not only in the families but also in the community. Now all the schools are built by the Government. Our ordinary citizens can only participate in the school's management consultative committee. I think we should give the parents, and well-wishers, more roles to play in the management of the schools.

Recently, a former Principal of the Chinese High School, Mr Cheng An Lun passed away. At his funeral, the Old Boys' Association and the School Board arranged for his hearse to pass through the school ground for the teachers and students to pay their last respects, and many people in the educational field are very touched by such an arrangement. It is a very touching show of respect and recognition for someone who has contributed enormously in the field of education during his lifetime.

Now, the Government has rich financial resources. We could well afford to spend some money to recognise those who had contributed to our society in other fields, such as sports, arts, music, education, etc. Together with the clan associations, Old Boys' Associations and the other community organisations, we can show some form of respect, care and concern for former sportsmen, sportswomen, artists, musicians, etc. Recently, we read in the newspapers that some sportsmen who had in their heyday won honours for our nation, but in their old age, they lived in isolation and poverty with nobody to look after them. Perhaps the Sports Council could set up some sort of "Emotion Contact Station". In our society where everyone is very busy, where the economy is prosperous, we should systematically try to have some sort of communication with people who have contributed to our society in the past. We have spent a lot of time and effort to develop our economy. We encourage foreign investors to invest here and to create jobs for our people. However, as we have stable and strong reserves, we should seriously consider tying up our economic development with the development of our heartbeat.

Perhaps, we should also put some of our local artworks or local songs on the Internet, so as to show to the world what we have. For example, it is very difficult to plant our national flower, the orchid. I have not conducted a survey. Perhaps the National Parks Board may think that it is too difficult to have orchids planted everywhere in Singapore. It is very difficult to make the orchid flower bloom, so it is easier to have some greenery instead. There is nothing wrong with it. But I think we should spend more effort and money on the propagation of our national flower. At least, have it on the Internet. With Singaporeans travelling to all places in the world, a look at our national flower on the Internet, will bring back fond memories f things back home.

We have also to cultivate our arts bodies, like the dance groups and the various arts groups. We should spend more time and effort to cultivate them. If you go to the European countries, you will see a lot of these arts festivals, choral festivals, dance festivals, and what have you. When we have the "Sing Singapore" campaign, perhaps we could tie up with the CDC. As a matter of fact, on the 5th of June, the Bukit Timah CDC will have a "Singspiration" involving some 10,000 people. This may not have an immediate effect or attract immediate response from the people. But if we were to promote this in a systematic manner, we could have very good results. Recently, we have the support of NAC, that is, if we raise $5 million, the Government would give us another $15 million to promote our arts activities and many of these arts groups were also very envious of this grant to us. I feel that when our economy has developed to such a level, we should also try to promote this sort of Singapore heartbeat.

I hope that the Committee for the Implementation of the Singapore 21 Committee's recommendation would take into consideration what has been discussed in these few days. Our first generation leaders built up Singapore when we had no army and no reserves, but we survived. Now that we have a strong army and strong reserves, we should do better.

I support the motion.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Sir, I would like to start by congratulating RAdm Teo Chee Hean and his team for the excellent Singapore 21 report.

The Singapore 21 Committee has stated quite clearly and unequivocally, and this is fundamentally critical, that every Singaporean matters. Singapore would be given up as lost if there is any Singaporean who feels that the affairs of Singapore do not matter to him. We are well aware that our society is the strongest if every Singaporean feels himself a part. The alienation of any member can only serve to weaken the social fabric of our society. Therefore, if there was previously any doubt, it should be put to rest that every Singaporean counts. In Singapore, there is a place for everyone, regardless of his station in life, race, language or religion.

Sir, it is also enlightening to know in the report that "the methods of steering cannot remain as they have always been". By making that point, it is a presumption and an acknowledgement that our people will and have matured to take the right decisions in the collective interest of all Singaporeans. But I note the caution that the Prime Minister made yesterday, and just now, Minister Lim Boon Heng cautioned Singaporeans that the presumption and acknowledgement are based on our maturity as a people, and that we cannot expect changes to be made unless we are ready to make the right decisions in the collective interest of all Singaporeans. We all know that the best way to govern Singapore is to get the involvement of all the people, and not on the few. We need to focus on persons, and not on property. Ultimately, the strength of Government is on the free development of public opinion, from the bottom-up approach, and not based on authoritarian rule from the top. It is demonstrating the trust and faith we have in the maturity of our people. It is also based on the belief that a state and society with the means of some change provides the means of its conservation, and I think it is heartening that the Singapore 21 report is also trying to shape the change in the way Government responds to the interests and needs of the people.

Before our people can become active citizens, they really need to possess the requisite citizenship skills. And we take for granted that every Singaporean actually possesses the skills to become active citizens. Our citizens need to know how the national economy works, what constitutes GDP growth and recession, the annual Government budget of income and expenditure. On issues like healthcare, the environment and important truths about public policies, safety and security, law and justice systems, the citizens should be educated on these important national issues through public education programmes. Even if they have been taught in schools, but because of the changes made over the years, it is important that our citizens be updated and continually be educated on the current affairs of our country. Even then, as alluded earlier, a citizen will be making an important contribution when he is able to look after himself and his family. The shared pursuit of happiness, peace and prosperity gives meaning to living in a community.

Our hope actually lies in Singapore with a growing middle class. A larger middle class should contribute to a safe, secure and orderly society. A society can easily be destabilised if the demagogues are allowed to play up the feelings of the less successful, and the lower income groups against the rich and successful through the politics of envy. It is important, as it has been our aspiration in Singapore, to grow the middle-class in Singapore. It is, therefore, important for us to upgrade the talents and capabilities of as many Singaporeans as possible, so that they can benefit from our growth and prosperity and a better quality of life.

Those of us who work in the corporate world have been challenged to measure our corporate performance through the concept of Economic Value Added (EVA). In the area of Government, we can also measure the performance of public sector through, perhaps, a modified version of Social Value Added. We need to set stringent performance quality standards on the public sector to deliver the public and social good of the highest value in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. The civil service has an onerous responsibility to ensure that the public funds are used in the most judicious manner.

In order to promote active citizenship participation, the public sector must, and can take the lead and set the example. It is really the attitude and conduct in rendering services to the public that show whether the Government, Ministries and agencies are taking the public seriously. For example, in the area of healthcare, it is important that the specialists and senior consultants continue to treat `C' class patients in restructured and Government hospitals, showing that we care for the poor. In education, improving the teacher-student ratio to help the weaker students, and the provision of facilities to make it easier for disabled students to attend school, demonstrate our concern for the weak and disabled in our community. In housing, the provision of lifts to stop at every floor is beneficial to the elderly residents. These efforts serve to inspire and motivate the public. The citizens will actively respond to give useful and constructive feedback, because they have seen and heard the actions taken. The public funds are not wasted but devoted to meet priority areas of need in our community.

The experience of the PAP Town Councils has produced favourable and beneficial outcomes. Our HDB housing estates are better maintained. The Town Councillors who are drawn from among grassroots leaders and volunteer professionals have helped to make judicious decisions in the use of limited Town Council funds, and the choices necessary in meeting the many competing needs to beautify and improve the living environment in the housing estates.

Sir, the next important step would be to strengthen the work of the Community Development Councils (CDCs). In fact, Singapore has long had the people sector and the organisation that has been playing that role is really the People's Association. The CDCs, through the People's Association, should be seen as the body linking all the civic groups that represent the people sector. And I share the same view with Minister Lim Boon Heng earlier when he talked about the civil society and the groups should not work to the exclusion of the Government and the establishment. In fact, here, I would argue that it is so very important that the civic groups work with a Government body like the People's Association to get things done.

We should encourage the social clubs, golf and country clubs, arts and culture groups, interest groups, all the organisations and associations in Singapore to adopt a more proactive approach in sponsoring and participating in sports, art, culture, the environment and social services sectors. In fact, there is already a very large sector and large groups that are involved in many social service activities. And I think what is needed is to get them more organised, to get them more networked, so that their resources are better used.

Sir, citizenship does not only apply to the individuals. The corporations are also important, and we should encourage more companies to be good corporate citizens. Incentives should be given to encourage them to set up charitable foundations. In today's Straits Times Life section, they reported the many beneficiaries of foundations which give scholarships, for example, and the many courses that foundations are already giving in Singapore. We think there are many more foundations that could be set up by companies and individuals. What we need is to have support on a regular basis, both financial and in kind. Here, I will echo Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon's call for Government to give greater incentives and support to bodies that want to serve charitable and public causes. Perhaps the Ministry of Finance and the Inland Revenue Authority could be more generous in this regard. Corporations need not necessarily be thinking of the advertising and commercial value in giving such charity, or at least directly. There will be a lot of goodwill in their work.

The voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) also need attention, and they need to be managed by professionals qualified to handle the issues and activities on a sustained basis. VWOs usually started out with a vision and mission of the founders in meeting a need in the community. We should encourage as many talented and bright young Singaporeans to take up career positions in the VWOs. Unless the VWOs themselves are well managed, it would be difficult for them to attract volunteers willing to devote time and energy to serve in these agencies. The beneficiaries will be well taken care of if there are committed professionals and dedicated volunteers serving in the VWOs. Sir, as we hope that there will be volunteers, VWOs should first be professionally and better managed.

There are also alternative approaches in serving the needs of the community. The area that has successfully tapped the spirit of volunteerism and self-help is the cooperative movement. The NTUC has been highly successful in spearheading cooperative projects in Singapore. Perhaps other bodies should also consider the cooperative approach as a way to participate in the people and civic sector. It was a pleasant surprise really when the virus affected the pork business, the pork merchants actually organised themselves as a cooperative, to find solutions to their business problems. And it is interesting to see a group of merchants organising themselves and, of course, we have our ex-colleague, Mr Ho Kah Leong, as the adviser.

The cooperative approach is really a formidable approach because there is a social responsibility in its mission and profit maximisation is not its ultimate objective. The mutual self-help community approach has a role, even in a highly competitive globalised trading environment. Perhaps an active cooperative movement can revive the spirit of volunteerism and self-help as we move into the 21st century.

Sir, the S21 Committee has set the direction with the vision and strategies. I hope that all Singaporeans will rally behind this vision and make it a reality, and we, Singapore, become a gracious and compassionate society.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to register my support and commitment as a Singaporean to the vision for Singapore in the 21st century. I congratulate Minister Teo Chee Hean for his leadership and thank the various committees for the numerous hours which they had sacrificed to process this project of people and ideas.

I could not disagree with any of the good things already said of this Report. I ask myself when I walk out of this House, do I feel a recharged energy to want to operationalise these five ideals in my personal and corporate life? There are 93 of us in this House, and therefore altogether 93 families. Assuming we have an average of four per household, then whatever each of us has learnt in this House will impact on 372 persons. At the broader level, as leaders in corporations and MPs taking charge of thousands of Singaporeans, how do we, in our various positions, create the environment for these five ideals to be translated into actionable programmes and manifest measures, so that they become real to our company staff and to the man and woman in the street? That is the energy I am raking and I would like to see it being harnessed.

The Minister said that there will be no implementation body and he hopes that the people sector will respond and take charge where it seems fit. This seems to indicate a move from a top-down management style to one that is bottom up. This is a significant paradigm shift.

Mr Jeyaretnam may not agree with me, but if we, as lay citizens, seize the spirit and act on it, we are shaping the beginning of an open society. It is clear that people are asked to exercise active citizenry, not as "armchair critics" as what Mr David Lim once said, but as "ready to act and willing-to-do Singaporeans". We do not need to wait for the Government to take the lead. We seek consultation and form partnerships with Government where possible, but we can independently serve through appropriate channels and cease to live as consumers expecting our desires to be always made known and to be satisfied by the authorities. I totally agree with Minister Lim Boon Heng just now asking us not to wait to be invited to serve.

We must, as professionals, civil servants, corporate personnel, volunteers, advocates and lay citizens, all roll up our sleeves, wet our feet, dirty our hands, and serve at the frontline with other Singaporeans to problem solve and find solutions together.

I therefore would make a call to all Singaporeans and corporations, including each of our Ministries, to show their commitment to S21 by putting down the top five to 10 things which they will do in 1999 to translate and operationalise these five ideals. Minister Tarmugi took the lead to do this yesterday, and I thank him for that, and I hope he will seriously consider leading a Family 21, a proposal which I made during the Budget debate and reinforced again yesterday by Mr Sinnakaruppan.

For example, on "every Singaporean counts", my company will focus on human resource development and examine where the potential of each of my staff can be enhanced. On "strong families", I have already started flexible time for staff to report any time during 8-10 am for working mothers who need to take their children to school, or have other family schedules to attend to. Personally, I will work harder with my children to translate the five family values created by the Ministry of Community Development, which I believe form the pillars of strong families.

On promoting multi-culturalism, I try to include many ethnic groups as I can in my social and business network, to expose my children and staff to different cultures and ways of life. These are small examples and I would like to build on them.

I propose that we take this Report further and invite the whole country to contribute their ideas on how to translate these five ideals and share them through the Internet. What we get will be an astounding range of actionable ideas, I am sure. By engaging in this process, we are spreading the S21 energy and let people buy into it.

Sir, if some of the specific recommendations made by the 6,000 contributors require partnerships between Government and the people, then I would like to highlight a few needs. First, the need for constructive engagement. To be true to the spirit that every Singaporean counts and we must work together to make the difference, the Government and the people sector must learn to find answers to our problems and work together as co-producers of community. Indeed, not all civil bodies are unconditional blessings to society, but we cannot stop their growth and rising expectations. How does the Government moderate the cacophony of voices and collectivise the diverse views into cooperation without conformity? It is not an easy process, but it is something we have to deal with. The process will always be untidy and a continual struggle, like in all aspects of life. That is not what we need to fear about or avoid.

Inevitably, I think we will swing from a fear of hyperdemocracy that paralyses action due to unresolved opinions on major issues to a dread of hypodemocracy where people grow accustomed to the "I don't think, I don't care and I won't help" attitudes. These attitudes reflect a dependency ethos grafted in kiasu Singaporeans too used to believing that "the Government will do it and control all anyway."

Sir, we need a breakthrough. We need to confront this apathy and perceived fears. We need to learn to engage with one another in a constructive mode, which includes sharing information, conducting two-way dialogues, enablement and access to resources. In my own experience as a volunteer advocate for the last 10 years, I will rate the level of "constructive engagement" between the Government and the people sector at an average 5, on a scale of 10 points. I have good stories gathered from grassroots experiences. I also have negative ones.

For me, "constructive engagement" is key to active citizenry, because when people feel engaged, they will serve and stay active. Being engaged is not merely fund-raising for welfare organisations or following what is already decided by the Government. Engagement for many young professionals and executives means having meaningful two-way dialogues with policy makers to test new ideas and offering helpful feedback, sometimes criticisms to Government without being ostracised afterwards.

Sir, to truly encourage open engagement, it is helpful for the Government, in particular the bureaucracy, to refrain from hurling discouraging remarks at its critics that they "did not have the big picture" or they "did not do their research thoroughly" or they "did not know enough of the legislation" or were simply "ignorant of what went on in the field." Instead, Government officers must check their arrogance and defensiveness and instead adopt the attitude that it is the job of the Government to use State resources and its administrative machinery to gather and share information for policy decisions. What follows is the need to persuade the public towards its convictions. This belief in public persuasion requires a first principle belief, not to believe that "the Government has all the answers".

I hope, Sir, when people do put up their ideas, the Government will not put them down, in the spirit of S21. People do not want to follow - they want to join. Even if Government's decision turned out to be the best option, and this was indeed often the case, the ripple effect caused by giving people more time and space to reach the same conclusion on their own, is just as important as the goals themselves. It makes people feel "they count", even though they do not see eye to eye on some matters.

Second, the need for higher level of tolerance for differences. Sir, when two persons get together, there are differences. And in active citizenry, there are going to be strong and different ideas, but we must be prepared to negotiate and balance. I was heart-warmed by the way DPM Tony Tan and PM openly dealt with their differences of opinions regarding the scrapping of scholarships. I hope to see such pluralism of ideas being tolerated at all levels.

Pluralism creates and generates creativity. The ability to think out-of-the-boxes during brainstorming stages in policy decisions must know no boundaries and fear. The authorities must let go for people to respond nimbly, with competence, to social problems. Notwithstanding that national cohesion must be guided by an underpinning of common values to serve as our compass to serve and act, it is the pluralism of thoughts and dreams as well as action models that will generate the much sought after creativity in our search for fresh approaches to problem-solving. It takes time for us to find a balance. But it first takes big hearts and strong minds to accept feedback and suggestions, including criticisms.

Third, is the need for sustained commitment to service. I urge the civil bodies not to believe at the onset that the Government is insincere about civic involvement. It is as much our duty to engage attention of policy makers by seeking shared perspectives without assuming that "people are always right". Much too often we exaggerate our differences and fail to work hard at developing our overlapping interests. We need to stop criticising a half glass of water as half empty, instead accept that it is half full and we want to fill it up.

We need to identify people processors for creating successful links between networks, whether top-down or lateral ones. Sustained engagement across sectors and within sectors, even in the Singapore context of managed activism, requires strong minds and a positive spirit all round to believe that service to community is about comprehending the problem, deliberating tough decisions, setting realistic goals, following through by learning to work together and adopting a high level of give-and-take attitude. These are human resource matters that require focus and strengthening.

Fourth, to create what I would call a "Singapore Connected", or precisely a human website. I urge all Singaporeans to make visits to their neighbourhood voluntary and grassroots organisations to see how they can add value to the community. So much has been done by our MPs in facilitating volunteer involvement and improving the lives of Singaporeans. A lot more can be done with the help of everybody. I fully support what MP Mrs Lim Hwee Hua said in the recent publication of CONTACT - that "Neighbourhood Committees can be an important link among residents and community leaders . the residents know their own and mutual needs best. The old kampong spirit is a strong underpinning and helps define the larger family beyond our family members.".

In conclusion, I would like to use five Chinese words strung up in one meaning to sum up my commitment to the vision of Singapore 21. It is "wo men de guo jia", translated in English to mean "our country". Idiomatically, the Chinese phrase "wo men de guo jia" encapsulates several components, including "wo" the self; "wo men" the collective "We"; "jia" the family; and "guo jia" the country. You have to get all these components in to make sense of the words "our country" - "wo men de guo jia". The link word between people and country is the centre word "de" which means "ownership". Like DPM Tony Tan said not long ago, what you do not defend, you do not own. Therefore, to call Singapore a country of our choice, we need to nurture the individuals and strengthen the families so that as stakeholders of this country, they will bond and band together to safeguard its future.

There is no "Me" if there is no family, and if there are no families, there is no country. In Chinese we say, ( ) "mei you jia na hui you wo", "mei you jia na hui you guo jia". It is these linkages from the self to family and extending it to society and the nation that shape the heartbeat and robust health of Singapore. I travel a lot, Sir, and I only travel on SIA, because after a few days in foreign land, as soon as I get into an SIA plane, I immediately feel "at home". I need a "Singapore touch", the batik clothes, and even the "Singapore Smile". When the SIA aircraft landed on home ground, I felt the "warmth and safety" of home. These are precious feelings that this little piece of land gives me and my family; nowhere else do I feel this way. And I realise we must work hard to prevent it from being torn apart.

The Prime Minister is so right that we still have a lot to do. Let us go forward, irrespective of race, language, religion, gender and age, in a pathfinding process, through adventure and mutual strengthening, become S21 citizens pulsating in one strong and dynamic heartbeat, and develop from country to nation.

Mr Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to join in the debate in respect of the motion moved by the Minister for Education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not easy to embark on the task of mobilising the forces of our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious Singapore society to give feedback, suggestions and inputs which could become the platform for the lives of Singaporeans in the years ahead, namely, Vision 21. It is even more so after having dialogues and interviews with 6,000 Singaporeans to follow up on their ideas and opinions. Therefore, I wish to place on record my congratulations and thanks to the S21 Committee for their unyielding efforts, chaired by RAdm Teo and his Committee members. I am sure the findings and proposals of the Committee will be well received by the people of Singapore and, hopefully, translated into action fully.

Mr Speaker, Sir, active citizens will determine the heartbeat of our society. In order to achieve this, we need to give full support and overcome any impediments that could affect the active participation of the people. For the Malays particularly, I wish to quote from the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Dr Tony Tan, as it appeared in the Berita Harian issue of 28th February 1999:

"It is not reasonable for employers not to employ persons of suitable skills and talent simply because they are not Chinese or for the SAF not to appoint or award promotion on the grounds solely of being Malays. It is stupid on our part to do such things."

Then, on 11th March 1999 in Berita Harian, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Dr Tony Tan further said:

"There are many Malay commanders, officers, warrant officers and specialists in the SAF. They serve in the same field as their non-Malay counterparts and others. When the Malays continue to climb up the education ladder, they will be qualified to fill more and even higher posts in the SAF."

Then on 1st April 1999, Berita Harian made a report from Jakarta concerning remarks made by the Singapore Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant-General Bey Soo Khiang:

"In fact, President Habibie has received the wrong information. We practise a system of meritocracy. All SAF staff are accorded equal treatment on the basis of equality, regardless of race. In fact, there are many Malay officers in the SAF and they have made contributions towards national defence like other races."

I am deeply touched because I was greatly elated after reading the speeches which I quoted above. Why? Because all this while, the topic of Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces has been a very sensitive issue, a grey area which is difficult to put light in the open, not only by the Singapore community, but even myself; perhaps also my MP colleagues. Such concerns and sensitivities from these speeches, I think, will be a sort of encouragement and stimulant which will spur the Malay community to attain greater heights and work together in the national arena.

Scepticism and misgivings, which have abated confidence on meritocracy, are obvious. New horizon has arisen and meritocracy is no longer an instrument to avert misunderstanding but it has been shown to be exercised fully. So I am sure the Malay community, which has always been loyal to this beloved country, will bury any feeling of suspicion and apprehension. We must put our shoulders to the wheel in order to acquire knowledge. Speeches made by our leaders should be used by the Malay community as a yardstick to build a more meaningful and excellent life, especially with regard to the issues of retraining, the knowledge based economy (KBE), lifelong education and others which will enhance the credibility of the Malay society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch upon the dearth of Malays participating in grassroots activities. For example, on the basis of participation ratio, I think less than 6% Malays take an active part in grassroots activities. Now that we have Vision S21, I hope more Malays will participate in grassroots activities because the People's Association has identified and analysed the reasons for the inadequate participation of Malays in grassroots activities, such as problems of prayer times, halal food issues and the frequent dinners and festivities which they have to pay for to attend.

It appears that the obstacles which I have mentioned above have been addressed by the People's Association and local grassroots organisations by providing halal food and holding meetings after 7.30 pm, after prayer times. When Singaporeans, including the Malays, work together as a nation, more benefits will be garnered. Otherwise, the ingredients are incomplete and the end result is simply not delicious. I therefore feel that there is no reason for the Malay community not to be able to work hand-in-hand and to participate in national activities such as in the Residents' Committees, Community Development Councils and others.

I believe, with more active participation of Malays in grassroots organisations, many local and national issues can be comprehended and adopted resulting in stronger inter-racial relationship. Besides, more feedback will be made available. Thus, a part of S21 Vision would have been fulfilled and a more harmonious living is bonded.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very much impressed and it is therefore incensed in my heart by the speech made yesterday by PM Goh Chok Tong in this House. He spoke at length concerning the Singapore nation. He said that Singapore is not yet a nation and he foresees the possibility that something untoward might happen if we are not on our guard and prioritising our country and society above our own self-interests. I feel that the sense of belonging of Singaporeans has existed and has been proven by the fact that Singapore has participated in every field of activities. The sense of pride of being a Singaporean is more evident when they are abroad. I believe that if this spirit is nurtured and inculcated, the hopes of our Prime Minister will certainly be realised.

However, I feel that whilst the national leaders practise the policy of working hand-in-hand, we should be on the look-out and ensure that those entrusted with this policy work together. I fear there may be some of them who are in disagreement with each other. In this event, certain sectors of the population will point a finger at the Government whereas, in fact, the policy of the Government is correct and is made in the interest of the people. When this eventually happens, the scepticism towards the word "trust" will emerge and will become a question mark without a full stop.

I urge that Singaporeans use and exercise the word "trust" as a panacea, which can cure all ailments, great or small, in our multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society. Hopefully, the hopes of our Prime Minister and Singaporeans alike will be realised when we continue to practise our fundamentals of life. As the Malay saying goes, "Living by mutual help which will help to stabilise our stance to create a one nation and people of Singapore ".

Majulah Singapura.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.48 pm until 3.15 pm Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm