SINGAPORE 21 (Motion)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San): Sir, thank you for allowomg me to join in the debate on the motion. Firstly, I would like to congratulate Minister Teo and his team for a very good report which contains simple yet meaningful messages which all Singaporeans can relate to. It is extremely difficult to crystallize abstract ideas into simple messages, and I think the committee has done an excellent job.

Singapore is a country with very little resource, and the main resource we have is manpower, and hence people are its most important asset. For Singapore's future to be bright, Singaporeans must take an active interest in Singapore's future.

I remember why I first got involved in politics in the mid-80s. I have always believed that Singaporeans must take an active interest in Singapore if Singapore was to have a future. At that time in the 80s, I have felt that many in the younger generation had a different viewpoint from the views espoused by Government. I had two choices. I could have either been an armchair critic or joined the party to make different views known. I chose the latter. While in politics, I was not a yes man, but more often than not, I was willing to express a different view whenever I thought that the different view I expressed was a viable alternative.

I am a firm believer of active citizenship where every Singaporean is encouraged to take an active role in making Singapore a better place to live in. However, the reality is that it is tougher than what it seems. I remember that when I was working in a Government-related institution, it was amazing that sometimes, senior officers act contrary to what the Government preaches. The policies formulated within the institution ran against the grain of the principles that we have been taught to believe in. If you had a valid point that they could not rebut, they will use a different approach; they will send your report to a committee which will just sit on your report and not make any decisions on it. If I, as a Member of Parliament, could feel the frustration of being an active citizen, what more the man-in-the-street.

Making active citizenship a reality requires a major change in the mindset. The first thing to do is to have an active response to opinion. The public sector must take the lead in promoting active citizenship as invariably all Singaporeans will come into contact with Government agencies. And where should we begin? I think this House should lead by example. If good suggestions are thrown up, let Ministries be bold enough to say yes. It is often easier to say no than to say yes. Sometimes, the reply is no, but the suggestion resurfaces later as a new policy of the Ministry. I am glad that the Singapore 21 report states that a difference of views should be seen as an opportunity to benefit from the diversity of ideas, and there should be no loss of face if good ideas come from the people. This active response to opinion must filter down to the public sector. We must go beyond the service quality committees to people sector committees, comprising of individuals in the public, private and people sectors, whose role is to ensure that the public sector is promoting active citizenship in a positive manner. I believe that the task ahead is a gargantuan one and changing this mindset will require tremendous political will.

Creating an active citizenship culture goes beyond just creating an active response to opinion. We have to start from the very young, right from the kindergartens, the schools and the universities. We have to change the entire mindset. I remember that in my days, the teacher was always right, and teachers did not take too kindly to students who pointed out their mistakes or took a different view. The educational institutions must create the right environment for our young to be active citizens. Singaporeans must learn that the future of Singapore lies in the citizenship that is able to look beyond the individual and the family. We must build a citizenship that is able to contribute to the nation and believe that their future is invariably tied to the future of the nation.

Finally, in promoting active citizenship, we must not forget that access is also important. People wishing to participate in giving feedback or being involved in community projects must be able to find access easily. Although many Ministries or organisations have tended to promote high-tech access via the Internet, we must not forget that there are many Singaporeans who are not Internet savvy. A simple toll-free phone line will probably be an easier alternative. If we want to promote and make active citizenship a reality, it has to start from the two key sectors that have a major impact on all Singaporeans and all Singapore families. Firstly, the public sector, which every Singaporean will have to come into contact with, and secondly, educational institutions which will nurture our young and mould their minds. If we can succeed in these two areas, we will have planted the seeds for active citizenship. May it one day grow like a mighty oak and spread its branches so that it will touch the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans. The day this happens, I think we will have succeeded in creating a Singapore tribe.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): As I read the S21 report, amidst the background of a very troubled region, I immediately became aware of the very key lesson contained in the report, that is, about the need to accommodate change. One of the reasons for the political problems in the region, I feel, is the inability of Government to deal with inevitable forces of changes, both within the Government and within the society that they govern. As a result, the process of change is unnecessarily accompanied by chaos, anger, violence and revolution.

To me, S21 is about accommodating change. Some of the ideas and concepts contained in the report indeed require accommodating a very revolutionary change in mindset. If you measure the S21 report against past trends, it may appear revolutionary because the ideas may be a very vast departure from past and present mindsets. If you measure the S21 report against the expectations that accompanied it, it can be quite pessimistic because of the sheer overwhelming task ahead to achieve this vision, and because of the many conflicting dilemmas and issues that we must hurdle.

But herein lies the real value of this report; one that recognises and accommodates the diversity of views; one that provides for opportunities for all Singaporeans to participate; one that allows us to deal with the very uncomfortable conflicts and dilemmas as we go through a peaceful evolutionary process of change through consensus and collective effort. Whether it is foreign talent, SAP schools, multi-culturalism, Malays in SAF or Simei Briskwalkers, the important thing is that there exist avenues for discussions, debate and a fruitful engagement. But we must be aware of the responsibility that accompanied it, and that the evolutionary process cannot be compromised and allowed to tear our society apart.

I hope that Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam is here today, because yesterday, he said he cannot recall any public discussion on S21. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam may wish to know the feedback group of which I chaired, the mass media group, devoted its entire activities last year on S21. In fact, I recall a report from the Feedback Unit's annual conference papers last year, and amongst other suggestions, it called for the increase in the number of NCMPs so that Opposition Members in Parliament constitute at least 10% of the Members of Parliament in this House.

I also remember that when these suggestions were brought forward, there were many who had reservations and hesitation about putting their names to these suggestions, because they feared about making such revolutionary proposals. But I assured them that a genuine and sincere feedback is indeed welcomed, as indeed is the purpose of S21. It may be a very new experience for these people, but I am sure they, like the 6,000 others who were involved in the process, have experienced not only an increase in the avenues and channels for constructive consultation and feedback, but also in participating in what many see as a new arena in public discussion.

For the moment, only those with exceptional high-level of seriousness and commitment are likely to enter this arena, because of their perception of OB markers, their own interpretation of defamation laws, and issues of political discussion and discourse. But seen from this point, one can appreciate that the experience has indeed been a very significant milestone in the feedback and consultation process. To me, the S21 consultation process, in its spirit and character, will hopefully set the tone, pace and style of public discussion in Singapore in the future.

Next, S21 to me is also about changing mindset. I wholeheartedly welcome the call by the Minister for more active citizenship and for greater involvement of civil societies at the grassroots level. But for this to happen, we need a change in mindset. Civil societies should seize this opportunity to become more engaged at the neighbourhood level. But a change in mindset on the part of the Government and civil service is also needed. I venture to suggest that we turn the community centres to be centres for civil societies outside the management of the People's Association. Very much like the town councils, privatising its operations to private managing agents, civil societies can and should take the lead to provide a whole range of programmes and services to help the community. The community centres can become a virtual office, a home for all civil societies at the neighbourhood, civil societies working in tandem with the Government.

But we also need a change in mindset on the way Government communicates with its constituents. A Western diplomat, whom I had lunch with yesterday, on learning about the daily proceedings of a Member of Parliament in Singapore, remarked that the Members of Parliament in Singapore indeed work very hard, and is worth every penny that they are paid. And this drew a response from another Roundtable colleague of mine who said that democracy is calculated or measured by the number of contacts that Members of Parliament here have with their constituents.

Singapore could indeed be the most democratic nation in the world. However, my sense is that, even this, we need to have a change of mindset. Many Singaporeans want to go beyond feedback, beyond submitting survey forms, beyond dropping suggestions at suggestion boxes at Ministries and statutory boards. The meet-the-people session is perceived by some to be a place that you go to when you have a problem. But most Singaporeans do not have a problem that they need to go to the MPs. They want to talk, discuss, listen and engage their MPs and Ministers beyond press statements and official announcements.

I was told by a friend recently that he finds it very refreshing to hear, while he is driving to work, Mr David Lim, Mr Lim Swee Say and Mr Inderjit Singh on Radio Chat Show. It is such a thrill for Singaporeans to now realise that at the press of a button, while driving to work, they can have a chat with their Ministers on the radio. And the value is not so much of those participating in these chat shows, but the demonstration of the accessibility, the spontaneity and the human touch that this new communication provides. Again, I venture to suggest that Ministries and statutory boards tap on this new opportunity in media communication with the public. Press officers, as official spokesmen, are not merely messengers of Government announcements.

But really the biggest enemy, to me, in changing our mindsets is in ourselves, when we measure others by our own standards, especially when they fall far short of our own ideals and values, As a Board member of the Singapore Cooperative of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE), it frustrates me to face walls after walls of obstacles when trying to find jobs for rehabilitated drug offenders. Many would not even want to consider them as cooks or other manual labour. Yet, I find it very paradoxical that a security guard who looks after millions of dollars of inventories are seldom scrutinised for their background. Even the stringent background checks carried out by statutory boards, Ministries and the civil service may sometimes act as a barrier to do mundane jobs and those which are not exposed to security threats. We must change this mindset.

I ask every Singaporean to find a place in Singapore 21 because it is the collective response of society that will determine the progress that we will make out of this Report. Being active citizens need not necessarily being active committee members of social organisations, although this is certainly preferred.

The other thing that I wish to change mindsets as far as civil society is concerned is also the fact that sometimes the civil society is preoccupied with the notion that to maintain independence, they need to operate outside and apart from Government. I think civil societies need to change that, because what is important is not so much to be operating outside Government but to really give value to the people who rely on the services. And this is where I call on civil societies to really take a look at their mode of operation and tell themselves that our independence and our conviction and our ideals for civil society rest very much on our conscience and our belief in the cause that we do. Never mind the perception that working with Government may sometimes make people feel that we are being co-opted into Government.

Lastly, to me, S21 is about being Singaporean. It is not just about, like I said, being active members of committees, but we can also be good citizens of Singapore just by being good neighbours, being a helpful colleague and being a responsible corporate citizen, being a decent person, being a Singaporean, any Singaporean, so long as you are not indifferent or so long as you are not disinterested.

With that, I support the motion, Sir.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion on Singapore 21. No one in his right mind would oppose S21. No one would want to oppose the clear-cut, wholesome, motherhood statements. To oppose would be like turning against what is good.

Of course, it need not necessarily mean that motherhood statements could not be the powerhouse of ideas nor that it could not be the mother of all visions. It can be all that and more.

The pertinent question is: does it mean that it is widely accepted on the ground and permeates through Singaporean society? Honestly, not. Not being opposed is one thing. It is another to be rooted and anchored in the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, in the souls of all Singaporeans. Sir, it is yet to be etched and ingrained in the collective will and psyche of the people of Singapore.

I asked some grassroots leaders and residents about S21. It is of not much interest to them. Some have not heard about it. In the kopi tiam, they are not bothered, honestly. They say, boh chap. It is not a bread and butter issue to them. They are all too busy making a living for themselves. Others could not understand. It is too chim, too deep for them. Liak boh kew, they say. It is too abstract, philosophical and perplexing. They are indeed put on the horns of dilemmas, when we talk about the five dilemmas. One told me that it is like the literati talking to the literati, and it is of no concern to the ordinary folks in the street. This may not, of course, reflect everything and not an entirely accurate summary, but it is a perception on the ground. Some say, please, talk as much as you want on S21, but remember do not be like NATO - No Action Talk Only. What they are more interested in is what happens after this. Sir, may I ask: what can be done to change this mindset and make Singapore 21 part and parcel of the Singaporean way of life?

In a recent interview, RAdm Teo Chee Hean was reported to have said in the papers that S21 has no target, no set programme and no agency to drive its implementation. I want to ask how then can we measure the success or otherwise of S21? How then can S21 touch the hearts of Singaporeans, reach all sectors of Singaporean society, and be the cornerstone of Singaporean society?

Things do not just happen overnight. The fact that S21 is formulated and debated indicates that it needs to be crystallised and be given a push. We need a facilitator. We need an organising genius. We need an agency with the resources and the network to connect up the people, to uphold and keep the vision alive in the hearts and in the heartland, in particular.

Sir, Singapore, in reality, is a city state, not a nation, with a big population or a big hinterland. We are the Sparta and Athens of the East. Singapore is a city state with a tiny piece of property and a small multi-racial population, surrounded by much bigger neighbours. We must not forget that. Yesterday, the Prime Minister put this issue in perspective in this House. We have to compete fiercely in order to survive. We have to make ourselves useful to the world in order to survive, while at the same time dedicate enormous resources to defence and security.

Debates on values, priorities, aspirations and OB markers must take into account these fundamental parameters governing Singapore. We cannot run away from the strategic imperatives.

Sir, in the preface to the text of S21, it is proclaimed that the five ideas, arising from the five dilemmas, form a vision for the future. It states:

'They are ideals that we strive for, to add to the timeless ones we already hold as a nation - meritocracy, clean government, racial and religious harmony.'

Sir, I beg to differ on this point. It is an exaggeration and a misplaced optimism, to catapult and categorise clean government, racial and religious harmony as the "timeless ones". This "timeless" quality or qualification seems to suggest that they are given or solidly anchored in the context of Singapore. If we believe they are, we are sadly mistaken. Clean government and racial and religious harmony are not given. They are far from being internalised or institutionalised. It will be a mistake to presume or pretend that they are.

The Chew Swee Kee scandal, involving the then Minister for Education and $700,000 of "political gift", helped to bring down the Lim Yew Hock government and propelled the PAP into power in the 1959 General Elections. The PAP, elected into government, proceeded to fulfil its election manifesto and made clean government a touchstone and unshakable pillar of the Government. From time to time, erring officials are taken to task.

It is not plain sailing. We have to keep an eye on things, especially when in some other countries, to be on the take is part of the political culture. It is an intrinsic part of their system.

Sir, I met some officials from another country and was told that being elected is a ticket to wealth and prosperity. You need funds to get elected in the first instance. After you get elected, you need to repay your benefactors, and the gate is wide open for patronage, for lining your own pockets. This is indeed a contagious environment for greed and corruption.

Nadesan Chandra, a Singaporean football referee, exemplified the Singaporean non-corrupt ethos, when he rejected a bribe to fix a match in Kuwait in 1987, and he said:

'It is just not Singaporean to be corrupt. Taking "dirty money" has never been my cup of tea. I am proud that I reacted and behaved like a genuine Singaporean.'

We, in Singapore, are clearly and absolutely against corruption. We would have no part in such corrupt practices. And it is this clean government policy that won us the investments and helped us to create jobs for our people.

A clean government is able to lead with authority, sincerity and is able to inspire and galvanize the people, who will respond to calls for sacrifices and belt-tightening in times of crisis, as during this economic downturn. But it is a constant battle of vigilance and of conviction. Surely this deserves to be enshrined in S21, as an intrinsic and integral part of our Singaporean way of life, and not just mentioned in passing.

Sir, it is even more critical to highlight, emphasise and reinforce racial and religious harmony, rather than just mentioning it again in passing. Racial and religious harmony is vital. It is the very foundation for our internal cohesion, bonding and indeed prosperity. Without it, everything else will fail and fall.

Lest we forget, there were the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950, the racial riots of 1964 and across the Causeway, the May 13th riots of 1969, which had spillover effects on Singapore during that time. I remember I was a first-year student in the university. Outside the campus, there were soldiers in uniform with their rifles ever ready to patrol the streets. Further afield, there are racial and religious conflicts in Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Indonesia, nearby.

Racial and religious harmony is precious. It must not be taken for granted. It does not just happen. We have to work at it constantly, day in and day out, in our place of work, in our neighbourhood and in our very own homes. Racial and religious harmony is fragile. Agent provocateurs or some disgruntled and misguided fundamentalists or chauvinists could easily stir the pot and arouse the emotions.

We must, Sir, at the same time, commend the S21 Committee for taking the open and consultative approach, and for reaching out and touching base with 6,000 Singaporeans. This is the bottom-up approach and consultation at its best, and is indeed laudable and very welcome.

Some members of the public are glad and detected a shift in S21 towards a more open society, and a trend towards giving more space to individuals, with the battle cry of "Every Singaporean matters". Every Singaporean is precious and matters. His views matter. His interests matter, and his contributions matter. One can say that it is one for all and all for one. Together, we make the difference. We make the difference for our families, for our society, and for our nation.

But individual interests must be balanced by community interests and national interests. Individual interests must not be allowed to ride roughshod over community and national interests.

Sir, in the "Shared Values" paper, which was published and debated in Parliament in 1991, it was clearly stated that one of the five core values is "Nation before community and society above self". The "Shared Values" paper expounded that, and I quote:

"Singapore is an Asian society. It has always weighted group interests more heavily than individual ones. This balance has strengthened social cohesion, and enabled Singaporeans to pull together to surmount difficult challenges collectively, more successfully than other societies. An emphasis on the community has been a key survival value for Singapore. We should preserve and strengthen it."

While strengthening communitarianism, the "Shared Values" paper recognises that the individual also has rights which should be respected, and therefore added another core value: "Regard and Community Support for the Individual".

Sir, in the end, it is a matter of accommodation and a matter of balance. S21 should address this and put it in perspective. Otherwise, individual interests may loom larger than community and national interests.

In the civil society, where active citizens participate fully in all sectors and make a difference to society, civic groups, charitable organisations, clans, and non-government organisations, all have relevant and unique roles to play. Each group has special and significant contributions to make and no doubt can make a difference to society, provided they are not self-interested and not blinded and obsessed by self-interests. We should not support those who use civic groups as hobby horses to advance their own selfish interests.

We have, over the years, a quick succession of strategic roadmaps or compasses. In 1984, we had Vision 1999'; in 1991, we had Shared Values'; and last year, the National Education Programme was in full swing with the Singapore Story Exhibition. And now Singapore 21. Each of these, I must say, has its specific purposes. But it is all rather bewildering to the man-in-the-street.

What is the way forward to the 21st century? How could we sell S21 to the people? How do we make sense of S21? How many of us, for example, remember the five core values of Shared Values, which were debated in this House in 1991? Honestly, I could not remember all the details. I have to hurry to the Library to dig out the five core values in order to incorporate it. Incidentally, the five core values, for the record, are:

Nation before community and society above self.

Family as the basic unit of society.

Regard and community support for the individual.

Consensus instead of contention.

Racial and religious harmony.

Sir, therefore, the real test of S21, that is the point I want to make, is whether any one of us could remember what it is all about in a couple of years' time. This is why I say if we are serious about S21, we should revise it and incorporate elements of Shared Values and National Education, and have a national civic body, or even a non-government body, to chart its course and promote it.

S21 is our compass for the 21st century, and this compass will only work well and guide us to the right path if it is founded on the fundamentals of Singapore and the geopolitics of the region.

Putting aside our different approaches, at the end of the day, S21 is about ownership of Singapore, S21 is about passion for Singapore, S21 is about commitment to Singapore.

As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in his National Day Rally speech in 1996, "You have to feel passionately about Singapore. Being Singaporean should resonate in our hearts and minds." If S21 helps us to feel passionately about Singapore, it is worth it. Let us together then make it happen, and make the difference for Singapore, for our children and future generations of Singaporeans.

Sir, I support the motion.