SINGAPORE 21 (Motion)

Debate resumed.

Mr R. Ravindran (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me congratulate the S21 Committee and all the participants involved in preparing the report and the recommendations contained therein.

Sir, it is no easy task to identify the heartware Singaporeans want and to put these intangibles in writing. The five key issues identified encapsulate well the main dilemmas faced by Singapore as we move closer to becoming a developed state.

As I read the report, what went through my mind was: what difference will this report make to the lives of Singaporeans immediately and later? Twenty years later, when I look at this report, will I see it as a landmark report that really made a difference to the lives and soul of Singaporeans? Will this report be seen as a defining moment in the history of Singapore where Singaporeans really felt a difference? Will we see a golden era of active citizens who care and share with others in the wider community? Will there be a difference thereafter in the political process and participation? Is politics and public policy debate going to be only for politicians or for everyone who has a stake in Singapore? Will this new trinity of people, public and private sector consultation and cooperation be the new political theory to be expounded and practised?

Sir, is Singapore ready to undertake an adventure into uncharted waters to define the parameters of greater public involvement in policy-making, yet without upsetting some norms and conventions built over the years? Many, Sir, both locally and internationally, will be watching, whether these are mere propaganda statements for public consumption or a genuine programme to bring about real change. I am confident that the composition of the S21 Committee and the many participants who took part in it had Singapore and Singaporeans at heart when they deliberated the report and its recommendations. They reflect the future Singapore Singaporeans want. I am confident that the Government and the people can make the quantum leap to achieve the vision and the many goals defined in the S21 report.

Sir, I originally intended to speak on the topic of active citizens, but when the Hon. Prime Minister spoke yesterday, I was taken aback, to be candid, because he stated that we are not a nation yet. But earlier on, when I heard Hon. Minister Mr Lim Boon Heng speak, he had mentioned that he was surprised by the article written by a journalist in yesterday's Straits Times where she stated that she was surprised at what the Prime Minister had said, and that perhaps she said that there was a difference in viewpoint between those in the 30s and 50s. And that brings me, Sir, to the fourth issue that is raised in the report, that is, feeling passionately for Singapore.

I must confess that when the Prime Minister said yesterday that we are not a nation yet, I was surprised because I grew up in the post-independence generation, and for me, all I know is Singapore is my home. Perhaps there is this difference in understanding what is Singapore all about and what is Singapore as a nation, and whether it means different things to different people. Sir, I belong to the post-independence generation. I underwent a school system where day in and day out we were told that: This is our home, this is our nation. This was carried through secondary school, pre-university, in my National Service, and the university. That is how we all were brought up, Sir. So for the young, I am quite sure, just like me, many Singaporeans who read the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, they would have been equally surprised because to most of us, Singapore is our nation. But I understand the context in which the Prime Minister made his speech - that Singapore is a young nation and that there are pitfalls to be worried about.

Sir, I endorse the speech of the Prime Minister in respect of being on guard against fault lines in society. But we must continue to ensure that Singapore as a nation continues to become stronger and that the Government continues to develop this trust and in being a fair Government to everybody in society. Singapore is a complex society comprising people of different races, religions, languages and backgrounds. One thing that has stood out, and I speak to everybody who comes from different racial backgrounds, language or religious background, is that what we have is a fair Government and it is a Government that we trust. And I think this is something that is peculiar and something that all Singaporeans would like to cherish. I would like to encourage all Singaporeans to work towards ensuring that we continue to have a Government that is not only fair but there is something also which is trustful.

Sir, as I elaborated earlier, I grew up in the post-independence generation. To me, the definition of Singapore right up to the 1990s was that I did not see the difference in being Chinese, Indian or Malay. But somewhere in the 1980s, I felt that there was a difference in Government policy and that we had started focusing on issues regarding the different racial groups in Singapore, and that there we took a divergent line. And perhaps one of the concerns that the Prime Minister has raised in regard to these differences that may arise is something that could have arisen in the course of different policies that have been implemented by the Government.

Sir, things like community development organisations, we have to re-look whether they go towards building Singapore into a cohesive, united society, or do they in the end, end up making our society a divisive society. I would like to share an example. I met the CEO of Sinda earlier this week and he had informed me that when they placed an advertisement asking for individuals to sign up for their skills retraining programme, 90% of those who called Sinda called and complained. 90% of those who called were Chinese. When they were told that Chinese could not sign up for this programme, because this is a programme organised by Sinda, they had complained, "Why are you discriminating because I am a Chinese?" This gives a very peculiar picture in Singapore, because it makes us look back and wonder whether some of these measures that we have introduced over these years have led to a more cohesive society, or we are in a way inadvertently leading to a society which may become divisive.

Sir, I endorse the call of the S21 Committee that we make Singaporeans feel passionately about Singapore. My generation is a generation that grew up and did national service. And if I asked many of my friends who had undergone national service, push comes to shaft, "Will you stand up for your country?" And I will tell you that, do or die, they will stand up and die for this country, because this is the only nation that they all know. I endorse the call of the Committee to develop stronger ties and a stronger commitment to Singapore.

Let me now move on to the topic which I came to speak about, Sir, which is active citizenship.

Sir, let me now share with the Members of this House on what are some of my thoughts to encourage Singaporeans to become active citizens and what can be done to ensure that this report and its recommendations do become milestones in Singapore.

First, is the question of whether we should develop national or international citizens. The report states that an active citizen is one who takes an active part as a citizen in making the country a better place to live. I wish that the term "our citizens" would have been even more broadly defined as people who make both the country and the world a better place to live. There are many Singaporeans who have distinguished themselves internationally in making the world a better place to live. I hope, Sir, many more Singaporeans would be involved in international volunteer work besides local volunteer work, so that Singaporeans are known not only as active citizens locally but also internationally.

Sir, here I see great potential for Singapore International Foundation to garner the many volunteers, particularly the increasing number of senior citizens to do international volunteer work. I welcome the setting up of the National Volunteer Centre by MCD and hope that it would help mobilise volunteers for both local and international volunteer work.

Sir, another area where I see a great role is for employers and schools to be involved in greater volunteer work. The reach of the schools and all employers practically reaches every household. If we can develop a volunteer programme whereby all schools and all employers are involved in doing community work, just by setting aside one hour a week to undertake community work, I think we would have reached a large number of Singaporeans getting involved in volunteer work. And by imbibing in the young, particularly in the schools, a sense of doing community service, a sense of doing common volunteer work, I think this is something that they carry on throughout their life and it will show commitment to serving the community.

Sir, what I do hope to see is greater volunteerism among the public sector and private sector employees so that not one sector but all sectors of the society are involved in building a better Singapore. I also hope that the proposed National Volunteer Centre can reach out to both employers and schools in a big way in future.

Sir, another recurrent thing that has appeared in the column of Active Citizens in the S21 Report is that the recurrent theme among a number of Singaporeans is that they are not being consulted and there is a climate of fear in speaking out against Government policies which they feel are ineffective or wrong. The Government has made big, bold moves from not having enough consultation with the public to where there is substantial consultation. But the public view is that there is still not enough consultation.

Here, I recollect an incident. About four years ago, when I participated in a public dialogue session, a young person, whom I believed was from the university, got up and criticised that there was not enough freedom in Singapore and she went on to criticise the Government. Then I turned around and asked her, "The fact that you stand up and criticise, don't you feel that you have the freedom?". And she kept quiet. What I would like to highlight is that, while they complain, a lot of measures have been undertaken by the Government for more consultation. However, the public not only wants more consultation, but they would also like to be consulted at the pre-policy stage rather than at the post-policy stage.

Sir, a classic example, particularly during the Feedback Unit sessions, is the feedback session held over the Budget session. Many of these feedback panel participants usually feel that the feedback and discussion on the Budget should be done before the Budget is presented and not after it is presented. So there was a call for the consultation and feedback sessions to be held before a policy is made rather than after the policy is made. I hope this is something that the Government can look into.

Sir, what can the Government do? The Government, for a start, could encourage the relevant non-sensitive information to be disseminated timely so that members of the public can give considered feedback or suggestions. At times, the public suggestions may not be helpful, not because they are not thought through but because they are premised on inadequate or wrong information. This leads to a win-win situation as we have a far larger pool of people looking at the problem and giving suggestions. It may be difficult for some civil servants, particularly the Administrative Service officers who are the best and brightest, to accept that the public can come out with better policy options. This may be due to the mindset and expectations of the Administrative Service to be the best and have considered everything.

In considering policy options, the civil servant may harbour a feeling that the suggestion from a member of the public which is accepted and implemented may imply a failure on their part to have identified and implemented it. Such a thinking must be discarded and the mindset must be changed. The PS21 guidelines and programmes that have been implemented have gone to a large extent to change the mindset of the public service, but more can definitely be done.

Sir, there is also definitely more scope for pre-policy consultation. I applaud the call by the Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee Hsien Loong, in March this year at the Administrative Service Dinner, that the Administrative Service should change its mindset and to involve the people sector in its policy making. I am convinced that our Ministers recognise the sea change in public eagerness to participate. But it has to sink deep in the mentality of the civil servants. Perhaps, they need to be advised that not all the information is official secret and to share information and gain policy input from the public is a win-win formula not only for the public service but for Singapore as a whole.

Sir, to encourage a culture of consultation and involvement with the public, the civil service must also recognise and reward officers who take this process seriously and engage the public for better policy making.

Sir, there is also a call to make more use of technology to improve the consultative process. I would urge all Government departments to make greater use of technology like the Internet to get speedy feedback and suggestions from as large a pool of Singaporeans as possible so that everybody will feel that he has contributed towards policy making in Singapore. What can the people do then? It takes two to tango. Equally, it is important that the public respond with vigour, sincerity and responsibility. The discussions must be on a platform of doing and achieving the best for Singaporeans and Singapore. We must be tolerant to different views. The participation by the public should not be merely armchair criticisms and offering of views. They must also follow through, where possible, with action, what the report referred to as "walk the talk". The Government must also facilitate this. Groups of individuals who share similar interests and want to advocate certain views should be allowed to flourish without unease. Rules and regulations should be changed to help create and flourish the development of such interest groups. At the same time, we must also recognise that not all Singaporeans want to participate in such consultation. They are happy that there are avenues for them to give feedback and discuss matters they feel strongly about.

The other complaint among Singaporeans is that, although they hold differing views, they are afraid to speak up for fear of being black marked or picked up by the Internal Security Department. We know that there is no such black mark namelist and this is an unjustified perception. The Government must work harder to help clear this perception.

Similarly, some of our laws, which were prepared in the 1950s or 1960s to deal with a different era, must be relooked at so that they would give comfort to Singaporeans. Many of these laws are so widely defined that they can be picked up, arrested or charged for any of these widely defined offences. Perhaps, we can relook at some of these laws to make sure that they are not very narrowly defined and people need not fear when they speak up their minds or when they want to go out and do things which are in the interest of Singapore.

Sir, perhaps, here, the OB markers could be made clear so that people do not harbour any suspicion or fear of being picked up. When an OB marker is arbitrarily defined, it frightens the public and many may withdraw from public participation. Public discussion should be encouraged not only in Government organisations like the Feedback Unit, People's Association or think-tanks like IPS. Ministers, MPs and civil servants should make time to participate in as many relevant forums as possible to increase the consultative process. Just like justice, consultation must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

Sir, the other thing that the Report calls for is for active citizens to take action and assume responsibility, rolling up their sleeves to help implement what they envision or suggest. This is something very laudable. The public must recognise that not all their views and opinions are workable. When a decision is finally reached, they must equally close rank and support it wholeheartedly for democracy is all about accepting the views and opinions of the majority.

Sir, I see the S21 Report as a guidance to what a parent will give to his young children who have just turned 21 years of age. It is up to the young person to decide what he wants to do with the guidance which his parents has given, just as the S21 Committee has given this Report to the Singapore society. Singapore is coming of age as we enter the new millennium. Let us work together to make the 21st century a place where we can dream and realise our vision of a home, a home we can all be proud of.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education.

Sir, at the outset, I would like to congratulate the S21 Committee on an effort that has been quite sincere to canvass a wide spectrum of views in order to forge this vision of Singapore in the next century. The process has been bipartisan and exhaustive, if not exhausting, given the Committee's desire to reach out to as many Singaporeans as possible. The result is certainly a compelling vision that embraces our collective aspirations as a people.

Sir, an important point made in the S21 Report is that the five key ideas complement those that have already served us well - clean government, meritocracy, and racial and religious harmony. Yesterday, our Prime Minister made a passionate case why these ideals, particularly our multi-racial harmony, should not be taken for granted. To me, it was a timely and sobering reminder to keep our feet firmly planted on the ground even as we reach for the stars. I was not puzzled by the Prime Minister's speech or the import of his message. In fact, it struck a chord. So I do not think it is a generational issue. But I do think it is a matter of perspective.

Sir, there is a concern among some Singaporeans that we may be becoming more ethnocentric at the expense of our national identity. Some Government policies like the advent of self-help groups, the establishment of SAP schools or the introduction of ethnic quotas in HDB estates may have accentuated these anxieties. While each of these policies has its own forceful rationale, each also has an inescapable ethnic dimension. And some have argued that all such policies should be dismantled because of their ethnic hue. Others feel that some policies, especially those that segregate like the self-help groups, should be reviewed. Indeed, this was the thrust of the Straits Times commentary today on yesterday's proceedings in Parliament. Yet, others have absolutely no problems with any of these policies.

Sir, to me, it is clear from this debate, be it on self-help groups, SAP schools, or any of the other ethnic based issues, that we Singaporeans, all of us, attach paramount importance to multi-racial harmony. It is also equally clear to me from this debate that we do not all agree on what form, direction or, indeed, the paradigm we should adopt in moving forward as a society to maintain that harmony. One view is that the four circles, which the Prime Minister described yesterday, should progressively migrate closer together and, ultimately, be perfectly aligned, creating one circle, one homogeneous and unified society. An alternative perspective is that whilst the overlap should be maximised, a certain variegation is unavoidable, indeed, it may be necessary, creating a clover-like mosaic where there is common ground and yet there are distinct areas as well.

Sir, I have listened to these alternative points of view with much attention, not just in the course of this debate but over the years. I too have had my doubts, especially when I was asked to take up the assignment as the first CEO, Sinda. It was with considerable trepidation that I accepted the responsibility. I was concerned that I might unwittingly be part of an endeavour that might undo a lot of good work that had been done over the last decades, that it would set us back in our efforts to build a multi-racial society, and that is an ideal I hold very close to my heart. But once I took on the job, I was surprised and, I must say, relieved to find that there were no teeming hordes of parochialists waiting to engage in a game of one-upmanship with other communities. Instead, to my pleasure, what I did find were individuals who were eager to contribute within the context of the community. They had recognised a need within the community and had been seeking resources and opportunity to do so. The self-help group gave them an opportunity to be active citizens, in the parlance of Singapore 21. And I am sure other colleagues who are in Parliament today like Mr Chan Soo Sen and Mr Zainul Abidin could attest to similar experiences in CDAC and Mendaki.

Sir, to me, the self-help groups are very much like a paint brush. In the hands of an artist, it is a tool of creation. In the hands of a tradesman, it is a tool of utility. But in the hands of a vandal, it is a tool of destruction. It is very much the intent of the user and how we manage its use. Self-help groups are a response to a challenge within the context and constraints of present day realities. And I believe a similar argument can be made for other ethnic based policies in Singapore. It is for this reason that I believe such endeavours deserve continued support from the people and the Government. But it is precisely because that in the wrong hands, they can also go tragically astray that we must also be vigilant. We must encourage CDAC, Mendaki, AMP, Sinda and the Eurasian Association to find common ground to work together. But we must also be willing to blow the whistle if we feel they are going astray.

Are self-help groups an ideal solution? Probably not. But then again, I do not think we live in utopia. Are there risks? I think so. But I am not convinced that we will be closer to an ideal society by merely dissolving or merging these organisations today. Ultimately, the challenge for Singapore is to maintain racial and religious harmony within a society that is changing and is facing new constraints all the time. We need pragmatic and dynamic responses to these challenges. But we do not have a consensus on what model or what modality we should use. What it calls for is a practical mind to respond as we see appropriate at that time to these challenges, without undermining our fundamental beliefs, but making sure that it contributes to the overall growth of our society. And it is in this context, with the on-going endeavour as the basis, that an effort like Singapore 21 will also thrive. That, to me, Sir, was the import of the Prime Minister's message yesterday, and a message which I feel all Singaporeans would do well to bear in mind.

The idea of active citizenship is an attractive and compelling one. To me, it is an invitation to each citizen to be actively engaged at all levels in this endeavour called Singapore, in order to make a difference to society. I would like to share some observations I have about active citizenship based on my experience with NGOs, VWOs, etc.

For one, active citizenship will start from the bottom up. Some may think that being an active citizen means participating in policy discussions and formulation at the highest level of Government. While this is an important contribution, active citizenship cannot just be about sitting at a round table, debating the relative merits of various policy options. There are other more earthly matters that are equally worthy of our attention and energy. These include municipal issues and also social concerns within our neighbourhood. The citizen who participates in a Neighbourhood Watch Group is as worthy of our recognition as another who is a member of the National Crime Prevention Council. No contribution can be too small, no matter at what level it is made.

I also feel that active citizenship is about commitment. A regular lament in Singapore is the lack of time, and I think this is a legitimate grouse and one that cannot be taken lightly, given the genuine time pressure that Singaporeans face in our daily grind. Yet, what I find ironic is that some of the most active citizens I have had the pleasure of meeting are those who are also involved in numerous other activities and this is in addition to juggling their family and work commitments. They are truly an inspiration to all of us and they teach us an important lesson that we can all contribute if we choose to make active citizenship an integral part of our lives. To do so, we need to be creative and perhaps find one area of interest in which to participate in tandem with our interests at the different phases of our lives. For example, one could contemplate the life cycle of an active citizen as commencing at the student stage in social service, moving on into young adulthood in youth groups, and then going on as a young parent into parenting organisations, as an older parent in school management, and ultimately, as an older Singaporean in senior citizen groups and counselling. It is a matter of will. The opportunities will always be there.

Finally, I do believe active citizenship requires a positive mindset. Last year, I was involved in a forum on civil society. What surprised me most in the course of the discussion was the suspicion that some of the panelists had about being associated with Government-related entities, be they town councils, CDCs or feedback groups. They felt that their civil society credentials might somehow be tarnished if they got involved in such organisations. I cannot understand why they have such distrust. If an organisation serves worthwhile, social and community objectives that we can identify with, then should we not feel moved to participate in its activities and support it? Or is the mere fact that it enjoys some form of Government blessing a turn-off?

A lot has been said about how active citizenship can be facilitated. As an ex-civil servant, I think one area is surely in the civil service. The civil service can undertake measures to create more opportunities for Singaporeans to give their views in the course of policy formulation. One trick could be to define the problem and issue first, and wait for a while later before we come up with the solutions, allowing the intervening time for individuals with the knowledge and interest to contribute their point of view. It would also be helpful, as many others in this House have said, when contributions are received, even if they have already been thought of by the Government agencies, it will still be worth our while to acknowledge the value of these contributions. At the same time, occasionally, at least, it would be helpful to explain why certain ideas cannot be accommodated.

I know that all this would probably spell much hard work, a very circuitous route in the way policy is formulated in Government. But if we can strike a balance between efficient policy formulation and a Singapore 21 compliant approach from time to time, then I think we will be better off as a country.

With respect to people, a lot has been said about the people sector and its active citizenship and involvement in contributing ideas. One observation I would like to make is that we should not be deterred if our ideas do not automatically get absorbed in the policy process. Indeed, one should expect that more often than not, the ideas may not find such support. But we must have the maturity and the tenacity to both understand the mechanics of the process and, at the same time, to persevere in order to get our point of view across. That, I think, is the mark of a truly active citizen who has his eye on the ball.

Sir, a point on our leaders. We certainly want leaders who will listen and actively seek opinions. In fact, we certainly want leaders who would even make themselves available through radio chat shows to us. But we also want leaders who, having listened all those points of view, will make a decision that is in the long-term interest of this country, not leaders who will slavishly follow a majority point of view. That is not why the people of Singapore elected leaders. We have been elected and the Ministers have been there in office because we have faith in their judgement, and it is important that that judgement be exercised.

Finally, Sir, a point on the communication of this very important report. S21, in my view, is quite fundamental and it should not reach a point where it does not get absorbed by its total audience, all Singaporeans, a point that my colleague, Dr Ong Chit Chung, also stressed. One perception of this report is that it is the work of an English-educated intelligentsia. Weighty words like "knowledge-based economy", "active citizenship" and "Singapore heartbeat" have been used in this report. But the Singapore heartbeat pulsates not just in Shenton Way and Raffles Place, but also in Chinatown, Geylang Serai, Serangoon Road and Ang Mo Kio. I do not know this report will make good copy in the various languages, but whatever the case, we must ensure that a concerted effort is made to ensure that the message reaches all quarters, so that S21 remains a living document in the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans.

I support the motion, Sir.

Mr Simon S. C. Tay (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education.

Many Members have well appreciated, understood and articulated the ideas contained in the report, especially in the last section about active citizens, and especially the last two Members who have spoken. I shall not repeat these ideas. I should like, instead, to focus my remarks on three areas: (1) how do we think of the future and change? (2) how do we consult and take decisions? (3) what do we mean when we call for Singaporeans to be "active people"?

I am a member of the Singapore 21 Committee and I hope that I shall answer some of those who doubt this report and who have labelled its recommendations as mere platitudes. I cannot satisfy those who are cynics, who have made up their minds without reading this report or really listening. But I do hope to persuade those who may be skeptical, those who have legitimate doubts but, nevertheless, keep an open mind.

My first point is: how do we think of the future and change? Singapore, our country, is driven by its future. We may not have five-year plans, like many other countries, but we are constantly setting ourselves strategic visions and new aspirations such as those in education and technopreneurship. Often we imagine new city scapes, right down to the details of a new city skyline and living areas. We constantly talk and drive towards these futures. In so doing, this change becomes naturalised, taken for granted. What seems incredible today, is possible tomorrow, and then, "of course", the next day.

Let me give you one example of our aims to be a global city. This was first, perhaps, articulated by the then Foreign Minister, Mr S Rajaratnam. But the idea of globalisation or regionalisation took on greater significance in the Next Lap. In 1991, when the goal of Singapore going global or regional was pushed, many had doubts, and few institutions (whether public or private sector) had this as part of their aims and programmes. Globalisation and the desire to be a global city required, in this sense, a change of mindset, a revolution in our expectations.

Yet today, some eight years later, global or regional plans figure prominently in the aspirations of most companies, Government agencies and citizens. It is taken for granted that Singapore aims to be a global city and a regional hub. We are not there yet, but we are firmly on that path. The revolution in thinking has been naturalised, so much so that when we look back, it is too easy to think, "what was the fuss about"? We have not experienced such a change suddenly. We have experienced a sea change that is deep and real, but yet subtly realised. Change has been like water on a stone. So, I hope, it will be with the recommendations of the Singapore 21 report.

In calling for such a change, do we neglect present realities? Yesterday, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, who commissioned this report on Singapore's heartware, cautioned that all Singaporeans should have a realism of where we are today. I agree. I do not take this as a dampener, nor do I believe that it was intended to be. The Prime Minister also held out the prospect of a future in which we can be a nation, a tribe of Singaporeans and this is an important vision. Realism is important to how we think about the future. It is the necessary difference between a vision and a pipe dream. But to have a vision, ideals are also necessary. It is part of the difference between mere survival and a rich life here in Singapore.

I believe that the Singapore 21 report is based on a realistic assessment of both immediate and longer term trends. We all should be aware of the present economic, social and political uncertainties in the region around us. Amidst these great imponderables, we have very few certainties which the report looks at: (1) that our youth and children are different from us or the preceding generation and will be part of the change that Singapore will experience in the 21st century; (2) that the aged that this report talks about are not those who are aged today, but all of us here, who are in our 30s or 40s or older; and (3) that in a globalised world and the drive towards a knowledge-based economy, one of the few certainties about the future is that it will be different from the present.

In this context, how do we think about the future and make plans amidst such uncertainties and changing circumstances? Some have called for implementation, here and now, of particular policies and details. These are in the Singapore 21 Report and deliberations of the subject committees. Many suggestions have been canvassed, separately published and released. But this is not the essence of S21 or how we have tried to think about the future. Singapore 21 offers, in this sense, a compass, and not a blueprint or road map, as the hon. Member, Dr Ong Chit Chung, mentioned. This compass is to better recognise and deal with the uncertainties and rapid change which we will face ahead.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.30 pm

Mr Simon S. C. Tay (Nominated Member): Sir, if you look at a road map of Singapore from last year, there is a very real prospect there will be new roads and whole housing estates that you will not find in that map. If you use a road map from five years ago, you are bound to get lost. If you look at a road map from the 1970s or the 1960s, you will think that you are in a different country. Road maps go out of date very quickly in Singapore. But the cardinal points of north, south, east and west remain the same. They are what you can navigate with, even as the terrains change. And it is these cardinal points of a compass for the coming century that Singapore 21 offers as guidance.

Let me turn to my next point. How do we consult and take decisions? It has already been mentioned that some 6,000 people were consulted and contributed ideas to the S21 Report. Some have questioned if this is enough. Others have wondered how representative these people were, whether the ordinary public were allowed their say. Opposition Members, MP Mr Chiam See Tong and NCMP Mr J B Jeyaretnam, have suggested that they were intentionally left out. They forget that Singapore 21 Chairman, Minister Teo Chee Hean, wrote to all MPs in this House to ask for their views. This is how and why Member of Parliament Mr Low Thia Khiang became one of the 6,000 people consulted.

But was 6,000 enough, and how representative and open was the process? This is the important question. 6,000 may seem to be a small percentage of our population. But it represents many hours and much work in both listening and discussing. The Committee could have consulted more people, of course, but if we did so, we may well have delayed the Report on Singapore 21 until it was already the 21st century. More to the point, we were open through the Internet and other fora to all. Also, I would say that we reached a point at which most of the views we received from additional people were things others had previously said.

When I say we consulted 6,000 people, this does not mean, of course, that Singapore 21 Report is a compilation of all the ideas and views we heard, nor does it mean that 6,000 would agree to all of the Report. Consultation does not always mean consensus. Indeed, the more we heard, the more difficult it was to find concurrence and convergence. This was part of one of our stated dilemmas, and we lived, and still live, with the tensions in this process.

As a Member of Parliament, Mr S Iswaran, said before me, we can listen, but we have to make decisions. I can tell you all things were debated, or debatable. I can tell you there were differences, big and small. There were differences among the people we spoke to, between the subject committees and the people they heard from, there were differences between one such committee and another, and there were differences even among the main committee themselves. But, indeed, differences and diversity are healthy. It is part of being an open and plural society, and it is part of the process of consultation. I would like to thank, as a member of S21, all those who participated. I learnt much from them, even if I did not include all their ideas.

Equally, part of the process of consultation was to find common ground, not to reduce things to the lowest common denominator, but to distil key principles. In this, the S21 Committee exercised judgment. Under the guidance of its Chairman, Minister Teo, some suggestions have been left out, because they found little or no wider agreement. Others, especially those dealing with specific policies, have been surfaced in the subject committee deliberations, but are not part of the main Report. If you look at these deliberations, you will see consideration of such ideas as flexible work hours and a 5-day week, dual citizenship, that GPCs should hold public hearings on important issues, and that we need to better distinguish grassroots organisations from the People's Action Party. Such policies have been debated, because they are important and controversial ideas. But they do not form the core of Singapore 21 principles, because they are not settled, and do not yet find consensus, if they ever will.

I agree with this approach. This is necessary if the Report is not to become a laundry list of miscellaneous and perhaps conflicting items. I agree because the S21 Report was not set up to look at specific policies, but at the heartware that undergirds all policies. I agree because after all the consultations, someone must decide and act. Perhaps, most importantly, I agree because the Singapore 21 Report is not an end point, not the final word on this policy or that. Rather, what I hope is that this Report is a beginning, a launch pad for future and further review of policies that concern or touch on the principles of the S21 Report.

This is what I tried myself to do when, in this House two days ago, I spoke against the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill at its Third Reading. It is not that the Singapore 21 Report says that such a Bill is wrong. It is that I fear that it may have consequences that run in tension with some of the principles. Others in this House or in the Singapore 21 Committee, I think, do not agree, and they are free to do so. Similarly, I have listened, in these past two days, to other MPs attach many different concerns to the broad framework and principles of the S21 Report, from the call to give more money from the Government to the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE), to the use of parks.

None of this is in the Report, but this is the point. I believe that what can make the Singapore 21 Report truly something, that is, from the people and for the people, is that we talk about the principles and apply them to new policies as they emerge. Not whether we talked to 6,000 or 60,000 or 600,000 or everyone in Singapore twice, but whether this Report will go on to be discussed, debated and accepted, in whole or part, by the people as part of the new and specific different issues they will face in the future. I hope, in this sense, that the S21 Report will be a continuing source of discussion, something of continuing relevance and acceptance, but also of controversy. Because principles are like that. They allow us to constantly question a particular direction of where we are going, and not merely the details of how to get there. Change, as I see it, is a continuing process, especially change that aims at mindsets and key principles. And I hope that the S21 Report will be part of a process of change, and not its end point.

Part of this is already happening, I believe. For example, I hope that some of the Singapore 21 discussions on attracting foreign talent and looking after Singaporeans will be of use to the Committee on Manpower 21. When I read DPM Lee Hsien Loong's recent speech to the civil service and his call for them to be more open to views from citizens, I thought it furthered part of the call to enable greater consultation and an active citizenry. I have followed, similarly, the establishment of a citizen's network, which calls itself "The Working Committee on Civil Society", and I see it as part of the response to the S21 and its call for an active people sector. I hope other such initiatives will follow, not just from the Government in the public sector, or because the Government calls for it, but also from the private sector and from the people sector. I hope that such initiatives will be aligned to the concerns and principles of the S21 Report, even if they do not explicitly refer to it.

Let me turn now to my third and final point. What do we mean when we call for Singaporeans to be "active people"? This deals with a particular part of the S21 Report, that I co-chaired with the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, Mr Lim Swee Say, on "consultation and consensus against decisiveness and quick action". It also relates to the call to make sure that "Every Singaporean matters".

I do not agree that the call for an active people or for every Singaporean to matter are platitudes. Rather, I think these principles call for a quiet revolution in the way Singapore has traditionally done things, and the way governments in the past have viewed people. It is a quiet revolution that is required by changed circumstances in the global economy and the political landscape, and by a people who have different aspirations. It is also an unfolding revolution that faces considerable obstacles today.

In Singapore, we have been used to saying, "People are our only resource". This is an accepted truth. But part of the way this truth has been seen is that people become just a resource. That is to say, people become important only in so far as they give utility to the national good, the economic bottom line. In this view, people can be seen as having to fit into assigned jobs and created categories or else they do not fit in at all. In this, there is a tendency to see people solely in an economic paradigm, as cogs in a grand machine, and not as people. Accordingly, the machine, in this misinterpretation of "people are our only resource", was designed, driven and refined by a small elite, and not the people themselves.

Maybe this is an over generalisation. But such a contrast allows us to see the quiet but real revolution in the call to make every Singaporean matter, and to have an active citizenry. What the S21 Report calls for goes beyond the politics of consultation that Prime Minister Goh and his second generation team brought. It calls not just for ideas but for actions. It calls not just for suggestions but for initiative. It calls for participation. It calls for ownership.

The S21 Report is not saying that we are already there. The Report points to obstacles. This includes especially what we have referred to as the "Black Book" and "Black Hole" problems, that people do not speak or act because they fear it will be held against them, or because there is no feedback or discernible response to what they have put forward.

The key to changing this is to change mindsets, like water on a stone. We need, as a society and a polity, to be convinced of the utility of an active people sector, and be less afraid of its possible disutility.

By "utility", I mean that an active people sector can produce new ideas and initiatives, or refine existing ones; that it can act as a genuine partner to state agencies; and that consultation and participation strengthen legitimacy and ownership of actions taken to address problems. I also see that a people sector can cut across race and other differences to help widen our common ground and help make us more of the Singaporean tribe. There is a utility, in this sense, in having a people sector in both the process as well as the end product.

By "disutility", I mean that we need to lessen our fear of change and of including new people in the way we make decisions and of getting things done; that we need to clarify and lessen the out of bound or "OB" markers of what people can say and do; and that while real national security concerns can and should be met, we need not fear every shadow or every word or act. To do this, to increase utility and lessen our fear of disutility, we will require that the Government has a greater trust and that, increasingly, people understand the fragilities of our society and will act responsibly. We will correspondingly require a people who do, in fact, understand and act responsibly.

Our desired society is not one in which Government is strong and people are weak. Nor in calling for an active people sector, is it a desire to see Government weak and the people strong. The two are not always and necessarily in conflict. Our desired society lies in the growth of an active people sector, participating in community and national issues, as an independent entity. When I say "independent", I do not mean one that is determined to oppose, nor do I mean one that is beholden to obey. I mean, one that is free to agree and cooperate, or to disagree and make counter arguments. With such an independence, we have to see that the two can come together and truly cooperate.

You can read the S21 Report for yourselves, although some, not all, have. Fewer of you will have the time or inclination to read the summary of deliberations of the subject committees. Let me just quote one section about our desired society, and the attempt to resolve the dilemma between consultation and consensus against decisiveness and quick action. I quote:

"The [desired] society will be open to a diversity of ideas. The increased interaction between the government and the people sector will deepen the mutual trust and facilitate the Government's decision-making. With trust, it will be easier for the Government to act quickly and decisively under imperative circumstances. . While consultation will not always lead to agreement or acceptance, it will lead to a better understanding of the constraints and problems faced by both the Government and the people sector. . Underpinning our desired society are 2 key factors. First, the Government must be open and receptive to ideas. . Second, the people sector must be constructive and responsible in its actions."

In calling for an active people sector, the S21 Report does not assume that for the next century we can always guarantee good government and able leaders from the PAP or any other party. It does not assume that we always have a Mr Lee Kuan Yew or Mr Goh Chok Tong. What the S21 Report does call for is an equal place for active citizens. Some years ago, I believe the then Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew considered the danger if the leadership of Singapore were all to perish on a single airplane, for that was the size of our leadership and establishment then. Who would run Singapore, he rightly asked then. He was concerned that without this planeload of leaders, our country would fail. In 1997, the year in which he commissioned the S21 Committee, our present Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, had asked us not to depend wholly on a small elite for all ideas and initiatives. If a government of the future should fail or perish in that hypothetical airplane Senior Minister Lee alluded to, it will always be a loss to our country. But if there is an active, able and responsible people sector, it need not be our end.

Let me close. We are used to imagining the global city of Singapore in the future. There are even sketches of what our future downtown in Marina Bay will look like. The Singapore 21 Report does not focus on skyscrapers and infrastructure, however. The S21 Report looks at the future in a different but complementary way. In putting people at the centre, the S21 Report seeks to describe the necessary qualities and principles that must guide people who will live, work, and give life to that city and our common future.

In this, I believe there is a dose of realism, as Prime Minister Goh has called for. There is, I hope, also a good measure of faith, idealism and vision, that is, "heartware". For it is this marriage between realism and such heartware that can and must carry Singapore into the next century.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak on two of the recommendations by the Singapore 21 Committee. First, Every Singaporean Matters, and, secondly, Strong Families: Our Foundation and Our Future.

First, on Every Singaporean Matters. It is recommended in the S21 report that on the personal side everyone should make full use of his strong points and develop his potential to the fullest. On the society side we should respect the professional skills of the individuals, reward the successful ones, encourage those who are yet to succeed and give those who have failed a second chance. The Government should take the lead in changing the mindset of our people so that everyone would recognise the fact that everybody has his or her own talent. So long as we do our work well we can be outstanding talents in our respective trades or industries.

In this connection, we must understand that success should not be measured only in terms of economic or materialistic success. We should also take into consideration performances in the fields of culture, arts and sports. The Committee recognises that our human resource is very precious. It urges everyone to work hard and with the assistance of the society, we will be able to give full play to our potential and to develop our talents to the fullest. This is very important for our development in the 21st century. As it was pointed out by the Committee, the criteria of success are not only in terms of economic and materialistic success. In Singapore, most people feel that there are two avenues to success. One is for individuals to go to the top schools, get good results, get a scholarship and a first class honours, and then become senior officials in the Government or political leaders. The other is after graduating, either from the secondary schools or from the university, they work hard in the business world and then given the good opportunity they strike gold, become very wealthy, make a lot of money, just like Mr Peh Chin Hua. He is a typical example of such success stories.

In recent years, we have some entrepreneurs who have made their fortune through technology and this is what we call the technopreneurs. There are also some very outstanding performers in the field of arts or culture, but it is just a flash in the pan. They are not deemed to be "success" in the context of our society. There may be some very successful teachers, some very successful tailors, but they are hardly recognised as successful Singaporeans. Although we give rewards to the best teachers in Singapore, how do we say which teacher is the most successful or which journalist is the most successful journalist, or which tailor is the best tailor? Are we generally very respectful of them?

In the 21st century we must expand the criteria of success to cover a larger area. Of course, Singapore is a small country with a small population. The market is small and there are a lot of restrictions. If you write a story based on local scenes, how many readers can you get? If you produce a local film of strong local flavour, how many audience can you get? If you want to study nuclear physics, do we have enough facilities, and even after you have completed your studies, will your talent be put to optimum use in Singapore? The Government should help these people so that they can develop their talent to the fullest and become a model of success. So success should not be confined to only those who become senior officials or big-time businessmen. We should let Singaporeans develop their talents in every field so that we can become a more vibrant country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have to make full use of our talents and we must also recognise that individual wisdom and capabilities are different from one another. The Government should educate them according to their abilities and make use of the various types of materials to mould them into successful products. Our primary school streaming, technical stream or academic stream in the secondary schools or the vocational training are examples of teaching according to the abilities of the students. The wisdom or capabilities may be inborn. We should not over-emphasise inborn wisdom so as not to discourage people from wanting to upgrade themselves. We should emphasise acquired knowledge and training and the positive effect of this acquired knowledge. As it is said, diligence can compensate for the slowness in learning. In any society, the highly intelligent people are always in the minority. To reform our society, we need the efforts of everyone. Therefore, it is important that we must encourage and motivate the majority to participate in the development of Singapore in the 21st century.

Secondly, I like to talk about the family. The report has emphasised on the importance of family ties. The younger generation should understand and look after the older people and the Government and society should also help the older people to adjust to the new environment so that they can enjoy life in their autumn years. The report has also mentioned that in our society, family is the foundation for our future. But in recent years, we have noticed that the divorce rates have gone up from year to year. In 1987, there were only 2,708 divorce cases. In 1997, it had increased to 4,888 cases, an increase of 80.5%. This has caused much misery and harm to the parties. On the other hand, there are many young people who have reached a marriageable age but they are unable to find suitable partners, particularly the ladies. They are unable to find suitable partners and once they have grown out of the marriageable age they will have to remain single for the rest of their life. This high divorce rate and the fact that many people are not getting married are very important problems that we have to look into. The report should discuss how the Government or society would educate and help these people to resolve this matter. Although we know that there is no easy solution to this issue, this problem has to be resolved one way or another. We want the family to be the foundation for our future. We must look into how to resolve this problem. Then with other favourable factors, we would be able to sustain our growth and prosperity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Lim Swee Say (Tanjong Pagar): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech that Singapore was not a nation yet. For a moment I was taken by surprise. Subsequently, after listening to his very careful explanation, I realised that what the Prime Minister had said was that Singapore is not a "tribe" nation yet. The Prime Minister wanted us to create a Singapore tribe. He described our society as a society which was formed by four overlapping circles, with each circle representing one racial community, and in those areas where the circles do not overlap, the individual community will develop on its own. And where they overlap, the communities would converge and form a unified society.

In a multi-racial society we are able to live in harmony because we have mutual trust and understanding of one another. We want to build ourselves into a nation. The Prime Minister's speech is very meaningful. Every Singaporean should study it in depth.

Today I would like to speak on the relationship between the people, the public sector and the private sector. We can also describe this in terms of three circles. These are three interlinked circles and these circles represent the people, the public sector and the private sector. The question is: are these three circles of equal size and are their overlapping areas big enough? Over the last 18 months, we have discussions and deliberations. From the people's point of view, we have discovered that some Singaporeans are still skeptical. They are worried that there would be a black hole or a black list in the Singapore system. They feel that if they make some good suggestions, these suggestions may still not be endorsed by the Government. When these suggestions are objectionable to the Government, they would get into trouble with the authorities. Of course, we do not agree with such a view. But it is worth noting that there are in fact some Singaporeans who have such worries.

From the Government's perspective, of course, to rule the nation, we will have to look at the macro interest and the long-term needs of the nation. From the people's point of view, some suggestions may be driven by narrow interest or individual interest, and hence not fully aligned with the Government's view. As a result, when policies are announced, some people may just know a little bit about the Government's policy and do not know the full rationale of the policy.

At the moment, there is no doubt that these three circles are of different sizes. The circle representing the Government is the biggest and the private sector is medium size, whereas the circle representing the people is the smallest. Of course, we want to create a Singapore tribe, we want to enlarge the circle of the people and we want to enlarge the areas where they are overlapping. At the same time, we must also enhance the sense of belonging of the Singapore tribe. On the one hand, we must let the two circles of the people and the private sector be gradually enlarged so as to be the same size as that of the Government. On the other hand, we want to enlarge the overlapping areas of these three circles. If we can succeed in forging consensus while maintaining diversity, then our future would be very bright.

In order to achieve this objective of seeking more identity, more consensus and less diversity, there are a few things that we have to look into. Let me illustrate by an episode of a conversation between two people whom I shall call the "Big Self" and the "Small Self".

The Small Self would say, "Well, I am very encouraged by this Singapore 21 Vision because it implies that in the future, my family, my community, the Government and the nation would be enhanced and they would attach more importance to me, to myself, my needs, my achievements and my ideals. Under the five main pillars in the S21 vision, when I go to the university, the Government will give me a scholarship and even send me overseas for higher education. After studying, if I have a better opportunity overseas, the Government will allow me to break the bond and I can work overseas. In order to enhance the Singapore Heartbeat, the Government would allow me to have a dual citizenship. Then the Singapore citizenship will become a guarantee, a security. Next time, when I come back, my family, my parents will look after my children. My community, my grassroots leaders would serve me and improve my living environment. So it is "Everybody for Me" and that is very good."

The Big Self does not agree. He said, "I am also very enlightened and encouraged by this S21 vision. But my feeling is different because the emphasis in these five main pillars is not only just to enhance the Government's esteem of me. But, more importantly, it is how I can devote more time and efforts to strengthen the family ties, and to better serve the country. One day, I saw a Singaporean running towards a bus stop. When he was about 20 metres from the bus stop, he saw that the bus was about to drive off the bus bay. He waved to the bus driver to wait for him. The bus driver saw him running. He stopped the bus, opened the door and let him board the bus. But this Singaporean, after boarding the bus, did not even take a look at the bus driver. He just bought the ticket and sat down. On reaching his destination, he alighted from the bus. Just like that - not a word of thanks!

It is indeed disheartening to see how these people behave. For the Singaporean scholarship holders, they are like this man who was running after the bus. When this scholarship- bus came, he waved, stopped the bus, and got in. Upon reaching his destination, he graduated, just walked down and broke the bond, with not even a word of thanks. His reasoning is that the Government should help him to realise his dream. I am worried that there are Singaporeans of such mentality. I am even more worried that there seems to be more and more such Singaporeans. From the personal point of view, looking at the S21 Vision, we should realise that, yes, I have a vision, I have an ideal. I hope that the big environment of Singapore 21 would provide more opportunities for me to realise my dream. But at the same time, I must also realise that every Singaporean has his or her ideal. So when I am striving towards realising my dream, I should also consider the dreams of the other Singaporeans. We should respect others as well. We cannot be too self-centred. Looking from the society's point of view, I hope that we would change the way we assess the individuals.

Yesterday, Mr Peh Chin Hua said in Parliament that we should preserve the good traditional values. His speech was very impressive. But what worries me is that the next day, there was a photograph in the Straits Times showing Mr Peh with his Porsche. I am worried that our young people may just look at the picture and do not read the wordings. They will say, "Oh, Singapore 21 means one day I will be able to live in a bungalow house, and drive a Porsche, like Mr Peh Chin Hua." They would have neglected the main crux of Mr Peh Chin Hua's speech. We have to take note that S21 does not want to assess a person's success by his materialistic success because this success could well just be a nominal success.

Over the past few years, I have been working with the trade unions. In my heart, I feel that the trade union leaders and grassroots leaders are truly working very hard for the ordinary citizens. They take pains to show care and concern for these people. They are ordinary people but have extraordinary spirit. I think this is a real spirit. This is an enriched spirit. These are the people whose success warrants our commendation in the 21st century. Of course, everyone has his own will, everyone has his own ambition. Every one of us will pursue our ideals in our own way. In whatever trade or whatever industry we are in, we must see how we could contribute to our society, and to contribute to our nation. We should not always think of what people should do for me, but rather we should say, "What can I do for the people." We would have derived that satisfaction. The satisfaction is not just personal satisfaction, but a collective satisfaction.

I am using this episode between the Big Self and the Small Self to reflect my feelings. To me, this S21 report may be one same report, but because everyone of us has his own mindset, and because we have different ideals, we would derive different inspirations from this S21. If we are to reflect our inspiration from this S21, from the view of the Small Self, S21 gives better lives to the individuals. It is like everybody sleeping on the same bed but each having his own individual dream. Four million people having four million different ideas, and each goes his own way. Yes, when times are good, the country can develop and prosper. But, once there is a national crisis, or we are hit by some calamities, we will not be able to stay united in one heart as a nation, and we will be wiped out.

Nation building is a long and winding road. There are bound to be some bumpy patches here and there. If we want to tackle each problem as it comes along, and face danger fearlessly, we must plan ahead even in peace time. We have to anticipate the occurrence of any crisis. Our destiny is in our hands. To me, it is a very important question of whether we could look at this matter from a collective view. This "heartware" engineering of Singapore 21 is a long-term project. We are only at the beginning stage. We need a long process of deliberation to come to a consensus like the Big Self. I hope that one day, everyone of us in Singapore would have this passion to do his best to contribute all that he can and to shine on others, and to respect the values of fellow Singaporeans.

Every Singaporean should, first of all, respect the parents, love the family and contribute towards society. And I hope that every Singaporean would have this fearless spirit to face the intense competition ahead of us. As we are evolving into a knowledge-based economy, we have to courageously face the challenges ahead of us and strive for excellence. We must use our talent as our assets, our local talents as well as the foreign talents, to create more job opportunities, more foreign investments so that Singapore can become a society where everyone would have an opportunity to pursue his dream. I hope that every Singaporean will have loyalty towards our nation, to be proud of our nation and to create the Singapore tribe as described by our Prime Minister.

And finally, I hope that everyone would have this notion in mind that everyone has a responsibility in the destiny of the society. Everyone should lead by example. We should take the lead and work for the good of our nation. The direction has been set in our Singapore 21 Vision. In this process of building an ideal society, there may be times when we are going uphill and sometimes, we may be moving downhill. Whatever it is, if we are not careful and adopt the mindset of the Small Self, we may roll down the slope. But if everyone of us can look at this Singapore 21 in the spirit of the Big Self, I believe we can all move uphill and scale greater heights. With the stage being enlarged by this Singapore 21 for our nation building, the three sectors - the public, private and the people sectors - should each play its own role, respect one another, support one another, and be dependent on one another to turn the dream of this Singapore 21 Vision into reality.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon. Members may wonder why my name is listed as No. 7 to speak on this motion today and I am now speaking as No. 16. The reason is very simple. Just now, Dr Michael Lim told me that he had some important matters to attend to, as a patient was waiting for him at the hospital. I felt that saving life is very important. Mutual help and mutual co-operation are equally important. I believe this is part of the Singapore 21 spirit. That was why I agree to swap with him.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today is the 6th of May. There are only another 238 days more to the Year 2000. In a short span of just a few months' time, we will be stepping into the 21st century. But when we look at our neighbours, they are having social unrest, political conflicts, revolutions and disturbances resulting in a very uncertain situation. But in Singapore, our Government has used this regional financial crisis to test our people. By presenting this Singapore 21 vision, it paves the way for us to march into the 21st century in a higher key. I feel that this is something which all Singaporeans should take pride in. I would like to commend the Committee led by RAdm Teo for successfully bringing us this creative concept of the S21 vision and to lead Singapore into a better and more prosperous society in the 21st century. As such, I support this motion.

As it has often been said, everyone has a role to play in the survival of our country. When the country is prosperous, all its citizens are happy and proud. But when the country meets with difficulties, everyone should hold up his or her responsibility to defend the nation.

Ours is an enlightened society. Our policy is transparent. Our Government is concerned with the well-being of our people, and it attaches great importance to the views of the people. The setting up of the Feedback Unit is a good example. In order to implement policies which are beneficial to our people, and to build up consensus through consultation, our Ministers have been visiting the constituencies regularly to have dialogue sessions with the people and to find out first-hand the problems of our people. We have also the Feedback Unit to collect and collate feedback and views from our people. In the past, when the Government departments wanted to implement some new policies, they would just carry on with the implementation without consultation with the people. This kind of "do first talk later" attitude had incurred a lot of displeasure and dissatisfaction among the people. But now, it is different. With this consultation with the people, a lot of misunderstanding can be cleared and problems resolved.

Let me give you a few examples. First, the "Sale of Tenanted Shops" scheme. In the early days, all the leases issued by HDB were for 99 years. Recent changes in policy have resulted in a recommendation to reduce them to 30-year leases instead. But before this policy was implemented, the matter was referred to the Feedback Unit to find out the response of the people. I personally convened and chaired a number of dialogue sessions with the shop owners to hear their views. The shop owners were happy that they had a chance to voice their views on the matter. In the process of these dialogue sessions, there were some heated but very meaningful discussions. In the end, we presented the recommendations of the discussions to our Minister for National Development, Mr Lim Hng Kiang and the Minister has accepted the recommendations of these dialogue sessions conducted by the Feedback Unit. The concept of a 30-year lease for the sale of shophouses was announced and the response was very good. At the moment, many shopholders are requesting that the Minister for National Development sell more shop premises to them. So we can see that if a policy is implemented after consultation with the people concerned it would be strongly supported by the people and will receive very favourable response.

Another example is the carpark for heavy vehicles. Many drivers of heavy vehicles informed me that it was very difficult for them to find parking lots for their heavy vehicles. When we presented these views to the relevant authorities, the answer was that the available parking lots were more than the number of heavy vehicles. So it was not a problem. But from the feedback given by the drivers, we understood that they were still having a lot of problems parking their heavy vehicles. I invited all the heavy-vehicle drivers to take part in our dialogue sessions. I discovered that although there were enough parking lots, many of these lots were situated at some far away and remote places, such as the industrial park in Tuas or some isolated areas in Woodlands, and these drivers had difficulty going to the carparks in the early morning because there was no public transport to go there to pick up their vehicles. We conveyed these views to the Minister and we are indeed very grateful to Minister Lim Hng Kiang who graciously directed that more car parks for heavy vehicles be built near the housing estates. To a certain extent, this problem is resolved.

From these two important examples, it clearly illustrates that consultations and discussions before implementation of a policy are of utmost importance. I believe in the process of implementing the cost-saving measures, the Government has also conducted various dialogue sessions with the businessmen, NTUC, trade unions, and grassroots leaders. As a result, when the measures were implemented, they received strong support of the people, and the implementation was smooth and successful.

The Singapore 21 Vision Committee has reached out to some 6,000 people. This has once again emphasised the Government's esteem of the views of our people. Our airport is No. 1 in the world, our port is first-class, our workers' quality is also No. 1 in the world. Singapore is a small island nation. We have this achievement which every Singaporean can be proud of. We have so many "No. 1" honours in our bag. This is because the Government listens to the people, and the people are given the benefit of clear and transparent explanations of the policies by the Government before they are implemented. We are all in one heart. We work together and the Government has placed great esteem on the views of the people. Unfortunately, there is still a small group of people, because of personal grudges, who have raised some arguments which could incite the people and give rise to unnecessary misunderstanding. That is regrettable.

Let me give you a few examples. When we first implemented this COE system, a dialogue session was conducted. I was present at this dialogue session. The arguments for and against the concept was debated furiously and rigorously at the session. It was a very heated argument indeed. In fact, the argument was so heated that an environment was created where some unnecessary misunderstanding was generated.

The second example was recently, in my constituency, when we announced this Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment scheme, the main purpose was to resolve the transport problem because Hillview Avenue is a place where we do not have enough public transportation and many residents have approached me and asked me to request for this en-bloc redevelopment. According to surveys, more than 90% of the residents supported this view. But there was a small minority of people who objected to it, and one of them asked me in the dialogue session, "What good is this policy? What good is this new development plan?" I told him one of the important advantages is that the new development site is very near to the MRT. He said, "I do not need an MRT." I asked him why. He said, "I have a car. I do not need MRT." The other residents who were present shook their heads. I said, "Well, it is good that you have a car. It is good for you. But 80% of the residents do not own cars. They need public transportation. MRT is a very effective means of public transportation." We can see from this example that this resident was only concerned with his own personal interest. He looked at the matter purely from his own personal point of view. One thing I was very happy was that when his wife heard what he said, she gave him a pinch and asked him not to pursue the line. I can see that when the Government implements this policy, it is for the advantage of the majority of the residents.

In another example, as we all know about two years ago, Ang Mo Kio had a Main Upgrading Programme and there was a small group of people, because of some personal problems, who objected to the upgrading. Even yesterday, I was discussing with DPM Lee on this matter. Results of the voting for MUP showed that in one of the blocks, less than 75% of the residents supported the programme. As a result, when the MUP was carried out, this block could not be upgraded. When the affected residents came to know about it, they hurriedly went to DPM Lee and asked whether they could have another round of voting. DPM told them, "No, you have only one chance to vote." When you look at this whole thing, you should take into consideration the benefits of the majority and not just your own personal interest.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that ours is a multi-racial society, and we had to exercise mutual tolerance and understanding among ourselves. If anyone is to raise some very sensitive issues, such as religious or racial issues, chances are that they will give rise to disputes and misunderstanding which will result in great harm being done to our nation. Everyone of us should look at national interest first. The two Chinese characters for nation or country are: "Guo and Jia". Guo is nation, Jia is family. Nation first, then family. We must first have the nation before we can have the family. We must bear this basic principle in mind.

When we look at the whole world, there are wars, famine and poverty everywhere. When we look at our region, there are unrests and troubles. But take a look at Singapore. We have political stability and a strong economy. Our people live and work in peace and contentment. This proves that all the past efforts of the Government are not in vain. The concerted efforts of the people and the Government have reaped great rewards.

Because of the support from the people, we have become a prosperous country. According to statistics kept by the People's Association, we have presently 26,026 grassroots leaders who have created and contributed much to our nation. These grassroots leaders work very hard. They sacrifice their precious time and money to work for the benefit of the nation and the people. We should also not forget the 10,000-20,000 voluntary welfare officers who, out of love for their fellow citizens, have contributed much to society without asking for any reward. I think we should give due respect to them.

I feel that the selfless spirit of these grassroots leaders and voluntary welfare officers should be given due commendation and the value of their services should be recognised. Although we have now more than 30,000 community leaders, this represents only 1% of our population. We hope that there will be more Singaporeans coming forward to volunteer their services to the nation. I suggest that the Government issue "Good Citizen Awards" to these people, albeit they are just 1% of the population. But I feel that these good citizens could be role models for others to emulate. We should encourage more people to come forward and do even more for our nation.

In another 238 days, we will be going into the 21st century. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to issue 2,000 "Good Citizen Awards" to those who have contributed much to our society, and to encourage more people to take part. Gradually, we can have more and more awards being issued. Our cohesion will be enhanced, and then an ideal Singapore and an ideal home in the 21st century will be within sight.

Of course, we hope that the people and the Government could put in a concerted effort to develop Singapore into a more prosperous and more progressive country. Finally, I wish that everyone in Singapore would love his country and love his family. I hope that the Singapore 21 vision could be realised soon.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Singapore 21 Report. I think it is a good Report and we should all support it.

I went through the Report and I was quite impressed. I came to page 54 and there was this short paragraph. I will read it out:

'Fourthly, there should be an attempt to spell out the "out-of-bound markers" in more precise and transparent terms. When these "OB" markers are clearer, people can be encouraged to take a more active part in civic life, knowing that there is less danger of straying into them unwittingly.'

This Committee has asked the Government to spell out these out-of-bound markers. It is not specific. The Committee did not specify any particular field where Singaporeans should not dwell too deeply into. When I read this, I was thinking of areas like race and religion, but I am not so sure. That is why I want the Minister to clarify this point later.

To me, the fact that this has been asked means that young Singaporeans want guidance, clear boundaries, so that they can think and act within set rules, and they will not think beyond pre-set boundaries. Do young Singaporeans want this, I asked myself, to be told what they can say and what they cannot say? Can this be the basis for creative minds to flourish in Singapore? Can we have meaningful discussion and thinking? Why do people need OB markers before participating in debates and discussion?

When I read this, I was drawn back to the discussion I had earlier on in this House when I asked for the toning down of the call on foreign talent in this economic crisis. I, who have stood in this House with a record of nearly 19 years of public service, was labelled by a Minister to be doing a disservice to my country for bringing up this subject in this Chamber. Calling for toning down a message is a disservice, I asked myself? Then how can an ordinary Singaporean stand up to raise issues when such treatment was meted out to a long-standing fellow MP?

It is no wonder that the Committee has asked for OB markers, so as not to "stray into them unwittingly". That request for clear guidelines or OB markers could reflect a lack of confidence people have in their judgment and in their thinking. I just want the Minister to enlighten this House on why this recommendation was put into Singapore 21, as I feel it is contrary to openness and creativity.

I listened to the discussion on foreign talent very carefully, because I started it in this House, and now I am less clear about the term "foreign talent". It would seem that we are throwing the net very wide, to include people like SIA girls and hairdressers. To me, there is a difference between need and talent. I think it is corporate wisdom to employ Japanese girls to be SIA stewardesses to serve the Japanese sector. That is a need and we should encourage that. It is also good that we should employ European girls to man the European sector and, of course, Indian girls to man the Indian sector. But that is not talent. To me, it is a need. Therefore, I want to be clear now. Later, I hope the Minister or someone can tell me what "foreign talent" really stands for.

I can understand if we get an international figure like Mr Olds to look after DBS Bank. He is well known. He is knowledgeable. We all accept it and most Singaporeans too accept it. It seems that if you talk to Singaporeans and say that foreigners are now talented people, they would say that we surely must have local talents too. We must give Singaporeans a sense of pride being Singaporeans. If not, this S21 Report carries no meaning. We want Singaporeans to stand tall. Yet, we give too much praise on foreigners. We have good bankers, good business leaders, administrators and they must be very good, or else Singapore cannot be what we are today. We rarely single out such people for recognition. We take them for granted.

I am sure we must have many Singaporeans who will be good role models for younger Singaporeans, and we should highlight these people who have made good in their respective fields. Professor Tommy Koh, for example, Fock Siew Wah and even Philip Yeo. I criticised him but I respect that man, because I think he has good talent. He has got vision. He can go round the world and scout for good and appropriate industries to come to this country, so that they can set up factories here and give jobs to our people. That is talent. So we should, in fact, pay a little bit more emphasis to our local talent.

I will give another example. We always cite Christopher Tan as a foreign talent, but I think he is a local talent. I know him. We went to school together. We went to university together. We stayed in the same college. He took up biochemistry. But he left Singapore, and he went to Calgary and made a good name for himself. He stayed there and he established a good name. We are proud of him and we brought him over. But now we call him foreign talent. Maybe he has not changed his citizenship. But these are our own local talent, and we should be proud of them.

I think Singaporeans deserve a clearer definition of "foreign talent". Who are these talented people? I am not against foreign talent. I want it to be very clear. But I want us in this House to let Singaporeans know who are these talented people. Have we, for example, any figures to show Singaporeans that the number of such talented foreigners working here is not a threat to them?

That is all I want to say, Sir. 5.41 pm

The Senior Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, let me congratulate the members of the Committee and its Chairman for having spent so much time and effort to crystallise 6,000-odd views into a few pages.

The discussions in this House, which I have read and sometimes listened to, give hope that what we started umpteen years ago is being pushed forward. No society is static. No society remains, either going up or going down. We did the easier part, getting raw, basic clashes to be muted, distributing the population into mixed housing estates, sending them to the same schools, preventing them from segregating. It will take much more to get them to finally accept each other and begin to trust each other. And it takes just one mishap and you will find segregation begins all over again. Only those who have seen in raw life what happens to people when they clash - and your uniform is your face, your shape, your appearance - will understand what primeval hate is.

We now have a stable, quiet, relatively placid situation. And on this, we build. I have seen societies of a very high standard go down in its civility. The Britain I went to in the 1940s, after seven years of war - 1939 to 1945 - was a very civil society, which I admired greatly. Now, bombs, lone bomber, IRA bombs, football hooligans. What went wrong? I do not know. Immigrants? Travel? Foreign influence? TV? But something has been lost.

I have seen the Japanese as conquerors and I saw them rehabilitate and re-establish themselves. I could not help, reluctantly, but admire their sterling qualities as a nation, as a race, the Yamato race. And they have all the advantages of homogeneity, solidarity and total commitment to each other. But even they now, under the impact of globalisation, open to foreign influences, are faced with heart-wrenching problems of both their economic restructuring which will alter the nature of their society and life-time employment, and also the way in which they interact with the world. Japan now has over a million families working abroad. How do they re-absorb the children of these engineers, executives, managers who have been educated in Japanese schools but exposed to foreign influences? I know of Japanese diplomats who have travelled all over the world with their families, and their children have been unable to fit in, and have settled in Los Angeles or London, or elsewhere. They are faced with very serious problems of change, and so are we.

The past is valuable in telling us how we got here, and having us understand what are our perils, what are our fault lines, and do not mistake them. They are not going to disappear in 20, 30, 40 years. But if we are aware of it, it is like living with an earthquake fault. We can build buildings which may be able to stand the shocks. That is my hope.

I am disappointed with the Opposition, particularly Mr Chiam. It is Singapore's culture that if you are the Opposition, you oppose. And he is unable to see, good man though he is in many ways, that this is a basic issue of the future of our society. He says it is a PR effort. Enormous amount of energy, work went into it! I read the Committee's deliberations or summaries of it, and congratulated and encouraged the Minister for Education. It is in the right direction. But it is not easy, and it will not be accomplished in one generation. Some of the things that some Members have spoken of may not be achieved in 20 generations. You can have cultural change and acculturation. But to have a DNA change, to have it into one melange, that is not easy.

Will we become one tribe? Not possible. If we try, we will bring misfortune to ourselves. Because there are tribal elements in our society that say: I want to be myself. The Sikhs do not want to be absorbed. The various Muslim sects themselves do not want to be absorbed by other sects, let alone by other religions. And I say, leave well alone, let us find common ground, because those are the cards that we were dealt with. So much easier if we are all one race, one language, one religion. And that was Jafaar Albar's cry when he wanted to beat us down: Satu bangsa, satu bahasa, satu ugama. That excludes me, of course, and excludes a lot of other people.

So, having gone through that stress, we came to the conclusion that we have to be the opposite, tolerant of each other, accommodative, multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-cultural. In other words, I am not foisting myself on you. But we face severe challenges. What has gone before cannot be extrapolated easily into the future.

In the last eight and a half years since I resigned as Prime Minister, I have had the advantage of time and the opportunity to attend meetings with top bankers, top executives in different parts of the world, and I have concluded that our previous aspiration of becoming the centre for Southeast Asia is inadequate, because this is a global stage, whether you like it or not. Therefore, to play in this global market, you must have talent of a global standard. Perhaps more time should be spent to get this message across. Maybe the Member for Ayer Rajah would better understand. Yes, we have good bankers. But he is wrong, if he believes that the Singapore banks are thriving because they are wonderful bankers. Because I protected them with Koh Beng Seng. I prevented the foreign banks from opening branches and having ATMs, and allowed Singapore banks to place their ATMs and their branches throughout all the HDB estates, and they grew. And now they have become important financial international institutions for us. But if they continue to play in that league, we will be wiped out. Why do I say that? Because of the speed with which technology is going. Because I have been exposed as a member of an international advisory board of a big American bank, I have seen the speed at which they themselves are changing, and they are spreading throughout the world. And we cannot stop them. We can continue with this protectionism.

I gave away productivity prize at Suntec City to some 30, 40 people. One of them was a Citibank man, and Citibank is one of the best retail banks in the world. So I asked him, after the ceremony, "When we liberalise, what do you expect?" He said, "I will treble my customer base." I said, "Why?" He said, "I have got international products." Banking is no longer just taking in your deposits and then lending it out on mortgages. As a society matures, people earn enough to begin to want to make sure that their money is put to good use, will multiply, and in their retirement, they have a comfortable nest egg. So banks offer this. A good bank has got a whole panoply of products. What is it you want? Children's education, I offer you this; your old age, offer you that. Therefore, Citibank combined with Travellers. Why? Travellers has developed in America the most extensive network of customers to whom they offer the widest panoply of products - insurance, anything you want, mutual funds, the lot. But it has not got the international reach to customers world-wide. Citibank has that. They came together. And once they have settled their internal problem of two managements coming together, all those super-products which our banks cannot think of, but which Travellers has already worked out, and are all in computers, they will go worldwide, and you are wiped out.

Citibank does not want branches any more. With an educated population, you only need an ATM. And in time, you do not even need any ATM. You can do Internet banking. You need the ATM only for drawing out cash. And once you have the cashcard, you do not need the ATM. You put your cashcard, your smartcard into your computer, and you draw and you top up, or you pay in. So where is the ability of the Singapore Government to protect our four big banks? It will be gone in 10 years or less. So unless we move forward, and fast, we are wiped out. We will be marginalised, and marginal players in our own domestic base. And it is a very dangerous position to be in. We will be like New Zealand. They have been wiped out. There is no New Zealand-owned bank that can back the New Zealand economy if it runs into trouble.

I have spoken to the bankers for the last six, seven years to move, but they have run in the same old way, too comfortable, please give us more time. And they did nothing in that time until we decided to move and we said, "Right, we will move. DBS and POSBank with the top management will take over your business." That forced OCBC to start looking, to upgrade its management. It wanted a Chinese because it thinks it is important that the Chinese culture in the bank must not be upset; hunted and found Mr Alex Au, who made Hang Seng Bank a success in Hong Kong, and was taken by StanChart in London. They brought him back here.

But it is more than one man. Neither Alex Au nor Mr John Olds can succeed unless they find a team to inject into every department the level of expertise that we will require to meet the competition. Ten years ago, if you had asked me, I would say we were doing not badly in banking. Now I am convinced we are headed down the hill. And this is an enormous opportunity for us. We are one of the few countries, besides Hong Kong, where our banks are standing up. We have got the credibility; we have the resources. This is the time we can upgrade ourselves and form partnerships with banks in the region, upgrade them, inject capital, inject expertise.

It is not just in banking. I could go on ad infinitum, because I spend much time on it. The same globalisation process is forcing SIA and NOL to compete worldwide. You can be a beautiful regional airline. You will be marginalised. Because the customer wants to go to odd places that SIA does not go to. I want to go to Buenos Aires, Santiago. The American airlines are going global. The Europeans have seen the light and they have decided they must have a few airlines that can compete globally. So they have lifted their restrictions within Europe and allowed free competition, so that in the next few years, two, three or maybe more airlines will emerge who can then take on the Americans and go global. Then wherever you are stranded, Seoul, Nairobi, Lagos, you just go to the airline, whichever airline, and say, "Here is my ticket. I want out." We have not got the critical mass to go global. So we have to team up and go global in a relay team. So SIA, like it or not, teams up with Air New Zealand, Ansett. Coach-sharing alone with Delta Airlines and Swissair does not work. It is going with Lufthansa. It has got to go into some other network so that when you book into an SIA ticket, stranded anywhere in the world, there is this relay that will take you out.

You have to be a global player. That means your management must be global, of that standard. Same with NOL. NOL unfortunately bought into APL, just before the market turned down. But if you want to be in that industry, you got to cover all the Pacific Basin ports. So it is in trouble and Temasek is the biggest shareholder. Temasek decided to look for the best Chief Executive, shortlisted them and decided on a Dane who ran Maersk, one of the top shipping container lines. It is the only way we go. Either we go that way or we are marginalised and our horizon shrinks.

Finally, we come to the total talent. Why do I bring up unmarried graduate mothers? Because the talent pool cannot expand or even retain its present size if you take out of that pool your best mothers. It is as simple as that. And the impact is being felt. We talk of creativity, entrepreneurs, initiative, drive, yes. At the end, in any field, the top men have got top minds, good balance, good judgement. You can take any member of any US Fortune 500. And that is drawing out of a pool of 260-something million Americans. We have 3 million Singaporeans who are not reproducing themselves in the optimal way. If we do not draw in these talents, we will be marginalised. The other countries in South East Asia will offer markets. The banks want to come. Huge customers to whom they can sell new products which the local banks will not be able to offer. All this will go on but so long as Singapore has got its four banks competing, we will be all right.

Yes, every Singaporean counts. That is important. But when the final decision is made, as with every committee and as with every Cabinet, some people's judgement counts more than others. And no Prime Minister will stay long in his job if he does not understand that. You listen to every Minister. You are not an expert in banking. I was not. You have to go by the judgement, having read all the details, whose judgement you think is sound. And all this is possible only if there is not only leadership but a leadership that can interpret its will and its plans into action.

I learned a lot from the Catholic Church. They have lasted nearly 2,000 years. The churches that have no hierarchy, they have not lasted very long. We have the Quakers, Baptists, and so on. But this church has lasted 2,000 years. They have a core of Cardinals who then elect the Pope. And they have a priesthood that keeps the faith and the flock. We need them. We need a core of people who are dedicated to the survival of Singapore and Singaporeans because every Singaporean counts. But for their survival, we need this extra. If your computer has got 32 megabytes and you are putting in a program that requires 128, you'd better go out and start buying extra and put it in. And if you find your Pentium II too slow, you go and buy your Pentium III, or you are not in the game. You cannot download, you cannot interact.

Finally, it comes down to what kind of an administration do we have that will be able to translate the ideas, the plans of a Government. And what kind of a political establishment do you have that will ensure that there is a flow of talent, of talented people, Singaporeans, and they have to be. This is one area where non-Singaporeans are out because I am entrusting the future of 3 million people into your hands. And I want to make quite sure that your instincts are immediately for Singaporeans. I do not know whether other political parties will ever be able to duplicate what we have done. But the PAP has built up a cadre of membership of several thousands of which some 80 are Members of Parliament and a grassroots leadership which Mr Ang Mong Seng has said is now 20,000-odd.

But most important is the core in the civil service of expertise on how to run the various Ministries. So at the end of the day, we need this framework. Yes, we are safer now than in the 1960s which used to worry me because I could count the number of people on whom I had to depend to get things done. But without that hard core, there is no Singapore.

I have listened to Mr Simon Tay. I wish it were possible that just by our being civic minded, by having more NGOs, we will throw up another leadership. It will not. It does not happen that way. That is the problem many countries face.

At the end of the day, in Indonesia, they have to choose between an elite which has been brought together by 32 years under President Suharto. It may or may not be able to completely abandon its past, but it is a conglomeration of different talents in Indonesia that has been able to run the country. They may change at the top. But the central core of people who have been running the system, whoever gets to the top will find that he has to draw from the same group.

That is the problem that the Malaysian opposition faces. UMNO has been at the heart of Government since 1955. Keadilan has got to offer an alternative. What is the alternative? That is their problem. As a very shrewd political commentator, Samad Ismail, said, "That's their problem.".

What is the alternative? And that is Singapore's problem. You have listened to Mr Chiam. You have listened to Mr Jeyaretnam. I ask you, "What is the alternative?" I am not interested in what political scientists say. I am interested in the real workings of Singapore. Why have we brought Mr Simon Tay and the others in as Nominated MPs? Because we want to hear serious men and women with serious ideas so that we can engage the population in a dialogue. But will you come out and spend the next 30 years of your life running around building a grassroots organisation? And at the end of the day, when election time comes, put up the posters, find the people whom you can enthuse and vote for you? That is a different problem.

And that comes back to the nature of our society. You come back to Singapore 21. We are not Americans. In certain respects, I wish we could have become more American in their grassroots volunteerism. Sometimes, late in the evening, when I finish with my work, I will check with my wife who has been reading all the literature that I brought home. All the various associations send me their newsletters. And she would talk to me about the American newsletter. This is 20, 30 years ago. As a result, they keep on sending it to me till today.

In the early days, the first American expatriates came, they formed a committee to help other expatriate wives and families to familiarise themselves, where to shop, where to get doctors, dentists, what is reliable, what is not reliable. And they formed committees to help newly-arrived wives to adjust. The American Embassy had nothing to do with it. The Singapore International Foundation has to go out, send people from Singapore to Sydney, Perth, Vancouver and London to organise them. That is culture. One has a civilisation where in covered wagons they went across the prairies and fought the Red Indians and said, "I am going to form a town here. And this is High Street, this is Main Street. I am the banker, you're the sheriff, he's the mayor. Now, let's get going." That is a different history, started with the Mayflower and a lot of other shiploads of them.

We have a different past. And if you dismantle what we have done so far, you will never rebuild anything to take its place in time. We have got this far and I am greatly encouraged that we are pushing this big boulder up the hill. And it needs pushing up the hill. If you can achieve half of what this S21 Report says, in the next 20 years, that is a tremendous triumph. And it will require tremendous efforts to get there. But I take great satisfaction that there is a team in place that can do this and can listen to Tan Cheng Bock who has a different point of view.

On OB markers, let me put it very simply. If your intention is to improve Singapore, you do not worry about OB markers. It is as simple as that. It is when your intention is to twist your Minister's tail, to show that you are smart, that is risking it. I think Claire Chiang says, "Should not criticise people when they make foolish suggestions." But this is part of the open debate. If you do not demolish a stupid suggestion, it may take root and it would create problems for us to demolish it later. It is a free country. But you must not be afraid. No American is afraid to be demolished. He comes out with something stupid, he gets a clout, he shrugs it off, maybe comes up with another silly letter. But in our society, face is important. So we will try, when you twist my tail, I will only tweak your ear. But this is a serious business and I think we should be able to make it. [Applause].

The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, first, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for expressing the Government's strong support and acceptance of the report. This is a strong signal of the Government's commitment for the public sector to work hand-in-hand with the people sector and the private sector to achieve the vision of Singapore 21. I would also like to thank Senior Minister Lee for joining this debate and providing his unique historical perspective on the issues we face.

I wish to thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the motion and for their strong endorsement of the vision set out in the report. I appreciate the time and effort that Members have taken, not just to read the report, but to study it and provide their own views and interpretations of what this vision means to them. This vision provides a compass, the guideposts as we move forward into the 21st century. Our discussions in this House have given more substance, fleshed out the ideas, and will contribute towards making this vision a reality.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister reminded us that we are a state, but not yet a nation. He put this debate on Singapore 21 in perspective. Nation-building is an on-going task. It is the work of many generations. Our people are made up of many strands, with different languages, cultures and religions. These strands will not dissolve into one indistinguishable mass, nor would we want this to be so. We are closer today as a people than we started out as a country 33 years ago. But we should not try to homogenise everyone. In the House, in the corridors, I have already been asked, "We have got the English version. Where is the Chinese, Tamil and Malay versions?" The same ideas, the same vision, but we want to read it in a language that is most comfortable to us.

As the Prime Minister said, we should maximise the area of overlap, while leaving enough space for each group to grow. The self-help groups are one such example. Where we can work together, we should. But the strength of the self-help groups is that they can address issues specific to each community in a way that is most comfortable for the community. These issues may precisely be the ones that are the most fundamental and the ones which need to be solved in order for the issues to be overcome, and the problems to be tackled.

Each community needs its own space. Each community wants to retain a connection with its roots. But we also need a unifying vision to draw these strands together - to give us a common goal, a common purpose, so that we can strive forward together as a nation.

Multi-racialism, meritocracy and incorruptibility have been the cornerstones on which our country is built. On top of these, we can add another layer, the five key ideas of Singapore 21 to guide us into the future - Every Singaporean Matters, Strong Families, Opportunities for All, The Singapore Heartbeat and Active Citizenship. I agree with Dr Ong Chit Chung about the dangers of unbridled individualism and self-interest. The five ideas have to be taken in context and all together. The individual has to be placed in the context of community, family and nation, and Mr Lim Swee Say has expressed this well.

The process of coming up with the Singapore 21 report is, in itself, an example of the possibilities and the limitations of consultation. It was quite an exercise for the 77 subject committee members to consult and solicit feedback as widely as we did. The subject committee members spent many hours discussing with various groups of people. We had over 80 forums and discussion sessions. In the time we had, a little more than a year, we managed to have reasonably substantive discussions with some 6,000 Singaporeans. Each of them, I have no doubt, represents and reflects the views of many more Singaporeans.

But can we speak to every one of our 3 million Singaporeans in every consultation exercise, not just in Singapore, but in every corner of the globe? Sir, it is obviously not possible on every issue to consult every Singaporean directly. On some issues, like the budget which Mr Ravindran referred to, pre-announcement consultation is not possible because of the market sensitivity. And good Finance Ministers and central bankers all over the world have developed the art of either maintaining a stoic silence or of making Delphic predictions.

Every Singaporean can provide his feedback and express his views. There are no limitations and limits on this. They need not be weighty national issues. As any Member of Parliament will know, constituents regularly provide feedback and suggestions on what might be considered mundane municipal issues. But this makes a difference to people living in neighbourhoods and on the ground - should a bush be removed because it obstructs the view of drivers and pedestrians, can the timing of the traffic lights at a junction be adjusted, what is the best way to deal with litter or crime in the neighbourhood. There are many examples which Mr Ang Mong Seng has raised.

So it has been in the discussion on Singapore 21. We consulted as many as we could directly and every Member of this House, every Singaporean, was invited to send his views. That is consultation and feedback.

What about building consensus? During the consultation process, among all the ideas and views expressed, a few surfaced again and again, and gained prominence, not because they were expressed again and again, but because they have the most merit. These ideas became the five key ideas of the Singapore 21 vision. Not every one might have agreed with them initially, and even at the end, not every one might agree with them completely. But, we have to exercise our judgement, decide and move on. That is also part of the process. These are the possibilities and the limitations of consultation and consensus building.

With a vision to guide us and a willingness to build a consensus, we can pull together as one people. We can work towards becoming a symphony - playing in harmony; rather than a cacophony producing a discordant and meaningless mixture of sounds, with each stubbornly insisting on playing to his own tune, and not listening to what other people are playing. That is the difference between a society based on a vision of consensus rather than a lack of vision based on contention. The energetic and enthusiastic contributions of NMP Mdm Claire Chiang stand in stark contrast, a refreshing contrast, to the approach taken by Mr Jeyaretnam, or the approach taken by Mr Chiam.

Sir, we have achieved economic success through tripartism. Workers, employers and Government work together to create a conducive business environment, and create good jobs for workers, allowing the whole country to enjoy economic growth. This is a model that is unique to us in Singapore.

Mr Ahmad Magad spoke about the Singapore 21 vision calling for a new tripartism - a new tripartism this time in the social sphere: the people sector, public sector and private sector working together. Again, this can be our unique model, our unique solution to building Singapore's heartware. Mr Lim Boon Heng, Mr Loh Meng See, Mr Iswaran, Mdm Claire Chiang and Mr Simon Tay shared this call for a new tripartism. Mr Loh Meng See asked whether Singaporeans possess the skills to be active citizens, while Mr Zulkifli Baharudin and Dr Michael Lim called for a mindset change in the public service so that we can build a cooperative relationship. Well, I think we all have to take a step forward.

This vision of social tripartism is a compelling vision, with people sector organisations, public sector organisations and private sector organisations, coming together, all taking a step forward together, reaching out to each other and looking for ways in which they can work with each other to strengthen our social capital, the heartware, of Singapore.

Mr Ravindran and other Members have asked, "So, what's next?" Some Members, Mr Chew Heng Ching and Dr Lily Neo have asked the Government to take the lead in implementing Singapore 21.

On the part of the Government, the public sector has already been asked to review its policies and programmes, to ensure that they are aligned to the Singapore 21 vision - not Y2K compliant but S21 compliant. But what more should the Government do? Left to itself, the momentum of the Singapore 21 vision created by the debate in this House may slacken and dissipate, because of the wide range of issues and interests. I would therefore propose that the Government also play the role of facilitator for Singapore 21 to guide the process along, and provide the necessary support.

I have consulted the Prime Minister on this, and the Prime Minister has agreed. Once the House endorses the Singapore 21 vision, the Prime Minister will ask the Minister of State for Defence, Mr David Lim, to consult with various stakeholders of Singapore 21 - the people sector, the private sector and the public sector - to see how their initiatives can be facilitated to make Singapore 21 a reality. This could take the form of a Singapore 21 Facilitation Committee. Its task is not to implement the Singapore 21 vision. Rather, it would help to strengthen and sustain the process of active citizenship, and to provide encouragement and visibility for the efforts by the people, private and public sectors as they work to make Singapore 21 a reality.

Sir, Singapore 21 involves individuals, families, the community and the nation. Singapore 21 is not the responsibility of any one person or body or agency. There is no Ministry for Singapore 21. It is the responsibility of everybody, every agency, every Singaporean, to interpret these key ideas and translate them into plans and actions. Only then can we move forward to make Singapore 21 become a reality.

I urge Members of this House to take this message to their constituencies, and to stress these key ideas in their constituency activities and functions. I ask those contributing their time in the people sector, those serving in the public and private sectors, to consider how they can work more closely together. All these will help make Singapore 21 become a reality. Deputy Prime Minister Lee, in his address to senior civil servants on 29th March this year, has already asked the public service to consider how to build the ideas of Singapore 21 into their programmes. On Tuesday, you heard the Minister for Community Development announce a number of initiatives, for example, the National Volunteer Programme.

I urge every Singaporean to re-examine himself, his goals, his attitudes to success, his attitudes to his family and fellow Singaporeans; and to come forward to play a greater role in community life. Mr Chan Soo Sen put it nicely in Confucian terms. We also heard stories from the Ramayana. Other Members, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Dr Toh See Kiat, Mr Tay Beng Chuan and others came up with their views on what the ideal Singaporean or the ideal society should be. Prof Chin Tet Yung put it nicely. Every Singaporean, any Singaporean, can lead a happy, successful and fulfilling life. He can be a good parent, a good neighbour, and an active citizen. And he can say that in all this, he did his best.

Sir, it leaves me now to once again thank Members of the House for supporting the S21 vision so enthusiastically, and for providing such thoughtful insights. I also wish to thank all the members of the Singapore 21 Committee who have worked for over a year to bring clarity and focus to the varied views which they have heard from Singaporeans from all walks of life. I thank everyone who has contributed to forging the Singapore 21 vision.

After today, we will move on to the next phase - a far more challenging phase - of turning this vision into reality. In the past few days we have heard heartwarming stories. Mr Bernard Chen spoke of how his father came to regard Singapore as home. We are glad that he did, and fortunate that he did, as Singapore is the better by two Members of this House. Members have shared with us their innermost thoughts and personal feelings as they struggled with their own dilemmas in life. Let these stories from the past be held up as good examples for all of us - of committed, active citizens. And let the icon of the kiasu Singaporean fade into 20th century, and, in its place, emerge the active Singaporean - the Singaporean of the 21st century, the icon of the new Singaporean. Beyond looking out for ourselves, every Singaporean must look out for the larger Singaporean family.

It is my hope that every Singaporean, each in his own way, will stand up and be counted, and find a way to make a difference to his family, his neighbourhood, his community, and to Singapore. There can be no effort too small or too insignificant. And in the process, we would have built a better future for ourselves and our children. Let us all work together to translate the Singapore 21 vision into reality. [Applause].

Resolved,

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.