PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (First Allotted Day)

12.44 pm

Mr Davinder Singh (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament."

The President's Speech neatly captures the vulnerability of our economy. Just two years ago, when the Ninth Parliament opened, Singapore was prospering. We are now barely emerging from an economic crisis, which has left the region badly scarred.

We have been able to overcome our difficulties because of the strength and integrity of our political and social institutions. More importantly, because of the rational way with which we deal with our problems. This, coupled with the unwavering support from employers and workers, has helped us score top marks with investors. Singapore has earned nothing but praise for its resilience.

In the good times, some Singaporeans had the benefit of sharing in the prosperity while being critical of the very Government whose policies made for that prosperity. They felt that growth was in the natural order of things and that this Government was undeservedly immodest about what it had achieved for the country. But the regional crisis has forced them to reassess their cynicism. It is painfully apparent that different countries suffered differently in the crisis and there is a good reason. The greatest pain was suffered by those with the weakest systems.

Now very few people harbour doubts about the wisdom of the Government's policies. Very few people believe that there will always be good times, whether or not we have a good Government. Singaporeans are experiencing first hand the positive effects of the close relationship between Government, employers and workers.

Perhaps, the most significant result of this crisis is that while other Asian countries are channelling their resources to restructuring their economies, we have moved on. We are already talking about developing our people, about strengthening our "heartware". That is a luxury which today other Asian countries can only dream about. They have too many political, social and economic problems on their plate.

The President's Speech is aptly entitled "Building Our Future Together". It is about the responsibility that we have to share to shape the future of this country. The centrepiece of the Government's programme is the people. It signals a gradual shift in emphasis from infrastructure development to people development. The hardware which makes Singapore work is already in place. It is now time to make Singapore special.

The President's Speech is an invitation to all Singaporeans to consider how we can achieve that goal. This is an opportunity for us to construct a new model. By its nature, the model must be flexible so that it can evolve in changing circumstances. It must also be realistic. There must be serious debate.

There is no place in the debate of such an issue for cliches and platitudes. In this respect, I refer to the NCMP's proposed amendment to the motion which, in my view, is a perfect example of a cliche. He laments the absence of measures in the President's Speech. But he knows that the President's Address is, by convention, a mission statement. Details are left to the Addenda and to this debate. Unless he is constructive, he will contribute very little or nothing to the debate.

What are the Government's aims? The Government has said that it wants to promote active citizenship, independent creative thought and constructive disagreement. They are noble aims. But first, we have to settle some basic questions.

There are, in my view, three threshold issues. First, what are the basic terms on which empowerment can take place? Second, do Singaporeans know what they want? Third, is the Government prepared for the changes which liberalisation will bring in its train?

The terms of empowerment

The first issue turns on the meaning of active citizenship. A close reading of the President's Speech suggests that, true to form, the Government has no intention of giving handouts. Active citizenship is not about the transfer of rights and power to the people. Active citizenship encapsulates a bargain. It is premised on the simple principle that there cannot be greater rights without greater responsibility. Put simply, Singaporeans cannot expect to sit back and ask for more "space" or the right to engage in "constructive disagreement" without contributing to the system which can accommodate those rights.

The Government has always said that contribution to the community is an integral part of active citizenship. This idea is reinforced in the President's Speech which balances the development of the individual with the abiding need to maintain social cohesion.

What then are the ingredients of our cohesiveness? Singapore's success is due to certain basic strengths: teamwork, religious and racial harmony and a strong sense of family and community. But these have come at a price. Singaporeans have had to sacrifice some of their individual rights for the larger interests of the community. For example, we do not make disparaging remarks about race or religion, language or culture. The result is stability. We do not defame without basis. The result is that reputations which are painstakingly built up over years are protected.

The model that we seek to construct cannot ignore these basic values. There is no point in demanding a larger voice if we are not prepared to maintain the fundamentals that have made this place work. The sooner we recognise this, the better.

But as in all bargains, the Government too has an obligation. It has a duty to spell out its vision as clearly as it can. While I accept that by its nature, the issue of empowerment is difficult to define. It is nonetheless incumbent on the Government, as part of the quid pro quo, to be as clear as it can about what it has in mind.

That is not only fair, it is wise. Fair because people are entitled to know what they can legitimately expect if they take up the challenge of active citizenship. Wise because it is a dangerous business to hold out the promise of greater participation in public life without a clear explanation of what that involves. If people do not know what the Government has in mind, they will have all sorts of expectations. They will feel let down if their expectations are not met. That, from the Government's standpoint, will defeat the entire purpose of this exercise.

This is very different from a programme to upgrade the infrastructure or grow the economy. Those tangibles can be measured. But an undertaking to give people a greater role in the affairs of the nation is an intangible one. People must believe that it is not an empty promise. Singaporeans must, in due course, be told in clear terms what active citizenship entails in terms of rights and responsibilities.

Singaporeans must have a road map with clear pointers and markers. An ambiguous policy can be counter productive. Perceived retreats from the pledges in the President's Speech will be magnified many times over, as will the disillusionment with the Government.

What do Singaporeans want?

The second issue which we need to address is what do Singaporeans want. There are a number of dimensions to this question.

First, it is not always easy to gauge public opinion. It is particularly difficult when the concept of "political space" is being discussed. There is a significant section of loyal Singaporeans which will welcome a relaxation of the norms. But there is a large and equally committed group of conservatives in this country which is very comfortable with the status quo. Their interests and aspirations cannot be ignored.

These conservatives cross racial and religious boundaries. They come from different backgrounds and strata of society. They have grown up in and are accustomed to a system where in return for their contribution to the community they receive the benefits of a safe environment, steady jobs, good health care, good education. They may not want change.

Too often the debate between those who do not want change and those who do is reduced to whether the East or the West has the better model. But that is unhelpful. It distracts us from the issue of what is right for us. We should design our own formula. In doing that, we must take account of the views of all Singaporeans, not only those who are vocal. It is bad governance to cater only to those who want more without regard for the anxieties and the comfort levels of those who do not.

The second dimension to this question is this. There has been very little debate about what we want, even among those who want change. Perhaps this is due to the unfortunate turn which the argument takes sometimes. Attempts to push at the limits have been met by vigorous and robust reactions. This has resulted in different signals being sent to different people. But at the end of the day, we are no wiser about what the Government and the people should aim to construct. Unless we identify what we want and what we are prepared for, we cannot sensibly advance these discussions.

Third, we have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared and ready for an increased transfer of responsibility. Today, we rely on the Government for almost everything. For example, the Government decides what we can and cannot watch or read in Singapore. Many people find it convenient to abdicate these difficult decisions to the State.

But empowerment is not only about having more rights. It is also about greater responsibility. Are Singaporeans prepared to take more responsibility for their lives and the lives of their children? The Internet is a good example. How many parents are prepared to tell the Government to stop censorship of the Internet because they will decide what their children can and cannot access at home, I suspect that you will find that many Singaporeans are happy with the status quo. It is neither easy nor popular to be a watchdog.

Fourth, and perhaps the most important question is, can we take the heat? Friction will be generated by "constructive disagreement". Debate means give and take. If we want to criticise, we must accept that the Government has a corresponding right to rebut. We know this Government. It is not known for the subtlety of its replies. The moment we say we want more participation but not the embarrassment of having our arguments torn apart, then the debate about this debate ends.

Is the Government prepared for the change?

The third issue we have to consider is whether the Government is prepared for the changes that will come with its policies. The recent debate about whether we are ready to have the equivalent of a Hyde Park has sent mixed signals. That is interesting because it tells us that at the very top level, we are still grappling for some form of consensus about the desirable pace of change. It is encouraging because it reflects an active discussion and a deep interest in the issue.

But other forces are at work which will soon test the Government's resolve to embrace change. The President's Speech reiterates the need to encourage individual creative work. That is an admirable objective. It will have the support of all Singaporeans. But it will take time. We need to change the mindset of a whole generation of parents, teachers and children. But in time, we will see a large group of highly creative people in our country, and that will be positive for our economy.

But it will also mean a new generation of Singaporeans with expectations and aspirations very different from ours. One cannot encourage creativity and then compartmentalise it. Creativity will dramatically affect an individual's worldview. A person who is trained to think for himself and to think out of the box may well have little tolerance for rigid structures, whether political or social. He may have no sympathy for a government which tries to think for him. He is likely to reject the concept of OB markers.

This new generation will want a say in everything that concerns or interests them. The Government must be prepared for their quirks and aspirations. Our institutions must be sufficiently tolerant and flexible to accommodate a wide range of different and sometimes, extraordinary, views. A knee-jerk rejection of these views would be disastrous. All the good work will come to nought. It will trigger the very migration of talent that our policies are designed to prevent.

I will not be surprised if, over the next 10 to 15 years, young adults begin to insist on having their own OB markers; "space" where the Government cannot intrude. Is the Government prepared for this?

These are some of the issues which we must confront squarely and honestly if we are to have a meaningful debate. I have not touched on the other aspects of the President's Speech. I am sure Members will do so. I look forward to an interesting debate.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh. Together with him and other Members of this House, let me also add my congratulations to our new President, and to thank him for his Address to this House.

The President's Address fills me and, I believe, many Singaporeans with a sense of pride and anticipation. Pride, in that as we approach the dawn of the new century, we in Singapore could enjoy a sound economy, which is admired by so many. Besides being a prosperous place, it is also a place of calm, of safety and security in a stormy sea of political and social turmoil.

Anticipation, in that the Government is going to focus on the people, on providing the means to help every Singaporean to develop according to his or her ability. In terms of strengthening civil society, the people sector will take centre stage. The more vulnerable groups will also be specially targeted for more care and assistance.

Sir, both the message and the vision are clear - this is the Age of the Active Citizen. It brings with it the signal that the Government is intent on strengthening civil society. Civil society occupies the space between the community and the state. Politics is not the only way to become involved in public life. Active citizens can contribute to public life, and still remain, if they so wish, outside politics.

Sir, the UN recently did an excellent study on the prospects for social development in Asia and the Pacific into the 21st century. With your permission, I wish to quote from the part on "Strengthening civil society". I quote:

"Civil society, being the range of non-government associations in which people . come together to fulfil certain needs, pursue certain goals and participate actively in the affairs of the state is an essential component of social development.

To take but a few examples of its role: civil society mediates the people's concerns to the state, so that government in its work can reflect the realities of people's situations and their concerns; . civil society reflects and upholds the cultural values on which the functioning of society depends; and . civil society is the stage on which the different ethnic, religious and cultural groups that make up a society learn to understand and live in harmony with each other."

Speaking of the role of government towards civil society, the Report continues that civil society will only play a crucial role "if it is enabled by the State to play a central and constructive role in society." It concludes by saying that "It is ultimately up to the state structures to incorporate a place for civil society, and hence the people, within the system of governance."

Mr Singh has already touched on several of the fundamental issues that refer to the role of government versus the civil society, which I shall not speak on.

Sir, what is so heartening about the President's Address is that the Government has committed itself precisely to the purpose of incorporating a place for civil society - indeed, it hopes to expand and strengthen it, so that Government can be more responsive, so that people can participate in the governance of their communities.

The importance of this approach cannot be overstated. I hope that every Singaporean will realise its significance. Everyone should embrace it. Everyone should want to make it work. How quickly a strong civil society can be achieved depends on the receptiveness of the people to this approach. If the "silent majority" remain silent, or worse, take the attitude (as reported in Saturday's Straits Times) that they will just rely on the Government to do everything, then all the good intentions will come to nought.

Frankly, I was disappointed to read in Saturday's Straits Times several negative views from those interviewed. One believed that the approach would not last, because the Government would soon decide, according to him, not to have the hassle and go back to the old ways. Yet another felt that there is not sufficient empathy for others in need, and that few Singaporeans will step forward. One mentioned that the perception is that volunteering is a "side preoccupation".

Sir, I hope that in time to come, Singaporeans will regard volunteer work not as a "side preoccupation", but rather as an avocation, that is, a calling. One can plan one's vocation together with an avocation, and one should start early. For example, if one were in business, one could diversify and cultivate an interest in the arts or the media. It would be a fulfilling experience, and one can be seen to contribute to the advancement of the arts in Singapore. There are many other ways and many other volunteer groups that one could join in pursuing such avocations.

On the other side of the coin would be the responsibility of the Government. The Straits Times reported that there is a perceived lack of trust between people and Government, as well as Singaporeans' over-reliance on the state. I actually find these views to be inconsistent - if Singaporeans do not trust the Government, then it is unlikely that they would want to rely on it, let alone "over-rely". The inference must be that some may feel that the Government does not trust them, and therefore they should avoid getting involved in civil society. This is a misperception that should be immediately corrected and thrown aside by those in authority. Many volunteers we know in the civil organisations now do not belong to any political party, and they contribute substantially to the success of these organisations.

Sir, I end on a personal note. I came to Singapore in the mid-70s, recruited by the University. To me and my wife, Singapore was the preferred choice, and still is. Then, as it is now, an island of opportunity, a place where we could raise a family and have good careers. We have not been wrong. Some friends pointed to America - the United States still remains the Promised Land for many, including some Singaporeans. I believe strongly that soon, with programmes such as that outlined in the President's Address, and with the commitment by all sectors - the public, private and the people sectors - Singapore too will be regarded by all as the Promised Land. Let us try not to be negative and all work together to make it so.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Dr Ow Chin Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, while we celebrate our achievements over the last four decades, we should not forget how just 34 years ago, a small country with no natural resources was suddenly cut off from its natural hinterland and made to struggle for survival. Neither should we forget what a divisive society we used to have, with the communist insurgence and communalist riots of the 1950s and 1960s. Reflecting on the past 34 years of nation building, I conclude that our current success is built on careful management of our strengths and vulnerabilities and on our ability to adapt and adjust to changes.

Our vulnerabilities have not disappeared, and it is to our own peril if we choose to ignore them because of our current success. While history offers useful lessons, we have to recognise that what has gone before cannot be simply extrapolated into the future. The 21st century will bring more changes and new challenges, both internally and externally. As we move into the new millennium, we need to understand our fundamental fault lines and vulnerabilities. We need to respond to constant changes and, at the same time, come out with creative strategies to further strengthen the Singapore heartware, which the President in his Address said, was "what really makes Singapore tick". I ask a question: What constitutes the Singapore heartware?"

First, it is the trust between the Government and the people. The people need good government. But the Government cannot succeed without a cohesive and responsive people. The people must feel and believe that the Government has governed the country in their own long-term interest and for their own benefit. It was over time that the people saw the concrete results that the Government had delivered, and it was during a serious crisis and how we had overcome a crisis, that the Government established its authority and credibility, and the people developed its trust and confidence in the Government.

The recent economic crisis once again demonstrated to us and to the rest of the world the strength of the Singapore heartware. Our economy is able to turn around more quickly than the other economies, because the people trusted the Government to provide the leadership and to make the right decisions, and the people cooperated with the Government to make the necessary sacrifices to get us out of the economic crisis. Together, we did it in 1987; we have done it again in 1999.

Indeed, over the past 40 years, a strong unspoken social contract has developed between the Government and our people. As our society develops, as our population becomes more educated and sophisticated, and as our environment becomes increasingly complex, this social contract would have to evolve accordingly. Greater involvement of, and consultation with the people, would help deepen the trust between the Government and the people, and help strengthen the Singapore heartware.

Second, another component of the Singapore heartware is the trust between the people of Singapore, despite their differences in race, language, religion, age, income or education. Singapore is a young nation. Our people trace their roots to the great civilisations and religions of the world. We carry with us the heritage and history from our ancestors. It is not possible nor desirable just to discard these and say: "Let us start from scratch, let us all be Singaporeans and abandon our cultural roots as Chinese, Malays, Indians, or Eurasians". It will be tragic if we lose our cultural roots and values, as we will lose a stabiliser in the midst of rapid changes. National identity and cultural consciousness are not in conflict.

Sir, we have enjoyed harmony over the past 35 years. Partly, this is because the Government has institutionalised various safeguards such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and the Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Partly, it is because many organisations and the majority of Singaporeans value this harmony and have made an effort to preserve it. I believe that today, for the heartlanders in the HDB estates, there is a greater level of tolerance and acceptance among the different races and religions.

But race and religion are deeply rooted, emotive issues. It was not so long ago that we last had a race riot in Singapore. For many of my generation and older generations, the 1964 racial riots are still vivid in our minds. While we want to build 'a united nation of our people', we need to be cautious and realistic. It is one thing to accept and acknowledge one another. But to trust one another requires a higher level of confidence. This is not an easy task, and it cannot be achieved overnight. It takes time to build trust.

Similarly, as we draw in more foreign talents to supplement our local talents, help us grow our economy and compete globally, we will see more foreign talents in our community. As we globalise, we will have some Singaporeans who will become more cosmopolitan and other Singaporeans who will become more heartlander. To prevent the formation of new divides, we need to build acceptance and trust early by providing more opportunities for interaction and understanding.

As our population ages, we also need to maintain social cohesion between the young and the old. Our citizens must plan for old age, and make those plans early so that they can gradually ease into old age without a disruptive change in lifestyle. The family's role must be maintained and reinforced so that the family continues to provide the first line of care for its older members. Community organisations, such as the Community Development Council, can help by putting in place programmes to encourage senior citizens to remain physically healthy and mentally active, and by providing them with opportunities for lifelong engagement through employment and volunteerism. The community should work together to form an integrated community support network to ensure that senior citizens remain active and vibrant members of the community.

In our meritocratic system, opportunities are open to everyone but outcomes and rewards depend on ability, enterprise and hard work. Not all will do equally well. We need to help those who are less successful in our community so that they do not feel marginalised or left behind. I believe that to the less successful, helping is not merely giving away welfare and relief funds to them. As a matter of fact, many poor people do not like to live on charity. Helping them to develop their children, building up their confidence and their sense of dignity and self-reliance so that they will have the means to support themselves is a better way to help these families.

The third crucial component of the Singapore heartware is the affinity that individual Singaporeans feel towards Singapore. All citizens have helped to build Singapore through their hard work and commitment. All deserve to share in the country's success. Over the years, the Government has given all Singaporeans tangible shares in the country's success. These include HDB home ownership, HDB upgrading, the share ownership scheme, CPF and Medisave top-ups. Apart from these tangible asset enhancement schemes that give Singaporeans a stake in our success, we need to look into intangible asset enhancement by developing emotional anchors that will bond Singaporeans to their country.

These anchors can be strengthened if Singaporeans are more involved as participants in nation building, feel a stronger attachment to their families, friends, neighbours and community, and share a common destiny and future in Singapore.

My generation and older generations of Singaporeans went through the struggle for independence and the difficulties of nation building in the earlier years. Now, whenever we hear that Singapore has come up tops in some area or that a Singaporean has won some international award, there is a stirring of the heart. This is because we fully appreciate how extraordinary it is for Singapore, a small country with no natural hinterland, to survive, and not only survive, but also become a model of success for other countries. We take pride in our achievement as a nation. We cherish what we have built over the years, our beliefs and our way of life. We feel bonded to Singapore because we took what was given to us, our strengths and vulnerabilities, and worked together to build a better future for ourselves, our families and our country.

The development of emotional anchors is particularly important for the younger generation who has only known stability, growth and prosperity. It will become even more important as Singapore becomes more international in the 21st century. Tangible asset enhancement ties a person to his country with a purse string. On its own, it is not sufficient to draw Singaporeans back to Singapore when better opportunities offer themselves elsewhere in the world. Intangible asset enhancement, on the other hand, bonds a person to his country with a heartstring. While physical assets can be easily liquidated and capital and talents will become increasingly mobile, it is less easy to erase emotions and feelings of attachment that have developed over the years.

Sir, let me now turn to the role of Community Development Councils (CDCs). As Mayor of Tanjong Pagar CDC District, I would like to share my views with my colleagues on how I think the CDC can help develop the Singapore heartware.

To strengthen the trust between the Government and the people, the CDC can provide an avenue for people to participate in the nation's affairs in a concrete and practical way at the community level. The CDCs are coming out with strategies to help prepare our residents for the challenges of the 21st century posed by a knowledge-based economy and ageing population. We welcome anyone who can contribute ideas and, more importantly, who can walk their talk. CDCs are not merely talk-shops. There is real work to be done and we need people, who will roll up their sleeves, to help their fellow Singaporeans meet the challenges of the future.

The strength of the CDC lies in its community network with voluntary welfare organisations, grassroots organisations, educational institutions, self-help groups, clan associations and businesses, etc. Through its extensive network, the CDC can play a part in building trust between our people. Through its community activities, the CDC can provide more opportunities for interaction and exchange between people of different races, languages, religions, ages, income and education levels. The more our people socialise, the stronger the mosaic of our national cohesion.

The CDC can also run developmental programmes to help the less educated and the less successful improve their lives. Development opportunities offer hope for the future, for themselves and for their children. Only then, would they feel that they are still an integral member of our society.

In short, the CDC provides another focal point for cooperation between the public, private and people sector organisations and individual citizens to work together to meet the needs of the community. It is through working together for a common good that a common destination is forged and we feel a sense of emotional rootedness to our country.

The development of heartware is a work for generations, but on the foundations that we have developed thus far, let us build a world-class home for ourselves and our children.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I support the motion in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

It is indeed heartening to note that people will be the focus of the Government's policy in the next millennium. Having participated in the parliamentary process for the last three years, I see this Address by the President as the most significant signal by the Government in valuing people as the most important resource of the country and I feel most excited about this major focus on people as the centre and the heart of the Government's policy.

Rightfully, the governments of the past, since the independence of our country, have consistently focused on economic development, sharpening our competitive edge as a country and on material and tangible things, and while the past 34 years have been extremely challenging to bring Singapore to where it is today, I feel that the shift from economic and physical developments to human resource and emotional developments will be far more challenging and will require even stronger commitment and emotional involvement of all leaders who must be prepared to look beyond short-term results and have the ability to feel the pulse of the people in a completely different way than our leaders have been used to in the past. While it was very easy to measure the result of our economic policies and physical and infrastructure development policies in terms of economic measures like the GDP, purchasing power, ownership of physical goods like telephones, televisions and others and of physical development measures like the number of people owning houses, the educational attainment of Singaporeans and others, I am sure even our well-qualified leaders of today are scratching their heads as to how we can measure the success of our attainment towards the Singapore Tribe which Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong hopes to develop for Singapore over the long-term.

Sir, we have set the motion and are starting to gain momentum towards setting up the Singapore Tribe and in my opinion, this debate is the third major milestone towards this journey, the first being when Prime Minister Goh in 1997 made a call for a vision focusing on heartware. The second milestone was the S21 debate in Parliament this year and now this is the third milestone, our debate on the Presidential Address.

Sir, Singapore is one example of a success story of early nation-building of a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society where everyone, no matter what race or background, has equal opportunity to participate and succeed and contribute. However, we must be willing to question whether this will remain the same or further improve in the next one or two generations of Singaporeans. Sadly, the odds are against us as evidenced by the problems seen in similar countries around the world and Yugoslavia comes first to our mind. A strong government kept Yugoslavia together, but only after 45 years, the tragedy happened in that country and I suggest three possible reasons why this happened.

First, possibly because people remained at peace because of government policies which compelled them to maintain racial harmony without actually focusing on the gelling of hearts or emotions. Second, because of the undue advantage one race may have had over another and when everyone had to fight for survival, tribe instincts prevailed, and thirdly, because of the deep rooted mistrust that was never addressed because tough policies to ensure racial harmony worked and complacency in government had set in and there was a lack of focus on enhancing emotional bonds. Of course, the second example closer to home happened in Indonesia recently, and similarly where racial harmony seemingly existed for slightly over 30 years, again under a strong government. Once again, when the strong government collapsed, so did the weak thread that bound the various races together.

Sir, I would like to question whether the same tragedy will face us should Singapore one day see a weak government in office. While I have full confidence that the PAP is committed to promote and improve racial and religious harmony, I worry that approach has been more skewed towards the use of policies and legislation as the main means of achieving these. While this must be the first right step, I feel that we have not focused, as we rightly should, on building of emotional bonds and in strengthening the heartware of Singaporeans. Sir, we have been touting the experience of hardships and the real example of racial riots that happened right in our doorsteps as reasons for caution against complacency and for the tough policies that we have in place. I feel that this approach is increasingly becoming less effective in driving home the intended message.

When the Prime Minister first talked about the Singapore Tribe, many people doubted such a tribe will ever evolve using history as a reason. In fact, I was a little disappointed at the tone of caution against the unrealistic expectations of the S21 vision which took us more than one year to formulate.

Today, again I am a bit disappointed that no commitment has been made by the Government in further defining the structure and plans for a Singapore Tribe that is so essential in strengthening the thread that binds the various races together. No matter how difficult the task seems, we must start today. There are no concrete plans to maximise the overlapping areas of the various races, as the Prime Minister has raised the issue, and in the eventual blending of these common areas so that Singaporeans of the future will see less of a difference among each other in these areas while maintaining their distinctiveness in areas like religion and cultures that are quite impossible to blend.

While I see many more years of strong Government with great policies that make racial and religious harmony a reality in Singapore, I do not want to leave the true emotional bonding to chance because I feel complacency will set in among all of us when a certain policy or approach seems to work in good times.

Firstly, complacency in Government could happen because policies and legislation are easy to define and implement while working on the more different aspects of nation-building like building emotional bonds takes time and cannot show results quickly. Secondly, the population taking cue from Government policies that a superficial bond and dependence on legislation is sufficient and hence no additional effort has to be put in to bond the softer aspect of relationship building. Sir, during the economic crisis in the past two years, we did see some signs of the strain where racial discrimination in employment and the issue of SAP schools were raised. I feel that these are two signals that we still have a long way to go to build emotional bonds necessary to establish a true Singapore Tribe.

While the direction set by the President does focus on people, nothing has been mentioned on how we can strengthen the common elements of the various races and how we can increase these common areas over time. I too believe that we can create a Singapore Tribe, not by legislation alone.

Sir, I would like next to focus on how we can successfully participate in a knowledge-based economy.

The President mentioned about the need for every Singaporean to benefit from the knowledge-based economy that is coming our way. I would like to address two areas which I feel are of utmost importance for us to succeed in this area. Firstly, our system of education and selection of leaders; and secondly, on how our Government agencies need to change with time for us to establish world-class companies.

Sir, our system of selection based on academic excellence is in danger of creating an elitist and a class system. Slowly but surely, an old boys network may develop and who now hold positions in Government, in the statutory boards and in Government linked companies. As I understand it, our system selects people at a very early stage, based mainly on their educational attainment which was a result of doing well in examinations. While the CEP (Current Estimated Potential) is a good system to classify the potential of people in their careers, I feel we have failed in its implementation. Scholars are placed in an accelerated path that is lined with gold. They are assigned mentors and have a helping hand guiding them so that their chances of making mistakes are reduced. On the other hand, those who do not have such a good track record in academic excellence are immediately assigned a ceiling and limits are drawn too early on how far they are assessed to be able to go in their career. This is especially prevalent in our uniformed services liked the Armed Forces and the Police Force where there is a clear distinction drawn between the career path of scholars and those of non-scholars, and the non-scholars call themselves peasants or farmers because they think they are in the lowest rung of society in the Armed Forces or the Police Force. It is self destructive for people who are told that they are not good enough to make it. Worse still, by virtue of how they are assigned their CEP ranking, they are told immediately that they are not good enough to make it to the top. Logic tells us that the best soldiers need not be those with good academic results.

I am not criticising our current leaders or civil servants, most of whom came through the same path. In fact, I feel many of them are sharp and bright, but I feel collectively the team is not good enough to steer us through the future where the challenges of a knowledge-based economy need people of various talents, abilities and experiences to be successful as a country. Currently, we have too many people of the same mould in the key decision making positions. I feel that we need to change the system of selection and promotion in Government to give more people opportunities and recognise that people of many backgrounds and talents can do better jobs than those of the same background and that non-academic measures are equally important as those of academic measures.

Sir, another system that is quite destructive, especially for the self-esteem of people, is the education system and how we stream our children at such an early age. I am glad to note that in his Address, the President mentioned that changes will be made in the education system to prepare the next generation of Singaporeans for the knowledge-based economy. We have to recognise that the KBE will require people of various talents getting together to improve our competitive edge. In my opinion, everyone can participate in the KBE. The new Internet economy will require not only academic abilities but also creativity, passion, knowledge of the psyche of people and communities. As such, we must recognise that every child will have a talent that we will need and collectively, we will be able to compete in the world arena. To enable such an environment, we have to either do away with the early streaming of children by ability levels based on academic excellence or to modify the system to ensure that we allow our children to interact with each other, no matter how well they score in examinations. The streaming at Primary 4, while well-intentioned, has, in my opinion, been negative in developing, recognising and rewarding children of differing talents. While we pursue to achieve excellence as a nation, we have to recognise that in the future, people whom we classify as the slower track learners and achievers may make a bigger difference on how Singapore will compete as a first world economy.

While we aim to give every child ten years of primary and secondary school education, I hope we will make these 10 years the same for every child and if we have to stream them, I call on the Government to at least mix them up in the same class so that each child will learn that not everyone is the same and that a good team is made up of people of different talents and abilities. We must learn to give up a little efficiency in our system to allow for the blending of hearts and to let our children learn from other's aspirations. This is the only way we can teach each Singaporean to be a little cosmopolitan and a little heartlander. Let us not allow our system of education create a bipolar society of cosmopolitans and heartlanders that will be destructive for nation-building.

Sir, it is indeed heartening to see a focused effort to help nurture Singaporean companies to become world-class companies. However, I see some fundamental structural problems in our system and without changing these, I am not sure we will be able to achieve the target of transforming 100 of our local companies into world-class ones.

The first problem I see is the way we select the Promising Local Enterprises (PLEs). As I understand it, companies only make it to the PLE status after a number of years of track record, focusing on revenue and profit growth. Similarly, there are a number of other traditional criteria like the number of people, the number of years, physical assets and so on used to select such PLEs. In my opinion, the current criteria used are outdated and archaic especially in the emerging Internet economy that spans across physical boundaries. Sir, companies with market capitalisation bigger than Singapore's GDP are those of the Internet and Information Technology economies. Such companies are also capable of changing the way business is done around the world. My point is that by the current method of selection, none of the 100 PLEs selected will include Internet or start-up companies of such nature.

The second problem is that while EDB has been given the task in nurturing the 100 PLEs into world-class companies, it is the NSTB that is given the task of promoting technopreneurship and supporting start-ups. What we really need is one body focusing on local start-ups who will be able to follow the growth of such companies until they become global players. Having seen how things work in the Government agencies, I am not confident that we will be able to identify the right companies to nurture to become world-class.

Thirdly, we have a problem of heavy dependence on Government and in the bureaucracy in our Government agencies, making them too slow to react to changes and hence becoming too slow in making the necessary changes needed to participate in the knowledge-based economy. Sir, global players do things differently and if we look at two distinct examples of governance, my point is quite obvious if we compare the Japanese system of a strong bureaucracy to that of the American system of transparency and the private sector driven initiatives. Looking at the performance of the Japanese and the American economies, I think it is obvious which system will work if we really want to become global players. My contention is that we need a group of people in the Government agencies who are more than experts in Government policies. They must also be knowledgeable in the workings of the knowledge-based economy and they must be willing to change things on the fly as opposed to our current slow pace of changes. The ability to adapt and change policies fast will be the necessary ingredients to be successful in a knowledge-based economy.

Fourthly, and finally, I notice that we have a self-fulfilling system where a safe approach is taken by many of our Government agencies and also by some of our private entities like the press. For example, I have seen problems faced by many new start-up companies in getting support from the various agencies. Every one of them is waiting for someone else to make an endorsement for such a company. I can understand that such agencies do not want to be associated with picking the wrong company, but I feel that some of them are just too conservative and are not bold enough to take the initiative to show support for companies without a track record. More often than not, most of these Singapore agencies are late in recognising such companies, doing so only after some foreign agency or company has recognised the value of such companies. This self-fulfilling system of just picking winners has to change if we are serious about being a key player in the knowledge-based economy.

Sir, I would like to conclude by saying that while I am encouraged by the broad focus of the Government on the people sector, I however feel that we have not done enough to define how we are going to achieve success in these areas. The areas identified do not go deep enough to address the emotional aspects of nation building. It is a difficult task, but we must make our first step now.

Sir, I support the motion. 1.46 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

When I listened to the 20-minute speech of the President, somehow the speech sounded empty to me. Something basic was missing despite all the good things said - the Government wanting to be people focused, to promote life-long learning, to encourage a knowledge-based society, so on and so forth. At the end of it all, to me, it was still a PAP programme and not really a nation-building programme. The speech sounded more like a PAP vote-catching exercise, a programme to preserve the PAP and to keep the PAP in power, rather than a programme to prepare Singapore to compete with the industrial western developed nations.

There was not a word in the President's Speech which says that his Government was going to promote democracy in Singapore, and to make Singapore a truly democratic country. To me, Singapore has to be a vibrant, dynamic democratic country if we are to enter the league of the advanced industrialised nations, and to make Singapore a truly prosperous country. If the President had only said that Singapore wanted to be a truly democratic nation, then we would all know exactly where Singapore is heading.

But at the moment I am still unsure where Singapore is heading. Are we going to have a more open democratic society or continue to have a closed paternalistic society? If the Government is serious on what it says about wanting a more vibrant and dynamic society, wanting the people of Singapore to be creative and innovative and to build a knowledge-based economy in Singapore, then the Government must opt for a truly democratic society. But the Government does not appear to be doing so. One example was when soon after Mr Goh Chok Tong was made the Prime Minister, he said that he wanted to make Singapore a participatory democracy. Many people in Singapore were really excited about his pronouncement and were looking forward to steps taken by the Government to implement that policy, but nothing came out of it. It was just talk and nothing else. Singapore remains a tightly-controlled society.

What happened was that the Government expanded the Feedback Unit. That was all. The expansion of the activities of the Feedback Unit cannot be said to be evidence of promotion of participatory democracy in Singapore. The Feedback Unit is not a unit to promote democracy. It is a device for the Government to get feedback, information or intelligence from the people. The Government, by the way, had to obtain information through the Feedback Unit, because its attempt to get direct feedback from the ground proved unreliable, as shown in the 1991 general elections. The Government was told that the ground was sweet in that year, but that information was wrong. The ground was not that sweet. Four Opposition Members were elected and many PAP candidates won only narrowly.

Another example of the Government not promoting democracy is to maintain its tight control of the people of Singapore. The Internal Security Act (ISA) and all the other harsh laws are still intact. People in Singapore have seen how the ISA was used to detain a Singaporean in the opposition for about 23 years. And on another separate occasion, how after the last general elections, an opposition member was sued by PAP Ministers and was asked to pay damages amounting to about $8.3 million. On appeal, the damages were reduced to $3.6 million. Although the opposition member was successful in his appeal, the payment of $3.6 million is still a very large sum of money by any standards. The opposition member did not pay the damages and he is now living abroad in Australia.

Under such harsh political conditions in Singapore, there must be some element of fear pervading among Singaporeans. If that is so, then there exist restraining forces which curb Singaporeans to be creative and innovative. The Government must first remove those restraining forces and abolish the Internal Security Act. That harsh law is out of date. We are all progressing into the new millennium. We all want new freedoms. We want a new spirit, a new environment to create, to innovate, to build a truly prosperous Singapore. I wonder why the Government still needs to cling on to such a draconian law. The Government did not use the ISA to deal with an opposition member when he spoke at Raffles Place without a permit. The existing laws were sufficient to deal with that problem. I believe the Government was quite proud not to use the ISA on that occasion. The Government has enough laws to deal with the opposition. The time for the abolition of the ISA is now overdue. The ISA does not resonate with the new millennium.

Another restraining force is our education system. Our education system must be overhauled, so that our children can be placed in a democratic environment where they have a better chance to grow up to be creative. At the moment, our education system is based on an authoritarian philosophy and not a democratic one. The philosophy in Singapore is authoritarianism, because our philosophy is based on Confucianism. Confucianism teaches obedience. Citizens must obey the ruler of the state. The children or members of the household must obey the head of the family. The wife must obey the husband. The younger must obey the older. And in the family, there is a hierarchy. This kind of philosophy smacks of authoritarianism. If our philosophy is authoritarianism, then this philosophy shall be implemented in our schools. A system of education which is authoritarian teaches the children to obey and does not encourage the children to question their teachers. This type of education system is a one-way communication system. The teacher teaches, the pupils learn. The teacher is the one who imparts the knowledge, and the pupils receive them.

Under the authoritarian system, the pupils' brains are like receptacles which are stuffed with knowledge by the teacher. There is very little interaction between the teacher and the pupils. Whereas, on the other hand, under the democratic system of education, the pupils are encouraged to question their teacher. The pupils are told that the teacher is not always right. Under this system, the pupils are not passive recipients of knowledge but active participants of the process of learning. Pupils are encouraged to do research and their learning process is project based. With this kind of system, the inquisitiveness of the pupils is enhanced. Pupils are encouraged to reason, to think and to acquire knowledge for themselves. They are not spoon-fed. This kind of system makes the pupils to be more creative and innovative and encourages initiative and leadership.

The West, in particular the USA, has this kind of education system. It would appear that if Singapore wants to compete successfully with the western developed countries, then Singapore must revamp its education system from an authoritarian type of education system to a democratic one. Anything less than that will not give Singapore a chance to enter the league of the industrialised western nations. Democracy is not a luxury for Singapore. It is a necessity if it wants to be vibrant, dynamic and creative.

Sir, I regret that the President did not say that we shall have first to achieve a democratic society, for it is a democratic society which is the foundation, the bedrock, in which Vision 21 will be built on. So I call on the Government to have more democracy to ensure that Vision 21 succeeds.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Address which charts out the initiatives we have undertaken, and the challenges we have to rise to, in order to enable Singapore to succeed in the next millennium.

Sir, Mr Chiam has commented that the President's 20-minute Speech lacked substance or was too general. I think we have to be reminded by Mr Davinder Singh again that it is merely a mission statement, at best, a statement of an end, what we want to achieve. We have to be reminded that the Presidential Speech is supported by the Addenda to the Speech, and these are the means to an end, ie, the various Ministries' programmes. And we are here to debate not just the end, but the means to an end, the various Ministries' programmes.

Sir, I am greatly encouraged that there is a clear emphasis on the importance of recognising and developing our people, as well as continuing our open door policy to talented people from abroad who can also contribute to Singapore's development.

The last two years, when Asia had been engulfed in a financial crisis, have been a testing time for Singaporeans. Members of this House would have personal experience during their regular meet-the-people sessions of increased incidence of residents with financial hardship and domestic difficulties, as a direct consequence of this crisis. Our newspapers have reported retrenchments on a scale not seen since 1985. And we know personally of friends and colleagues who, one way or another, have been negatively impacted by the turmoil around us.

Sir, there are lessons that we can draw from these last two years. Indeed, in the Presidential Address, we have recognised that the sturdiness and resilience of our society, our political structure and our economic soundness had stood us well during this crisis. Post crisis, we are now truly in a stronger position, but where has the strengthening come from?

I believe the financial crisis has embedded the trust between the 3 Ps - the public, the private and the people sectors. We have renewed the social contract between these three sectors and have shown tremendous resilience during this period. We have used our community bonds and the basic building block of our society, ie, the family, to hold together the fragile social fabric of a society. We have worked closely together through the tested tripartite structure of the Government, the employers and the unions to respond efficiently and cohesively to the economic challenges. We have not taken the easy and painless solutions, but instead pushed ahead with restructuring, reform, tightening of our belts and taking painful steps to regain our competitiveness. We have also sought ways to widen the feedback channels and encourage development of the civil society. More importantly, these last two years have brought together the post-independence generation and forged many elements of bonds and trust across the board.

Sir, it is not often that societies have had to undergo large externally driven changes and come out better for it. By taking the bitter medicine, and not shunning from difficult decisions, we have built consensus and developed bonds of trust throughout our society. We have indeed strengthened the foundation for the next century. This is the real success story of the last two years.

What we need to do now, Sir, in going forward is to ensure that the trust developed between the 3 Ps - the public, the private and the people sectors - continues to grow. As the President has pointed out, in the next century we can only expect fiercer competition. We have no choice but to constantly renew and maintain what we have.

Sir, the President has outlined a number of initiatives to continue the efforts to build up the heartware of Singaporeans. The proposals in the Singapore 21 Report are slowly but surely taking root among our civic and public institutions. I believe the trust that we have built will enable us to succeed in the knowledge based economy as we continue to energize Singaporeans to be active citizens and participate fully in nation building.

Sir, one of the main challenges before us today is the distinction between the heartlanders and the cosmospolitans in Singapore, first raised during the Prime Minister's National Day Rally this year. Some people have objected to this labelling of Singaporeans, raising genuine concerns that this could appear to be a divisive issue. I beg to differ.

I believe we are not trying to typecast or create a dichotomy to segregate Singaporeans or classify them. Although we are all Singaporeans, some of us inevitably are more cosmopolitan in our outlook because of the nature of our training and work exposure. Technology, the Internet, the various print and news media by association plug us into the global economy, the global culture and society. We have different needs, desires and benchmarks. Others have different exposures in their daily lives and they may sing a slightly different tune. Broadly classified as heartlanders, they are as Singaporean as the cosmopolitans are, and both are as important to our country.

The success of Singapore is as material to both these constituents as it is dependent on both. As Singaporeans, the relationship is symbiotic. There has to be trust between all Singaporeans in order to refine and develop the social cohesion that we have currently. There has to be recognition of the differences between the desires, ambitions and needs of different Singaporeans so that we can identify them, cater to them and move ahead as a nation. Globalization and the knowledge-based economy have the potential to widen the gap between these two, those who sprint on the technology and those who struggle with it. We cannot run the risk of allowing this gap to widen.

Singapore is unique in that we have had a meritocratic system without the worst effects of inequality developing. There has been concerted effort to enable those who require assistance the opportunity to move forward through a host of community, Government as well as civic programmes. Our heartlanders must also seize the opportunities presented to them in the form of Government-assisted and community-assisted skills upgrading programmes. The trust we have developed is forged on the basic belief that the best and successful in our society lend a helping hand to those who require assistance. This has to continue when we consider the heartlander and cosmopolitan distinction.

I would like to suggest that we develop avenues for heartlanders and cosmopolitans amongst us to interact so that they better understand the issues and concerns that affect Singaporeans. Mutual understanding and trust can be forged so that whilst we may march to different drums, we are both on the same plane and moving in the same direction as one nation.

One way to do this is to encourage more cosmopolitans to participate in grassroots activities. Through this way, they could interact more with the heartlanders who, I believe form the majority of our grassroots leaders. Perhaps the PA or the CDCs could actively reach out and design programmes to cater for more interactions. Indeed, last Friday's Straits Times' interview with the PA's new chief, Mr Ong Keng Yong, is indicative of the potential role that PA could play by energizing the organisation, broadening its ambit, and encouraging greater interaction between the cosmopolitans and the heartlanders.

I also urge our Government-assisted organisations to plan more activities to encourage foreign talents to assimilate into our society. We understand the policy behind the need to remain open and to attract the best human capital to Singapore in our quest to succeed in the next millennium. However, it is only through integration and personal contact that would allow bonds of trust and understanding to develop between Singaporeans and these new additions to our community. It would provide opportunity as well for these foreign talents to establish roots and make Singapore their choice home.

Civic institutions such as the voluntary welfare organisations, the arts groups and even the religious organisations, should also attempt to broaden their membership base so that the breadth of ideas and thinking would be crystallised with the interest of all Singaporeans at heart instead of just voicing specific interests which may be inimical to society's interest as a whole. We should encourage participation but avoid the pitfalls of single issue lobby groups which, in some developed countries, have held society's larger interest to ransom for myopic reasons, such as the gun lobby in the United States.

Sir, one of the greatest levellers of society today is the arts and culture. As the GPC Chairman of MITA, I am heartened by the commitment and resources that the Government is putting into developing Singapore as a vibrant city for the arts, and using arts as a catalyst to develop Singapore into the Renaissance City of the future and yet maintaining our Singapore identity and multi-cultural heritage. Sir, we are seeing Singaporeans who are more cosmopolitan-inclined participating in our arts festival. I urge MITA to step up efforts to bring our arts activities to our HDB heartland to reach out to our heartlanders.

It is through these soft issues that a uniquely Singaporean heartbeat would develop. This Singaporean heartbeat and identity will transcend both the heartlanders, the cosmopolitans and the large number of Singaporeans who will be living and working overseas in the new millennium. I further suggest that organisations like the Singapore International Foundation study and develop a brand that is clearly identifiable as Singaporeans, that can gel all Singaporeans from afar and at home together.

Sir, every extra helping hand counts. Singaporeans, whatever their background, have diverse interests. We will realise our full potential by contributing actively to civic and community organisations. When the next crisis hits Singapore, we would have developed a firm platform where the roots of trust and a shared vision for all Singaporeans will bind us together to weather the storm.

In conclusion, I thank the President for setting the stage for Singaporeans to rise to the challenge, and I am sure we all will, to build our common future together.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, thanking the President for his Speech.

Mr Chiam said that there was no democracy in Singapore. When we were preparing the Singapore 21 Vision, 6,000 Singaporeans were involved in the deliberations. Besides, a number of committees were set up to tackle the various issues of an aging population, ranging from employment, healthcare, transport, housing and so on. A lot of people took part in the discussions. This is democracy. When Mr Chiam mentioned that there was no democracy in Singapore, I do not know what he meant by "democracy".

Sir, in the past, when people met, they normally asked, "Have you taken your meal?". This shows that people cared for their jobs. Without a job they would not be able to have any meal at all. Even at the present moment, when we meet people, we still ask, "Have you taken your meal?". That implies job security. This is a matter that concerns many Singaporeans, especially the middle aged workers. Without job, what is democracy?

Sir, the economic crisis may be over and the number of retrenchments is also reducing. But there are still a lot of people who are worried about their job security. When we talk with the workers and the residents, the main thing they are most concerned with is whether they can keep their rice bowls, especially for the middle-aged workers. We ask, "Where are you working? Are you all right in your work?" Generally, the middle-aged Singaporean, whether he is a managerial, technical or ordinary worker, would normally say, "Now, times are bad. It is not easy to keep a job." Why is it not easy? Everybody feels that the transformation of our economy into a knowledge-based economy has brought about many new challenges. Their jobs no longer remain static all the time. Managers and technicians have to worry about new challenges in their jobs. Many companies are streamlining and downsizing their operation. To the ordinary workers, their job security is threatened. Middle aged people have a sense of crisis. When will they be axed? Where are they going to find new jobs? For the self-employed, the worry is lower business turnover, and they may have to give up their business and look for some form of employment instead. A canteen operator in a factory told me that the factory had retrenched a lot of workers. Business at his canteen was severely affected. To carry on operating his canteen business would mean carrying on losing money. Giving up the operation would mean being out of job. Switching to another line of business? Without capital, what can you do? This is indeed a big problem!

When you reach middle age, you may have a lot of adjustments to do. Now, with the economic transformation, the impact on the middle-aged people is even greater. How do we re-assure them? How do we boost their confidence? This is a matter of immediate concern to all of us.

In his policy Speech, the President mentioned that there was opportunity for everyone in Singapore to develop. The Government would also implement the manpower policy for life-long learning. We must look at the aspect of middle aged employment so that the people can enjoy their jobs and the country can prosper. In Manpower 21, the Ministry of Manpower wants the retraining of workers to be undertaken by ITE. This is good because it would enable the workers to study and receive training near their homes, after work. But for those middle aged trainees, the rate of progress must be slower because middle aged workers cannot learn as fast as the young people. We have also to take into consideration the language barrier encountered by the older workers. No doubt, the contents of the courses are mainly in English, but in the course of instruction, the instructors and lecturers may exercise some flexibility in using the language which is familiar to the workers so that they will be able to follow the instructions.

When we analyse a problem, we normally go to the database to get all kinds of information to study the problem, and find the solution. We know that we have several hundred thousand workers whose educational level is below that of secondary school. They have to be retrained so that they can fit into the knowledge-based economy. But when we formulate the curricula for them, we must go to the factories, talk to them and understand their feelings. We need to talk to them so that we will be able to hear what is in their heart. They may face a lot of problems, and this is what the President referred to as the "heartware" for the 21st century. We have good plans. We have hardware, software; but we lack heartware. So that is the problem we are facing. The workers, especially those who are middle-aged and above, are worried about their future. They are also not interested in the retraining programme. We need to depend on our heartware to solve this problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when retraining the middle-aged workers, we should not confine ourselves to the training of only the lower educated workers. The crisis over the past two years also serves to remind every Singaporean that those days whereby "a skill in hand, handy throughout a lifetime", are over. So to retrain the middle-aged workers, technicians and managers, I think it will involve more than a million people, and you have more than a million people who will belong to the aged population by the year 2020. So, we must start right away by paying special attention to their retraining, in order that they will be able to handle the computer and face the IT age. They should be given more time to learn more skills to help them to cope with more high-tech jobs. In this way, we will reduce a lot of social problems when the time comes when we have a substantially aged population.

When middle-aged people go back to the classroom, they will need a lot of determination, courage, encouragement from the employers, and understanding from their families. In this way, when these middle-aged workers carry their textbooks and go from the worksite to the classroom, they will not feel embarrassed. On the contrary, they should be proud of it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in the debate on the President's Address.

Sir, the President has placed great emphasis on people development in his Speech. He has pointed out the importance of lifelong learning, the need for foreign talent, the care for older people, and the assistance to the less successful. The Government will also implement many people-development programmes to enable Singaporeans to take the new opportunities in the next stage of development. This blueprint for our development certainly holds great allure of a fast growing and caring nation.

The President has also pledged to give all Singaporeans tangible shares in Singapore's success. Through HDB home ownership and upgrading schemes, the majority of Singaporeans have benefited from the Government's very generous housing subsidy. They also benefit from the public transportation system, including public buses and MRT. Most of them enjoy greater subsidy in health care if they opt for class "B" or "C' hospitalisation. All HDB residents do not pay for the installation of cable TV reception. The total subsidies given to the residents of public housing sector have been substantial. This is justifiable as the majority of our population, which is about 86%, are residents of public flats. However, private property residents, who account for the remaining 14%, enjoy very little Government subsidy. Although this is consistent with Government's policy of caring more for the majority, it does not seem to be perfectly equitable to deny the share of success and subsidy to the non-HDB residents. Of course, the scope of public assistance in private housing estate is limited. Obviously, the Government cannot share the upgrading cost of private properties. But public amenity in private estates, such as parks, playgrounds, roads and other facilities, can be improved more expeditiously. This will alleviate the anxiety of private estate residents and give them some sense of sharing the success of our development, even though the share could be small.

As I have stated earlier, the heavy subsidy of public housing by the State is consistent with our national policy of helping the majority and the less successful. It is also necessary to satisfy the basic housing needs of our people. We have been very successful in our public housing programme that about 86% of our population are living in HDB estates. However, there are some who are singles and are not eligible to purchase a flat directly from HDB. And their numbers, both males and females, are increasing. Although they are allowed to purchase a flat if they jointly purchase one with another single when they reach the age of 35, their individual's right to purchase a flat of their own directly from HDB has been denied. The rationale is well understood -that it has been the Government's policy to encourage family formation, and possibly that it is not economical for a single to occupy a 3-room or a 4-room flat. But a person has remained single is actually not his choice in many cases. But rather it is due to a number of factors which are beyond his or her control.

While most Singaporeans are sharing the fruits of our success, it is unfortunate that the singles are almost left out in housing benefit. Although they are allowed to purchase a flat jointly when they are 35 years old, they always encounter enormous difficulties in practice. First of all, it is difficult to find a suitable unrelated party to share a life-long asset. This is almost equivalent to finding a partner to live together for the rest of their life. Secondly, even if they have found a joint purchaser, problems may arise later if one of the joint buyers decides to withdraw from the partnership and sell his or her flat. I have come across a case in which two sisters shared a flat, and when the younger sister found a man to get married to, the older sister reacted angrily and refused to sell their common flat. This has created great difficulties for the people involved. I would therefore urge the Government to review the policy of eligibility for single citizens, and allow them to purchase a small flat. Perhaps HDB should consider building some 1-room flats or studio flats for these single persons. If these smaller flats for single persons can be built and mixed with bigger flats in the same block or in their vicinity, single flat occupiers can stay close to their parents or relatives. This will retain the family bonding and promote community stability. I therefore request the Government to review the policy concerning single person's eligibility for purchasing a flat directly from HDB.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion expressing thanks to the President for his Address.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move my amendment, may I say, let it not be thought that it is out of churlishness that I do not wish to join the House in thanking the President. In any case, we know the President is not responsible for the contents of that speech. He was gracious enough to come and deliver the speech, and I have no hesitation in joining the House in thanking the President for coming to deliver the speech.

May I now move my amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the motion before this House be amended by adding thereto, at the end, the words:

"but regret that the Speech is significantly silent on any measures to encourage citizens to take responsibility for the future of their country."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the mover of the motion says one does not look for measures in the Address. I do not know what one looks for, if one does not look for the programme of the Government as to what it is going to do. So I fail to understand that. But I see that one or two other speakers have said that the Address was silent on concrete measures and concrete plans. And Mr Chiam has said it was empty.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that the Address is a great disappointment. One would have thought that after the trouble and the time taken to prepare the Singapore 21 Vision, one would have found in the Government's programme for this session of Parliament some concrete measures, concrete steps, to achieve what is considered should be the vision for Singapore. But as has been said, you find none of it in this Address.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that, on the other hand, the Address is all full of self-satisfaction, taking pride in what this Government has done, and patting themselves for what a wonderful Government they have been. It has been said that our Government is now turning to people development. Are we talking about the same thing? What is people development, Mr Speaker, Sir? I should have thought people development is developing the people's faculties to take on a greater responsibility. That is what we talk about people development, so that their faculties are developed to the fullest extent. Is there anything here in this Address that say something about how the faculties of Singaporeans are going to be developed? It is abysmally silent. It is full of pretence at what has been achieved by this Government, without the assumption in it of the need for participation from the people. And yet, there are calls for greater people's activity, people's participation. All a pretence, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have been saying.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the great pretender should now be taken off the Singapore screen. The script should be changed and the people be seen as playing their part. So what sort of a society do we have in Singapore today? Is it a society where the people have the responsibility, the people contribute to the decision making? Or do we have a society where everything is dictated by the Government, not so much the Government, but really by one man?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure I am going to encounter great criticism of being unfaithful when I say that the truer picture of Singapore society was given by Mr Ian Buruma in his latest criticism. He takes a quotation from D. J. Enright, the professor at one time in our university, in his book "Memoirs of a mendicant professor." The quote is: "The PAP have often treated the populace like naughty or backward children." Picking that up, Mr Buruma says:

"Backward children cannot be expected to think for themselves for they are not responsible citizens. It is this official attitude towards its people that makes Singapore such a depressing place despite its fine hotels, excellent restaurants and shining shopping malls. The result of 50 years of PAP Government is that most Singaporeans are too frightened to think. To call that Asian values is an insult to the rest of Asia."

I have one disagreement with Mr Buruma in his assessment of the Singapore society. It is not an insult to the rest of Asia. It is an insult to the great Asian civilisations of which we claim to be the inheritors. As Prof D. J. Enright says in his book, from its inception, at least from 1965 onwards, the PAP mind has been hobbled by a mindset born out of paranoia. This is the siege mentality, that Singapore is under siege. Not only the country is under siege from countries around us, but the Government itself is under siege from its people. The fear of the people one day asking the Government, the party that forms the Government, to leave, that they may one day rise up and say, "We have had enough. Thank you very much for what you had done, but we think we should now have a change." So that is the siege mentality, not only that the country is under siege, but that the Government itself is under siege. Not long ago, President Habibie of Indonesia was driven to remark that the Singapore Government is afraid of its own shadow.

This paranoia that has afflicted the PAP has led to the "nanny" mentality, the over-regulation of every aspect of the people's lives and to rule by fear. The Senior Minister himself, in one of his candid admissions, has said that he'd rather be feared than respected. There you have it! It is fear that is most important in the thinking of this Government. To keep the people in fear and that, as I shall show, has been alarming for the Singapore society. It shows no trust in our people. There was again the recent utterance by the Senior Minister about the loyalty of an important community in our midst. It is a very unfortunate remark. I hope he will come to this House and explain what exactly he meant and why did he say it.

So the PAP's actions and policies, Mr Speaker, Sir, have been warped by this paranoia. The Senior Minister, not very long ago, at the last sitting, said that my mind was frozen. If anyone's mind is frozen, it is the PAP's mind. It has stood still from the 1960s and has not been able to think clearly because of this paranoia. The result is what? What have we got in Singapore? A result which is disastrous for Singapore as it gears up to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are always talking about the challenges that lie ahead. But how are we prepared? If we propose to go into 21st century with a society too frightened to think, the Government unable to think rationally because of this paranoia, what have we? A society where those who have the charge cannot think rationally and those under the charge too afraid to think. Is this the kind of society that will fit us for the challenges that lie ahead? It is a totally incompetent society, however you look at it. And who is responsible for this? Again, one has to, if one is honest, admit that one man is responsible for this image which Mr Ian Buruma points out himself.

Whilst other countries and societies around us march towards progress, modernisation in people development, in allowing the people to take greater share in making their decisions, we are still mired in this society of ours of which we are asked to be so proud, still mired in the siege mentality of the 1960s - fear, fear, fear! Mr Geoffrey Robertson, not very long ago, in addressing the court on the case brought by the Senior Minister against the Far Eastern Economic Review had to say this, "Mr Lee was still wearing the spectacles of the 50s." So let us not pretend that we are a society which is marching with other societies. Practically, as I said, some time ago, we are still in the 18th century when other countries have moved forward and we seem to be content to stay still simply because the PAP are frightened of losing their hold on the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the 21st century and the millennium will soon be upon us. And if we are honest with ourselves, our people must be ready to face the challenges that lie ahead. If we want our people to think for themselves -what they should do to meet the challenges and take on a greater responsibility, not just accept whatever is done for them or whatever is said on their behalf, but for themselves to take the responsibility, then we have to act fast. There is no time to be lost.

May I suggest a few steps. I have three. I could suggest a lot more, but time does not permit my outlining all those steps, that the Government can take to give our citizens greater responsibility. Mr Speaker, Sir, responsibility comes with freedom. You cannot expect people to be responsible unless you give them the freedom. No amount of calling upon them to be responsible will help unless you give them the freedom. It is not just a question of them having their rights. I was surprised again by the mover's statement that active citizenship does not mean transfer of powers and rights. What does it mean? You must, first of all, Mr Speaker, Sir, give our citizens pride in themselves, pride that they belong to a society where they matter, where they take the decisions, where they are not just robots doing everything that is told to them by the Government.

The first step is to give our citizens the pride of being citizens of Singapore, a pride that in this society they live under the Rule of Law. That is very, very important if you are going to give citizens the pride. No citizen will feel proud if he feels that the Rule of Law does not obtain in their country and the government can behave as it does without being taken to task. The first imperative is that the government should come under the law. The government must be manifestly seen to be under the law, not a government that is above the law, not a government that does what it thinks it can do and will do without any regard to what the law is. But that the government scrupulously obeys and follows the law.

Only recently, there was this report in the papers about the CNB knocking at somebody's house at 2 am in the morning. No one questions the need for the CNB or other law enforcement agencies to do their work. But they have to do their work under the law laid down. No one expects them to stay away and abdicate their duties and responsibilities. We were told that there was no search warrant produced. Why was no search warrant produced? Why were the occupants of the house not first explained carefully before they broke down that they were officers from the CNB and unless they complied with the request to open the door and they can see their warrant cards, the door would be broken down? That is working under the law. The law is that you must have a search warrant before you can enter anybody's house, unless, of course, the circumstances are such that valuable evidence will be lost if you go, first of all, to get a search warrant. An instance might be where you see a criminal running into a house. Clearly, you have to go after him into the house and not wait till you go and get a search warrant from somebody. But that was not the case here.

The second is that Ministers must be seen to obey the laws scrupulously. We questioned the Ministers' flouting of the law so flagrantly in the last elections in the constituency of Cheng San. To us, the law was clear. But apparently, the Ministers thought that they were above the law and went into the polling areas when the law is that only the voters and the election officers and the Police would be allowed into the precincts of the polling station.

The other area is that our citizens must be told quite clearly that law enforcement agencies can only act under the law and that they have every right to question law enforcement officers. The position in Singapore is when a police officer goes to arrest somebody, he is not told what the charge is. He is simply told, "Come with us". And if he dares to ask, "Why do I have to come? What is it?", he is told, "Oh, you will hear all about this when you get to the station." And then, in some cases, the poor citizen is charged in court with obstructing the Police in the execution of their duties. And what is his crime? Because he dares to question the Police as to the exercise of their powers. All these must go. Our citizens must feel that they have a right, a right which the law will protect and no agency of the Government, no officer of the Government can take that right away from them. Then, you give them pride.

The second step that I would suggest to the Government is to give our citizens some say in decisions that affect their daily lives. Let them feel that they are heard and consulted and can make some decisions. I suggested not very long ago that there should be representation of our bus and MRT commuters on the Public Transport Council but was laughed at. It is impractical. Why is it impractical? If you do have that, then the people who rely on the public transport can take pride in that they are being listened to. Their views are heard. But that does not happen in Singapore. So they cannot take any pride. Then there is the Housing and Development Board. The Housing and Development Board, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a law unto itself.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, you have used up your 30 minutes.

It has been proposed, as an amendment, to insert the following words at the end of the Motion:

"but regret that the Speech is significantly silent on any measures to encourage citizens to take responsibility for the future of their country. "

The Question is, "the words proposed to be added be there added."

The Question before the House is the amendment moved by the NCMP and Members who wish to speak now must confine themselves to speaking on the amendment.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am amazed that the NCMP regrets that the Presidential Address "is significantly silent on any measures to encourage citizens to take responsibility for the future of their country."

As my colleagues have pointed out, a lot of details have been spelt out by the various Ministries in the Addenda to the Presidential Address which are clearly worthy of all our interest and attention as Singaporeans. And in addition, a lot of debate and discussion had already taken place through the whole S21 process over the last two years. Many concrete measures have been suggested on how Singaporeans can partner the Government either as individuals or collectively as the people sector as we progress into the next millennium. And these have been taken into account by the various Ministries.

Sir, let me now turn to some of the charges made by the NCMP. Sir, the NCMP charges that the Government is unable to think rationally. I find this to be a very odd statement. For the recent financial crisis, the Singapore Government's quick response had received high marks from key observers and commentators and analysts as well. The NCMP's allegation is clearly unjustified. The NCMP also charges that the Government must be under the law. The Singapore Government has scrupulously governed by the rule of law. Our legal system and judiciary have been highly rated. In the recent CNB case cited by the NCMP, there is no doubt that the CNB carries out its duties according to the law.

The NCMP has also charged that Ministers were openly flouting election rules during the GE in Cheng San. As the NCMP will remember, the matter was carefully investigated and the Attorney-General was of the view that the Ministers did not violate any law.

My view is that the NCMP should not firstly discount the substantial inputs by Singaporeans into the S21 and other consultations nor assume that all Singaporeans are waiting to be spoon-fed all the time. Many have bothered to take the time to read and discuss the S21 report and now the Addenda, and to make constructive suggestions. This is what we should be encouraging and not just expressions or cliches, as my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh has highlighted.

On that note, Sir, the amendment by the NCMP simply cannot stand.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment moved by the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party. In my view, the President's Address is nothing more than a precis of the "Singapore 21 Vision". There is nothing new, especially when it makes no mention at all on enabling the people to freely and effectively exercise their political rights.

It was mentioned in the President's Address that, "All citizens have helped to build Singapore through their hard work and commitment. All deserve to share in the country's success." The asset enhancement scheme was cited as an example.

However, we must not forget that the HDB recently introduced some new regulations to punish those who attempt to realise the profits from their asset enhancement by selling their bigger flats to downgrade to smaller flats. These people will have to pay a higher interest rate for their mortgage loan. For those who sell their flats and re-apply to HDB for another flat, a levy is imposed on them for their profits.

So, when the market is good, the prices of the flats go up, and your assets, in the form of your flats, are indeed enhanced. However, if you decide to take profit by taking advantage of the enhanced value, the Government immediately moves in and demands a share of your profit. Taking into consideration the higher interest rate you have to pay subsequently, all the expenses and the levy, the actual profit derived from the asset enhancement, the so-called sharing of the country's success for your commitment to the country, is simply negligible. Much of your profit actually goes back to the Government's coffers. Moreover, some people are forced to downgrade because of the economic downturn!

As for the HDB's upgrading programme, it is actually the Government's responsibility to keep the housing estates in good and healthy condition, but it has now been used as a means to "bribe" voters, under the guise of enabling them to "share in the country's success". Even then, the residents have to share in the cost of upgrading.

It was mentioned in the President's Address that, "those who do well succeed, not simply through their own efforts, but because society has given them the opportunity to get ahead. They have an obligation to serve their fellow citizens." Yet, we have to offer high salaries to attract Ministers and senior civil servants to stay on to serve the people. Is this not a mockery of what the President has said?

If the PAP's policy is "focused on the people to realise the S21 Vision" as described in Lianhe Zaobao, then the Government should conduct studies on how to create the conditions and environment conducive to the people's participation in politics in Singapore, and not to depend solely on Government channels such as the grassroots organisations like the RCs, CCCs, etc., and the Feedback Unit, to make the people feel that after voicing their views, they are already deemed to have taken part in national affairs. The Government can then take the opportunity to explain their policies and win support for policies which they have already decided upon.

A bona fide participation of the people should not be confined to verbal participation only. Legitimate political actions should also be included. If the Government continues to stringently obstruct political actions, then the so-called "vibrant people sector" is nothing but empty talk.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the PAP must be realistic. If they really want to focus on the people, then it must attach more importance to the people and respect their right to exercise the "people's rights".

If the PAP Government continues to change the election laws to deprive the people of their rights to effectively return the representative of their choice to Parliament, and to threaten the people during election campaigns by saying that if they vote for the opposition, they will not get benefits such as the asset enhancement and infrastructure like the MRT/LRT, and their kindergartens will be closed down, etc., then all this talk about a people-focused policy is simply lacking in sincerity.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now register my support for the Motion to thank the President.

The importance of the role that all Singaporeans play in determining the future of Singapore cannot be overstated. As such, the focus in the President's Address on people, on Singaporeans, strikes a common chord in many of our hearts.

Sir, as we know, Singaporeans today are already a much sought after human resource. Head-hunters have often found Singaporeans to be most suitable for plum jobs in the regional, and sometimes, even global market place. This is because Singaporeans have a reputation for being intelligent, reliable and diligent. This presents the challenge that has been discussed before - one of mobility and a potential loss of able Singaporeans to economies elsewhere.

Sir, it can be argued that nurturing a sense of ownership would be the best mitigating factor against losing such Singaporeans. Once Singaporeans regard Singapore as home, mobility would translate into several postings overseas for a more rounded experience instead of a search for a permanent home. Singaporeans at all levels should be bringing home their experiences elsewhere to help enhance the overall well-being of the economy and, eventually, Singaporeans at large.

But, Sir, the need to foster a sense of identity is not limited to the more able Singaporeans, but to all Singaporeans. For we are all on board the large Singapore Ship and we each have our own part to play.

The Government, as captain, assesses the possibilities, identifies the challenges and constraints, and charts the course. The corporate sector, as crew, identifies the role each company organisation will and can play. Unlike the conventional passenger ship, we Singaporeans on board are not mere passengers; we examine the opportunities for participation and equip ourselves with the necessary skills to fulfill our roles as best as we can. We are crew-cum-passengers.

In the past, we were like small power-boats and were able to make nimble changes whenever a rock appeared unexpectedly or when we found a better route. Now that we are on a big ship, which requires substantial effort just to make a slight correction of our route, we need all Singaporeans on board to keep an ongoing interest in the course we are charting, ie, to help watch out for icebergs, rocks or other obstacles, or suggest ways of ensuring a smooth and enjoyable journey.

In other words, we Singaporeans have to rise above being mere passengers on this journey. This means we cannot simply seek to just equip ourselves with enough skills and resources to stay on board. We should literally sink or swim with fellow Singaporeans. We cannot afford to have a situation where an unanticipated crisis emerges and all on board merely fold their arms and ask for the way out. Instead, we have to assume active ownership of the vessel and both the challenges and benefits.

How do we assume active ownership and responsibility? Allow me, Sir, to touch on an analogy here, that of parenting or assuming active ownership of our children. As parents, we do not wait to be asked to be involved in our children's lives; we simply plan for the nurturing and care of our children in the context of the environment we are in. We are pro-active. We guide them in their educational and career choices as best as we can anticipate their roles in society. We plan our finances and accumulate enough resources to help them along.

In much the same way, we Singaporeans should build upon our sense of ownership of Singapore by taking an active interest in all matters on board, such as identifying potential pitfalls and challenges for our economy and companies; isolating threats to our social fabric; continual upgrading of ourselves for a meaningful contribution; helping the less successful amongst us; and even adding to the enjoyment of the journey itself.

Sir, for it is only when we have taken ownership of this unique Singapore Ship can we enjoy our hard-earned cruise. Singaporeans have demonstrated positively through this recent crisis our social cohesion, in spite of our multi-racial and religious composition. It is my personal wish that we will all continue to foster the Singaporean identity and contribute towards a safe, steady, fruitful and enjoyable journey.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, allow me, first, to thank the President for his Address which painted a cogent vision and comprehensive action plan for our country and nation, as we are poised to enter into a new millennium. The President remarked that the economic crisis of the past two years has tested the sturdiness and resilience of our society. Indeed, Sir, the past two years have been a watershed experience for all Singaporeans, but particularly so for young Singaporeans, those under the age of 30. We saw it as a fundamental test of not just our economic, social and political fabric but also our character as a nation. For many, it was an intense personal experience. Some lost their jobs, others had family members who lost their jobs. And it brought home the cruel vagaries of the economic cycle and how big an impact it can have on individuals and their dreams.

It has also underscored in the minds of many young Singaporeans the value of good governance, as attested to by surveys conducted by the Feedback group in the minds of a whole new generation of Singaporeans. In short, it has been a unifying experience and I think it has helped gel our society and provided a firm foundation with which we can contemplate Singapore 21.

Sir, active citizenship lies at the heart of the President's Address and also Singapore 21. For me, it is a call to Singaporeans to take greater responsibility for their lives, a call to come forward and serve their neighbourhood, their community and their country, and it is a call not just to ponder and pontificate but also to act. It is a call that I hope many Singaporeans will heed. Inevitably, a more vibrant civil society is the corollary of active citizenship, and the evolution of such a people sector has implications for all.

Allow me to just address the impact, I think, it will have for the public sector and for the people sector. We have a capable and efficient civil service. It has a noted ability to discern long-term needs of the nation, formulate appropriate policy responses and action plans and effectively implement them. In fact, one could argue that that has indeed been one of the key plans for our economic growth and development. But there is a need to adjust this modus operandi - to involve more Singaporeans in the policy process. And it arises from a recognition of the fact that problems are now more complex, knowledge and information is not concentrated but quite distributed and there is no monopoly on wisdom. And Government or the public sector on its own cannot address all these issues comprehensively.

Sir, I was recently in Japan and I was struck by what I sense to be a shift in the attitude of the people towards the Japanese bureaucracy, which has been shrouded in a veil of infallibility for a long time, but because of the Japanese economic experience of the last decade, public confidence in the bureaucracy has been shaken. And many are now no longer prepared to accept the bureaucratic centred approach to governance in Japan.

Sir, we need to have avenues for Singaporeans to contribute ideas. The process, in many ways, is as important as the output and in many ways, will also qualitatively affect the nature of the output. We already have a culture of tapping the private sector for its views. This should be systematically extended to the people sector, and this should be not as a mere swop to the cries for additional involvement in policy formulation but as part of a genuine effort to integrate the people sector in our efforts to serve the best interests of our country and to build a nation.

Sir, the people sector has equally important responsibilities if this work in progress is to succeed. It has often struck me that not many people appreciate that contributions to civil society can occur at different levels, that it can be not just at the lofty policy debate level but also in the more mundane and equally important municipal or community issues. For example, I think management of the neighbourhood park is as important as any debate on environment policy. Management of the neighbourhood school is certainly fundamental to the neighbourhood's interests, and is equally important to any debate on streaming and other education policies. So I would hope that Singaporeans regard contributions at the community level or the municipal level with equal respect and dignity, and not think it beneath them and only confine their energies to lofty policy debates.

At the same time, Sir, I am struck that some Singaporeans exclude Community Development Councils, Town Councils and other Government-related or, in some instances, agencies that enjoy some degree of Government support, from the domain of civil society. I cannot fathom why this attitude has come about. Are the efforts of these organisations any less noble just because they enjoy some degree of Government support? Or are they any less important because they do not adopt an adversarial stance vis-a-vis Government? I do not think there is any room for such cynicism in our Vision of Singapore 21. To work, we need every Singaporean to put his or her best foot forward to realise that dream. I urge all Singaporeans to shed such inhibitions and doubts, discard such negativism and instead give the system, the idea, a fair chance. It does not mean you have to confine your energies to Government and Government-related efforts, but certainly it also does not mean that you have to exclude them from your domain of possibilities.

Sir, the Government perhaps has the most difficult task in guiding this evolutionary process with a deft touch, and not a heavy hand. It has to cast an eye to the aspirations of Singaporeans who wish to be more involved and at the same time on the need for effective, efficient and responsive governance. In this process, the Government will have to constantly review, as Mr Davinder Singh has said, not just where such OB markers should lie, but even whether they are necessary in certain context.

Sir, I am heartened by the Addendum to the President's Address from the Prime Minister's Office which stresses that the public sector will do more to consult the people and private sectors, seek their active involvement as partners in implementing policies and be more open, transparent and adept at explaining Government policies to Singaporeans. I look forward to the specific initiatives from the public service in this regard.

Sir, active citizenship and civil society also require a people who have the creativity and the wherewithal to be engaged in a meaningful and productive manner. In that regard, I welcome the emphasis on people development and, in particular, the many initiatives outlined in the Addendum from the Minister for Education. In particular, I am pleased that there is going to be increasing emphasis on not just the products of the output of the system but also on the system of education, the practices and processes that are employed within our schools. That is a welcome initiative and I hope we would hear more in greater detail from the Minister.

I would like to highlight one particular aspect of the education service, ie, the pre-primary education. When we survey pre-school education in Singapore, the terrain is a stark contrast to the organised and structured world of primary and secondary education in Singapore. In pre-school education, we have a plethora of options, full-day care to two- and four-hour kindergarten classes. We have a range of methodology employed from Montessori to other more curriculum-based efforts. We have a range in fees from a few tens of dollars to several hundred per month. Parents have to choose from this sometimes bewildering array of choices but are often unsure or unclear about the standards, the teaching methods and whether they are in fact appropriate for their children and whether their children in turn will be adequately prepared for primary school.

I therefore welcome the Ministry's announcement that it will be more involved in pre-school education and that it intends to undertake research to see how the Ministry of Education can work with pre-school centres. I would offer two particular areas for the Ministry's active consideration. The first is on curriculum design and teacher training in order to ensure that a certain minimum acceptable standard of education is provided across the country in our pre-school system and, secondly, to consider, and I know this may be anathema for some involved, some kind of certification so that parents who go to these centres have some assurance that they have passed a quality control test.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.20 pm until 3.45 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Tang Guan Seng) (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to take part in the debate.

The main feature of the President's Address is the people-focused Government policy. I agree wholeheartedly with it. The President mentioned all the relevant issues concerning the people: to enhance the people's quality, revamping our education system, and promoting lifelong learning; to strengthen our drive for the development of Singapore, stepping up our efforts to attract foreign talents; and to enhance the unity and social cohesiveness of our people, the various ethnic communities should respect one another, and we should help those who are less successful.

In the Address, there is no mention of our economic growth nor any statistics. This is a big change. This reflects the fact that we are now in a new stage of our nation building. However, it does not mean that economic growth is no longer important. It does not mean that we do not have to compete with other people in order to enjoy a better life. On the contrary, the President's Address has focused on our long-term development, so that we may be prepared for economic development in the 21st century, and to develop a masterplan for a better life in the next millennium.

In the 21st century, we will encounter many challenges. I would like to touch on three main challenges.

The first challenge is that a new international and regional strategic situation is taking shape. The superpowers, like US, Japan, the European Union and China, are re-aligning themselves according to their own strategic interests. And the nations in this region are undertaking major political and economic reforms. Indonesia will elect its President on the 20th of this month. In Malaysia, the general elections are just around the corner. In the not too distant future, the region's political scene and international relations will take on a new look.

Singapore is a small country. We will have to re-orientate ourselves in the new situation, for our own sake. In this connection, the people can be a deciding factor. The people must make sure that the Government leaders they elect will have strategic foresight and that they can make a safe arrangement for our future. Otherwise, all that we have will be wiped out overnight in a big "international strategic earthquake", and all our so-called "world-class home" and "Singapore-style social safety net" will come to nought.

The second challenge is the impact of ever-changing new technologies. We are very lucky to be living in this era. The Internet has changed not only our pace of economic development but our lifestyles as well. New technology is coming fast and aggressive. If we are not prepared, we will not be able to benefit from the advent of new technology, and be left behind.

Therefore, we have to examine the way we do things, the way we do business, and to find out where we can make use of new technologies and new methods of production to enhance our productivity and to better our life. That is why we have to carry out reforms in our education system and to adopt the lifelong learning approach.

The third challenge is to enhance our national cohesiveness. Among the three challenges, it is the most important. The Government will create opportunities and conditions for the people to fully develop their talents. In the next century, if there is international peace, our political and social conditions are stable, we can expect another lot of Singaporeans to become wealthy. They will venture out of this country to go regional and global. We hope that these "new millionaires" will learn from their ancestors. They should adopt Singapore as their home and donate generously in support of the charities in Singapore.

In any society, there are failures and the less fortunate. We should help them. Their progress and success will remove the impediments on our way towards progress. We give those who have gone bankrupt a second chance. We should also adopt the same attitude towards other failures. However, I feel that to enhance social cohesiveness, all the people should share in the fruit of success. The President, in his Address, pointed out that, "So long as the economy continues to do well, the Government revenues can afford it, we will continue to implement asset-enhancement schemes to give Singaporeans stakes in our success." This is certainly a farsighted policy.

I support the motion thanking the President for his Address.