DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Debate resumed.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Lim Boon Heng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. A friend asked me: Why is the Government so preoccupied with ratings by various agencies? Why is it not concerned with the people, but so concerned about being Number One? It made me pause. Not to ponder over the question, but to ponder why the question was asked. There is an obvious lack of understanding!

Why is the Government concerned about ratings? Government wants to know how rating agencies see us, because that is how investors see us. If rating agencies score us poorly, we will be out of favour with investors. A poor rating will mean it would be so much harder to attract investments to create new jobs, better paying jobs for Singaporeans.

Government looks at the factors rating agencies use, to see where we are trailing others, so that we can take steps to improve - if those factors are important. Only then will we get the quality investments we want, for quality jobs for our workers. We have scored well in many ratings. The danger is we can be blinded by our own success, and fail to note how others are improving. When one who is Number One becomes complacent, others will overtake it. History is replete with examples.

It happens to whole industrial sectors of countries. Just after the Second World War, the leading shipbuilding country was Britain. By the late 1960s, she was overtaken by Japan. Why? Because British shipbuilders did not recognise the greater efficiency of Japanese shipbuilding methods, and when they did, management was unable to get the support of unions for the changes they needed to make.

It happens to companies more frequently. IBM was the undisputed Number One in computers. When the PC came on the scene, IBM thought it was a toy. When the PC business grew, IBM belatedly went into the PC business. Those familiar with the telecoms industry know how MCIWorldCom - a relative newcomer - now challenges AT&T for top ranking.

This is why management gurus say that a company must start on a new growth curve before it reaches the top of its current one. So it is useful to know where we are. What strategies we adopt depends on where we are on the growth curve. This explains why we have to make changes, even when things seem to be going well, such as in the banking industry. But it is not easy. The attitude is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" But if we do not start on new growth strategies, we will be left behind in the dustbins of history.

Are some of our companies in danger of being overtaken? We are Number One in ship repair. The CEO of Jurong Shipyard, Mr K K Tan, told me recently that he had visited a shipyard in Shanghai, China. The orderliness of the shipyard impressed him greatly. Obviously the shipyard was efficient and well run. He asked his host where they had learnt such modern management methods. His host replied: "From you!" Mr Tan was taken aback! How was that possible? His host said: "Do you remember 10 years ago you gave a talk here on 5S? You told us about it, and we have applied it since then." That left an even deeper impression on Mr Tan. It shows how bright, dynamic and hungry Chinese can learn and catch up! So our shipyards need to restructure to stay ahead, and Mr Tan will certainly want to do business with China, where land and labour costs are much lower.

SIA regularly wins accolades. Recently, one of Mr Charles Chong's constituents in Pasir Ris told him his fears by e-mail. He said that many countries stopped their clocks when they threw out their colonial masters, and have declined ever since. But we are in danger of having stopped our clocks in the 1980s. This constituent of his works for ICAO, and had recently visited China to examine their standards and procedures. He was impressed by how fast Chinese airlines have progressed. In the 1980s he thought it would take them 50 years to catch up with Singapore. He thinks they have caught up, a good system is in place. Only the lack of expertise in marketing and selling was holding them back to give us a run for our money.

These two examples, I hope, are sufficient to prod us to change, whichever industry we are in, be it banking, insurance, telecoms, air transport, sea transport, retailing, healthcare, construction, ship repairing, chemicals and petrochemicals, or electronics.

We operate in a global environment. The forces at work elsewhere are present here as well. It is impossible for us to be isolated and to shut out these competitive forces. Our own market is far too small. We have to trade with the world and so contend with the global forces at work. Almost all countries embrace the market economy.

The critical question for us is: what kind of operating system is best suited for us? Which system will allow our companies to be competitive and, at the same time, maintain social harmony? Which variant of the market economy is the more efficient and bring about the most good? Is it the US model, or the European one?

Some say the US model, because it is the most dynamic and competitive. The US has been able to create more jobs than Europe. So unemployment in the US is lower than in Europe. But critics point out that many jobs are low-paying ones. Wage disparity in the US is far wider than in Europe.

In the US, wage disparity is translated into substantial differences in the quality of life, especially in housing and education of children. Richer Americans have, over the years, retreated into their suburban enclaves and their own private schools. The inner city is a mess. The homeless roam the streets at night. Crime rate is high: there has been a doubling of the adult population in prison since 1985. Now about 2.3% of the male adult population are behind bars. The US is large and diverse. Civil society is strong. The US can absorb the social discontent. While the US model is attractive, can a small country like Singapore withstand the excesses the model brings?

Do we have a choice? In a global economy, the labour market is becoming one, we have to change our sense of place. But in every country, there is a spread of people with differing abilities. Low-skilled workers should not be priced out of the market.

Which is better - a system that provides more people with the dignity of work, even low paying, or one where the unemployed or unemployable live on the backs of those who work? In Europe, wage disparity is far narrower, but the social security systems are struggling. Many people choose to remain unemployed, rather than take up jobs with lower pay. Immigrants from Central Europe and North Africa take up those lower value and lower pay jobs. Most recently, many jobs of lower value and lower pay have migrated to Central Europe. The unemployed are also voters, and they applied political pressure. In France, the unemployed, led by unions, marched for higher unemployment benefits.

Japan had taken a different path, using under-employment to keep unemployment low. Large conglomerates also create businesses to "retire" their older executives. After eight years of recession, the system is proving unsustainable. Cracks and strains are showing. Unemployment was 4.1% last year and estimated to push past 5% this year. Japanese companies are chipping away at their seniority-based system, shifting towards performance-based systems, closer to the US model. This will strain social cohesiveness and a new social contract will have to be made.

So which way should we go? What measure do we have to take to make us even more competitive so that we can create good-paying jobs for our workers? Obviously, we want to move into the knowledge-based economy. One aspect of it is Silicon Valley type start-ups. Another is developing our companies into regionally competitive, if not, globally competitive ones.

What can we do to moderate the excesses of the competitive market economy? How can we strengthen our social safety net? Some people, both Singaporeans and foreigners, mistakenly think we are grossly lacking in not setting up a social safety net. But that is because they see the social safety net as the one modelled by the West. In the years ahead, as the harsh pace of globalisation becomes more manifest, there will be louder calls for the setting up of social safety nets. We need not oppose such calls. Rather, we should contribute to the debate by pointing out that there are different solutions. There should be a free market for ideas.

Let me explain with an example. Some countries have unemployment benefits, pegged to the last-drawn pay. We do not - we only have provision for retrenchment benefits. Does it mean ours is deficient? Not necessarily. Typically, in most countries, home ownership is 60% of the population. Ours is 90%. Therefore, one major household expenditure - rents - is not an issue for most of our people. What we need are mortgage assistance schemes, like what we have in the downturn. For those who rent, why, we have rent vouchers and utility vouchers, an idea which some in the West are only now discussing! Of course, our CDCs dispense those vouchers. And these are not being paid for by social insurance contributions, direct cost to companies.

There will be calls for a minimum wage. It is an icon of the conventional social safety net. Yes, we do not have a minimum wage. But we do have subsidised public housing. The subsidised public housing scheme is actually another way of delivering what the minimum wage concept tries to deliver. The minimum wage adopted in other countries aims to give workers at the lower end enough to pay for housing. Our scheme delivers the same, but does not add cost to the employer. So there should be no monopoly of effective ideas for social safety nets.

We should also take care that we do not adopt new ideas that appear to be great, but whose consequences are not fully known, like social security as developed in Western Europe. When first implemented, everyone thought it was great. Now the system is breaking down and governments are voted out because they try to cut back benefits to balance budgets. Why did a great idea turn out to be a millstone on the necks of society? Because people did not appreciate social trends - people living longer and birth rates falling. Instead of each generation providing for themselves, it has become one generation living off the next!

Companies also get into trouble with their employee benefits. Take pensions. IBM in the United States is overhauling its employee pension scheme. It says it must do so to stay competitive with rivals which have lower cost schemes. But it is creating an employee backlash. For the first time in its history, IBM may be unionised as unhappy workers turn to the union to redress their grievances! So we should learn from such experiences to know that at first sight the idea is great, it does not necessarily turn out to be great.

Today, one idea is in fashion - employee stock option plans (ESOPs). Surveys show that American companies with stock option plans out-perform those that do not. These plans are touted as 'cost free' for the companies except for the dilutive effect on shareholders. Companies here are plunging into ESOP. I think ESOP is a great idea for new start-ups like those we want under our technopreneurship programme. It offers employees the attraction of becoming millionaires by sharing risks with the company founders. Beyond the start-up phase, I am not so sure. If employee numbers become very large and growth moderates, will there be enough shares to go round, to be effective as a motivator?

For mature companies seeking the services of top-notch business leaders, ESOP is also a good idea. It is a form of risks-sharing. The top executives are rewarded if their actions do bring results, take the company on a new growth curve. But ESOPs widen the income gap. The US trade union federation AFL-CIO points out that thanks largely to share options, the average American chief executive now takes home 419 times the wage of the average factory worker. In 1980, he made 42 times as much. Other studies show that ESOPs inflate reported earnings because options are not treated as expenses, and mask employee earnings to show lower wage growth.

Others point out that shareholder value may well be due to bull runs of the stock market rather than the actions of management and employees. Employees with stock options get a windfall, unless stock options are indexed to the stock market. So let us study ESOP carefully and not end up with a scheme that will weigh down company earnings in the future. We may have no choice but to follow what other people do. But let us learn from their experiences to avoid the problems they run into.

The pace of change will be faster. Already the average length of service of employees with a company has shrunk. With the faster pace of change, this average length of service will shrink further. It will not be because of poor work attitudes and job hopping. It will be driven by shorter life cycles of products and services. Therefore, compensation schemes and provisions for employee-welfare will have to take this factor into account.

Employability, not employment, is the key issue. It is fundamental to workers' welfare. Skills training must therefore be high on our national agenda. So I return to where I started - rating agencies. We lag behind others in skills and work attitude. This shows up in all indicators of rating agencies. They tell us our weaknesses, even if BERI rates our workforce as number one. Unless we correct these weaknesses, we cannot move up the new growth curve. There will not be the bright future we want for our people.

This is why we have Manpower 21. It is a key blueprint for the welfare of our people. Let us act on it! Manpower 21 can take off only if all three social partners - unions, employers and Government - work in tandem and support these schemes and enlist the support of the people. Yes, all three social partners have indeed made significant contributions on what needs to be done to develop a globally competitive workforce to support our economic vision. It is time we did the selling, the mobilising. We have to do this in concert. In pushing for Manpower 21, we must not forget that there are significant numbers within our workforce who do not have basic education. So we need to give BEST another push. We must initiate other imaginative programmes that give such people hope that they too will benefit in a better Singapore we want to create. Then, we will move into the 21st century, entering the knowledge-based economy and building our world-class homes here.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the President's Address and I rise in support of the motion in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

At the risk of sounding bland and making the Straits Times political writer Chua Lee Hoong yawn, I must first confess that I agree with her that we can do with more c olour in our speeches, such as the one mentioned by her in Mr S Rajaratnam's Harvard Club Anniversary speech in 1981.

However, I hope she and others would not be too disappointed if I shun the example of the happy pigs mentioned in Mr Rajaratnam's speech. I do not know whether that will make my comments more acceptable today or more halal, but I hope it would not lack the passion called for.

Indeed, there are happier things to speak of too. If the President's Address was lacking in passion, as Lee Hoong said, it was definitely not because President S R Nathan lacks such a spirit. I know Mr President as one who reads widely and as a man with a strong passion for Singapore. When Mr Nathan was the Chairman of the Straits Times, he had at times wished that our journalists write better, not just with colour, but with commitment and passion.

Passion can come in many different colours. And in different forms too. But what about substance? That was definitely aplenty in the Presidential Address. Similarly with the Addenda.

What matters most is that the Singapore Government believes in bringing home the bacon, the more succulent the better it is. However, I am sure you would understand if the Muslim Singaporeans also ask for their fair share of halal providence.

This is provided for in both the Presidential Address and the Addenda. In other words, lots of food for thought and more, if we do not belong to that class of pleasure seekers, who only believe in material well-being, to be arrived at without toil, sweat and tears as in Mr Rajaratnam's speech.

In short, we Singaporeans believe in our people. Those few words almost wax lyrical. Like the passion in the Pledge and the song, "We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people.". I will come back to that later.

But first, Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to focus on two areas which I think are critical as we prepare for our future. First, on education. The wealth of Singapore lies in our people - our values and our instincts, our courage and tenacity, our skills and competencies. So says the MOE Addendum. I could not agree more.

Our success in the future depends on how well we prepare our people for the challenges ahead. Singapore has always placed a premium on education, and it is worth reiterating why we must continue to invest heavily in our young. That is how the MOE prefaced its role. Almost a cliche perhaps, but do not let that fool us, for the substance in that Addendum speaks volumes of the thinking and the mission MOE sets for the Ministry and for all of us Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, time does not permit me to belabour the points here but suffice to say that the same Minister also chaired the Singapore 21 Committee which presented us with a vision for a progressive and gracious Singapore, living in harmony with itself, the region and the world in the next century. Allow me, however, to highlight just one point in the Addendum which, to me, will bring about far-reaching impact and I quote,

"We will be more involved in pre-school education, investing in curriculum design and teacher training, conducting research and tightening regulation. A pilot research will be conducted to ascertain the most effective way for MOE to work with pre-school centres to prepare children for school learning."

Currently, pre-school education is not under the direct aegis of MOE, although the pre-school centres need to be registered with the Ministry. There is ample evidence to say that in preparing for our children's education, we should start from as early as possible. Some even say, pre-natal.

I do not know the extent to which MOE would get "more involved", but I am sure that parents would be most happy to learn that the MOE's hand would be more visible in pre-school education.

The MOE research should also look into how more of the Ministry's budget and/or Edusave funds could be disbursed for pre-school education. The PAP's Community Foundation (PCF) now runs classes for about 70% of the nursery, K1 and K2 classes for each cohort each year. The fees chargeable vary from $15 to $100 a month, and even more in the private ones. Surely, the quality will also vary.

There is also an urgent need to do centralised recruitment, training and deployment of pre-school teachers. The MOE might want to consider either doing it themselves or to establish an independent agency to undertake that role. This will certainly reduce the headaches now faced by pre-school operators and help to control the quality of teaching at these centres.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.23 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): We have read about certain pre-school centres producing students whose quality is below par. They get educationally-handicapped even before they begin their primary schooling. This will have serious ramifications as the education deficit sets in early, aggravating the situation as the students move up the educational ladder. Pre-school education deserves more attention and I am sure MOE will be well supported in their move to do more for the pre-schoolers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, moving on to the bigger picture, allow me now to touch on an equally important, if not more important point mentioned in the President's Address, that is, multi-racial harmony and social cohesiveness.

That is an even more challenging task. The message is the same, perhaps just as bland and boring but it is definitely worth reiterating. We cannot take multi-racial and multi-religious harmony that now exists in Singapore for granted. One can try to add more colour to that message by using different languages and imageries. Yet the message is that the stark and cold realities of primordial instincts still linger and apparently will continue to haunt us for some time to come.

History has shown us how difficult it is to tackle that problem. There are enough examples to scare us. Just look around us, and we will be able to see enough of events that will continue to remind us that the ugly heads of ethnicity, racial bigotry and religious fanaticism are as real in the past as it is today.

Gory scenes of Rwanda, Kosovo and even Timor, Ambon and Kalimantan, in the recent past still remind us that we cannot ever take racial and religious harmony for granted. Rwanda and Kosovo may be too far for us to really understand their vibes, but after more than 30 years of relative peace and harmony in Indonesia, look at what could happen when a plural society stirs and unravels. Domestic politics and economic ills must surely have contributed to the problems too. And these factors will continue to also feature in the future.

These issues could have been on Senior Minister Lee's mind when he answered the Polytechnic student's questions about Malays in the SAF. This issue has been haunting our minds, I am sure, not only the Malay minds, for some time now. And it looks set to continue to do so for some time more. This is certainly not an issue that could be settled once and for all, at least not for now.

This issue too drew the attention of the Straits Times last Thursday. Ms Irene Ng, born a Malaysian but now a Singaporean, and who speaks Bahasa very eloquently, as the Malays say "macam air" chose two Malay sayings to open and close the matter discussed in the papers.

Capturing the disappointment of many Malays over SM Lee's comment, she said it was like "Sudah berputik, balik berbunga", meaning that the fruit has taken shape, regressed to a flower stage. She ended by using another Malay saying "Akar dah tumbuh, janganlah dibongkar" meaning what has taken root, let it not be destroyed. Very appropriate indeed.

Understanding how sensitive the issue was and is, she rightly reported SM's full reply, in context. SM's remarks, set in that background, certainly make a more understanding reading. These are not simple statements. They are laden with personal experiences over the years which show deep seated concerns that cannot be easily wished away by rational thinking. They are a matter of life and death that are abounded by deep emotions and primordial instincts. Geopolitical realities might even make it worse. The extremist and the fanatical ways of some groups in acting in the name of Islam in some parts of the Muslim world complicate matters further. Non-Muslim bias and stereotyping too add to the complexity of the matter.

But how does a Muslim Singaporean who seriously and sincerely believe in being Singaporean reconcile his belief in being Singaporean with what he sees as being seen as non-loyal or not loyal to Singapore?

To many a Muslim, being religious is also being responsible and being a good human being. Also a good citizen. Does an average Singaporean, especially a secular Chinese, prefer Malays/Muslims not to be religious? Is there truth in what a Chinese gentleman once told me at a forum? I quote, "The problem with you Malays is that you are Muslims. If you are just Malays, you are all right."

Is that a problem of stereotyping? Are Malays/Muslims cast in the image and shadows of some of the extremist Muslim groups elsewhere? Muslim Singaporeans, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, generally believe in moderation and pluralism. They are conscious of the multi-racial context they live in. Most, I am sure, believe in independent Singapore and will die for Singapore as their "tanah tumpah darah" or motherland.

I agree that much water has passed under the bridge of our short history. But that is not to say that the water will remain still all the time. We will continue to be tested by events and time, and sometimes events and time beyond our control and outside our area.

There is definitely a need to create a better understanding all the time. Co-existence and tolerance are not sufficient. Someone described co-existence as a relationship between a turkey and a farmer, until Christmas time.

An hon. Member: Thanksgiving!

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Is it Thanksgiving? My apologies. Until Thanksgiving. One needs to be thankful for such a correction.

There is definitely a need to create a better understanding all the time. We need more understanding and, even more critical, trust. In the future, it would not just be a question of who handles the machine gun unit but also who has access to cyber warfare.

In yesterday's Sunday Times, for example, we read about how cyber war will grow in presence. The Pentagon has even set up a centre to combat cyber war, which will not be just limited to the battle-front, but also on the computer attacks on foreign bank accounts, eg, as in the case of the war with Yugoslavia. Cyber war could even be waged from the living room of your home. In other words, without trust, more will be at stake.

To establish trust would take an even longer time than it would to work on better understanding. But we have to work hard at it. This is something we owe to our Singapore.

Collectively, we must continue to nurture and strengthen the network of institutions we have established in Singapore to promote multi-racialism. We have to find ways to monitor and appreciate the changes taking place in race-related matters, including in public housing and our schools.

The foundations established by our pioneering fathers of independence in promoting greater multi-racial harmony and political stability, as achieved through our form of parliamentary democracy, must be strengthened.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, as we approach the new session and the new century, first, let us count our blessings on what we have achieved. Let us build on them and in the process enhance trust among our people. Education and knowledge continues to be the key to our future. As we live the future together, with a sense of common destiny, trust will grow. It will take time but we will need to do it together.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to thank the President who addressed this House on behalf of the Government.

One of the emphases of the Speech was developing social cohesion. I am glad to note that there is an Inter-Ministerial Committee which is looking into the issue of the aged population. Recently, I attended an Asian Parliamentarian meeting on the issue of population development. With the help of the Ministry of Community Development, I presented the model of Singapore in dealing with the aged population. In response to our model, we received very favourable comments from the participants who were parliamentarians in Asia. Some even jokingly wondered whether they could retire in Singapore. In fact, we are one of the Asian countries which have a comprehensive aged programme besides Japan.

Sir, the aged population issue involves the families, the community, the employers, the health service providers, the housing authority and those who provide public amenities. This is not an issue that only one Ministry would adequately deal with. The Inter-Ministerial Committee with inter-Ministry involvement and participation would be the proper way in dealing with the issue, and to ensure that our people would be properly looked after when they join the aged population.

On the issue of inter-Ministerial cooperation, my experience is not very positive from what I encountered in the past. The Ministry of Community Development might have aggressive plans in dealing with community issues. However, the progress of the plan will depend on the physical implementation by other Ministries. Due to the differences in the priority set by the respective Ministries, some projects will drag on for years before they could be implemented.

I would like to cite an example for building a childcare centre in my constituency by a charitable organisation. MCD gave the approval very promptly. However, another Ministry which is supposed to build the centre dragged their feet due to shortage of resources. In my view, the two Ministries have different priorities on the issue.

The aged population issue could also face a similar problem if each Ministry sings a different tune on the issue of priority. I hope the poor experience I had encountered will not be repeated on this very important issue.

In the development of a cohesive society, MCD will be one of the main bodies to spearhead the various programmes. Besides the emphasis on the CDCs in promoting social cohesion, the community centres and other various grassroots organisations like the RCs are equally important in promoting social cohesion among our people. So far, all the programmes carried out by these organisations are either self-financed or through community donations. The Government has relatively negligible financial involvement except payment for the administrative staff and the premises like the community centre.

Sir, to strengthen the social cohesion of our society is an enduring and open-ended task for the community organisations. Endless educational programmes and social projects will be launched in order to qualitatively achieve the improved cohesion of our people. In my view, funding for all these projects will be very essential. For the community organisations who are well funded by their well wishers, they should have no difficulty in participating strongly in this long enduring project. However, for those who are financially weak they might have to place the community cohesion promotion programme in lower priority. We should enhance the funding to provide adequate funds for the grassroots organisations, so that they could respond fully to the national call in developing community cohesion. So far, I know that MCD always receives one of the smallest budgets in the past. With this new emphasis, I hope more funds could be allocated to MCD in the coming budget session.

Both the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of the Environment mentioned about the issue of water. Besides developing the water catchment in Marina South, widening the sources of water supply and desalination, industrial water was mentioned. In fact, recycled water will be one of the important sources of water supply in our water scarce island. Our sewer system throws away more than what we have consumed, in terms of the amount of water. Considering the fact that our catchment could produce half of the water we consume, with the water entering into the sewer system being recycled once, we will be self-sufficient in our water needs at the present stage, except that the cost would be higher.

I am glad to note that the Jurong industrial area might be using recycled water for certain industrial applications. I hope that the experience we learn from this project will lead to a wider application in recycled water and an increase in its volume of production.

While we are developing newer HDB townships and Marina South, we should consider the dual water supply system to cater for both the recycled water and potable water. The deep tunnel sewer system we plan to build should also take the recycled water into consideration. If practical, separate industrial effluent, which is contaminated by heavy metals and toxic substance, from the non-polluted sewer, so that the recycled water from the cleaner source could be used for producing water for better application.

I note that the Ministry of National Development is considering to increase the production of food in meeting the local demand and reduce the excessive dependence on foreign supply. In my view, this is a healthy approach to ensure food security. The recent experience of animal diseases and excessive pesticide used in farm products taught us to be more cautious about over dependence on foreign imports. Besides increasing our food production using mechanised and intensive farming technologies, we should also take pains to develop more foreign sources of supply to cater for the shock due to the shortage of supply, like the recent shortage of pork supply.

For increasing the local farm production, I am concerned about the shortage of manpower which we already face in the present high-tech farms. At present, the high-tech farmers are only allowed to hire foreign workers from the traditional source, meaning Malaysians. The Malaysian workers are not very keen to work in the farms due to the relatively unpleasant working environment and the reward is not as good as those involved in the renovation and construction industries. The farmers are really desperate in looking for manpower supply from non-traditional sources, but their applications were not granted.

While the Ministry is contemplating increasing food supply as a means to achieve a stronger food security position, I hope that this matter of foreign workers from the non-traditional source could be properly dealt with by the Ministry of Manpower. Otherwise, in my view, it is difficult for us to realise our dream of reducing our dependence on foreign food supply.

Sir, on this note, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I rise to speak in support of the motion to thank the President for his Speech.

I am most encouraged to hear the President identify people as the major focus of Government's policy in the coming years, and of Singapore 21 as a key programme of this Parliament.

Singapore 21 identifies the family as one of the five pillars that will enable us to build on what we already have and create a strong and vibrant nation, and a home that we will all dearly love in the next millennium.

The President also spoke on the ageing of our population. Notwithstanding all our initiatives and efforts to keep the majority of our senior citizens healthy and active contributors, as our population ages, there will be a growing number of older persons who will need care. The main care givers of these dependent older persons will remain their families.

In the recent MCD-IPS Conference on Ageing in Singapore, the invited speaker shared that in the UK, families still remain strongly committed to caring for their older members, but are increasingly struggling under the burden of discharging these responsibilities, with the increase in longevity and the co-existence in families of three or even four generations. He argued that leaving the family to struggle on its own unaided is to take a very short-term view, as not only might a good portion of these families break under the pressure, there might be adverse economic consequences, such as the cost of providing health care to exhausted carers.

Sir, our families in Singapore are, fortunately, generally not yet under such pressure at the moment, as our population is currently still much younger than that of the European countries.

In fact, the study on the Singapore Family, commissioned by MCD, which was recently released, presents a happy picture of families largely in good and healthy condition. But as the President himself has stated, we must start now to prepare to address future needs. And Government has always had a tradition of planning very long term.

The study did identify five sources of stress in our families. Of the five, the two main stressors are related to livelihood which includes, amongst other things, financial situation and employment, and role obligations.

I want to focus attention today on the care givers in our families, addressing these two main stressors. It is important for us to keep our care givers strong and sound and whole, as only through this can we, in the longer term, keep our families strong and sound and whole. Care givers in families can be both men and women, although at the present time, they are very largely the women in families.

In the 1998 Labour Force Survey it is reported that women make up 42% of our 1.9 million work force in Singapore. Of these 806,000 women, 449,000 are married and therefore definitely needing to balance work and home responsibilities.

Many of the single women who are working doubtless have also family and home responsibilities to shoulder, but that is another subject for another day.

The Survey reports there are 390,400 economically inactive persons aged from 25 to 54 years. Of these, 360,000 of them or 92% are women, and the reasons they give for not working are housework (69%), child care (23%), and elder care, at this point of time, only just a bit below 1%. Of these economically inactive persons in Singapore, 49,000 indicated that they would want to return to work within the next two years. Of these, almost 37,000 are women in the 20 to 49 years age group. Interestingly, 51% of these women have at least secondary education, in other words, they are what we would classify as skilled workers.

How do we help preserve the energy and the well-being of these care givers in the family, at the same time enable their continued contribution to the nation?

The Manpower 21 Committee has obviously studied these numbers, and has outlined some proposed solutions in one of its strategies, Transforming the Work Environment. I strongly support the points raised in this strategy, particularly the encouragement of flexible work arrangements and job redesign, and I would like to expand a little on this idea.

The Manpower 21 Report indicates that we have a long way to go with regard to flexible work arrangements. The percentage of our workforce in flexible work arrangements stands at less than 1% compared to the US at 28%, the UK at 12% and Japan at 8.7%.

Let me paint the spectrum of options it is possible to offer individuals so that they may try to match these with their particular requirements in balancing family and work, and to draw on some actual working examples to demonstrate that these arrangements are in fact eminently do-able.

Firstly, when the care giver needs, wants, and can manage to work full-time hours, flexibility in starting and ending times in the work day can facilitate balancing of work and home schedules.

In addition, flexibility in how these hours are organised can compress the work week and, for example, enable more days off in the week to attend to family chores and still perhaps have a day left over for a breather. If I may give a working example, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from my own workplace, we have nurses, all of whom work 42 hours a week, but in different units, work on a six-day, five-day or four-day rotation. The staff on the four-day rotation work 12-hour shifts but get three days off in a week to attend to other matters.

Secondly, if the duties at home are more onerous and the care giver cannot manage a full-time job, making available part-time jobs or job sharing. Certain jobs are very easily structured for part-time staffing or job sharing, and all that may be required may simply be a willingness to consider doing things differently from the past. Other jobs are not so obviously suitable, and this is where some job redesign would be most helpful.

Then, for those, usually young mothers who wish to take a period, perhaps a few years, off to see a child through infancy and early childhood, there are examples how this can be facilitated, and the woman helped to phase back into the job and workplace. For example, Lombard North Central, a finance house in the UK, allows parents extended leave of up to five years to care for babies and toddlers, on the condition that they spend at least two weeks a year back in the office, to maintain contacts and update skills, so that the transition back to the job later becomes simpler and smoother.

Of course, our Civil Service has set a fine example of allowing no pay leave after childbirth for child care for mothers of up to four years per child, and part-time employment for married women who are not able to work full-time due to child care and family commitments.

For those who have been out of the workplace for a long while, and become very out of touch, who are afraid their skills may have become obsolete, or just do not have the confidence to go back to work, the investment in putting together a short refresher course, with no strings attached, for such potential returning employees yields enough in terms of the recruitment of good candidates to be well justified.

Again a real working example - albeit just a small pilot programme - of a two week refresher course which attracted six participants out of 15 nurses contacted who had stopped work some years prior, of whom five felt confident and competent enough after the course to return to work. This is quite a promising outcome for such a rare commodity as experienced nurses!

Finally, of course, there are jobs that will allow teleworking from home, particularly with the possibilities now as Singapore becomes more and more a fully wired island.

Now, if we could marry this palette of options with the availability of workplace on-site or near-site multi-service child and elder care centres, we will have a picture that will surely brighten the homes of our families in the future. And in this instance, hopefully as near a future as we can possibly make it.

Sir, I fully recognise of course that all of this is far easier said than done, and certainly not all options are possible for all jobs in all companies. Companies will understandably hesitate and need convincing that these are initiatives that will be well worth the effort, and in fact make sense.

This is where Government has a role to play, and should take the lead.

Firstly, it can give encouragement in terms of tangible support, as indeed I believe the intention is under Manpower 21, in the sourcing of consultancy in job redesign, and grants to defray the costs incurred.

Secondly, Government can commission local cost benefit studies relating to the retention of skilled and experienced staff. Companies need to be convinced to make the effort to engage in job redesign. Down to earth bottom line considerations are far more likely to move them than warm fuzzy arguments about keeping the family whole.

Many companies in the US and Europe have studied the situation and have been convinced enough to implement many such family friendly practices. They are surely no less hard-nosed about their bottom lines than our own local corporations. Britain's Midlands Bank, for example, estimated that the cost of losing and replacing an experienced staff member was equivalent to the employee's annual employment costs.

However, I can see that some of our local companies may not be convinced that the US and European experience can be directly transposed to our situation. We need therefore local data to convince them.

Thirdly, commercial enterprises often cite the unavailability of space and cost as reasons why it is not possible for them to provide workplace childcare centres. Perhaps an equally good, if not better, option will be for Government in its town planning to factor in the requirement to provide for multi-service care centres within each big office and commercial development. These centres can be run by a variety of agencies, to serve the surrounding offices and companies. This will be particularly helpful for smaller companies which do not have the resources to do this themselves.

I have spoken so far on supporting the Manpower 21 proposal to Transform the Work Environment. There is, however, another piece of transformation that also needs to occur to preserve the strength of our families and to allow its individual members to fully develop their potential, and in so doing contribute to both the economic and non-economic viability of our nation.

This transformation is in the mindset and traditional perception of roles in the family, and the traditional view also of care givers in the family. Better sharing of roles and responsibilities between wives and husbands, and mothers and fathers will ultimately help families manage much better.

Sir, I will resist the temptation to take a familiar Singaporean approach, to ask for a National Campaign to facilitate this change in mindset. We can achieve the same result by sending out a clear and strong message about sharing roles and responsibilities in families, but we must support this message consistently in policies and in action that are not ambivalent but fully in line with the message.

This will take time, as all efforts to change attitudes and behaviour do, and so all the more reason that we must start now. And in this, I would like to call the Civil Service to start the ball rolling, and take the lead in setting the example by giving, in its benefits, acknowledgement to fatherhood.

This it can do by simply extending those of its benefits relating to child care, currently only for working mothers, to either parent. I expect that it will be quite a while before we see a deluge of fathers applying for a couple of years off for child rearing, but even now I am sure many fathers are more than prepared to take a sick child to the doctor. By extending the sick child leave entitlement of five days per year per child under six years of age to be taken by either parent will truly send out that message loud and clear that fathers also can be care givers in the family.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. I thought I should make a short response to one or two points in Mr Jeyaretnam's speech. He brings up certain allegations against the police and CNB. The bottom line is that, in fact, we have had long debates in the past before on the powers of police and law enforcement agencies. Let me assure him, as well as this House, once again that the police and law enforcement agencies have the trust and respect of Singaporeans and would not do anything that will betray that trust. That is why Singapore indeed is one of the safest cities in the world.

Sir, the first point is about suspects not being informed about grounds of arrest when a person is arrested by the police. My understanding of police procedure is that when a person is arrested he is informed generally of the reason why he is arrested. Of course, in some situations, for example, when he is struggling, that may not be possible, but he is informed as soon as reasonable thereafter.

The other more substantive point is the case that he brings up, ie, the CNB raid on Madam Doulath Beevi's flat. Mr Jeyaretnam says that because there is no search warrant, therefore, CNB officers had violated the law.

Sir, the general point must be that the police, CNB and other law enforcement agencies enforce the law. They do not act beyond the law. They do not break the law. For example, in this case, section 24(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act provides that any officer of the Bureau may at any time without a warrant enter and search any place or premises in which it reasonably believes that there is to be found any controlled drug. Here, there were circumstances which led CNB officers to believe that such a situation had occurred. CNB would put up a fuller response in the press on the background. But let me assure this House, because this slur has been cast earlier on, that the CNB had indeed acted within the law.

On 24th August this year, acting on information received, CNB had arrested a person suspected to be a drug trafficker. He was tested positive for drug consumption. CNB continued with investigations into his activities and monitored the numbers on his pager. As a result of the monitoring, five flats were raided: four of which, in fact, yielded positive results. For the fifth flat, Madam Beevi's flat, there were grounds for making the raid. In fact, a few days after the arrest of the trafficker, the residential telephone number subscribed by Madam Beevi appeared on the pager six times that day. Hence, a team of CNB officers was deployed to check out the address on 1st September. On arrival at her flat, the officers noted that the hall light and the TV set were on. The iron gate was unlocked but the wooden door was locked. The officers then knocked on the door and identified themselves as CNB officers, contrary to what Madam Beevi had stated. The officers also repeatedly knocked on the door and identified themselves, as there was no response from within. Then the officers heard movement within the flat. They were also able to see feet shuffling from the gap between the door and the floor. The officers then gave a warning that a forced entry would be made. This warning was repeated several times in English and Malay.

So the circumstances were such that the officers in that situation acted within the law and procedures, and gave the necessary warning. Sir, this assurance to the House ought to be made, so that no one leaves this Chamber today thinking that any Police or CNB officers had acted beyond the law.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I ask for a clarification, Sir?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Did the Police make good the door that has been damaged during the raid and pay for the cost of it?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Under the law, Police need not do it, unless they have damaged the door with wilful neglect. I understand that Madam Beevi has made a request which CNB has referred to the AG's Chambers. So that is being considered.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to thank the President for his inspiring Address. It should give all Singaporeans a reaffirmed sense of comfort and confidence, after we have experienced one of our worst economic crises since independence. It is good to be assured that Singapore has emerged stronger and more united. But, although we have reasons to be optimistic about the economic outlook, I feel we should not be too euphoric and lulled into a false sense of security. We have to keep a more balanced perspective of the present economic situation.

Let us not forget that less than a year ago, the economic outlook of our region was going through a dark tunnel with no light in sight. And now, hardly a year later, we are charged with anticipation and optimism. The share and property market has made more than a significant recovery. The positive sentiment has returned. The expectation is getting higher and higher - increase in CPF points, increase in wages, higher year-end bonus. In short, there is much jubilation and contentment in the air.

But let us pause for a moment and make a more sombre assessment, and ask ourselves: Has the economic fundamental changed that much? Has the economic situation of our neighbouring countries truly recovered? Is the future as bright as we make up to be? Perhaps we have been too much influenced by the speed of the recovery and the mainly sentiment-driven projection. The reality remains that trouble is still brewing in the region. The situation in East Timor can be classified as unpredictable, at best. And the outlook of the Indonesian presidential election is still uncertain. The same can be said of the Malaysian election. The economic decline of the Philippines and the rest of ASEAN, including Korea and Japan, has only been arrested. But the sign of recovery is still at an early stage and from now on, everything is still fluid. Nobody can be sure of which direction it would turn, although there are positive signs that recovery is well on its way.

Some unexpected turn of events can change the whole situation. All in all, even the most optimistic forecast can only be that the crisis is well over. But the light we see at the end of the tunnel is still very dim. Although Singapore has always been said to be the least affected by the crisis, and because of our good governance and planning, we will be able to take off faster than any of our neighbours. There remains some very difficult times ahead. The projection of GDP growth is not widespread. Many sectors, such as construction and many categories in manufacturing, are still experiencing negative growth. And with an uncertain regional as well as global outlook, we need to be cautiously optimistic. The business outlook, especially in the private sector, is not that rosy. Not at the moment anyway. But it is important for us to be more pragmatic and remain vigilant, and not place our expectation too high.

The President's timely reminder of the importance of developing our people and strengthening our social bonds must be taken most seriously. Although we have experienced some economic and social hiccups in the past, especially during our early turbulent years, for the past 15 or 20 years, generally we have lived a peaceful and secure life. The few problems we have experienced are relatively minor and nowhere near crisis proportion. So are we prepared for a major crisis, as that had befallen some unfortunate countries in the world? As a nation, how would we react to this crisis situation? If a similar situation of what occurred in East Timor, Bosnia or Kuwait somehow happens to us, will our people be able to pull together and fight to the end?

The Government has through the years consciously promoted a sense of belonging and love of our nation. It has provided every Singaporean a stake in our country. It has helped everyone own a home and shares in Government-owned companies, and give everyone equal opportunities to make a success in life. All this, in the hope that every Singaporean takes root in our country. But Singapore's history is still very young. Will the people be as vulnerable as the "instant" trees we planted throughout the island to transform Singapore into a Garden City in such a short time? For although they have grown fast and beautiful, as those that take years to mature, the moment of truth comes when a thunder storm strikes. Many of these instant trees fall because much as they look big and lush, the roots are not deep and the branches are brittle. They have not passed the test of time as those which took years to grow. Have our Singaporeans, who have only experienced a few decades of nationhood, developed strong branches and deep roots to withstand any onslaught crisis, be it economic, political or religious, or worse of all, an invasion by an over-ambitious neighbour? This will still remain a very big question mark.

Although it is comforting to note that we have a strong SAF which possesses the most advanced weapon and equipment, as well as a well-trained fighting force, ultimately it is not the weapon or even the well-trained soldiers alone that can win the war. Throughout history we have known many battles had been won by a lesser number of men and weapons, and through an indomitable will to fight. We have read about extreme bravery in battle. But it was usually not the physical strength that made the soldier fight above his limit, but his courage and total commitment to his country that gave him his strength.

Therefore, while it is important for us to focus on people development and social cohesion and religious harmony, ensuring the sharing of wealth by everyone, most importantly, we have to instill loyalty and patriotism in every Singaporean. We must make everyone understand what is meant by the Chinese words guo jia ( ); xian you guo, hou you jia ( ). It means that our country must come first before our home. If our country falls, our home no longer exists. To ensure continuous existence of Singapore to have material possession, a good life alone cannot motivate our people to stay and defend our country when threatened. The fulfilment of the Singapore dream cannot ensure unquestionable loyalty to our nation, because this dream can turn into a nightmare when things go wrong, and it can from time to time, no matter how well we govern ourselves and how carefully we plan for the future, as Singapore is extremely vulnerable to external factors. Therefore, we must develop a national pride and love for our land. We must make everyone proud to be a Singaporean. It is this emotional attachment that could distinguish us as a nation of patriots from a nation of immigrants, who may feel tempted to move on if they find that the pasture on the other side of the fence is greener. Only then when we are faced with adversity, we will all stand up and fight and not pack up and go.

Sir, I support the motion.