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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [11th October, 1999],

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.". - [Mr Davinder Singh].

Question again proposed.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for calling on me to give an address. I shall make it a short one, if possible.

Sir, the President has given a comprehensive plan of the Government to take Singapore through various social and economic challenges in the new millennium. I must say that it is a very carefully thought out plan which can help us all to achieve the tasks ahead. We need to persuade different people with different interests to work out the plan. And unless we are able to get people to work as a team, I think it is going to be a difficult task for us to be able to realise the vision that we have set out to achieve.

Sir, it is important for us to look at some of the problems outside Singapore which we sometimes have very little control, and I think it is very important that we do so because the problems that are confronting us in the region do, in a way, affect some of our plans that we hope to achieve. And this is particularly important in a region where we are often met with very volatile situations and problems. Therefore, we have to be very sharp, be able to analyse, be able to forecast and be able to appreciate these changing circumstances, which are very critical in our plans to achieve the goals that we have set.

Sir, as usual, the Opposition Members have not suggested anything concrete on how we could improve on the Government's plan. All they have said is their common rhetoric of democracy for Singapore. They said that the President's Address did not say anything about democracy and what direction we are taking. In fact, the President has translated democratic ideas into concrete plans to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I think if they visit some of the areas, the suggestions, the agendas of the different Ministries, they will begin to realise that there are democratic ideas, viewpoints, which are translated into very concrete actions.

Sir, there are many brands of democracy - the Taiwan brand, the Philippine type, the South Korean kind, the Indian type and many others. I am not sure what brand of democracy they want to promote. Having said and done, I think their brand of democracy has not produced anything that is concrete for Singaporeans. And many Singaporeans have not bought their brand of democracy, and I think that is an important aspect that we should be aware of.

I am not sure of the kind of democracy that they are promoting, but at least the PAP brand of democracy has produced decent housing, education and health for the people, and that is very concrete. Over the last 30 years, we have realised the impact on the lives of Singaporeans, and that is the measure we should look at and that is the democratic brand that Singaporeans should adopt and support.

Sir, it is crucial for us to look at the changing external events. However, I foresee that there are few emerging social issues that we should pay attention. These need to be attended to because I feel that they are specific and concrete areas that we should pay particular attention in the next few years.

Sir, on the issue of social and economic dislocations of older workers, the continuing dislocations of labour intensive industries will affect the livelihood of our older workers, as they would find it difficult to obtain work because they do not have the necessary skills to fit into the new production sectors demanding higher and better skills. They have to make various adjustments to their living and it may be difficult for some. The number and the problems facing this group of older workers will increase, as labour intensive operations flow out to countries with cheaper facilities and cheaper manpower. Here, I feel that the NTUC, ITE and the Ministry of Manpower should set up additional worker training centres with the least red tape to give on-the-job retraining to older workers. ITE can play a bigger role in the direction of the training of older workers. We should, in fact, project and assess the impact on older workers in terms of their employability, and this is a very important area that we need to focus so that we can minimise the dislocations on the livelihood of this group of people.

Sir, on increasing health care cost for older persons, I feel that the costs of health care for older persons are increasing steadily. This will become more acute with our ageing population. Many families would find it financially burdensome, especially if they have older parents who need long-term care. Currently, many older persons are treated in acute wards in general hospitals when they need to be treated and followed up in less acute care hospitals. Older persons referred by GPs often land up in higher paying wards, when we know that they come from very low-income background. All these problems of health care cost could be contained from runaway increase if both the hospitals and the GPs can work together in partnership in the delivery of health care and the establishment of more community care hospitals. I think this would be a challenge for us in the next decade or so, and unless we begin to look at more innovative ways in the delivery of health care, this group of older ageing population can be dislocated and affected. But I am confident that the Ministry of Health together with the medical personnel in the community would be able to work together to find a more effective solution to this challenging issue.

Sir, on the aspects of racial harmony and respect, I would like to state that we should not take racial harmony for granted. We must get our young of various races, right from school-going age and those who are living in the various neighbourhoods, to live and interact and to have a common arena where they can share and appreciate their sentiments and their emotional ties could be strengthened. Where possible, grassroots organisations should take more active steps to promote social interaction among Singaporeans of different races, be they Malays, Indians, Chinese, Eurasians and others. When we have better emotional ties and good relationship, that we are Singaporeans after all and we need to care for one another, we can move ahead as a team, and this is very critical and crucial to Singapore in terms of our need to become a better integrated, better self-respecting community and a community that has the capacity to build up its bonds. And if we can do that, then Singapore will stay steady and be able to manage the different difficulties that may arise.

Sir, in this respect, it is very important that I personally feel, as a minority group member, that Singaporean Indians and Malays who are in the minority groups not to feel small, but we need not feel that we are going to be marginalised, but we should be able to stand tall and see how we can seize the opportunities that are available to make the best and improve the stations of our life.

As minority group members, we should make all the efforts to take the equal opportunities provided to all Singaporeans for our advancement in the social, educational and economic arenas. Where would we get such equal opportunity - in Malaysia, in India, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Europe, South Africa, United Kingdom, and even in the United States? I think a lot of these places talk about equal opportunities, but when you get to the brass tack, you begin to realise that many of them do not have equal opportunity. They all remain rhetorics and cannot be realised. But in the context of Singapore, we know that every citizen, irrespective of race, irrespective of religion, irrespective of different persuasions, is given equal opportunity to access to services, to education, to various types of opportunities that are available if they are prepared to be challenged with it and if they are prepared to manage with it at their best.

Sir, in many of these countries that I have highlighted, although they claim to treat every citizen irrespective of his colour, language and religion, they do not really do so in terms of their social policies. As minorities, we should be proud about ourselves. Chinese Singaporeans must work together with all other Singaporeans, whether they be Indians, Malays, Eurasians and others. I think we need to work together. We need to appreciate one another. We need to see how we can support one another in order that we will be able to make more progress in the interest of Singapore.

Sir, I hope that our younger Singaporeans, when they become leaders, must ensure that all policies do not discriminate against any ethnic group and it must be based on merit irrespective of their ethnic background. In this way, we can hold and make Singapore society cohesive.

Sir, a lot of my parliamentary colleagues have given ideas and suggestions for Singapore 21. Many of them have articulated issues related to how we can help to strengthen Singapore and how we can realise Singapore 21. We also know that many countries have also good plans and ideas. But many of their plans have not been realised. I am sure that if Members have read and visited many of these places they will begin to see that many of them have laudable and idealistic aspirations about what they will do for their citizens and how life for their citizens could be improved. But in many of these places, lives have not improved at all despite all these aspirations that they have shared or identified.

We need to ask why this is the case. In the final analysis, it is not good ideas that are sufficient. We must have good people at the helm to manage and make good social institutions. These are important issues that Singaporeans will have to realise. Unless Singaporeans realise that it is good people that can manage these institutions appropriately in their interest, all these ideas, plans and visions that we have cannot be realised. So I would urge Singaporeans to be able to know and appreciate how they can be discerning and take every opportunity to ensure that we have people of integrity, honest, and willing to be committed to manage the various social institutions that we have in our context. It is only through this assertion and achievement that we will be able to realise some of the visions that we aspire for.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh, thanking the President for his Address.

Sir, the regional economic crisis has severely tested our economic resilience, political resolve and social bonds. It was indeed a harrowing experience. We can now say, with a sigh of relief, that we have turned the corner.

With our sound economic policies and management, non-corrupt and good Government, and the willingness of the people to take the CPF cuts and make the necessary sacrifices, we have passed the test. We have obviously done better than many other countries in the region.

There is a closer bonding between the people and the Government, a new sense of purpose, a new vitality and vigour, as we march in the 21st century.

But we are not out of the woods yet. We still have some distance to cover. We are affected by what happens in the other countries in the region. The fundamentals have not changed. We are a small country, a prized strategic hub in a very turbulent region, with the need to defend ourselves against any predators, with a small population and a small talent pool, and a small economy that is vulnerable to global economic swings and cycles.

Sir, the fault lines remain, whatever some may say. Issues of race and religion can still ignite and fan the emotions. Let us not pretend that these issues do not matter and have no impact on our lives. We should be aware of these fault lines and make sure they do not entrap us. With this in mind, we can do our utmost to promote and uphold multi-racial and multi-religious harmony in our schools, workplaces and neighbourhood. I agree fully with my colleague, Dr Vasoo, that we must all build up this multi-racial heritage.

Sir, as we overcome the latest economic crisis and cross over to the new millennium, we must be no less vigilant, no less ready to defend our sovereignty, and be even more competitive and creative in ideas as well as technology.

While the crisis was on, there was gloom and doom. My point is, now that the crisis is receding, we must not swing to the other extreme of euphoria. It is a marathon. The race is not over. There can always be another storm or typhoon.

Singapore has a small population and talent pool. Hence, manpower development and training are crucial to us. I am glad that the Government is focusing on this in Manpower 21. It saddens me when I go to the ground and meet ordinary Singaporeans who are unskilled or semi-skilled, who could not fit into our fast-moving knowledge-based economy. They are indeed at a loss. Many are still looking in vain for their unskilled jobs that have gone off in the restructuring, and are no more there for them. We must therefore do all we can to train and retrain this group of Singaporeans, many of whom are in their 40s and above.

We can have more retraining and upgrading courses for them in languages that they understand or are conversant in. Most of them are main breadwinners themselves. So ways have to be found to keep them going while they are undergoing training, either on-the-job training or sponsored full-time courses and in ITE courses, as suggested by Dr Vasoo.

Employers should change their mindsets and be more pro-active in training and retraining, in particular towards older workers. Many older workers are indeed very discouraged and disappointed when they are told by employers that they are too old, or the time is past for them, for training. Such attitudes must change. It would be a waste of our precious national human resources if this group of Singaporeans is left out.

Workers, too, must have the aptitude and thirst for retraining and upgrading. With the rapid pace of technological change, workers will have to re-learn and retrain many times over in the course of their careers.

Sir, one half of our population is female. In view of our limited resources and talent pool, we should all the more make full use of woman power and talent. We have top women bankers like Mrs Theresa Foo of Standard Chartered Bank, top hoteliers like Ms Jennie Chua of Raffles Hotel, top accountant like Mrs Fang Ai Lian, Managing Partner of Ernst & Young, and Ambassador to the United States of America, Prof. Chan Heng Chee. Now we have a woman Permanent Secretary in Ms Lim Soo Hoon in the Ministry of Community Development. I hope the list will grow. It makes no sense for us not to make full use of woman power for the betterment of the country. If I may add too, we should have more woman MPs in this House to liven up the debates.

Sir, the regional turbulence and upheavals have proven, beyond doubt, the wisdom of allocating a significant portion of our resources for defence and security. The regional crisis underlines the crucial importance of total defence and National Service. Without creditable defence and deterrence, we will be at the mercy of others. If we are defenceless, others will just walk in, and we will have to bow to their every whim and fancy.

My sons who are National Service officers told me that National Servicemen take their training seriously. And with apologies to the Minister for Education for speaking Singlish, they say, "Don't pray, pray, this is serious business." And they do take their training seriously. Indeed, the regional crisis has driven home the message more than any other pep talks can do.

Sir, the new millennium is our new frontier. We are revving to go forward to invest and apply new technology, to be creative in all that we do, to do things better, to do it differently, if necessary, so that we can all make a difference to the lives of our fellow Singaporeans.

As we march into the new millennium, we must remain united and cohesive, taking the ups and downs as one people and one nation. Our hearts must beat as one for Singapore. We will then be able to weather any unexpected storm.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Goh Chong Chia (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak.

I rise in support of the motion. The last quarter of the 20th century has witnessed unprecedented growth and development of the economies of Asia. The expansion of consumption and the market force doctrine expanded trade and created wealth. We had measured our success by the profit we made. The economic crisis is therefore a warning signal for us to reassess our value judgment.

The people-centred approach in the President's Speech is timely and the shift of emphasis from money and economy to the people is most welcomed. We are excited by the Government's intention to create more opportunities and space for Singaporeans to develop their full potential. The private sector is keen to participate fully in partnership with Government in shaping our future together.

We look forward to a creative and innovative environment for ideas to blossom and be tested. Not all new ideas will succeed though. We must be prepared for failures. Failures must be seen as a stepping-stone to potential success.

While strict observance of procedures has served us well in the past, it has also prevented lateral thinking and lateral decision-making. The mindset of the people that operates the policies must change if we are to achieve the full potential of ideas in order for Singapore to benefit.

Information Technology will be an integral part of the Singapore lifestyle in the 21st century. It helps us plug into the world. When technology and humans meet, a new relationship is inevitably created. We have seen movies depicting the doom day scenarios when the two cultures clash. I am confident this would not happen. Technology, in particular, information technology, has been beneficial. However, I have witnessed children more comfortable with communicating with computers rather than with fellow human beings and this frightens me. We must recognise this phenomenon and address it.

Developing our people goes beyond the training of skills. It involves the releasing of their potential by providing opportunities for them to exercise their ideas and talents for Singapore.

Singapore buys skills and has 400,000 foreign workers working for pay. Singaporeans must work for Singapore for more than just pay. They must have a passion in their chosen careers to do the best for themselves and for Singapore. We must wean students from picking a career based on monetary returns only. It is a role that both parents and schools must play an active part in. Only then can our children develop their full potential.

We support the Government's intention of turning Singapore into a Renaissance City. The rebirth and expansion of cultural activities will allow the arts, music, drama, sculpture and the appreciation of aesthetics to flower. We must also ask ourselves why our artists had to leave Singapore to win accolades in foreign lands. We must establish the conditions and climate for them to return to Singapore.

We will know that we have succeeded in establishing a Renaissance City when our artists choose to return home or, even better, if their talents can be acknowledged at home. We must start to nurture a people with a sense of aesthetic sophistication that demands the best in the arts, architecture and other aesthetic disciplines.

We have many talented Singaporeans but our population size requires support from talented non-Singaporeans. Many talented non-Singaporeans have taken up the challenge to come to Singapore to join us in our effort. We welcome their contributions. However, we sometimes wrongly equate foreigners to foreign talents, and we know that this is not so.

The next millennium will see a new Down Town in the Marina South area. This virgin piece of land challenges us to design an ecologically-sustainable city with minimum or no private vehicle traffic, no pollution; and where natural green areas removed by development are re-incorporated within our built environment; where rainwater collection is part of the infrastructure of every building.

A highly urbanised Singapore is in a position to pioneer ultra-tall buildings to accommodate a large population and yet maintain its livable quality. We look forward to a new Down Town with mixed usage to ensure a more vibrant people's environment. Together with Government, we must seek alternative proposals that can only enrich the final implemented solution.

While we develop our recreational areas, we must make a conscious effort to retain some of our wilderness. It is in the natural wilderness that bio-diversity exists. Singapore should not only be a `pretty garden', but a real experiment in co-existence between nature and an urban population. Pulau Ubin is one such place, a place where we can relax, go back to the simpler things in life and experience our harmony with nature.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a people-focused programme outlined by the President has excited us and we have been motivated to make it happen.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion, moved by the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of the Second Session of the Ninth Parliament.

Although the President's Speech, in essence, substantially hovered over Singapore 21 which was debated intensely in this House fairly recently, I believe it serves as a staunch reminder to Singaporeans of the emphasis and weight the Government is attaching to the Singapore 21 vision.

People, the President clarified, will be the focus of our Government, as we brace ourselves for the next century. Although this current emphasis appears to be stronger than ever, I recall that this represents a continuation of a trend which was first mooted by Prime Minister Goh in 1997 when he suggested the need for a "people-centred" vision which transcends material achievements to a society which places people first.

As Singaporeans, we have demonstrated ourselves to be pragmatic and realistic. Our leaders have brought us thus far, that we can stand tall and walk with our heads high, having faced the severest of any conceivable adversity during the separation days, and turning obstacles into opportunities for the future, in the more recent regional economic crisis.

Against the odds, Singapore has not only survived but also flourished to be a nation envied by many from any nook and corner of this world. For what we have today, we owe it to our early leaders for all their untiring efforts, sacrifices and all they have done for the present generation's betterment.

However, what we have today - be it material wealth, racial or social harmony - as has been mentioned in this House countless numbers of times - these can never be taken for granted. It is incumbent upon all of us that if conditions were difficult in the early years, all indications are, we are potentially confronted with an even tougher future.

First, is the inevitable fact that we have no other choice but to transit to a knowledge-based economy in due course, the sooner we are ready, the better. The rapid changes in the global economy and technology have already led to a feeling among some Singaporeans that they have to run even faster just to keep pace with the changes. As a small open nation, we are inextricably tied to the global trading system and have little choice but to meet the challenges of competing within the constraints of the new global arena, or perish. Thus, Singapore has no choice, and the economics of survival is, and will always be, Singapore's priority.

In addition, as we enter the new millennium, it is apparent that the accelerating pace of technological change will be a key defining characteristic of the new millennium. It will be a world in which economic value is derived from the active generation and application of knowledge, a world where human capital forms the new basis for wealth. It will also be a world where the rapid pace of change puts the social fabric in all countries under strain. Competition for trade, talent and investments will become increasingly tense as it takes on a global dimension and as people and investments become more mobile.

Singapore has to remain economically competitive. To achieve this, we must continuously develop capabilities in key areas in which our competitors are lacking and finding it difficult to emulate. In addition to our cost structures, the quality of our human capital is key. It is a known fact that we can no longer compete in industries that are land and labour intensive. We must compete based on knowledge - on the generation and application of ideas, innovation and information. To do this, we must develop our human capital. Singaporeans must realise that this is the reality in an area of intense global competition and rapid technological changes. They must constantly upgrade themselves to prepare for the new competition.

The challenge is adequately preparing Singaporeans from all walks of life for this inevitable change. I have little doubt that our better educated young, and being better endowed, will be able to live up to the challenge. My worry is for the older workers, as was also earlier expressed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC, Dr Vasoo. Several hundred thousands of them have between 10 and 20 years yet of economic life to look up to. I applaud what the Government and the NTUC have done by way of the multitude of programmes in Manpower 21 and NTUC 21 to prepare them for the inevitable KBE transition. This is a clear demonstration that we care for our people The lingering fear is how far these programmes - many of them are already in place, and I am sure many yet in the pipeline - have reached the people, especially the truly vulnerable ones. I fear, Sir, if this is not aggressively pursued, we may run the risk of creating an underclass where a segment of society loses hope. If every Singaporean truly matters, then we must be prepared to go that extra mile or kilometre to reach out to the bottom strata.

Second, Sir, while I am comfortable that our young are adequately prepared, I have a different concern for this group. Can we expect that they stick through thick and thin with Singapore as our seniors and we have done? Or will their patriotism be just skin deep and a function of the peaks and valleys of the economic cycle? Can we expect the emanation of a sense of community in them that will lead to the much desired community bonding and ultimately, the togetherness as a nation?

The Government has laid the ground work by emphasising the sharing of wealth, building and preserving of ties, care for the young and aged, and the Singapore heartbeat as part of Singapore 21. Are young Singaporeans aware of the problem and, more importantly, will they respond to the call? Or will they become just armchair critics, as Minister of State for Defence, Mr David Lim, has put it?

What makes a people a nation is their sense of being implicated in a common destiny. Unity is sought in diversity. It is also the same sense that makes it possible that the unity will prevail in conditions of adversity too. To some extent, the latter has been demonstrated by a generation of Singaporeans who threw their weight behind policies and programmes that turned a looming debacle into a synonym for success. But as the moment of danger appeared to have passed, so did the urgency for collective action, which was replaced by the desire to derive the maximum benefit for oneself or his immediate family.

While such an outlook is understandable, it may be seen as quite dangerously incomplete. On the premise that happiness cannot be bought, greater personal affluence, therefore, need not necessarily translate into satisfaction that comes from being at ease with oneself. And, since not all can do equally well in a competitive society open to the effects of international economic forces, the relationship between those thriving and those labouring to keep up could not but emerge as an issue over time.

Sir, the recent financial crisis, if its effect were prolonged on us, could have provided a clearer barometer, but unfortunately or fortunately, we got out of it sooner rather than later. The absence of a serious crisis makes a sense of shared destiny harder to develop and gauge. Yet, it is that bond, and not only economic success, that can provide an enduring perspective on personal achievement and ensure social divisiveness is kept at bay. No legislation can generate that bond; no campaigns can sustain it. It can only emanate from a people who see Singapore as a country where the legitimate and necessary pursuit of material interests concurrently provides space for inhaling patches of cultural, artistic and spiritual green.

It is a fact that no one owes Singapore a living but that does not mean that Singaporeans owe the country no more than just doing National Service and taxes as payment for making a livelihood here. We owe it to one another, the recognition that we are fellow citizens of this enviable little island republic, called Singapore.

That recognition holds within itself the social glue that Singapore needs today. Will it stick? That depends on whether people, especially our young, are willing to look beyond their immediate interests. That depends on whether people are willing to act to realise the Singapore 21 Vision and become involved.

The Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Mr Inderjit Singh, yesterday warned of the danger of over-emphasising academic performance being carried into the workplace, especially in the uniformed services. He said such emphasis could run the risk of creating an elitist class system. Sir, what is important is the fact that the elitists, whether academic or economic, need to understand that their position, while deserved, depends ultimately on how they carry, conduct and position themselves. Elitists inevitably exist in every society, but elitism - the idea that the elitists do the rest of society a favour through their existence - can be damaging, even lethal, especially in a small crowded country like Singapore, where social visibility is high.

For the Singapore 21 Vision to work and for Singapore to make it in the future, diverse voices must be allowed to participate in, or even celebrate the reality, mystery and vibrancy of Singapore, not necessarily to register their specific interests but as a beneficent, collective and protective reach they belong to.

Even if some voices may be out of tune, but if they are sincere and honest, they will ultimately synchronise with the grand orchestra whose proudest song is none other than Majulah Singapura.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to join in the debate.

The people welcome the Speech by the President. They appreciate its people oriented focus. This time the economy took a back seat. By this, Singaporeans should not assume that the economic battle is won and, from now on, the economy will hum along. The economic battle is endless. We need a strong economy to survive and progress. We must never lose sight of its importance. Over the years, we have made great progress on the economic front. We have now reached a level of economic development that the country can put the development of our people on the forefront. Nevertheless, the Speech by the President is not devoid of economic considerations, but only that it considers the economic effects through the people. We have to develop our people as it is they who drive the economic engine and growth. People and the economy are sides of a coin. We need both for a strong nation.

Developing an economy is demanding. But developing a people is even more difficult. Developing our people will take not just a matter of years but perhaps a lifetime and longer. But the sooner we start, the faster we will get there. The country has started developing our people for years, since 1965 and even earlier, not just now. Over the years, we have developed an education system that the world admires. But the emergence of a knowledge-based economy dictates that we change our education system to encourage more creativity and an innovative spirit among our children. But in making these changes, we must ensure that the quest for excellence and the capacity for hard work are not displaced. Excellence is the centre piece of a great nation. Without excellence, achievement and success is shallow.

Excellence comes from hard work. We must not fear hard work. There are no easy and painless paths to success, and we should not look for one. But as we develop as a nation, it is understandable that our people want a less stressful life for their children and themselves. But that should not be at the expense of excellence and hard work. In making changes to meet a globalised, knowledge and information-based world, we should not inadvertently cause the people to discard those values that girdle the nation. A change made on a firm foundation creates growth. Otherwise, it is just becoming different. We have to send a clear and consistent message to the people.

Sir, talents are necessary for a nation to compete and grow. In the future globalised knowledge-based economy, talent will become even more critical. If the United States, the leading economy in the world, hungrily soaks up talents that it finds from around the world, how much more important this strategy of attracting talent must be for a small country like Singapore. However, the foreign talents and workers can strain national cohesion for they bring with them different cultures and value systems.

We need to develop and strengthen our own symbols, institutions and value system to anchor Singaporeans to Singapore - to permit us to identify ourselves and to enable us to be unique. But this can be a dilemma for we also want to conform to international standards to enable Singapore to link to the world and to exploit the opportunities. We must be mindful that this conflict exists. The balance will not be easy to find. Perhaps, in some instances, we may need to allow two systems to develop in parallel: one for our link to the world, and the other for our national identity and unity.

Education and skills provide the means for growth and development of nations and individuals. But it can also divide the people, for those who are educated and skilful advance faster and further than those who are not. Over the last few decades, we have been able to keep this divide from widening. With the addition of creativity and innovation to education and skills, our drive into the knowledge-based economy will accentuate this divisive pressure. As the economy becomes global and high-tech, Singaporeans with low education and skill will find it harder to get work at low level jobs, as low level jobs move out of Singapore. Besides the able reaching out to help the less able, it behoves upon Singaporeans to understand and appreciate the future - what is meant by a high-tech knowledge-based economy - and to seize the opportunities for education and the opportunities to upgrade their skills and acquire new skills. Not only would there be more educational opportunities for our young, the school of lifelong learning and other schemes like the Skills Redevelopment Programme will provide ample opportunities for our adult population. If all who can make it do so, then it will be easier for society to take care of those who, despite their efforts, fail. I urge our people to seize these opportunities to upgrade and improve themselves.

A major difficulty working with people is the mindset. This is a set of personal principles and values that a person uses to live life. To get a person to do something different, the mindset first has to be changed. This is not easy and takes time. We have plenty of this experience. Many public housing residents once lived in villages, in houses with their own compounds. Today, we still have difficulty getting some of them to remove their old bicycles, pots, shoe racks and other belongings from the common corridors. Some residents give scant respect to common properties. Hence, junk mails litter the void deck. Playgrounds with equipment are vandalised. Lifts become convenient toilets. Thus, in spite of over 30 years of nationhood, over 30 years of living in high rise flats, over 30 years of campaigns and other forms of exhortation, old habits persist. Mindsets are firm anchors of behaviour. It will take more than just a few years to achieve the goals of Singapore 21.

Sir, our youths are our future. We must help them to reach their best. For many families, both parents work. After school, some youths hang around shopping malls and game arcades. The number of delinquents among secondary school students is increasing. Quite a few of them are involved in more serious offences. I would like the Government to give more support to our youths. They need facilities to occupy themselves in purposeful and worthwhile pursuits. One thing that we can do is to set up more youth centres. Here, they will have their peers for company. Here, they can join in meaningful activities. Here, they can find help when they need it.

Youth is an age when they seek independence and their identity. This is also the time where parents show more concern for them. If youths, who have the urge to spend time away from home, have youth centres to hang out, parents may not need to cross examine them when they reach home. This will remove a cause of friction between youths and parents. Rectifying an error usually cost more than preventing it from occurring in the first place. If we do not help them when they are young, wayward youths can become a lifelong liability for society and the nation. Help our youths before they go astray. It costs less this way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the focus on our people. I endorse the call to our people to develop themselves and to be more involved in the community. But we must not lose sight of the importance of the economy. We must also not inadvertently dilute the values that girdle the nation. Excellence and hard work are essential to success. There is no easy path. While we welcome foreign talent, we must encourage our people to strive to be the best they can be. Hence, the Singapore 21 journey will neither be easy nor quick, though the sooner we start, the earlier we will get there.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address indicated that the Government is placing emphasis on people development. When this was published, some people questioned why the Government is focusing on people, seemingly for the first time. And this idea was verbalised by the article in Chua Lee Hoong's article "Mr Cynics meets Mr Govt" on 9th October in the Straits Times. Is that a fair comment? Surely, we all must agree that the Government policies, since the founding of Singapore, have always been people oriented. It was not explicitly stated so in the past. In the early years, in fact, the focus was on job creation and the idea was to allow the market mechanism to distribute the benefits to the people. The emphasis, as stated in the President's Address, simply means that the Government is now addressing the development and fulfilment of the individual in a more direct manner. Why is it necessary now and not so in the past? Is it because it is expedient to do so today as that would be in tune with the time when people are becoming more educated and enlightened? I think not, Sir. My colleague, Dr Tan Boon Wan has actually expressed it very well. He said that people and the economy are two sides of the same coin. Sir, the new emphasis on people is probably the right approach and perhaps the only viable approach to tackle the challenges of the future because the future is going to be very different from the past.

So what is the future going to be like? At the dawn of the new millennium, I think it is tempting for many of us to reflect and forecast the future. As we all know, doing so is very difficult. Most of the forecasts made by very prominent people in the past were mostly wrong. However, there are some fundamental trends in our society that could not be changed no matter what we do in the near term. In other words, these are trends that would predict the future of our society in the next 10 to 20 years. In effect, we can actually talk about the future that has already happened. This is a term I borrowed from the management guru, Peter Drucker. I think it is important to do so lest we collide into the future unprepared. It is almost like the recent train accident in Paddington Station in London. The outcome could be very unpleasant.

Sir, may I have your indulgence to focus on two trends, namely, demographics and technology. The first trend is demographics. As we all know and as has been repeatedly said, Singapore's population will be ageing rapidly. This has already been touched on by several speakers, including Dr Jennifer Lee, who spoke extensively about care-givers yesterday. The youthful nation that we were just 15 years ago will have a more elderly look in the next 15 years.

We are indeed becoming an old folks' home. The 4th October issue of Newsweek magazine reported that by the year 2050, Japan will have the world's largest share of old people, people aged 100 and above, followed by Singapore and Finland. There will be pressure to minimise discrimination in all fields of human endeavours by age in our society. In the future, we would be like United States today where discrimination by age will be illegal. There will be heightened demand on public services such as health care, transportation and recreation by the elderly. Those measures announced by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) on the accessibility of MRT for the elderly are just one very clear example. But what is not so obvious, and that requires reinforcement, is that the aging of the Singapore society is occurring at a pace unparalleled in the history of mankind. We must be one of the fastest aging nations, if not, the fastest aging nation in the world. This is one important factor for us to consider because all our institutions, social systems and cultural instincts to respond to problems do not prepare us to handle this rapid pace.

And to become a caring and loving society, we must harness the energies of the senior citizens in the future. In my mind, Sir, it is not so much to tap the senior citizens as a pool of human resource or a pool of labour since we are short of younger people. I think it is important to do so because of the fulfilment of the individuals and these senior citizens of tomorrow a job will bring. Yet, in catering to the needs of the senior citizens to stay involved and engaged, we must also remember that in Singapore, we have developed a culture of youth, a culture where high flyers in our civil service move up the ladder very rapidly. So, would we be able to continue this practice when the current generation could continue to work way past what we perceive today as the retirement age? This is but one example of what I meant by cultural shock of being one of the fastest aging societies in human history.

I am glad that this Government is already taking concrete steps in this direction. Prof. Low Seow Chay yesterday spoke about the six Committees looking into the various issues faced by senior citizens and consolidating the views of close to 1,000 respondents. And when we talk about senior citizens, we are not talking about the generation before us, nor are we talking about the generation after us. In fact, we are referring to ourselves, the baby boomer generation, the generation in charge today but the senior citizens of tomorrow.

Of course, we are not the only society where the elderly population is increasing at a very fast pace. Of the other countries with similar proportion that come to mind, ie, Japan, the European countries, United States and Canada, these are developed countries where a much higher proportion of their aged are educated or are already considered knowledge workers. For these countries, they could extend their retirement age for these senior citizens and turn what seems as a handicap into a comparative advantage. Unfortunately, for us in Singapore, a high percentage of our elderly are not very well-educated and as we are not yet a developed country, not many of our aged today and tomorrow could be considered knowledge workers. Thus, engaging senior citizens in a meaningful manner will be a very major challenge.

Dr Ong Chit Chung had already earlier on touched on the problems faced by the elderly in going through training to acquire new skills because of their current inadequacies in educational background. Mr Lim Boon Heng had also touched on the need for life-long training and worker retraining. If that is his task, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has an unenviable task.

The second trend I would like to touch upon is technology. Several technological developments are already obvious and have immense implications. For instance, mobile phone is one of these. Finland is a leading example where most teenagers today already possess their own mobile phones and they are willingly paid for by their parents who believe that technology will bring about unpredictable benefits as the new way of communication becomes second nature to the young. The phone sets are becoming more capable, allowing e-mail retrieval, Internet connections and even payment for goods dispensed by vending machines, also connected to the Internet. It is likely that mobile phones might be the most common platform for e-commerce, and not the PC.

In Singapore, mobile phones have already liberalised a lot of the professionals and entrepreneurs from being bound to their desk. I am sure many of us have come across golfers who continue to engage in value-added activities while playing a round of golf. As penetration of mobile phones reaches a critical mass, I think society will be completely transformed. Again, how do you predict the future? I suggest we observe the Finns as they go onto this new technology.

Most of us are already familiar with the spread of Internet and its importance. I do not have to dwell into it. We are all aware that the stock markets in the United States and also in Singapore are paying high premiums for companies engaging in Internet e-commerce, in particular, business-to-consumer e-commerce. What is not so obvious is the changing landscape of employment brought about by Internet.

With Internet, individuals are able to sell their service directly to the consumer in the global market. There is less need for intermediaries like companies to provide employment. In fact, there is no barrier in the new Internet market such as national borders. For instance, India is already exporting its software services to the world via the Internet. Today, this export is worth close to US$2 billion and has been growing by more than 50% over the past several years. Other services are also available over the Internet. Jobs that are traditionally done in the home offices of corporations are being out-sourced to the suppliers with the best economic value-added regardless of time zone and location. For example, US companies and Japanese companies are engaging software professionals in Singapore via the Internet while Singapore companies are doing likewise in India and China. With Internet, the importance of companies and corporations as an employer will diminish over time. It is being replaced by the ascendancy of the individuals as agents working on contractual basis. The question is, if individuals can make a living from the world on the Internet, would they still feel an obligation to the society that nurtures and shelters them? In fact, the very concept of nation state might be an obsolete idea in the world of Internet. This is a very pertinent question as we try to build a society of active citizens. It is also a soul searching question that we must ask ourselves.

Just as Singapore would like to migrate from labour-intensive industries to the knowledge-based economy as my good friend, Mr Ahmad Magad had elaborated earlier in his speech, the advent of Internet is bringing forth greater competition to our knowledge workers as large numbers of knowledge workers from countries like India, China and other European countries will become available on line.

Yes, we are being squeezed on both sides, from the lower value skills side by cheaper countries, and also from the higher value side from more capable countries with more skilled workers. So, is the future a bleak one? Sir, I do not think so. I attended a seminar recently where Mr Lim Swee Say was the Guest of Honour. In his short speech, he said that the raw material of the knowledge-based industry in the future is bright ideas. I think he is right on the mark. The question is how to turn these bright ideas into goods and services which the world is prepared to pay for. In this, it is obvious that we have only one option and, that is, the education of our next generation. This topic has been touched on earlier by Dr Tan Boon Wan. The question that I have in mind is: is the education system we have put in place still appropriate? Should we change that education system? I would point out that there is a movement in the United States' institutes of higher learning such as the Stanford University to revert to core curriculum. This curriculum is not to prepare students for a specific job in a job market but to enable them to create their own jobs in the future when they come to the job market. And what is to be included in this core curriculum?

In this respect, I find the views of Yotaro Kobayashi, Chairman of Fuji Xerox and Founder of Aspen Institute, Japan, as expressed in his article "Education, Knowledge and Wisdom" featured in Look Japan magazine, April 1999, quite interesting. He felt that Japan has specialised in economics and technology but as a developed country, the Japanese education system should be more balanced. Japan should evolve into the kind of society that other people can honestly say that it is exciting to be living there or that the Japanese are interesting to interact with. When one specialises in economics and technology, it is acceptable to learn through memorisation. But what is needed is an education that encourages people to form and hold their own opinions. Unless the Japanese become people with their own ideas and philosophies, the Japanese are not going to be interesting and exciting people. Unless the Japanese have their own ideas about how life should be lived, the Japanese will never truly be able to have dialogues with people from other countries. He concluded that the Japanese perhaps would have to study subjects like history. I think the wisdom in these words would be of relevance to Singapore as well.

Coming to education, I am glad to note that the Government is putting the highest emphasis on education as evidenced by the fact that the Ministry of Education has the highest concentration of Minister and Ministers of State. It has put together many programmes of improvement in curriculum and facilities, teaching, training and recruitment. For instance, we are aware of the PRIME programme for the rebuilding and refurbishing of schools. The Ministry is allocating budget by providing one PC for every two students in our schools, one of the highest, if not, the highest ratio in the world.

The Government also realises that IT will be the key technology that will ensure whether a nation would forge ahead in the future or not. The Government is taking all the right steps such as the formation of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and the establishment of IT infrastructure like cable network and broadband network like Singapore One. I think we have put all the pieces in place. As Dr Tan Boon Wan pointed out, the key thing is how to inculcate creativity in our young people.

In the era of knowledge workers where creativity of people is a key focus of our education programme, it is absurd that the NCMP yesterday asserted in his speech that this Government is trying to stay in power by instilling fear in the people. He quoted extensively from one Ian Buruma that Singaporeans cannot think or are afraid to think for themselves as if Mr Buruma is an expert on how Singaporeans feel and think about our country. Perhaps, we should ask ourselves: who is this Mr Ian Buruma? I looked up the Internet and found out that Mr Buruma is a freelance author and journalist, one time Resident Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Times Review of Books. He is said to have very sharp critical faculties and is described as a critic par excellence.

The NCMP presumably also did the same search and found this one critic whose opinions are in resonance with his own prejudices and he holds up the words of this critic as gospel truth. My regret is that he did not consider the opinions of the hundreds, if not, thousands of Singaporeans who participated actively in the various Feedback Unit dialogue sessions, surveys and also in the S21 discussions. May I remind the NCMP that Mr Buruma is a columnist who makes his living writing provocative articles. I do not think Mr Buruma has ever even managed a company, let alone a nation. Actually, we can get a measure of Mr Buruma and his biases from the title he gave to a review of the book The Singapore History - Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. And that title is "The man who would be king" to describe Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I think it is very provocative for Mr Buruma to do so. In this House, I think no one would agree that the word "King" can be used to describe a political leader like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a leader who, at the peak of his power, arranged for the transfer of that power to his successor, our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. And no one could deny that when the PAP holds absolute majority in Parliament for so many years that the democratic institutions in Singapore are left intact. So, may I suggest to the NCMP that Mr Buruma adopt a provocative stance to gain a higher profile - in fact, this is the way he makes a living - and the NCMP, in his desperation for some justification for support, swallows the story line, hook and sinker.

In fact, I have a copy of the review here. I took it from the Internet and printed it. In fact, if you read through the review, you will discover that the NCMP's speech is, by and large, Mr Buruma's speech but in a different form.

The NCMP talked about Mr Lee Kuan Yew preferring to rule by fear and popular support is not one of his style. And that very sentence is in this Buruma's review and I quote, "Courting popularity never was Lee's style. He preferred to be feared."

Further down the article, you will find that - the NCMP also said so directly - in the concluding remark, for instance, the various biases, "To call that "Asian values" is an insult to the rest of Asia." It is in the same article and reproduced from the review written by Buruma.

Also, the reference to the Memoirs of a Mendicant Professor could also be found in exactly the same article. In fact, in the scholarly circle, taking major extracts from other people's reviews or articles can be called plagiarism. So, it is regrettable that the NCMP does not have a fresh look and original ideas but to take someone else's articles, couch it and come to Parliament to put it out as his own ideas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I have touched upon several trends with major impact on our nation in the next 10-20 years. The problems we face are difficult ones that require in-depth analysis and effective implementation of strategies. I am gratified that this Government is cognizant of the trends and is adjusting our policies to respond to it. And the new focus on the people to deal with the future that has already happened is the right way to do so. I am confident that under the able leadership of our Government, Singapore will continue to achieve its goals and to bring a better life to all Singaporeans.

On this note, I would like to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Mr Thomas Thomas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to thank the President for his Address to this House.

Many of the points made in the President's Address are points which I, as a trade unionist, can identify with. Some of these points could even sound like issues which unionists raise with our employers. Examples of these are treating people as a valuable asset, developing and motivating them to reach their full potential, enabling them to contribute to their full potential, putting people first and take into account people issues when making decisions.

As a unionist, I can only feel happy with the focus given to people in the President's Address. Two things that struck me most was a call for active citizenship and heartware. In the industrial relations language, active citizenship is participation and involvement. Heartware is emotional bonding by increasing commitment. For companies to be high performing enterprises, the involvement of all workers is necessary. The old divide between thinkers and doers is no longer relevant in the knowledge economy. All workers have to be thinkers. For Singapore as a nation to be a high performing economy, it is necessary to get the commitment and involvement of all citizens.

Allow me to share some thoughts on this active citizenship and heartware. Active citizenship is more than a reaction to demands for a greater say in the matters of the State from some quarters of our society. A knowledge economy in the face of globalisation and increased commitment, coupled with technological and social changes, requires the active contribution of all players. I acknowledge that there is some form of consultation and involvement in Singapore through the Feedback Unit, grassroots organisations and the various committees formed like the Singapore 21, Manpower 21, IT 21 and so on. However, we must do more as there are many benefits from active citizenship. There is an educational value in active citizenship. Our citizens, by asking questions and getting answers from these questions as well as reacting to feedback, will learn more of the issues that affect them as citizens. By participating, the consent of citizens is gained together with their commitment for policies and actions that affect the country.

We have to recognise that the abilities and outlooks of our citizens will differ. Some of us may not be academically bright. Some may be physically impaired. Others may not be interested in participating in political debate. Yet others may only want to work at grassroots level. Yet, they are all our citizens with rights and responsibilities.

Leaders can also learn more about the feelings, concerns, aspirations and thinking of the people. By listening to citizens and taking their views seriously, the leadership will be harnessing the creativity and knowledge of all sectors of our population. Knowledge cannot be the monopoly of a few individuals. The collective contribution of many will result in better decisions.

Another reason why I support active citizenship is that it allows for changes to take place in an orderly fashion. Drastic change is painful and can be avoided if change can be made gradually with the support of the people.

Another important aspect of this participation is that it will result in improving the quality of lives. People will have a sense of fulfilment in so far that they can contribute ideas, suggestions and even criticisms to make a difference. It is empowerment. It is taking greater responsibility for matters affecting them. Active citizenship has to be taught and understood by all to yield maximum benefit. If not applied and understood well, it could affect our social cohesion. It would be spending more time and energy talking and quarrelling rather than moving forward. We must realise that active citizenship goes beyond politics and we will therefore have to build up institutions that can contribute towards active citizenship. These institutions should be membership based, people focused organisations, trade unions, cooperatives, voluntary welfare organisations and self-help groups. They will build up strong institutions for civil society and strengthen democractic institutions.

Trade unions and cooperatives can contribute immensely towards achieving this vision of active citizenship and building up heartware. Trade unions promote workplace democracy. The ordinary worker can influence outcomes through his union.

The President in his Address has acknowledged the contribution of unions. I am also glad that the Ministry of Manpower lists strengthening partnership as one of its important strategies for Manpower 21. Partnership can only be strengthened if partners are effective to play their part.

Both employers and Government have acknowledged the role workers and their unions have played in helping Singapore get out of the economic crisis. An important aspect of heartware is keeping faith and building trust. It is therefore not only important to restore to workers the CPF cut as quickly as possible according to the ability of the economy to afford it, but also to take steps to strengthen unions and reward workers. The best reward the Government can give to workers is to ensure that there is not only full employment but there are good paying jobs for which workers are able and willing to take on. Unions can be supported by making it easier for them to organise workers and form unions.

Employers should not go against unions' organising efforts. If they are not prepared to support unions openly, they should at least remain neutral without working against unions. Our current laws need to be reviewed for unions to organise workers based on the new evolving employment relationships of the knowledge economy which sometimes are different from the old industrial age definitions.

Tripartism has been a positive factor in getting us out of the recession. It is one of our most competitive advantage. It should not be devalued. It should be built on. Employers should be actively encouraged to promote bipartism at the enterprise level to reinforce tripartism at the national level.

Cooperatives are commercial organisations formed by citizens to address both commercial and social needs. During the last economic crisis, they played an important role in stabilising prices and helping the lower income. As we promote local enterprises, cooperatives should also benefit from the many schemes in place for small and medium sized enterprises. They have added value to the life of Singaporeans and they must therefore be supported to do more.

In conclusion, I must emphasise that the role of the Government must be that of an enabler, for citizens to take more responsibilities for themselves and the State. Government must help institutions that can bring about active citizenship, and come out to be more tolerant of differing ideas and views. With this in place, the people of Singapore can thus be active citizens that can build upon our achievements. We must not deflect from the mission of giving our citizens a better life.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has outlined the Government's initiatives, plans and programmes for our citizens in the new millennium. The Government has been careful and purposeful in forging a national consensus on the changes needed to improve the quality of life of Singaporeans in the years ahead. However, the Government cannot do it alone. It requires the support and participation of every Singaporean to achieve the goals envisioned for Singapore as we march onwards into the 21st century.

Sir, it is fitting that the focus is on our people and their development. We have reached a stage of economic growth and development that our people no longer just look for material success. They are interested in where our society is heading, national and parochial issues affecting the neighbourhood and community, and relationships with other countries. Many are also spending time appreciating culture and the arts. With growing affluence, it is not surprising for people to reflect on the meaning, value and priorities of life and seeking peace and joy in the spiritual realm.

Sir, yet we cannot afford to relax and be content with the status quo. We have to be proactive in responding to the challenges of a knowledge-based economy. With a small domestic market, our companies have to counter the threats and to seize whatever opportunities offered by globalisation and technological advancement to bring Singapore to the next level of economic development. With more intense competition, it would be an uphill task to attract more foreign investments and trade to Singapore. Creating new employment opportunities and enabling those already working to keep their jobs are areas that require the close attention and collaborative efforts of Government, employers, trade unions and individuals.

Our ability to thrive and prosper in a knowledge-based economy lies in the skills, competencies, ingenuity and values possessed by our people. "Intellectual capital" and "weightless economy" relate to using talent and brain power to create wealth through creative design and innovation. We plan the long term by preparing and equipping our young to face the new competitive working and business environment with confidence and optimism.

This is where our teachers and schools can make a significant contribution. Though the Ministry of Education does not think it necessary to make education compulsory, it is still important for us to send the right strong signals to all parents on the desirability of sending their children to school. We need to understand why some parents are depriving their children the opportunity for education and to take appropriate steps to correct the parents for the sake of their children. We must make every effort to ensure that all children receive proper education, otherwise our society will suffer the long-term economic and social repercussions if thousands of children each year do not attend or drop out from school.

Singaporeans are living lives. This means Singaporeans have many more years to remain economically active. It is therefore essential that our schools lay a firm and strong foundation to imbibe the values and learning abilities to our children so that when they grow up they can become independent learners and go through life being able to look after themselves and their families.

The GPC for Education is pleased with the initiative taken by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to fine-tune and improve the school ranking system. We wish to commend MOE for adopting the quality assurance approach, normally used in private sector organisations, in the School Excellence Model. This is another way to persuade schools not to concentrate only on academic results. It shows that the MOE is prepared to acknowledge efforts to cultivate values in schools. Schools are no longer penalised for any slip in ranking nor should they be afraid to admit students who are strong in non-academic subjects like sports, music and arts. If we want to achieve the Desired Outcomes of Education, it is only right that we focus on education as a whole and view the school as a system. Our teachers and schools have the confidence to assess their own performance and will work towards continuous improvements to achieve the targets they have set for themselves and for the students.

I wish to support the ability-driven approach taken in education to tailor to the different needs of every child. Instruction should invariably take into account the child's individuality and his mental and physical development. Children develop at different rates in different areas and should always be treated as unique individuals. On the whole, about 80% of each cohort are able to adapt and cope with the standard curriculum requirements. As for the remaining 20% or roughly 8,000 students, we should pay close attention and devote needed resources to develop them into good and capable assets. It is important for us to strike a balance in the curriculum. Though science and technology are important, we should not neglect the other aspects like creativity, history, geography, literature, moral and civic education. Our students are generally strong in the contents of the syllabus but lack general knowledge. We should develop our students as well rounded individuals who are the pride of their families and country.

There are overseas countries whose tendency is to overhaul and make the quantum leap in education with dramatic effect rather than introduce gradual incremental changes to improve and strengthen the education system. By overdoing this, there is the danger of doing irreparable harm to the education system. Once broken, it would take many years to make the education system right again. A generation of students would have lost out in the process. This, we should avoid in Singapore, as we make changes to our education system.

Since our schools are provided with an integrated IT infrastructure and the school syllabuses use IT widely, we need to be mindful of the importance of character building and values education. We have to counter the adverse effect of IT on social interaction. We do not wish our children to be lacking in social skills or face difficulties in interpersonal human relationships. Computers can be fun, exciting and absorbing but doubts have been raised as to whether real learning takes place. We should avoid the pitfalls asserted by Clifford Stoll in his book, `Silicon Snake Oil'. Stoll wrote, and I quote:

"Children love computer classes because they do not have to think for an hour, teachers love them because . they (do) not have to teach and parents love them because it (shows) their schools (are) high tech. But no learning happens."

Our children should be taught to master IT but not become its victims.

Sir, I have been following the press reports on the controversies afflicting Chinese High School. It is sad and disappointing that the Board of Directors of the Chinese High School Association could not resolve their differences. It requires the Ministry to intervene by appointing the Committee of Management to take over the management of the school. The principal, teachers, parents, community and alumni association all have critical roles to play and significant contributions to make, acting in the larger interest of the school and the students.

Some members of the public have criticised the MOE's stand against the involvement of students on the matter of the retirement of the principal. I wish to support the stand taken by the Ministry. It is amazing how some people can be misled into believing that because we want to develop thinking students, our 12 to 15 years old students should be allowed to involve themselves on staff matters. It is almost like suggesting that our young and impressionable students be allowed to join the picket line in employment disputes. Singaporeans must learn to draw the line between what can and cannot be allowed to be done.

We must develop stronger mechanisms to involve the parents in the nurturing and development of their school-going children. More and more, we are seeing parents delegating and even relegating the responsibility of bringing up their children to the schools. School programmes involving parents on a regular basis should feature prominently in the school calendar of activities. Over time rapport and mutual understanding will develop, and our children will be happy enjoying the warmth and affection both at home and in school. Our students will learn and behave better in this favourable psychological environment.

It is no doubt that our school children have never had it so good. An area that now needs addressing is the continuing education of working and job-seeking adults who left school many years ago. We should revive the active programme of adult education and continuing education. Though employers and companies should train and develop their employees, many adults should be encouraged to learn on their own. We should increase substantially the number of places in the continuing education programmes of our universities and polytechnics offering degree and diploma courses on a part-time basis. Access to educational opportunities for adults holds the key if we are to develop a learning culture in Singapore. National resources devoted to constantly improving the performance and competencies of our people will bring immeasurable benefits to the individuals, families and the country as a whole. I hope the Government will provide more funding, facilities and teaching resources on continuing education programmes for our adult population.

As our people grow and mature, Singapore will be well on its way to become a more gracious and compassionate society.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

As we move into the new millennium, it is apt that we should develop a vision for Singapore that focuses on developing our people. For the past 34 years, we have focused our resources ostensibly more on the development of the physical infrastructure. We have built up one of the finest road systems, ports, airports, housing estates, and information technology infrastructure, to name a few. Indeed, any foreigner coming to Singapore will not fail to notice the tremendous progress that this country has made since independence.

Once the house is put in order, one would suppose the more challenging issue is how do we turn this house into a home.

For us in Parliament, I believe our bigger challenge in the new millennium is to build a greater sense of belonging and of being rooted amongst Singaporeans for Singapore.

As indeed we begin to ask this question, the starting point I believe for the discussion lies in the question of how we strengthen the sense of belonging to this place. The key really lies in the strengthening of community bonds.

For this reason, we understand that the Singapore 21 vision is meant to develop our people into a more cohesive society for the future.

One can possibly redefine the strategy into two broad areas. The first is a focus on the individual Singaporean, and the second being, the Singaporean as a member of a wider community. I believe that the outcome of our work in these two areas will to some extent have an impact on the people's sense of being rooted in and belonging to Singapore.

The Singaporean as an individual

It is heartening to know that our Government is not sparing any effort in preparing the next generation of Singaporeans for the knowledge-based economy. Towards this end, I note the Education Ministry is adopting a new approach in education that is ability driven and tailored to the needs of every child. It is also heartening to note that the Government is trying to redefine the meaning of success to include a wider range of skills such as the arts and sports.

We all know that every child is created differently. Some are more artistically inclined while others are more at home with scientific research and mathematical calculations. It is unfortunate that in the early days of our development, we had no choice but to place a high priority and a premium on those skills that are better able to help us contribute to the development of our economy. Accordingly, we had to produce the engineers, the scientists and the bureaucrats to meet the needs of our country. The arts and the sports, in the order of things, were given relatively less emphasis. Those with abilities in the arts and the sports may not have been given as much recognition as they deserve. As a consequence, we have either lost these sons and daughters to faraway places or we have not provided a conducive environment for them to develop their talents further. Hopefully, with the new emphasis, we should be able to address the difference in recognition. Those who are artistically inclined and those with sporting talents can now have much hope in getting their hard work and success more widely recognised.

Sir, my question is, if we want to recognise the potential value of every Singaporean and want to encourage them to develop every talent that they have further, we should not just confine our recognition of success to just academic achievements, the sports and the arts. The issue in this is not whether we should widen the scope of success to recognise such skills, but rather in extending our recognition of what constitutes success, are we encouraging Singaporeans to constantly devote themselves to their interests and undertakings in order to excel in what they do. Sir, excellence is a relative term and must be seen in the context of what is achieved. For example, in our new definition of success, do we give recognition to the handicapped child who surmounted his handicap to complete his education in a normal manner, even though his academic achievements may not be as remarkable as the top achiever? By all accounts, one would surely not deny the child's efforts are an enduring testimony of endeavour and courage. And for this reason, it should be sufficient for our purposes to qualify the child to be held up as a model of excellence and success.

Secondly, as part of the people development programme, we recognise that we must go beyond using knowledge created by others by creating new knowledge ourselves. This approach has deep implication in the way our society develops. To create new knowledge, one must expect Singaporeans to be inquisitive and creative. To be creative and to expand the frontier of knowledge, one must be prepared to question basic assumptions and, if need be, to slaughter some sacred cows. It is only by being able to accept changes to our basic assumptions that society can find progress.

As we progress to the new millennium, we must be prepared to move away from our mindset and be prepared to change and perhaps give up some of our own values. The values that have served us well may not necessarily be the same values that will serve our interests for the future. The question is, are we prepared to change with time, and change more radically, if necessary?

Thirdly, it is right that we should speak of lifelong learning and of continual training of our workers to prepare them for the demands of changing technology in the new millennium. Continual training will constantly upgrade our workers' productivity and skills and, in turn, allow them to earn a higher margin of wages and improve their quality and standard of living. As we restructure our economy by emphasising on higher valued-added products in manufacturing and services, it is important that our workers continue to be retrained and re-tooled themselves to prepare them for the challenges ahead.

The process of training and retraining is especially important for workers who have been retrenched in the industry. For those who have been retrenched, we send them for courses and training in order that they, after having found new skills, can then be re-employed in the industry, thus allowing them the opportunity to continue with their work.

Unfortunately, Sir, for many of these older workers, a lack of skills that is solved by education and training, is only part of the problem. For many, their age and the relatively higher salary that they command make them unemployable. What can we do to ensure that these workers who have gone for training are given employment? At this moment, we recognise that there is some tension between leaving employment entirely to market forces and having employment regulated to a greater extent by legislation.

The truth of the matter is that there are many older workers who have been retrenched, and having spent time acquiring new skills, are still having difficulty finding jobs. Will the Government be prepared to consider, aside from the present scheme of helping them find jobs through an exchange run by the Manpower Ministry, more initiatives in getting these retrenched older workers back to the workforce?

The Singaporean as a member of a wider community

The President's Speech touches on the fact that it is not enough for Singaporeans to be individually talented. Our drive towards making Singapore a better society depends very much on getting Singaporeans to vote together and having a common sense of commitment to Singapore and to one another. Here we speak of the Singapore "heartware".

We recognise that social bonding and cohesion is an essential ingredient for the long-term survival of Singapore. In order for Singaporeans to have one heartbeat for Singapore, it is important that we continue to emphasise to all Singaporeans that they, irrespective of colour, creed, age or gender, will always have a place in this country. Our policy statements must therefore be sensitive to not creating artificial distinctions within society that unnecessarily stratify people according to categories. We divide people into the Normal and Express stream students, the gifted and non-gifted students, the EM1 and EM2 students, the overseas scholars and local scholars; or for that matter, the scholar class as opposed to the non-scholar class; and more recently, the distinction between foreign talents and local talents, and, of course, the cosmopolitans and the heartlanders. If one thinks about it, it is essentially these categories of distinction that divide people into being more capable as opposed to being less capable. How will this division, Sir, help with the bonding process that we are all trying so hard to create?

While the reality of inequality in life is a fact that we must all recognise and live with, it is another to be typecast and to be constantly told, whether directly or indirectly, that one is less capable than the other. I can understand and appreciate the circumstances in which these distinctions have emerged. However, we must be mindful that in harping on this subject, we may lead to a situation of a deep divide within our society. This would surely put a strain on our social cohesion rather than reinforce it.

We should perhaps give more emphasis to the principle that for those who are more capable, the rewards will be there for them, and more is expected of them to serve our society. For those who are not as capable, they will always be a part of Singapore, and be made to feel that they are just as wanted and appreciated for what they have contributed towards the making of this country. Here, I like the idea that we should have more emphasis on bonding between the successful Singaporeans and those who have not done as well. We must not envy or begrudge those who have succeeded. However, every Singaporean has a given right to share in the country's success. Equally, those who contribute more on taxes must not begrudge the various schemes aimed at improving the lot of the not so fortunate. After all, we must remember that it is our duty to look after the less fortunate in our society.

Sir, we speak of an active citizenship under the Singapore 21 vision that envisages more avenues for citizens to participate in the nation's affairs, in order to tap on the widest range of views. My colleague, Mr Thomas, has also touched on this issue earlier. We want to be able to get citizens to participate in the building of Singapore, and to get them to contribute ideas so that they can understand what is at stake. In law, we have this maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. This principle applies equally well in our desire to want participation of our people in the policy-making process.

We have the Feedback Unit and the regular dialogue sessions with our grassroots leaders. Many people have often wondered how much of the feedback that is given has been taken into consideration in the formulation of policies. No doubt, there is certain feedback which has translated itself into changes in policies and legislation. On the other hand, there has also been numerous feedback that has been perceived to have been ignored. Perhaps more can be done in this regard to convince the people that their views are taken seriously. As a simple illustration, there are many Bills in this Parliament that have been passed which have had the participation of many concerned Members. Yet, despite the input of the Members, the Bills nonetheless are immediately passed after the Second Reading. In some cases, we have had assurances from the Government that subsequent amendments to the Act will take into account the feedback. However, in some other cases, it did not appear that the feedback was taken seriously.

Our focus on the development of people in this debate touches on the issue of the kind of civil society we want to create in Singapore. My learned colleague, the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, has asked pertinent questions in this debate. He asked whether the people of Singapore are prepared to take responsibility for their decisions and how the Government can send clear signals on the terms of participation from the citizens.

Sir, there are many forces at work in society. While some may like to argue for more political space within Singapore, I agree with my colleague that others may not feel as comfortable for the kind of space that is asked for, and we would be quite happy with the status quo. To those who clamour for Singapore to be a better civil society, there is a certain presumption that this is what the rest of Singaporeans want. The truth of the matter is that your HDB heartlander may not be so interested in these issues so long as the integrity of the Government of Singapore is not in doubt and the people continue to enjoy a standard and quality of life that is unparalleled anywhere in the world. What makes this vocal minority think that they have a better right to impose their views on the silent majority? We must recognise that the responsibility of the Government rests in balancing the various forces at work. We must also remember that a duly elected government has the mandate of the people to do so.

Sir, we accept that it is not always possible for the Government to agree to every issue. However, where there is indeed a constructive attempt being made to improve legislation or policies, the Government must be seen to be taking this effort more seriously.

Finally, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to the President for delivering the keynote Speech of the Government. No doubt, the Speech is meant to chart the course of the Government in the coming years. It has also provided us a valuable opportunity to take stock of where we are coming from and where we are heading.

For the above reasons, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Clarification with the Member. In his speech he mentioned that civil society may not be desirable for HDB heartlanders and the Government has a duty to balance their interests. I would like to know from him, in his view, how does civil society, as implied in his speech, come in conflict with the interest of HDB heartlanders, if the Government decides that civil society is desirable.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: I think central to the debate on civil society is a certain perception that a civil society must entail certain values. These values are to some extent a reflection of the kind of values that is often associated with the more liberal society of the West; where there is greater freedom of speech, greater civic participation, and a more liberal media. These are the sorts of issues that one would normally associate with a civil society. Having said that, and this is consistent with the kind of debate that has emerged in recent months, the sort of ideas that go into a debate for civil society need not necessarily dovetail with the kind of interests that the HDB heartlanders may have. And to that extent, therefore, it may not necessarily be the same kind of agenda that the two interest groups are pursuing.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion and wish to express my thanks to the President for his Speech.

I have come across many Singaporeans who, like Mr Chiam See Tong, think that the President's Speech does not contain anything new in terms of the Government's visions and policies for the future.

Personally, I do not expect anything new nor do I think there should be one. Indeed, the economic crisis has served to adequately remind us that our current policies with regard to managing the economy, responsiveness to changes, openness and transparency of information, being pragmatic and ready to take the pain and involving our best and brightest, both in the Government and private sector, remain relevant now and in the future.

Perhaps what is quite less understood by many Singaporeans is the fact that the changes made to the banking and financial sector, recommendations contained in the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness and policy on foreign talent, are by any measure a major transformation and reformation of our economy and society.

The fact that this was implemented without any accompanying violent protest and political instability that have rocked our neighbours does not make it less exciting or significant. Many have lost their jobs, suffered wage and CPF cuts. Small and medium enterprises continue to face severe challenges posed by a variety of global pressures.

Perhaps one visible aspect during the economic crisis has been the important role the private sector has played in tandem with the Government through the various committees to draw up plans to get us out of this crisis. To the Singaporeans at large, they have witnessed how collective efforts of both the Government and private sector have brought about the desired results during one of the most serious crisis experienced by Singaporeans.

On this note, Sir, allow me to respond to the two main issues that were discussed, ie, active citizenship and social cohesion. It is a great day for me as a member of civil society to listen to Members of the House speaking in support of active citizenship. This alone demonstrates how far we have progressed in terms of developing an active people sector. This is a strong endorsement to the many people working in civil societies. Let me remind the House that civil society is not a western concept.

However, there remain many challenges to overcome and I would like to highlight a few of them:

One is changing mindset. In the past, it is quite common to hear of civil societies being categorised into social workers and armchair critics and social commentators who are frequently challenged for the lack of involvement in social and charitable activities. It is as if one must be involved in charitable activities before being considered as doing something for society.

While it is clear that the ultimate objective is for the best and ablest in the society to help the less able through volunteerism, members of civil society are usually initially driven at least by enthusiasm, passion, spontaneity and idealism. Quite often, it starts with them articulating their views as many feel the need to contribute in terms of ideas and feedback. The more accessible communication channels today make it more convenient for many to make their first start by contributing ideas. The more involved and committed - perhaps prompted into action - would then participate as members of the various organisations that best suit them.

Therefore, there is a need to change the mindset and to view these people, not as irritating commentators to policy makers, but perhaps as a growing and untapped pool of young idealistic citizens who can play a part in our common goal to help improve society.

To help change this mindset, we can do a number of simple things:

(1) have civil servants, employees of statutory boards and Government corporations to be more involved in civil society so that they can have a better appreciation of civil society and perhaps become civil society's active citizens themselves. Quite frequently, the problems of civil societies are at the operational level - with the bureaucracy;

(2) have Government agencies involving relevant civil societies to participate in the various activities and to be invited to some of the relevant functions organised. Of course, civil societies too must reciprocate but here the common complaint is usually the unenthusiastic response from Government agencies;

(3) civil societies themselves should start by not excluding other organisations like the CDCs and self-help groups and many other agencies as not being part of the larger family of civil society. We should not differentiate the Government sponsored civil society and independent groups as, ultimately, they both serve a common goal for our society; and

(4) Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam talked about the fear that Singaporeans have in involving themselves in debate and public discussions. First, it must be clear to anyone intending to venture into public discussions to be prepared to be intellectually challenged, even robustly. This is to be expected. However, I do sense that some of the replies from the Government may be a bit too personal which may tend to discourage public discussion.

Having said that, I would say that being thick-skinned must certainly be one of the necessary prerequisites of anyone intending to engage in public debate. For those who feel personally slighted or rebuked, I have this to say to them, "Don't Quit" because this country was not built by quitters.

Next, is for the Government agencies to use the strength and not weaknesses of civil societies. Quite often, civil societies are bogged down by fund-raising activities. Lack of financial and administrative resources are common complaints of civil societies. This is where greater collaboration between Government agencies and civil society can be more effective to tap their enthusiasm, commitment, network and not rely on their weaknesses for fund raising.

Third, globalisation. Like anything else, civil societies too are affected by internationalisation and globalisation. Their values on society and environment, for example, are no longer domestic or national issues. It transcends geographical boundaries. Increasingly, civil societies will find more things in common with civil societies in other countries. There will be greater need for joint collaboration and mutual assistance. This is where civil societies in Singapore are sometimes unnecessarily disadvantaged as many exercise self restraint in obtaining assistance of financial help from other institutions overseas as they may be perceived to be promoting a foreign agenda or, worse still, become elements of other undesirable organisations.

We need to recognise that working with foreign organisations is going to be part and parcel of a larger civil society as we become part of a global family. Therefore, we must not only be prepared to learn from others but also become active contributors ourselves to other causes in the region.

On this note, I would like to respond to the very encouraging gestures that Simon Tay and I would like to undertake a study on "Civil Society in 21st Century Singapore". This, in our view, is an indication of how civil society can proceed and progress beyond discussion and debate. The report would address on the potential contribution and personal limitation and challenges facing Singapore's young civil society. The issues that our report would address include the registration of societies, limits on speech, assembly and association, especially in public, and the role of private foundations and Government agencies in supporting civil society organisations. The report would also look at civil society in Singapore in a broader regional and international context.

I would now like to quote from Judith Shklar an extract from the National Standards for Civics and Government:

"Active citizens . are public meeting-goers and joiners of voluntary organisations who discuss and deliberate with others about the policies that will affect them and who serve their country not only as taxpayers and occasional soldiers, but by having a considered notion of the public good that they genuinely take to heart. The good citizen is a patriot."

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to touch on another issue of social cohesion. I am prompted today to include these two issues in view of the recent incident which in my view demonstrates the fragility of a social cohesion and that each and every Singaporean has a part to play to preserve and enhance social cohesion.

At the recent Mendaki-MUIS Tea Party to congratulate Malay-Muslim graduates from higher institutions last week, I was seated with four young Malay graduates, whom I later discovered, two of whom will be going for further education overseas. I was delighted to find out that all four of them told me their families no longer depend on them for financial contribution. This demonstrates how far sections of the Malay-Muslim society have progressed.

However, when I asked them what would be the most difficult problem they would face when they enter working life, they remarked that the perception others have of them would be the greatest obstacle they would face and they expressed concern that they may not be given equal opportunities by employers. If the best and ablest of our society and those who have profited and benefited from our system feel pessimistic, I wonder how less successful Malay-Muslims feel.

On another occasion, as a member of the Work Group on KBE, initiated by the Malay PAP MPs, we met two groups of bankers separately: one, Malay-Muslim workers in the financial sector and, two, representatives of major banks who coincidentally are all Chinese. Our discussions revealed wide differences of perceptions one has of the other.

These are no small matters which cannot be resolved overnight but efforts must be taken quickly as part of a long and permanent process of bridging these perceptions. For a start, I have asked these bankers whether they are prepared to help Malay-Muslims in the financial sector to improve and upgrade themselves as the community is short of skilled expertise and resources to face the challenges of KBE. They are quite happy to help knowing that their efforts will go a long way towards bridging these perceptions. I must thank them for their willingness.

On the other hand, Malay-Muslims too need to be more relevant on national and international issues and be more actively involved in the various social community organisations outside the Malay-Muslim community. Malay values of gotong-royong must be extended to include other Singaporeans. I personally know of many organisations who are desperately looking for Malay-Muslim members. Malay-Muslims must and need to respond to this.

Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of Malays in the SAF which was touched upon by the Member for Cheng San. First, let me say that the Senior Minister's comments came from his personal experience. More significantly, our geography makes this issue a relevant and permanent one. In my view, the reaction of the community is good because it indicates that Malays care about what other Singaporeans think of them. It would be worse if Malays have not responded.

Perhaps the only way to change perception is for Malays themselves, especially those in the SAF, to continue to demonstrate their commitment through working with other Singaporeans, earning mutual respect and trust of fellow soldiers and Singaporeans. Beyond rhetoric, we need to demonstrate good deeds.

But I must caution that it would be unwise for anyone to think that this can be solved through one dialogue session. Anyone is free to write and speak on this issue provided racial sensitivities are not breached. While Malay leaders like Encik Othman Wok and Encik Rahmat Kenap have earned the trust and confidence of the Senior Minister, I am sure there are many other younger Malays deserving of such an association. Hopefully, over time, many more will be identified. Because only then can perception change.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.41 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a young nation with limited natural resources, Singapore has done well to position itself to be a world-class city in the world. Over the last 34 years, the Singapore Government has, through careful planning and prudent use of public funds, developed Singapore into a modern city with excellent infrastructure and amenities. Today, Singaporeans live in high quality housing, a clean and green environment and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle.

Singapore has also made its mark of excellence in the global market. We are known in the world for our airline, SIA; our seaport, PSA; our public housing programme, HDB; and our clean and green environment. We have successfully built a positive corporate image for Singapore. Today, many people are aware of the existence of Singapore. They know where Singapore is and what is Singapore like. But not many people understand Singaporeans or know what is a Singaporean. We have yet to develop a "brand name" for Singaporeans. Instead, some foreigners have negative perceptions of Singaporeans such as Singaporeans are not allowed to chew chewing gum in Singapore; Singaporeans are fined for not flushing toilets; Singaporeans are caned or jailed for any wrongdoing. These perceptions always cause embarrassment to many Singaporeans when they meet up with their foreign friends.

We have read in the papers about the ugly Singaporean or the kiasu Singaporeans who misbehave themselves and project a bad image for Singaporeans especially when they travel overseas. If such behaviours were to propagate, we would be embarrassed to be called Singaporeans. Thus, there is an urgent need to erase these negative images of Singaporeans and take action to develop a Singaporean identity.

We must nurture Singaporeans to be caring and considerate citizens of the world. More efforts should be channelled to inject meaning into the lives of Singaporeans. Singaporeans must learn to be more "human" in a fast-changing and materialistic world. We must live life to make a difference to other people's life and that is our ultimate goal of living.

Sir, I support the President's call for the Government to focus on people. This is a timely call for all Government departments to pay more attention to Singaporeans. Singaporeans need more attention and listening ears. Today, if you make a call to any Government department, you will most likely be speaking to a voice-mail system.

In our drive to achieve higher productivity and save manpower, we have sometimes lost the human touch in our public services. Many Singaporeans are still not familiar or comfortable to use the voice-mail system, and thus are deprived of such public services. Sir, I strongly support the use of technology to increase efficiency and productivity but technology should bring the public sector closer to Singaporeans instead of alienating them.

Although the public sector should take the lead, we must also understand the pace of change acceptable to the masses. We must synchronise the use of technology to meet the needs of Singaporeans. In this way, the public sector will have a closer rapport with the general public and would be able to serve them better.

Another concern which I would like to raise is the issue of heartlanders and cosmopolitans. I believe that all Singaporeans should aim to be heartlanders and cosmopolitans. We must upgrade and maximise our potentials to be a global knowledge worker or entrepreneur and, at the same time, our hearts must be with Singapore. Singaporeans must strive to be global players, be they contractors, food court operators, entrepreneurs, professionals or service providers. Every Singaporean stands a chance to be a global player if he or she strives to achieve his or her best. The Government must play a more creative and proactive role to facilitate and provide opportunities for Singaporeans to achieve this goal.

Sir, if we want to achieve "One people, one nation and one Singapore", I agree with my colleague, Mr Sin Boon Ann, that we must not classify or segment Singaporeans. This will create cracks in our society, thus hindering our efforts to strengthen community bond and nationhood. We must set realistic goals and hopes to motivate Singaporeans to achieve greater heights in their lives.

Sir, the S21 report has set out useful directions to guide Singaporeans into the next millennium. I would like to highlight one of its key pillars, namely, "Strong families: our foundation and our future." The need to develop strong families must not be understated. Strong families are the foundation for healthy lives and wholesome communities. Every Singaporean must make every effort to keep our family strong and healthy. Strong families will provide the impetus to build a cohesive society and nation.

In today's fast-paced society, families are at risk of disintegration. Our home ownership scheme has unintentionally resulted in the rapid nuclearisation of families in Singapore. This coupled with the HDB flat allocation system has caused many families to be located all over Singapore. As a result, many Singaporeans are living away from their parents, thus making it less convenient to visit their parents frequently. Family contact time has reduced drastically over the years, thus threatening family bonds.

This situation will gradually erode family ties, especially among siblings and younger families. Without strong family support, Singaporeans will find it difficult to cope with the complexity of urban living in the next century. Consequently, some may seek greener pastures elsewhere resulting in a brain drain phenomenon.

Sir, I recently spoke to a young Singaporean who just graduated from the United States. I asked him why he returned to Singapore despite the abundance of opportunities and excitement in the United States. His answer is simple. It is because of his family. His parents are migrants from China who have spent their lives making a living in Singapore. They have experienced hardship and seen the transformation of Singapore from poverty to its present state. They are true heartlanders of Singapore who have faith in our Government and believe that their children will have a bright future in Singapore. They have a strong sense of belonging to Singapore and make concerted efforts to encourage their children to return home.

Sir, I am not sure whether this young man's generation will have the same sense of belonging to Singapore as his parents. Will younger generations of Singaporeans encourage their children to stay in Singapore? We need to address this issue of rootedness of younger Singaporeans. We must help Singaporeans to develop pride to be Singaporeans and live in Singapore with their families.

Sir, Singapore strives to be a world-class economy and a world-class home. We must also strive to be a world-class people. This is a challenge for both the Government and Singaporeans in the next century.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Harun A Ghani (Hong Kah): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the motion moved by the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh, Mr Davinder Singh.

Before I proceed, allow me to touch on a newspaper article which somehow or rather belittles the Opening of the Second Session of Parliament which was full of Parliamentary tradition. I believe that each one of us has his own weaknesses but what is important is the content of our speech. We depend heavily on journalists to assist in educating and conveying the intent of our speeches for the information of the general public. We hope that this can be done.

Mr Speaker, coming back to the Presidential Speech, I fully support the decision to make people the focus of Government policy. Of course, there are cynics who criticise this effort. In fact, the voices of these cynics is a great concern of mine because it is a sign that shows that our society is still far from its aim of becoming a dynamic society that does not focus on material wealth and where there are children who would no longer remember the deeds of their parents who have brought them up. They would drive away the parents from the homes or abandon them without a place of shelter. If this trend continues, we will have a society that would not know the meaning of responsibility and a society that would forget its origins. So I hope the values of courtesy should be the emphasis of our education in schools right from primary to university levels.

When we look at the concept of active citizenship, which is the idea of encouraging every citizen to shape his future, it is a new phase for giving him a stake in the future, as mentioned by the President in his Speech. Lately, and in recent years, the Government has introduced various programmes to enable every citizen to share in the prosperity of Singapore. For example, the share ownership schemes, the CPF top-up scheme and the Medisave top-up scheme. These are efforts to give Singaporeans a stake in a concrete form that they can see. But if Singaporeans only see the stake in material terms, I think it is a matter of concern for us, compared with the policy of active citizenship. It would be more meaningful if every citizen is invited to share in determining our future. We are all asked to offer our points of view as best as we can to make the Singapore 21 Vision a success.

Another point I would like to touch on is the wider definition of success which does not only involve success in academic terms but also in sports and the arts. I welcome this change of mindset, because it will allow us not only to be a prosperous nation but also a gracious nation that we hope for. However, no matter how prosperous a country is, we cannot deny the presence of certain people who are not able to share in the prosperity. There will always be those who are left out and those who struggle to keep up. So, I would encourage all Singaporeans to practise the concept of life-long learning. We know of the difficulties of the workers, especially those 40 years and above, and who have secondary or lower education, to undergo lessons to upgrade themselves. We can perhaps reduce the burden of these workers if we can provide classless learning facilities, ie, capitalise fully the potential of radio and television.

For example, not a long time ago, the Malay radio station had a special programme for the teaching of English, which was conducted by Asmah Laili. If we can adjust this to the needs of today and combine it with the national certification programme, it would enable mothers and also fathers to listen to the radio. By having such radio programmes in all the languages we could have English lessons suited to the needs of today, such as Business English or Cyber English, which would explain the terminology in the Internet world. Wafer fab English, for instance, will explain the terms used in the sector. We can also widen this effort through television.

These educational programmes, of course, will not have popular ratings similar to entertainment programmes, but I believe that rating is not the only reason why we have radio and television. The life-long learning culture depends on the effort of individual citizens. They are the main factors, whether they would be able to continue their education or not. But I think there is no loss for the mass media to provide this facility and to ensure that we will provide this facility in full.

We are also faced with the problem of drop-outs who are unable to study or who have been trapped in unhealthy activities. I am of the view that if these students are placed in a special school which provides only sports and athletic activities as well as the arts, it would enable them to gain excellence in the fields that they are interested in, apart from providing English, Mathematics and mother tongue lessons for their academic needs. Perhaps from this, we can produce sportsmen or artists who can do Singapore proud. And if these drop-outs are not monitored, they will be a problem to us later on, as we try to achieve the Singapore 21 vision.

In conclusion, the Malay Muslims are taught the teachings of Islam which say, to love our nation is part of the faith. From Malay sayings, the Malays are called to be loyal to the land where they live, and remember that the grass may be greener on the other side but it is still better here. So, if there are any speeches that question the loyalty of the Malay Muslims, it must be thought out rationally and not emotionally. We must look at our situation. We should not react angrily. We are taught to be patient. Patience is part of our faith. And there might be wisdom in what has been said.

There is also evidence that maybe there are some among us who are more loyal to another country or who deride the leadership of a country. A bad apple may spoil the whole basket and it is therefore our duty to prove our loyalty to our country. I believe that this loyalty and love for the nation will be proven in due course, and the world would be a better place if we work together towards it.