DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Debate resumed.

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, the President in his Address to open the Second Session of this Parliament had highlighted Government's efforts to promote life-long learning and to enhance our people's skills and capability under the Manpower 21 plan. Several hon. Members have also spoken in support of the Manpower 21 plan. I thank them for their endorsement and support for the initiatives contained in the Manpower 21 Report.

Yesterday, Mr Lim Boon Heng, speaking about the employee share option scheme, urged caution on our companies to adopt such an approach of rewarding their employees. I think he made a valid point. We should proceed with care when adopting such new ideas. He said that one should be wary of adopting new ideas that appear to be great but their consequences are not fully known. I agree with that approach. But there are other ideas which, although new and novel, are self-evidently relevant and applicable to our situation, and we should be prepared to adopt them immediately and wholeheartedly.

I will give you an example, Sir. The latest issue of Business Week (18th October) contained a special report entitled "Learning to Lead". It described how an energy company in the US, Conoco Inc, coped with a 1998 downturn in oil price and surplus capacity within the company. The usual approach in such a situation, when your product price is going down, would have been to cut spending and to close plants, which would mean retrenching some workers. Instead, the CEO made an unusual decision. He decided to make a major investment in the company's managers. He approved a new comprehensive leadership-development programme for his senior executives. The CEO explained, "Even though oil was at $10, it was the right decision. You're going to be successful in the long term if you have good people". That was why in the worst of times, Conoco was still investing in training its people to provide good leadership, so that the company can weather the crisis and emerge more competitive and more successful. Conoco was not alone in taking this approach. According to the same Business Week report, and I quote, "Corporate America has concluded that investing in people is the way ahead."

Sir, this is one idea that we must adopt and embrace wholeheartedly, and apply as soon as we can. And this, in fact, is what M21 is all about. It sets out a strategy or blueprint, if you like it, for Government and employers to invest in our people as a means for Singapore to stay ahead. It provides a framework for all Singaporean workers to upgrade their skills, knowledge and capabilities so as to stay relevant and to remain employable.

Sir, the recent economic recession, though rather brief, was a timely reminder of our vulnerability. It shows how easily tens of thousands of Singaporean workers can be made redundant. Now that the crisis is largely over and the Singapore economy seems to be well on the road to recovery, it is indeed timely for us to reassess our situation.

We can sit back and simply ride this wave of recovery by doing, more or less, the same, doing what we have been doing before the crisis itself. It is the easiest way out. It is the course of least resistance. But the danger of taking this approach, this pathway of least resistance, is that with increasing globalization, we would be exposed to increasing competition and, over time, our economic space will shrink. We have to seek out new opportunities and adopt a new paradigm for growth and prosperity. So, what we should do is to use this recent experience to plan for the future. Of course, we cannot precisely determine what the future will hold for us, but we can safely assume that the 1998 recession would not be the last nor would it be the worst.

Sir, in the pre-crisis days, economic growth resulted in the creation of as many as 120,000 new jobs a year. Singaporeans were, in fact, spoilt for choice. Companies rushed to carry out "green-harvesting" exercises. University graduates were offered jobs before they actually graduated. Production workers could quit a job and walk down the street to another factory and find another job with a $50 pay increase. In fact, many jobs had to be filled by foreign workers, due to a sheer shortage of Singaporeans. In some areas, it was a shortage of suitably skilled and qualified workers; but in many other areas, it was a shortage of workers who were willing to take on the less attractive and less pleasant jobs.

In the post-crisis days, as the economy recovers, we cannot expect the labour market to return to the conditions prevailing in 1995 to 1997. If our GDP grows at the target rate of about 5% a year, and at least half of this growth comes from productivity gains, the balance will have to come from an expansion of labour supply, to yield a net job creation of around 60,000 jobs a year. This means that we must be prepared for a lower level of job creation, even as the economy recovers and settles to its long-term growth rate of between 4-6%.

We will have to ask ourselves what are the jobs which will support sustainable economic growth over the longer term. As we move towards a knowledge-based economy, the jobs are likely to be transformed into knowledge intensive jobs. What this means is that while industries will need fewer people, these workers will be of much higher calibre, higher skilled, able to perform more valuable jobs and earn higher wages. Singaporeans must begin to prepare for these changes now.

What would be the developments affecting jobs in the future? We think there are three developments that we must look out and be prepared for. These developments will form the backdrop and provide the challenges for us in implementing Manpower 21.

IT/Technology Based Workplace Environment

Sir, the first is the technology-based workplace environment. There is no question that technology will reshape not only the electronic and manufacturing based industries. Every other industry and business will be affected by the use of technology. Information technology and e-commerce are just examples of how technology has been applied to improve business efficiency and customer reach.

For example, information technology is progressively being applied in sectors such as retail, banking and insurance to dramatically expand the delivery channels and the reach towards new customers, and, of course, also to improve the service to their customers. In education, the intranet and the Internet provide opportunity to apply new learning methods which can bring a whole host of education materials to the fingertips of students. Retail staff, bank staff, insurance salesmen, as well as teachers, will all need to be prepared for such changes. Increasingly, our workers have to be IT savvy, attuned to the latest technology and comfortable with the demands of the new jobs which are being created.

Even in traditional fields such as construction, the use of technology will result in sizeable improvements in productivity and reduction in the need for low skilled foreign construction workers. Next week, my Ministry will launch the Construction 21 Report and announce new measures to transform the construction industry.

While our new school leavers and graduates of polytechnics and universities will be well prepared for these changes and demands of new jobs, we must not forget the older workers who may not have the same skills and are in many cases hampered by their lower education. The concept of "lifelong learning" put up by the Manpower 21 Committee is designed to help mature workers learn new skills to help them to keep up with the changing job requirements. While younger entrants to the workforce will be better equipped, their stock of knowledge and skills will also get outdated in the face of technological progress. So even today's well educated younger Singaporeans must adopt a new mindset and embrace lifelong learning so as to stay employable.

New Growth Industries

The second major development is the accelerated pace of rise and fall of companies and industries. This is the result of the unprecedented pace of technological advances and applications. To succeed and remain profitable, companies are constantly seeking new products and new services. They are always looking out for better, more productive and lower cost opportunities. Those which cannot keep up with the pace of change will soon find themselves shut out of the market. In response to this trend, restructuring will become part and parcel of business growth and survival. When companies reorganize to concentrate on their core activities or to venture into new areas, very frequently, there will be employment disruption and, in some cases, retrenchment of surplus staff. So while the demand for a people with knowledge and capabilities in growth areas will increase, other workers may well find that their skills are no longer needed. There will be a shrinking demand for their skills.

For example, since 1992, the manufacturing share of employment in Singapore has declined from 29% to 21% in 1998. While demand for higher skilled technicians, engineers, computer systems analysts and product research and development workers will still grow, the demand for production and assembly workers is expected to continue to decline. Our approach to helping these workers is to equip them with new skills and help them to re-deploy to other economic sectors, such as service industries.

Other growth sectors which will continue to create jobs for our people will include the banking, finance, communication, broadcasting and information technology sectors. In the IT sector alone, the current pool of 33,000 IT professionals is expected to grow at about 10% a year for several more years.

To prepare for the manpower needs in the high growth sector, my Ministry is planning to launch a Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme. This is a programme whereby workers are encouraged to undergo short "conversion" courses to acquire new knowledge and skills for careers in the growth areas. For a start, my Ministry is working with NCB on a programme to convert non-IT trained workers for higher value added jobs in the growing IT sector. The scheme will be implemented early next year. We will use the experience gained from this pilot project in the IT sector and extend it to the other new growth areas so that Singaporeans can be better equipped and better prepared to take on these new jobs.

Raising skills levels and multi-skilling

The third development is the demand for flexibility, creativity and thinking skills and also multi-skilled workers. Gone are the days when a production worker or production operator focuses on a single task on the assembly line. In a typical hi-tech manufacturing plant, whether it is in petrochemicals, semiconductors or food manufacturing, most of the actual work itself is done by machines, operated by a few highly skilled workers. These workers will have to conduct quality inspection and trouble-shooting and even maintenance of the machines that are placed under their care.

Even in traditional jobs such as in the cleaning industry, healthcare aides, hotel industry with the need for a large number of chambermaids and other backroom support staff, there is scope to raise their skills and productivity by widening the scope of such jobs through proper training. The result is to enhance the image and dignity of these jobs. This will help us in our effort to re-deploy some workers who will be made redundant as the manufacturing industry reduces its labour requirements.

To motivate workers to undergo upgrading so that they can continue to remain employable or be redeployed to other sectors, my Ministry is developing the National Skills Recognition System (NSRS). The NSRS is a framework that will develop industry skills standards in the manufacturing and service sectors and accord national recognition to the training that meets these standards. The NSRS will enable mature workers to earn credit for what they have learnt, and provide an additional mechanism for employers to assess their employees' skills level. This system is designed to be accessible to all workers, regardless of their basic education. It will provide all workers with the opportunity for skills certification to a nationally recognized standard. This will help facilitate the gradual transition of the lower skilled segments of our workforce into the knowledge economy and encourage them to also pursue lifelong learning.

Apart from promoting lifelong learning, training and retraining, we must also constantly examine our employment market to look for areas that can be improved and also to enhance our resilience and competitiveness. For instance, we must refine our wage system to enable companies to be more responsive to changing business conditions in good and bad times. Hence, employers should quickly adopt the monthly variable payment (MVP) system. This system was recommended by the National Wages Council in May this year as a means to help companies to adapt to the changing business cycle. The monthly variable payment will in fact give companies an additional measure to adjust cost without having to retrench workers or resort to more painful wage cuts.

We should also rationalize some of our employees' benefit system, such as the introduction of a co-pay principle for medical care. This was in fact recommended by a Tripartite Committee nearly three years ago but progress in implementation has been fairly slow. On the contrary, the civil service has already implemented this system since 1994, and has made very good progress with it. The question is: can we afford further delays in implementing a measure which will result in better allocation of health care benefits across the board and also ensure that our employers or companies do not bear an unfair share of providing such medical benefits to their employees?

There is also the sacred cow of retrenchment benefits. A ceiling of 25 years service was introduced when the retirement age was raised to 62 years last year. However, as I mentioned earlier, the pace of change will cause companies to restructure and reorganise much more frequently in future. Companies will have to down-size when the market turns against them and when they develop new products or new services, they can then grow again. So company sizes will change. There will be frequent restructuring and reorganisation. If our retrenchment benefits are perceived by investors to be too generous and a hindrance to corporate restructuring, we may lose our attractiveness to such investors. Can we afford to pass up such opportunities because we want to preserve the present system of protecting our workers from unexpected retrenchment? Or should we recall, go back to first principle that retrenchment benefits were meant to help workers to tide over the period during which they are unemployed and looking for a new job?

These are all very sensitive issues with tremendous impact on the state of our industrial relations. But we must start to discuss these issues and build up a tripartite consensus on how we can make progress. We have already started to do so with regard to another issue concerning union representation for executives in a company. In the years ahead, we must also find equitable and mutually agreeable solutions to these other issues so that they will not hinder the effort to create jobs for our people.

Conclusion

The new millennium will present many new opportunities to Singapore. These are opportunities which we must seize and ride on to bring us into the next phase of growth. If we are ill prepared, we will miss out on these opportunities and slide down on the competitive ladder. This will mean higher unemployment rate. We will have to live with higher unemployment rate. There will be insufficient and lower value-added jobs for our people who will end up earning lower wages and have to put up with lower standard of living.

The transition to the new economy involves every individual. It is not confined to only the engineers and those who are highly educated. Rather, it requires the commitment, determination and effort of all Singaporeans at every level of the workforce. It requires our people to be willing to learn, to try new things, to be innovative. Whether professionals or production workers, employers or employees, the key to our ability to earn good living in the future will rest on our ability to acquire new knowledge and skills and to use these to add value to the economic effort. Individuals can choose to be overwhelmed by the changes and languish by the side, or take a proactive role to prepare for the future and ride on its opportunities.

While the Government will provide the overall framework, the people and the private sector have to take the lead in seizing the growth and learning opportunities. Employers and workers must be agile, flexible and open to various possibilities in this fast moving knowledge-based economy. The Manpower 21 strategy and programmes represent a blueprint or a road map. Workers, employers and the Government must travel along this road hand-in-hand so that we can arrive together at our common destination. The road is not straight nor smooth. It is winding, runs uphill with many obstacles along the way. We must help each other to navigate the climb and overcome the hazards on the way. Government, working with the employers, will invest, subsidize, motivate and encourage workers to upgrade their skills. Singaporeans must also make personal commitment to make full use of these opportunities to upgrade. Every worker must adopt the "lifelong learning" credo and make continuing effort to ensure his or her employability. I urge all employers and workers to join us in this exciting and rewarding journey to transform ourselves into a globally competitive workforce.

Sir, many Members have spoken and given suggestions and made many good comments on the M21 report. I do not propose to go into the details and respond to individual comments, but let me assure all the hon. Members that my Ministry will study and consider their suggestions and comments as we implement the recommendations of the Manpower 21 Committee report.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address is a very comprehensive statement of the Government's policy. Apart from reviewing our progress over the last 30 years, it has also outlined the target for us in the 21st century.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.02 pm

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): After the recent financial crisis, we are now in a more stable position. However, we will face more intense competition in future. In order to build our nation in a better way and to make our economy more vibrant, we have to make full use of our human resources. We have to let our people give full play to their potential, and we want our people to work in a concerted effort to contribute towards our nation building efforts. The President also emphasised that we have to pay more attention to our aging population. Allow me to raise some recommendations on these issues.

The United Nations has designated 1999 as the year for the aged. That is evidence of how the international community has attached great importance to the problems of an aging population. Singapore is one of the nations facing the most serious problems of an aging population. By the year 2030, out of four Singaporeans, one will be above the age of 60, that is, about 25%. The Government has already set up a Committee to look into this problem, with the terms of reference of looking after the senior citizens and to make adequate preparations for our future needs. In this connection, I would like to speak on three aspects which the senior citizens are most concerned with.

First of all, health. We should provide some facilities for our senior citizens to have easy access to regular medical check-ups. In order that they may be healthy, physically and mentally, I think they should undergo regular medical check-ups. This is very important. Prevention is better than cure. We would like to thank the Minister for Health, Mr Lim Hng Kiang who, in reply to Dr Lily Neo's request, announced that his Ministry has plans for our senior citizens to be examined regularly. We have about 300,000 senior citizens in Singapore. If all these 300,000 senior citizens were to go to the Singapore General Hospital for a medical check-up, then I am sure the hospital will be very crowded and very busy, and these old people will have problem getting there too.

In order to make it easier for the senior citizens, I think the community and grassroots organisations can also help in this aspect. Maybe regular check-ups for the senior citizens can be conducted in the community centres, say, routine checks on eyesight, blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol, etc. On the one hand, this will be easier for the senior citizens and, on the other hand, this will enable the grassroots organisations to participate in this very meaningful job.

After the check-up, there should be systematic documentation on the health situation of the senior citizens. In fact, many senior citizens normally forget about the results and they do not take the necessary action to prevent the diseases. The Ministry of Health should publish a medical check-up record booklet, so that when a senior citizen goes for his check-up, the doctors or nurses will be able to record his state of health there, and this will serve as a very useful future reference for the doctors when they follow up with this senior citizen.

Recently, in Bukit Gombak, we have started to conduct regular medical check-ups for our senior citizens. We have also published a booklet to record the results of the medical examination of the senior citizens. This was launched by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, Mr Chan Soo Sen. He was impressed by this record booklet and said that it was a very good idea.

Presently, in schools, every pupil has a health booklet to record his or her state of health. I hope that the Minister for Health would consider publishing a similar health booklet for the senior citizens, so that they will have a better understanding of their health.

Secondly, providing concessions for senior citizens on public transportation. In Singapore, concession is given to our senior citizens for commuting on our public transport system. However, this concession is restricted to only off-peak hours. Recently Lianhe Zaobao conducted a survey on this matter, and about 90% of those who were interviewed felt that when the bus companies give concessions to the senior citizens, there should not be a restriction on the time they can travel. But the bus companies did not agree with the finding because they felt that the senior citizens should not compete with the other commuters during the peak hours, and that it will pose some danger to the old folks. But many people feel that this is not a fair reasoning. This matter has, in fact, been argued for many years and there is still no concrete outcome. Very soon, the 20th century will come to an end. We hope that before the end of the 20th century, there should be a solution to this problem.

If we are serious and sincere in considering this problem, I think this is a responsibility of every one of us, whether it is a Government department, the private sector, grassroots organisations or the civil groups. So long as they are involved in this problem of an aging population, they should put in a concerted effort and we should work in one heart so that we can have better results. I feel that we should deal with this matter in a more objective manner. At the moment, our transport system is very comprehensive, whether it is MRT or public buses, they are being operated very smoothly, and we have a very good public transport system. The commuters are also boarding and alighting from the buses in a very orderly manner. They have been treating the old people in a very courteous manner. It is not a big problem even if the senior citizens were to board the buses during the peak hours.

Although many of us retire at 60 nowadays, with our good medical and healthcare system, many of our old people enjoy very healthy living. Look at our new President, he is 76 years old and he is still very healthy.

I suggest that the relevant authority should seriously consider implementing concession rates for senior citizens even during the peak hours. Maybe we should try it for one year, and one year later we can have a review and see whether this concession, without any restricted hours, would pose any serious problem to us. If everything is all right, and there is no problem, we should continue to grant concessions throughout the day and night. It is a form of respect for the senior citizens, and it would also provide them with more convenience. In fact, in Hong Kong, in Europe and the United States, this is very common. The senior citizens enjoy concessions without any restriction. I feel that the relevant authority should seriously consider this recommendation.

Thirdly, housing for the senior citizens. Now we have 86% of Singaporeans living in public housing, that is, more than 200,000 senior citizens are living in HDB flats. The thing that they are more concerned with is the lift, especially for those who live in high-rise buildings. I feel that HDB has done a great job. In the new housing estates, the lifts stop at every floor. This is a very good service to the residents, particularly to the senior citizens. The Government has attached great importance to this matter and during the upgrading projects, whether it is a major upgrading or an interim upgrading, provision was made so that the lifts can stop at every floor. However, in the interim upgrading programme, the HDB has fixed another standard that the lifts should be able to serve at least 50% of the residents before arrangement would be made for them to stop at every floor. But if we look at the flats which were built in the 1980s or earlier, the design was such that they would not be able to attain this standard. So we are unable to attain the standard set by HDB, and it is not possible to provide this service where the lift can stop at every floor. It would be very difficult for them to go out if there is no lift, particularly for those who are wheelchair-bound. It would be a very serious problem for them.

In 1997, when I raised the matter concerning the lifts for certain blocks of flats in my constituency with the former Minister for National Development, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, he told me that since there were only 4 storeys, the residents could just walk up and down the stairs. Unconvinced, I showed him some photographs on how difficult it was for the old folks to go up and down the staircase, especially when they were sick. Immediately, he suggested that I raise this matter in Parliament and he would consider it. Now the lifts are being installed in these blocks of flats. Although the installation is not fully completed, the residents are already very happy, and they have asked me to thank the Minister for his good gestures.

Sir, another issue that I would like to raise concerns single persons who wish to buy HDB flats. Yesterday, Dr Ker raised this matter about singles buying HDB flats. I do not want to repeat his points. We all know that for the singles to buy HDB flats, there are a lot of restrictions. First of all, they cannot buy directly from HDB. Secondly, even in the open market, they can only buy the 3-room flats and they are restricted to flats which are outside the city area. All these conditions have made it very difficult for the singles to buy HDB flats.

Even for those affected by the redevelopment plans, they too have problems because under the redevelopment schemes, existing lessees enjoy a 20% discount when they purchase their alternative flats from HDB. But the singles are denied this discount. Sometimes, being single is not really their own wish, and it is beyond their control. During their younger days, some of these singles may have worked very hard to support their younger brothers and sisters and when they have grown up, they were already too old to get married. So they would have to remain single. I hope that the Minister would reconsider this matter because even singles have contributed to our nation building. Perhaps, we could impose certain restrictions on them, but I do not think some bending of the rules would affect the nation.

In general, I think we should give the singles a fair deal. Under the redevelopment schemes, all residents enjoy a 20% discount. Perhaps the relevant authority may feel that 20% discount is too much, then at least they should be given a 10% discount. I think we should give them some concessions and be fair to them. These are the recommendations I would like to raise.

I support the motion.

Mr Bernard Chen (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh to thank the President for his Address to Parliament.

The President has outlined the Government's objectives for the future. The Addenda detailed the programmes the Ministries intend to implement to achieve these objectives. It is more than fair to say that in the past 34 years, since independence, the PAP Government, together with the people, has transformed Singapore into a prosperous and thriving city state. We have the best infrastructure and investment climate that ranks among the most conducive in the world and a diligent workforce that is second to none. All these have been done under great political stability. Successive economic crises were overcome through the cooperation of Government and the people. We should be justifiably proud of our achievements.

The question that we need to pose now is: do all these achievements make us a nation and the people active citizens? 34 years amount to some 1 1/2 generations, a very short time for a country. Nation building is a painstaking effort that requires generations to go through various trials and tribulations before the people can consider themselves true citizens. When we look around the world today, we cannot but notice, at least by way of negative examples, that nation building is a very difficult business. Emerging countries in Africa and Latin America are constantly going through political and social upheavals. Even so-called developed countries in Europe could not escape from the strifes that threatened to break up the countries, indeed break-ups occurred in some of these old countries. In the region, we are witnessing similar events that have yet to be played to completion.

To sum up, we have to ask ourselves: are we a nation yet? One way to find out is to go through the baptism of fire. When we are confronted with a deep crisis, not just economic, we will find out whether our people will jell together and help one another to overcome the difficulties, whether we will die for one another to preserve our homeland. This is a very painful way which we would not wish upon ourselves. Another way is to increase the stakes our people have in the country which make it imperative for them to defend with the utmost of their ability. Yet, another way is to nurture a greater sense of belonging to the country where our loved ones and friends all call home and where we can seek comfort and solace in times of need.

The Government can provide the hardware to make Singapore to continue to survive and prosper in this increasingly competitive world. Indeed, it has, judged by the Addenda that have been included in the President's Address. But the heartware that makes us true citizens rests in ourselves. We have to ask ourselves whether we are committed to Singapore. If so, how do we strengthen this commitment? I would suggest that we start at home with our own families. Close and enduring family ties will ultimately reflect themselves in the society at large. If we are prepared to fight for our own family members, only then will we be ready to do the same for our friends and fellow citizens.

The Singapore 21 Vision may help us along the way. But we ourselves must respond to the initiatives and strengthen our commitment to be not just active but true citizens. Human beings are not machines. The Government cannot press a few buttons and expect the people to turn on and behave just like robots. We have to light the fire in our own bellies to nurture our love for and commitment to our own country. This would take a few more generations. There is no better time to start now as we are all poised to take up the challenges ahead of us. In due course, we hope and we will surely become one people, one nation, one Singapore.

The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, in the President's Address, one of the major challenges that he identified that is facing us, and indeed facing other countries, is how to fit into a globalised information and knowledge economy while, at the same time, maintaining our own identity, values, sense of cohesion and nationhood and perhaps, most important of all, our ability to decide for ourselves our own future. The changes being made to our education system also reflect this challenge and the programmes that we have laid out in the Addendum to the President's Address show how we propose to face up to these challenges that are coming in the 21st century.

We want our students to be world-ready. Yet, we want them at the same time to be rooted to Singapore. How do we achieve this? In some ways, our language policy is a very good example of how we do this. We use English to teach our students and that makes them world-ready, ready to interact with the rest of the world in business, finance and technology. But at the same time, because of our continued emphasis on the mother tongue, our students grow up well rooted in their own value system, history, culture and in Singapore.

To be world-ready, we have instituted a number of programmes. We are already world class in many areas. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study, for example, shows that our students do very well by international comparison in Mathematics and Science. But that, in some sense, is history. We must move on. Our system is very efficient at transferring a set of skills and a certain body of knowledge into the heads of our students giving them skills that they can use immediately in the economy. But we must now go beyond this by giving them the ability to learn new knowledge throughout their lives and to create new knowledge. Hence, to make our students world-ready, we have introduced creative thinking in our schools, not just as a subject, but as a skill to be learned and infused throughout the curriculum in the schools and in all the activities that they do.

I agree with Mr Loh Meng See's wise words when he says that we are making a system that is already good better and not to make such major changes to the system that we risk upsetting something which is already quite good. We will build upon the solid foundations that we have. And I would like to assure Dr Tan Boon Wan that, in the process of reforming our system, the continued emphasis on excellence will be there.

How do we make our students rooted to Singapore? This is also one of the issues that has been raised by many Members. It would be a pity if our educational institutions lost their character entirely and our universities and schools produce students who could have come from universities and schools just like in any other country in the world. Our universities, polytechnics, ITE and schools should produce students who are world-ready, yet rooted in Singapore with that something unique about them that makes them Singaporean. Hence, we have National Education in our schools and we have also introduced the community involvement programme. So we, in the Ministry of Education, will certainly do our part to help to nurture the active citizens that we need for the 21st century, active citizens who have a well-founded confidence and commitment to Singapore's future.

Putting these two parts together, making our students world-ready and yet rooted in Singapore, we have programmes for all levels, from pre-school through primary and secondary to further education and higher education and also into continuing education. Several Members, Mr Iswaran and Mr Zainul Abidin, have commented favourably on the Ministry of Education taking a more active role in pre-school education. This is something that we would do. We would leave the operation of pre-school centres and kindergartens in the hands of private operators and non-profit organisations, as is happening today. I think they are doing a reasonably good job.

What the Ministry would do is to look at areas of high impact where we can help to improve the quality of pre-school education. We will carry out research and studies. We will look into how we can improve the curriculum, teaching standards and teacher quality. Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Education, is studying this matter and when she is ready in the not too distant future, she will have more to say on how we will progress in this programme.

Continuing education is another subject that was touched on by a good many Members. This is really the next great frontier of education. We have gone through mass primary education, mass secondary education and, to some extent, mass higher education. In Singapore, something like 85% to 90% of our students have post-secondary education in the ITE, polytechnics or universities.

The next major development in education will be mass continuing education. And here, our polytechnics, ITE and universities will certainly work with the Ministry of Manpower in the M21 programme to give this programme its effect.

Overall, what we are aiming for is a holistic education in which we can achieve the Desired Outcomes of Education. We are going into more school autonomy to help to release the ideas and initiative in our principals and teachers. We are improving and repositioning the National Institute of Education so that our teachers will be able to have continual education and upgrading in the NIE so that they will keep up and be able to upgrade themselves, as they progress in their careers. Indeed, every teacher is an entrepreneur in his own classroom and we want to encourage him to exercise his initiative to do the best for his students.

Mr Inderjit Singh has also raised the question of streaming. This is not a new issue. Streaming is a form of mass customisation which is really quite consistent with the approach that the Ministry is taking towards ability-driven education. Streaming has allowed our students to progress at a pace which they can manage. If I could give some examples. In 1980, before we had streaming, only 58% of a Primary 1 cohort sat for the "O" levels. In 1998, this had risen to 81.3%. But, more dramatically, in 1980, before streaming, only 24% of a Primary 1 cohort obtained five "O" level passes or more. But, by 1998, this had increased by 2 1/2 times to 61.2%. By allowing students to progress at a pace which they are comfortable with, at a pace which they can manage rather than forcing the pace, we have actually allowed many more of our students to do much better and to go much further in the education system than they would otherwise have done.

So contrary to the view that streaming stigmatises students and so forth, streaming has, in fact, allowed many more students to enjoy success. In some countries like the United Kingdom and United States where streaming is not widely practised, they have a dilemma. They have two choices. If a person does not pass at a certain level, they can either retain him or they do what is called "social promotion". They promote him to the next level even though he has not passed. And the research shows that those who are retained become despondent. They lose interest, they have low self-esteem and they drop out. And those who are socially promoted cannot manage at the next level. They get despondent, disinterested in their studies, no social esteem, and they also drop out. So in those systems where they do not practise streaming, they wring their hands and say, "Well, there is really no solution to the problem." But if we are prepared to take an objective look at how streaming has actually brought success to our students, then we can see that streaming really has provided many more avenues for our students to progress through the education system and to do well.

But in an ability-driven education, what we do want to do is to go beyond streaming to see how we can better harness the talents of our students, be it in the sports and the arts, as Mr Harun Ghani has suggested. I am not saying that we would go as far as he has suggested in creating a special academy and school, and so on. But in fact, we are going some way towards that by developing NAFA and La Salle as arts institutes. We are trying to see how we can channel students who have such interests into professional development in these areas where they might pursue a very satisfying career. But we are also looking at our schools to see how we can use the present streaming structure and see whether we can allow students who may be stronger in some subjects than in others, to perhaps take a combination of subjects at various levels. And these kinds of experiments we will continue to try out in the schools.

One of the experiments that I am quite prepared to try out is to see how we can adjust our "O" and "A" level system so that students can make better use of their time, especially those who are clear-cut going to university, rather than having to be straight-jacketed between these two very major examinations within a very short space of time.

Sir, I welcome the support and the suggestions from all the Members who have spoken on education subjects during this debate, especially Mr Loh Meng See, Dr Wang Kai Yuen and others. Education is an enterprise which requires the support of all - the school, home and community. My colleagues and I and by that, I do not mean just my colleagues in this House, but also some 40,000 teachers, support staff, professors, lecturers and so on in our schools and institutions of higher learning, appreciate the support that Members of this House have always given to education and our teachers. And I hope that in the coming years, we will continue to enjoy your support.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof) (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address the House in support of a motion moved by my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh.

Some journalists regarded the Speech by President Nathan as not having any significant news. But for me and most of the Members of this House who have spoken before me, it is an essential part of developing the Singapore society. His Speech has a great meaning to all Singaporeans because he is an excellent practitioner in the process of nation building for Singapore.

I would like to relate my personal experience when he was the Executive Chairman of the Singapore Press Holdings in 1984. I was in Cambridge to pursue a fellowship course. One evening, while I was revising my work at the hostel, there was a knock on the door. When I opened the door, I saw him smiling. In his hand, there was a plastic bag. He sought permission to enter and when I asked him what was his purpose in visiting me, he told me that there was nothing special. He was simply in London while on his way home from America. Mr Nathan took the trouble of coming alone by train to Cambridge just to meet one among hundreds of his staff. He wanted to know the welfare of his staff and he advised me to study seriously. After chit-chatting for about an hour, and before he left, he gave me six cans of chicken curry and said, "You must be longing to have halal chicken curry from Singapore." I was dumbfounded. Beneath his appearance of a serious and firm man, he is in fact a caring and kind person, and he is a person who practises true care for his fellow human beings, even though to me, a small man. Therefore, when he was speaking about social cohesion, it has a significant meaning because when he addressed it, he himself has an unblemished moral integrity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, although yesterday we have heard many views and suggestions on how to bring about social cohesion, I think this is the main issue as it has the decisive impact on the success or failure and the survival of Singapore. The incident in the Balkans is a lesson to us. Therefore, please allow me to talk on this topic.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore, a multi-racial nation, is only about 34 years old. During this brief period, we have worked hard to bring about a united nation and by learning from the experiences of other countries and by managing and formulating our own policies. The journey towards this destined end is still long, but despite that, our firm actions and valuable ideas have worked out gradually since 1965.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if we were to look back, in fact, we have actually achieved many successes in this area. Firstly, the severance of ourselves from our country of origin and also developing a sense of loyalty to Singapore. I have witnessed and felt these changes. I remember clearly when I was a teenager at the end of 1950s and early 1960s. At that time, when we entered the house of a Javanese or a Bawean Pondok or the house of a Minang, you will see the Garuda crest with the slogan "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika". It means unity in diversity, which is the symbol of Indonesia, and it was fixed on the wall. Some had a portrait of Sukarno hung to the wall. I also remember that on 17th August, as a boy scout on duty, I found thousands of Singapore residents gathering at the Indonesian Ambassador's residence in Paterson Road until there was a need for traffic control. But during the Konfrontasi, I began to realise the reality of politics. "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" began to disappear from the walls of the Malay residences. Now, more than a generation has passed, when we enter a living room of a Singaporean Malay, not only we no longer find it on the wall, in fact, the perception towards "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" has changed so much. The emotional and psychological attachment to their place of origin is fading fast.

I know this process is not only happening among the Malay community in Singapore but it is also happening among the Chinese and Indian as well as the Eurasian communities. The Malays, like the Chinese, Indian and Eurasians believe that they are the genuine citizens of Singapore. I agree with what Mr Harun had said that where our legs stand it is also the place where we support the sky. Now, 17th August for Indonesia is seen by us as no different as 1st October for the day of independence of the People's Republic of China and also the month of independence for India. We have 9th of August which is very special and very meaningful to us. For those who were born after 1965, the root of their citizenship is even deeper. This is our only motherland. This is our country. This is where we live and die. And this is where we would be protected and this is the country where we will defend with our blood and life.

I learn about security and mutual trust in a multi-racial society as early as 1964. My family was the only Malay family in a Chinese village at Lorong Sinaran, now Novena. When there was a racial riot, our village chief, known as Ah Teng, had advised our family not to leave the house. They went to the market to buy us the food and protected our family. We trusted their honesty. They have never betrayed us. I think there are many similar incidents which have become the foundation for this mutual trust among us.

The social cohesion and this harmonious living is no longer an empty word or hope. How do we arrive at this point? This is a result of physical, economic, social and psychological steps that have been taken by the Government to nurture the feeling of Singaporeans and to eliminate all impediments. We have broken down all the racial compartments through the resettlement and brought them under one roof in public housing. Our children go to the same school, use the same language. They went through National Service together. We work together in the same office, we eat from the same hawker centre, we buy from the same supermarket, participate in all activities organised by grassroots organisations and participate in the same professional bodies. The harmonious living of various communities is a reality now. We have taken in fact one step ahead. The housing policy has ensured that all residents from the condominiums, 5-room, 4-room, 3-room, 2-room flats and also our old residents, share the same amenities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are only half-way in our nation building or what the Prime Minister called the Singapore tribe, and the end is still far away. This is because, although we have managed to narrow the gap between the races, the fault lines are still there. We need probably one, two or three generations to achieve this.

The following factors may assist us. First, we must keep the principles of meritocracy in the true sense.

Second, what we earn from the economic progress is used to enhance our shared benefits, and increase our stakes in Singapore.

Third, we must ensure that there exist a national resilience that enables us to repel any destructive impacts resulting from happenings around South East Asia, the Asian continent or the world, which will resurface the sensitivities of race or religion.

Fourth, we should create the culture of trust at all levels, and to enhance the confidence and loyalty of all Singaporeans, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, and we have to gradually expose them to areas of services which are considered as sensitive.

Fifth, we must make them understand the history, arts, culture, norms and customs of other races through specific additional programmes in schools and our workplace. In this area, we should be able to distinguish the mainstream thoughts and practices among the races from the thoughts and practices of the marginal groups.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of this, the process of building a Singapore tribe should be enhanced and done in a systematic way. I would like to propose that we set up a policy research body that identifies the common interests and differences among the races and recommend further appropriate actions. This body should comprise various relevant Ministries, statutory boards, representatives from the different race groups, institutions of higher learning and individuals. It should be placed under the Prime Minister's Office. I realise that there is also a Presidential Council for Minority Rights and the Inter-Religious Organisation, but the roles of both these organisations are limited.

Sir, if the problems of the elderly in Singapore are so important that it takes us to form an Inter-Ministry Committee for it, I think the purpose of building a Singapore tribe is even more important for us to merit the setting up of such a body. Developing a Singapore tribe is as important as the economic progress of Singapore and, in fact, it is important for the survival of Singapore. We should revise the process of this objective and to fine tune all the measures or the policies that we are going to implement, so that we can achieve the best success.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of Mr Davinder Singh.

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to join my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, in thanking the President for his Address to Parliament last Monday.

A lot has happened since we opened the First Session of this Parliament. Compared to our neighbouring countries, we have weathered the crisis much better than they have. This is not to say that we have not had our fair share of problems, such as falling demand and asset values, over gearing by companies and businessmen in their personal capacities leading to cash flow problems, over capacities in production facilities leading to retrenchments of workers and other cost cutting measures. We are much more resilient because of the sound financial and economic systems we had painfully put in place over the years. We also have a much stronger tripartite relationship between the workers, employers and the Government. Led by enlightened union leaders, the Government could implement a cost cutting package that could minimise job losses and help businesses to turn around more quickly. Many of us have taken the goodwill and cooperation of the unions for granted. It need not be so and, in fact, it is not the natural order of things. We can see this from the numerous labour disputes happening frequently world-wide. Our harmonious industrial relationship is a result of many decades of relationship building between the Government, the employers and the unions and workers. In fact, President Nathan himself spent a bit of time with the unions in the 60s. And many MPs have also spent a stint in the labour unions as well to help to build this tripartite relationship.

In better economic times, the Government and employers keep their faith and share the good results with the workers. As the economy begins to turn around today, the Government and employers should bear this in mind and find an appropriate time to reciprocate. The Government has suggested a restoration of about 2% of the employer's CPF contribution early next year. Some employers whose businesses have not recovered yet are naturally concerned about the early restoration. They are afraid that this would affect their turn-around. My own view on this is that the restoration should be a part of the recommended wage increase for next year. Companies that do well should be encouraged, and also be given the flexibility to pay more to workers in the form of a variable component.

There are many challenges ahead as we recover. We will continue to face more and keener competition, not just from low-cost countries in this region, but even from other low-cost countries in other continents further away. We have to work on improving relations with our neighbours as our economies are interdependent. Political problems with our neighbours can distract us from our main task at hand of economic growth and social bonding of the people. The Government has identified several areas for us to focus on, to better compete in an increasingly global world. I shall just touch on two of these in greater depth.

The first one is on people development. Given our lack of natural resources, there is no denying that people development will be the most important focus for us if we want to stay ahead of the competition. The Government has always regarded the 10 years of primary and secondary education as the period to provide a firm foundation for further education for our children. I support the initiatives to revise the curriculum to encourage more creativity. However, I feel that the Government should slowly go one step further, or backwards, by playing a bigger role in pre-primary education of our young children. Studies have shown that inculcating a good foundation in the languages and mathematics can start even earlier than Primary One. Children from richer families attend private nurseries and kindergartens that give them a headstart in this area. The quality of pre-primary education for the masses varies vastly. Many young children start Primary One, not on a level playing field, but with differing exposure and levels of skills, both verbal and analytical. I know the Government has responded to this issue before by stating that it would prefer to leave this aspect of our children's education to the private sector. The Minister for Education has also just spoken again on this subject.

However, I feel that as our society progresses, and we can afford it, I urge the Government to reconsider its role in this stage of foundation building for our children. I am pleased to note that the Ministry of Education has decided to be more involved in pre-school education, by investing in curriculum design and teacher training, conducting research and tightening regulations. It is a step in the right direction.

Secondly, I notice that many of our teachers in primary schools are not graduates, especially for the English language, which is the foundation for other subjects, even Mathematics. Teaching our young children in school proper English is extremely important. If they learn to pronounce words wrongly in their early years, it will take an even longer time to unlearn them. Recently, I was looking through the English work of my son. He was asked to give the meaning of "revive". So he wrote, "resuscitate" and was marked wrong. He did not understand why, neither did I when he asked me. The teacher wanted the words "bring back to consciousness". How can we encourage creativity if our teachers are so rigid in the way they mark? The word "resuscitate" may be a bigger word than "revive", but it certainly is not wrong. I do not mean to run down non-graduate teachers in the primary schools. Some non-graduate teachers I know of are very good too. I know that it would be too expensive and probably impossible to have all graduate teachers in the early primary schools for our children. Perhaps the Ministry may want to consider having one or two senior subject teachers in each standard or school as a point of reference for other teachers to refer to in the event of ambiguities and as a standard bearer.

Mathematics papers today are a test of the children's English. Unfortunately, sometimes the problems are so badly phrased that I myself had difficulties trying to understand the problem, let alone the children. Today, we are encouraging our civil servants, and everybody else for that matter, to write directly, concisely and clearly. This should also apply to teachers who set examination papers. Teachers should avoid using double negatives, for example, when they set papers, and other ambiguous language when setting mathematics and other questions. It would help our children to be more focused on the subject matter than worry about the language and their understanding of the problem.

I am delighted that the Government will equip the schools with one computer for every two students in the Information Technology Masterplan. Students, however, do not just learn in school. They follow up their learning at home. Students from better off families will have computers at home. Those whose parents cannot afford it will be handicapped. I would like to request that the Government allow the use of Edusave funds of the children to be used for the purchase of computers for home use. I believe that this use of the Edusave funds will be as important as using it for the enhancement programmes in the schools. Some studies have shown that computers and IT have actually widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots, because the have-nots cannot afford computers and computer training to compete in this global age of IT. We should try our best to narrow this gap and help the poorer families to own computers for the benefit of their children.

IT is becoming a big industry, especially in the United States of America. All the new multi-billionaires there in the last five years are in the IT industry. With the Internet, IT businesses transcend borders and the world becomes our marketplace. It is appropriate therefore that the Government should support IT companies in Singapore and help them to grow and build a global business. Hence, I commend the Government for setting aside money to nurture and build a critical mass of intellectual property-based enterprises in Singapore.

The next subject is regarding the restructuring of the financial sector. I am pleased to note that the MAS will create a more conducive regulatory environment and actively promote the financial sector. In particular, I support the five-year liberalisation programme for domestic banking sector to encourage the development and upgrading of local banks. I am also happy to note that the Government plans to develop Singapore as a premier insurance centre. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as a director of a local insurance company. My main concerns are in the areas of ownership of such financial institutions. Although it is wise to invite and welcome foreign ownership, whether through acquisitions or mergers, of our financial institutions, I feel that we should still require the Singaporean shareholders to retain majority control of such financial institutions. There is no doubt that foreign ownership, especially by big, international and progressive institutions, would benefit us, as they bring not only their international networking and business clientele but also their latest financial products and innovations. I welcome their foreign talents too, provided there is a systematic process for such foreign talents to transfer their expertise, skills and knowledge to the locals over a period of time. However, I believe that the ultimate majority control should remain in the hands of Singaporeans so that we would have a better control over our financial system. It would be a sad day indeed if all Singaporeans end up working for foreign financial institutions.

The Singapore economy is a small economy and our biggest financial institutions are small by world standards. As we all know, many US Fortune 500 companies have market capitalisations that are larger than Singapore's gross domestic product. It is therefore very easy for large financial institutions to take control of us, if our regulators allow it. I would like to ask that despite the liberalisation of the financial sector which I support, the Government should continue to keep the majority control of Singapore's financial institutions in the hands of Singaporeans. The sense and pride of ownership is one of the social glue that will bind Singaporeans to Singapore.

I would now like to touch on some issues related to the Addendum of the Ministry of National Development.

I am pleased to note that there will be a review of the Concept Plan to be completed by 2001. During this review, I hope the Ministry will obtain feedback and consult the industry players, members of the public as well as the GPC for National Development.

In land scarce Singapore, I fully support the greater intensified use of land, whether industrial, commercial or residential. In fact, in the prime residential areas, I have always urged the Government to allow the developers to build to a much higher density so that more of our people can enjoy living in prime areas. In the Concept Plan, when use of land can be increased to a higher plot ratio, there are windfall profits to be made. More of such windfall profits should accrue to the State than to individuals. Development charges should therefore be adjusted accordingly.

A new downtown will be developed in Marina South. As we are still in the planning stage, I would encourage the Government to tap on the expertise of private architects for ideas. I urge the Government to incorporate more residential developments so as to bring back more vibrancy and life to the city centre after working hours. There should be more bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways to make other less pollutive and healthier modes of transportation more convenient for people working and living there. The Government may also wish to consider allowing water-based facilities and activities to be conducted in the Marina South waterfront, which Members can see in Hawaii. It should be exciting to be able to fully utilise our waterfront not just for commercial use, but also recreational.

I would like to touch on the issue once again of the upgrading of older private residential housing estates. I have made this call many times and I am glad that the Ministry is planning to look into this object more seriously. Many older private housing estates do not have playgrounds, parks or the LRT in the vicinity. Many older folks living there cannot find the money to pay for the upgrading of their old condominium common areas. Many of them are retired or semi-retired. I would like to ask the Government to reconsider allowing the use of their CPF, up to a certain limit, for the payment of such upgrading costs. The reassessment of the new and higher annual values should also be deferred for a few years so as not to deter such upgrading. If we do not give private housing estates enough incentives, very soon some of these may turn into slums.

Nationally, the Government should continue to look into improving the quality lifestyle of our residents. I hope they can speed up on the building of park connectors, walkways and bicycle and jogging paths to make living in Singapore more enjoyable. I would like to urge that playgrounds be built in national parks, including the Botanic Gardens for people to enjoy and use. Some parks such as the Chinese and Japanese Gardens are not well utilised because they impose entrance fees. I would like to ask the Government to consider opening such parks free of charge to all residents.

With these comments, I support the motion.

Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, to thank the President for his Address.

In the Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry of Manpower states that it will restore the CPF contribution as quickly as possible. To the workers, this is a piece of good news. The workers have witnessed the rapid recovery of the Singapore economy from the recession. During the recession, they made sacrifices by resolutely accepting a 10% reduction in the employers' CPF contribution rate. Now that the economy has begun to turn around, it is only fair that they be compensated appropriately.

The Government will review the long term employers' and the employees' CPF contribution rate. There are some rumours in the market that eventually the employers' and the employees' CPF contribution rate will be set at 15% each way. Many union members are asking me whether this is true. The workers are very concerned with this matter, because this will affect their savings for retirement.

In the MOM's Addendum, it is mentioned that the Ministry will refine the CPF system to ensure that members have adequate savings to meet their old age needs and medical care. However, there is no mention as to how this could be done. MOM has also stated that they will explore new avenues for CPF members to invest their savings for higher returns. Everyone is very happy when they heard this. Yet there are some people who are skeptical as to whether their investments could also cause some CPF members to lose part of their CPF savings. Has the Government set up any sort of mechanism or system to safeguard the interest of the members when they are investing their CPF savings? How do we encourage the self-employed people to save beyond Medisave to better meet their old age needs? How do we encourage CPF members to plan early for adequate financial security for their retirement? Everyone, particularly the workers, would like to know how much money is considered adequate. MOM has not given us details on this.

To realise the Singapore 21 Vision, the concerted effort of each and every Singaporean is needed, that is to say, every Singaporean should selflessly contribute his or her best. Equally important, those in power, the Cabinet Ministers, should have the patience and take the trouble to explain to the people of Singapore what the intentions of the policy are. Why should certain things be done in a certain way and by so doing what benefit would they bring to the people? So long as the Government and the people can continue to have this tacit understanding, I believe that Singapore's future is bright and promising.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for Health (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in support of the motion in the name of Mr Davinder Singh to thank the President for his Address. I fully support the motion.

In his policy Speech, the President outlined our vision and listed the tasks ahead for us. To me, this is truly thought-provoking. He reminded me of three Chinese sayings about "ku", or hardship:

(1) chi de ku zhong ku, fang wei ren shang ren ( ), meaning you must be able to endure utmost hardship before you can be above the others;

(2) tong gan gong ku ( ), meaning as true friends and partners we should share in each other's comfort and hardship; and

(3) ku jin gan lai ( ), meaning after enduring hardship, happiness will eventually come.

Singapore 21 Vision is something worthy of all our people to fight and strive for. In a sense, we have no choice but to strive for it. This is because we are facing very intense competition. We are like a boat sailing against the current. We must forge ahead or else we will be driven back.

However, to succeed, we must have strong fighting spirit. Success will not be plain sailing. There will be hardship to endure. The three sayings I quoted above are not only the trilogy for us to realise our Singapore 21 Vision, but they are also the rondo for the long-term endeavours of Singapore.

We want to go for the knowledge-based economy. On the one hand, we have to work hard. On the other hand, we also have to constantly upgrade ourselves. So we have to keep on learning and keep on working hard. This is tough - real hardship indeed!

If we want to upgrade ourselves to become a world class economy, we have to look beyond our own country and take in the whole world in view. We have to strike friendship and deal with customers and partners with different cultural backgrounds, and to operate in unfamiliar environment overseas. That is also hardship! I can testify, as I have personally experienced it!

We will inevitably encounter frustrations and even failures. But we have to uphold the spirit of "failure is the mother of success", draw experience from our failures and never say die! We have to inspire our people to build up the courage to face failures and anticipate failures.

This reminds me of the story of "The King and the Spider" which I read in primary school. Once upon a time, when Scotland was at war with England, the King of Scotland lost six battles successively against England. He took shelter at a broken house. There, he saw a spider making its web. When the web was half way through, the wind blew and the web was broken. The spider tried again, but the same thing happened. It kept on trying and trying, until the sixth time, yet it failed again. The king who was taking shelter there said, "Poor spider, you are like me. I have also lost six battles. I do not think I should try again." But the tiny little spider refused to give up, and on the seventh time, it succeeded in completing its web. The king jumped up in joy and called up all his subordinates to prepare for a new battle. As it turned out, he won! This story tells us how we should face our failures. I asked my children whether they have read the fable. Both of them said no. We should create opportunities for children to read this kind of story. If we are used to always live in peace and comfort, afraid of losing, afraid of dying, afraid of uncertainty, afraid of failure, we will have no fighting spirit to face the challenge of our future. We must always aim to move forward. We must have the courage and determination to be creative, to innovate and to find new ways and solutions to our problems. Only then can we find the new Promised Land. So we must be able to suffer the greatest of hardship, to be up and coming.

But, on the other hand, we need not suffer the hardship in silence or suffer it alone. In a traditional society, we have happiness to share, we have hardship to share as well. So long as we have strong family, it will give us strength. We also have friends to rely on, and the community can remain cohesive, then all of us will be able to suffer the hardship as well as share the happiness together. In this process, we will be able to give one another the much needed support, so that in our failure we get sympathy, we get the support from our friends, and remain strong and unbroken. When we succeed, we have also encouragement from our friends and people to share our happiness and joy. This makes life rich, meaningful, and interesting. When everyone is ready to suffer with us and enjoy together, we will be able to find courage to risk and face failures. We will then be upright, strong, principled, and courageous. We could then claim to have the spirit of a world-class nation and a world-class citizen.

So after all these struggles, and after all the hardships, we will succeed. We will reach the end of hardship and taste the sweetness of success. This is something that we should treasure. So we completed the trilogy. However, we must also remember that we should not indulge in and drown ourselves in sweetness. We should not be arrogant and complacent. We must remember that we have to continue to look for, face, and overcome new challenges. And in the struggles and facing the challenges, we will set new targets, new goals and new objectives, so that we go through the same process of hardship again to achieve further success. We will go back to the first step of hardship, share that with our community, and then achieve success again. Hence the trilogy gets played again, and again. Isn't this our rondo?

I think you may find it gloomy to listen to so much of hardship and woes. But then this was exactly the experience of Singapore 65. In 1965, we became independent. We suffered much hardship, much more than now. But our forefathers, led by our first generation leaders, all sang this trilogy of hardship, and built up a peaceful and prosperous Singapore for our enjoyment. Now, in 1999, we placed emphasis on the Singapore 21 vision. Like our forefathers, we want to create opportunities for our next generation.

Let us see Singapore 21 as a continuation and extension of Singapore 65. We are now much stronger than we were in 1965. So if we could do it in 1965, why can we not do it in the year 2000? We have gone through the trilogy of hardship. We are now entering the next trilogy in our rondo. Having sung the first trilogy, we should be more confident about the second. So let us get on with it.

I feel that this is the great inspiration that we can derive from the President's Address. This is the challenge that the President's Address has outlined for us.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Our progress in the past 40 years has laid a firm foundation for our future development and we will continue to build on this foundation and to march into the next century in order to meet the challenges brought about by globalisation and the knowledge-based economy. However, while we develop the knowledge-based economy and move towards being a globalised cosmopolitan, we should also enhance the bonding between the people to build up a caring society. This is very important. The President pointed out that the cohesion among the people of Singapore should not be diminished just because of globalisation, particularly the gap between the successful and the less successful. They should have the ideology to look after one another and support one another.

The President also made special mention, and I quote, "Those who do well succeed not simply through their own efforts, but because Singapore society has given them the opportunities to get ahead. They have an obligation to serve their fellow Singaporeans. On their part, Singaporeans should cheer for those among us who do well, and not envy them." I fully agree with the President on this.

On the other hand, this is because behind every successful person, there is always a group of people who is working silently to assist him, and to support him. As such, successful Singaporeans have the moral obligation to serve other compatriots, and to pay back to society. Every successful Singaporean should start by helping those who are working under them and the people around him, and then extend his help to the weaker ones in our society. In this way, there will be more great people like Tan Kah Kee and Lee Kong Chian, people who are well respected by all in Singapore.

In the past decade, the Government has left no stone unturned in supporting charitable work and continuously urged the successful Singaporeans to help those who are less successful. The Government has also recognised the contributions made by the successful people. This can be seen by the number of National Day Awards given to these people every year. However, I feel that this recognition is still confined to a mere formality only. We really have not recognised or built up a climate that enables people to respect these successful people and support them, so that these successful people can become the role model for the young people to emulate. I find that the young people are quite different from the older generation in their thinking and in their behaviour. They are affected by the environment of a highly commercialized society and the tough competitions they are facing. They are materialistic, self-centred and very kiasu. Deep in their hearts, they lack the respect and admiration for the successful ones. They do not have the humility and modesty to learn from others. On the contrary, they are full of envy and jealousy, and they express their jealousy in various ways and this causes a lot of embarrassment and disappointment to the successful ones.

I believe that we can guide these people to respect the successful ones through school education, social education and the media, so that more respect could be accorded to the successful people. These may help to change the kiasu mentality of the people and enhance the bonding of the people in order that the successful ones can be encouraged to contribute more to the less fortunate people. At the same time, we should allow those who are less successful to learn from the successful people, to learn from their hard work. This will be more meaningful. I believe the Government can strike a balance between the successful and the less successful people. Here let me quote an article by the well-known writer You Jin appearing in the Lianhe Zaobao. In the article, she wrote:

"To do good and expect nothing in return is an inherent cultivation and virtue. Showing gratitude and willing to reward a good deed is a kind of moral obligation. If the receiver of the benefit has the means in future to help another person in the same spirit, then this is bringing the virtue to higher ground."

In his speech, President Nathan also spoke about the importance of attracting foreign talents. He said, and I quote:

"Without an infusion of foreign talent to give us that extra boost, Singapore will not be in the front ranks among many cities in Asia."

I fully agree and support this view of the President. What I want to point out is that the foreign talents we are attracting should be those who are able to give us that extra boost to enable us to have breakthroughs in the fields of economy, science and technology, culture and the arts.

However, during my meet-the-people-sessions, I observe that some foreigners who are applying for permanent residence status and citizenship are not exactly "talents". They do not have a university degree or possess the skills or talents which are needed by Singapore. They are farmers and ordinary workers. Yet, they are granted permanent residence status. I am puzzled! The Government should set up stringent benchmarks and clear criteria when they admit the foreign talents, so that there will not be discrepancies when the civil servants carry out their instructions.

The President also said, "Post crisis, we are in a stronger position. But we can expect fiercer competition, and more daunting challenges." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out that we have already weathered the regional economic crisis. However, except for those who were retrenched and some businessmen, shop-owners and hawkers who were hit by the crisis, many Singaporeans merely had their CPF contributions cut and were not really hurt. This is possibly due to the Government's prompt action in implementing the second $10.5 billion package of cost-cutting measures. It enabled the economy of Singapore to avoid more severe beating, and helped the economy to stabilise. Therefore, we should inculcate the idea among our people that we must have a capable government to lead us through crises like this. I find that many Singaporeans actually believe that it is a natural order of things for Singapore to go through this economic crisis unscathed. I do not deny the fact that the developing trend of the world economy, the Asia-Pacific economy and the South East Asia economy since the beginning of this year have certain effect on Singapore's economic recovery. However, if not for the Government's timely intervention by implementing the cost-cutting package measures in the shortest possible time, Singapore's economy will be like some of the countries in South East Asia , and unable to get out of recession in such a short time. Therefore, if we can keep on explaining to our people how we have tackled our economic crises such as those in 1965, 1976, 1985 and 1998, it would help to make our people realise the importance of having a good government. I feel that it is very important to make the people of Singapore realise the vulnerability of Singapore and the need to constantly work hard and maintain the spirit of fighting for survival and prosperity.

The President also mentioned that the Government will revamp its education system so as to prepare our citizens for the knowledge-based economy. The Ministry of Education will adopt the necessary measures to cater for the different needs of each and every child according to his learning aptitude.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the new educational measures and reform and to adopt a more creative approach to education so that students can have more avenues to develop their talents and achieve success in different areas. We have to also address the problems of parents who have this kiasu mentality. They force-feed their children even before they have started attending school, putting them through very heavy scheduled ballet class, piano lesson, art class, swimming lesson, performing class, recitation of Tang poems, etc. The poor children have lost their childhood innocence, and are being pressurised until near suffocation even at a very tender age. Although children can absorb all kinds of knowledge, there is a limit to it. We should also pay attention to their character formation. We should not force-feed them.

Another problem I would like to raise is the problem raised by the Prime Minister at the National Day Rally. The issue is on the use of Singlish. This is a common social phenomenon and it is a common way of communication among the ordinary citizens. Although it is not good to use adulterated English, it is, after all, a by-product of our multi-racial and multi-lingual society. It was only when I realise that some Singaporeans who speak pure English and not Singlish are also not able to speak standard English and write standard English that I begin to understand how very important it was for the Prime Minister to raise this issue of speaking standard English.

Everyone knows that I am a Chinese-educated MP. I am unable to speak standard English. Yet, I reject the use of adulterated English, just as I do not agree with people speaking adulterated Mandarin. During my business trips overseas, whenever I hear our Singaporeans speaking the Singapore-style of Mandarin, I would try my best to stop them. Whether they are speaking English, Mandarin or Malay, the foreigners just cannot understand what they are talking. The adulterated languages of Singapore are generated because of the multi-racial environment. Most Singaporeans can understand this type of language, but the foreigners do not.

Let me quote you an example. When I was in China, I actually heard a Singaporean speaking, "My brother kahwin liao." All Singaporeans present could understand what he was talking about. But in China, England or the United States, I am sure the people there would have no clue at all as to what he was talking about. Therefore, it is important for the Government to promote the correct usage in English, in Malay, in Mandarin. I think it is very important to our efforts to enhance our capability and then to promote a knowledge-based economy. We should not resort to the use of sub-standard language, whether it is Singlish or various forms of Mandarin. Because of our environmental limits, our Mandarin may not be as good as that of the others, and our standard of Chinese is lower than others. This does not amount to giving us the right to use and promote sub-standard Chinese and Mandarin. Likewise, our standard of written and spoken English cannot be compared to that of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. This does not mean to say that we cannot write grammatically correct English and speak standard English. In the promotion of the use of standard languages, besides the efforts of the school teachers, the press and the various media also play very important roles.

Here, I would like to tell you the real-life joke concerning another Singaporean who speaks pure English. I would like to declare my interest as a publisher. In August this year, I came across this real-life incident. A pure-English speaking Singaporean and a number of journalists from the English language newspaper criticised a certain book compiled by an English author and alleged that there were "full of grammatical mistakes" in the book. They even captioned the article as: "50 language bloopers" (The Sunday Times, 1st August 1999). As a reader, my first impression would be that the report and criticism by this pure-English speaking Singaporean and the journalists from the English language newspaper, because my standard of English is not as high as theirs, must be correct. I am sure many, many Singaporeans must have believed that the newspaper report was accurate.

However, upon consultation with this English author himself, I realise that the criticism by the English newspaper on the grammar taught in this book was not quite correct. This illustrates the point that the English-speaking Singaporeans can sometimes regard correct grammatical usage as being wrong usage, and treat some wrong usage as correct, and then launch an attack openly. A reader wrote to the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and complained about wrong grammar being used in the book. She doubted the identity of the author, and even telephoned the publishers to send a punitive expedition against them. What I do not understand is why is it that she herself could not differentiate between the correct grammatical usage and the wrong usage, yet she behaved as though she was having justice on her side. Why can they not be like the Lianhe Zaobao in hiring a panel or a high-quality language specialist to authenticate the English used in their reports. So from this incident, I learn the importance of the Prime Minister's insistence of speaking standard English. If we do not turn this around and correct the mistake, then we would be criticised by the foreigners that the standard of English here is very poor and it would be difficult for Singapore to make it to the list of globalised international cosmopolitan cities. Just as this English author was telling me, he was surprised that the standard of English in Singapore has dropped so dramatically over the last few years. There is nothing I could say about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans have very good linguistic abilities. Many Singaporeans can speak many languages. However, they are generalists and not specialists. They are not proficient in any of the languages - neither here nor there. The Prime Minister's emphasis on the use of standard English is not only very timely, but only serves as a warning to our bilingual educational system. Apart from emphasising the use of correct English, we should have a better use of standard language in the media, in the television, radio and the newspapers. The television and the radio stations should introduce some high quality programmes so as to enhance the language standard of our audiences. The Government departments and some companies should also conduct some language classes to help their staff to improve their language standard. I feel that our bilingual system is a good one and we should yield good results which would enable us to accept the challenges of the new century.

I support the motion.