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

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.

The Minister of State without Portfolio (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, the President's Address and the Addenda that accompanied the Address placed a sharp focus on people. The unions and the union leaders are particularly happy with the sections on people development, on education of the young, and on life-long learning. For people development must mean for the workers development of workers. Education of the young must mean helping future generations of workers fit into the future economy. The call for life-long learning and the provision of infrastructure and support for life-long learning must also mean that workers will be helped to remain employable, competitive and effective in the future economy. So the Government's initiatives help and prepare our workers for the knowledge-based economy that we are entering into in the next millennium. So our unions welcome and fully support the initiatives outlined in the President's Address.

Yesterday, Dr Lee Boon Yang, the Minister for Manpower, elaborated on some of the schemes that are being offered to the workers. I am sure the unions are particularly reassured by his message that the Government will continue to invest in people and plan for the future. He shared with us three trends that workers in Singapore will face and be challenged by. The unions do recognise these trends and also share the same concerns. The unions will help our workers to overcome the challenges. Indeed, it is like us facing a wave of the beaches of Hawaii or Miami. And if we are not prepared for the big wave, we will be thrown off or even drown. But if we have a surfboard and if we have learnt how to surf and balance on that surfboard, then when the next big wave comes, we can ride that wave smoothly and quickly to shallower waters and, hopefully, reach the beach. So the unions hope that the Government and employers will help our workers ride the waves as they come.

The Minister also mentioned that we ought to review the retrenchment benefits. When this subject was brought up not long ago, the unions came together for a quick discussion on what this meant for workers. I would like to take a bit of time to reflect what the grassroots leaders in the unions feel about this subject.

First, Sir, retrenchment benefits are capped at 25 years of service. This was discussed only in 1997 and implemented only on 1st January 1999. This is a new cap. Before this there was no cap. So this new structure is in place only for less than a year. And the union leaders feel that it is a bit too early to talk about a review when the new system has not worked for very long.

Second, we have observed that in the last two years when retrenchments took place, workers who were retrenched took longer to find a new job. Retrenchment benefits are to help them tide over the period of unemployment. In good times, workers perhaps will be able to find new jobs very quickly. But if we enter into a new prolonged recession, and the question is not "if" but "when" we do so - we lower the caps, would the new retrenchment benefits quantum be sufficient to help our workers pay for their household expenses and expenses incurred in looking for a new job?

Third, in the last two years, older workers who were retrenched found new jobs at lower pay. And they will face difficulties meeting the household expenditures at the new level of pay.

So, in sum, Mr Speaker, the union leaders feel that retrenchment benefits are not a windfall. Retrenchment benefits are a buffer against an unknown future for a worker who is retrenched. And so we do have to look very carefully at the principles of applying retrenchment benefit caps and the desired outcomes of the new structure we want to look at. On the other hand, there were many workers retrenched in the last two years who did not receive any benefits. And that is because under the law, employers need not give any benefits to retrenched workers. So surely as we review the caps, we ought to also review the situation where retrenched workers get no benefits in those companies that do not have a collective agreement with their workers.

Sir, we welcome the Minister's assurance that we will have a tripartite study into this issue. We would urge that we should take time to do the study and not rush into it, that we should carefully weigh the principles that go behind retrenchment benefits, and we should choose the desired outcomes very carefully. But, on the whole, we welcome the Minister's assurance that the Ministry will urge the employers to streamline the wage structure so as to make our workers more competitive in the economy.

Sir, as we move into the knowledge-based economy, as we have all these schemes and courses to help our workers prepare for the new type of economy, some workers are worried. They are worried that they cannot learn new skills and new knowledge. They are worried that if they are placed in classes where there are younger workers, will they be able to learn as quickly as those young workers? Will they be holding back the classes? When I hear these worries, this is something which I try to help assure them with.

Many of us are parents. Many of our workers are parents. How do we bring up a baby? There are no Government subsidies and SRP plans. We do not go for formal courses. We do not ask for employers to give us subsidised training to bring up our baby. What do we do? We learn. We ask our parents. We ask our grandparents, our colleagues who have children. And along the way, as the baby grows from one month to a year, to PSLE, to "O" levels, we continually learn and re-learn and respond as our child grows. No formal courses, no subsidies. We do that until the child grows up, gets to work, and even as he or she marries, we want to help him choose the right spouse. And we learn how these should be done - all on our own, and in a continual process of learning and re-learning and responding to each child in a different way from another child. So all of us can learn and do learn all the time.

So why is it that we need to tell workers to be thinking workers and learning workers? Is it not strange, Sir, that people, the only creatures on earth who are capable of thinking, of exercising judgement, are asked to think and to learn? Before Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam says that it is because the PAP puts fear into people, let me suggest the answer.

Sir, in the old days when people were farmers or hunters, everyone was a knowledge worker. If a farmer was not a knowledge worker, he would starve. Because he must read the weather and make sure that the pests do not come after his crops and know how to deal with those pests. And when the floods come, when the droughts come, what does he do? He learns all the time. And then he grows a good crop and he becomes a good farmer. Otherwise, he starves. A hunter must be a knowledge hunter, otherwise he gets eaten up by wild animals, and that is the end of the hunter.

But when we went into the industrial economy, something changed. The industrial economy made workers become machines. When one man used to make one chair in a week, we spread out the job over several people. One person just does the legs, somebody sews the cushions and somebody hammers the whole chair together. That team produces many more chairs than if one person makes one chair, a complete chair. So what do we do in that industrial economy situation? We must spread out the work so that each one just does his part, following all the specifications, no deviations, and passes that part to the next person so that person receives the part as he expects it. No deviation was allowed; no thinking was allowed. We did that because the machines were not sophisticated enough to do the thinking, and the machines were not sophisticated enough to do things that people could do because of our dexterity.

But today we have moved yet again, because the machines, the robots, the computers, can do many things in a more dexterous way, in a more precise way than people can. So those machines can do things better than people. Then what do people do? Sir, I would like to share an example that is taken from Honda. Recently, Honda in Japan wanted to streamline its process of producing cars. They had different lines to produce different model cars because it was difficult for machines and computers to convert or use the same production line to produce different models. What they had done recently was to put some workers to manipulate the production line so that different models could be produced from the same line. And this could be done only by people because the people there manning the job could think and exercise judgement and make those changes as required that machines could not do. So post-industrial revolution, in the knowledge economy, people are employed to become thinking workers again. And this is a situation we are in.

But, Sir, knowledge and the knowledge-based economy are not about knowledge workers alone. The knowledge economy has got knowledge products, products that embody knowledge, that have got all the knowledge built in, so that we do not have to do the thinking. The machines do all the thinking. Knowledge-based economy also has knowledge processes as in the Honda example.

Why is there great value for knowledge in the knowledge-based economy? Let me give an example of how knowledge is so valuable and yet costs practically nothing. Recently, in a supermarket in America, they installed a new computer. That computer could collect data on what customers bought. They discovered something very interesting, which is - people who bought disposable nappies also bought beer.

They found this very strange and sent people to observe why people bought beer and nappies. And they discovered that when a family has a new baby, the father takes leave to look after the baby and goes to the supermarket to buy things, including nappies. And because he is at home, watching baseball or football on TV, he also buys beer. So that is why people who bought nappies also bought beer. In the supermarket, the nappies were placed in one section with the baby products, and the beer was placed in the alcoholic products section. What the supermarket manager did was to put some shelves of beer next to the nappies section, and sale of beer went up tremendously. Here is an example of knowledge acquired and knowledge applied, and the application of the knowledge costs nothing. It costs nothing to move the shelf of beer next to the nappies. Yet sales went up.

So application of knowledge is not just about IT, about technology. Technology is important, but it is not just about that. It is also not just about individual workers being trained to learn and re-learn new knowledge and new skills, because individual workers working on their own are also not enough. The harnessing of knowledge is a collective effort. It is a team effort within a small group, within the company, within the whole industry, within the whole economy. It is a collective effort.

Sir, in our tourist industry, we have thousands of workers employed in the tourist industry - hotel managers, waitresses, taxi-drivers, tour guides. Suppose we are able to harness the knowledge of all these workers about tourists who come to Singapore. Every tourist who comes to Singapore looks for something to eat, see or do. Our taxi-drivers know that Japanese tourists like to go to certain places; German tourists like to go to yet other places. If we could harness all that knowledge, we will be able to target our advertising messages to individual countries in a sharper way to attract many more tourist arrivals. If only we can harness all that knowledge that exists among all the workers in the tourism industry, how much and how rich that knowledge will be. And it is not just a question of knowledge. Everyone has his own experience. We need to extract them.

So I would like to propose to do something. Sir, in the 70s, 80s, early 90s, our emphasis was on productivity. We went all over the world, including Japan, to learn about productivity tools - quality circles, QCCs, WITs, five "S"s, and other tools, to help us become more productive. And we systematically and conscientiously developed the Quality Circle movement so that every worker in Singapore has a set of simple tools that he can apply to become more productive as a worker in a team, in the company. How wonderful it would be if we had a tool that could help us acquire knowledge, share knowledge, apply knowledge and generate new knowledge in a way that would bring together knowledge, multiply, branch off, converge, diverge and get new ideas constantly out of old knowledge. And more important, Sir, if we can have a tool that is transportable, that is easily taught, easily learned. A worker learns to use this tool. When he goes to another company, he can use the same tool and transport it to another team, to another workplace and continue to help that workplace, that company acquire and share knowledge, and generate knowledge. How wonderful that would be. There may be such tools existing; let us learn them. There may not be such tools existing; then let us invent that tool.

If we are able to harness all that knowledge for our knowledge-based economy, then perhaps we need to change a certain mantra that we chant. Sir, you will recognise this mantra. Once in a while, it comes out in this House. And the mantra is: "Singapore is a small country with no natural resources. Our people are our only resource." It has become a cliche. People do not want to use it nowadays. But it is an important statement. It reminds us of our constraints and vulnerabilities. But it also gives us hope that, as a small country, we can succeed, we can survive, we can achieve. But if we are able to harness knowledge collectively, then we can change that statement to something like this: "Singapore is a small country with no natural resources. Knowledge is our only resource." And if we adopt that as a working principle, then something changes. Our horizon broadens tremendously. Because if we look at people as our resource, then the population is small. But knowledge is limitless. Population grows slowly, but knowledge multiplies and multiplies rapidly given the right environment. Our people have mental and physical limits. But knowledge is inexhaustible. And if we are able to find the right tools that are easily learned, easily taught and easily transportable, then we will thrive and stay one step ahead in the future global knowledge-based competition.

Sir, the President's Address also contains statements on Manpower 21. Manpower 21 is a bold and comprehensive blueprint. It has got six strategies to build Singapore into a talent capital. Again, Sir, the unions are in full support of Manpower 21. NTUC would like to support it - in particular, in three areas.

First, on the manpower information system. It is a system that will give information about job availability, the trends and the courses available, and so on. This would be very helpful to workers. The unions have asked to be closely involved in the development of this system, because it should not be a system that can be understood and used only by IT experts. The ordinary worker should be able to access the system and get all this knowledge in a simple form that he can use and apply to help himself.

Second, on the National Skills Recognition System. It is a very exciting new concept. It is a way of testing workers for the skills that they have already learned and qualifying them in modular ways, in bite-size ways so that they acquire qualifications to do the jobs, not just in the company, but if the company closes down or restructures, they can use that qualification to apply for a job in other companies in the industry. In Manpower 21, it says:

"It facilitates learning among less educated workers and NSRS courses should have flexible entry requirements. It must be a flexible and dynamic system that can be continually updated to incorporate new industries and to reflect changing skills needs."

Sir, the NTUC will help to identify these needs with MOM and with the employers. But what we ask is this: that the tests should be to allow workers to qualify, to allow in more workers who otherwise are not considered qualified. It should not be a system that becomes bureaucratic over time and with tests that keep workers out so that they remain unqualified for jobs in the industry.

Third, in the Manpower 21 plan, there is a section that encourages the promotion of best HR practices among companies. Sir, we think it is a very good thing to do, but promotion of best HR practices should not remain at the level of holding seminars and getting consultants to talk about what are good practices. NTUC would like to suggest that we go three steps further. First, HR practitioners, SNEF and the HR institute in Singapore should draw up a code of good HR practices. A simple code that tells everyone: in a good company, for a good employer, what constitutes good HR management? This is so that we can all understand and respond to that code.

Second, the NTUC will contribute to that process by drawing up at the same time a code of good industrial relations (IR) practices because we are a responsible and responsive union movement and we would like to place on record the kind of trade union movement we want to be. Third, we should put together these two parts, the HR code and the IR code, as a statement of the kind of labour-management relations we wish to achieve in Singapore. This code can be a simplified one with terms that can easily be understood and implemented. Each company can either adopt this code or adapt from it to suit the company's missions and objectives.

We should add a third part to the two sections, which is a statement of shared vision and shared future between the workers and the management of the companies. And together, this document will tell everyone - the workers, the management - what is expected of each side. The codes should not be just words. Each code, when drawn up, should be a statement of commitment by HR, by the employers and by the unions, of the kind of strong labour-management relations we want to form in Singapore.

Sir, the President's Address is a very comprehensive one. The workers' concerns were addressed, and the unions and I would like to support the motion.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the motion in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

It is fitting that the thrust of the Presidential Address is to exhort Singaporeans to build our future together. The problems that Singaporeans face and the Singapore economy faces are quite challenging. These problems affect all of us Singaporeans, whether heartlanders or cosmopolitans.

Personally, I do not subscribe to this differentiation of Singaporeans. I feel it is unnecessary. We know in any country, whether in China, the United States, the UK, India, Malaysia or Singapore, there will always be some who, by their capabilities, by their connection, would have access to higher education or opportunities to work with people from many countries, travel internationally for work and business. These people, by their training and work and command of the English Language or a second language, can work in an overseas country. These people succeed in large measure due to the opportunities which their societies gave them in their formative years. We should therefore try to give everyone the maximum opportunities to excel and go far. We know that not all of us start life equally. But we have done so for many years. So I feel it is not necessary to make that distinction now and remind people that there are different classes.

Are there really such distinct categories? I wonder whether all the maids and construction workers and factory operators from the developing countries who go to work overseas and earn relatively high income to send home to their compatriots will be considered 'cosmopolitans' in their own countries.

I prefer to take the approach which the Education Minister yesterday elaborated - to educate all Singaporeans to be "world-ready and yet rooted in Singapore". I am glad that the Education Minister reiterated that the teaching of values to our students has not been forgotten to make them committed to Singapore.

I prefer this simpler way of forging a nation - the better educated, more capable, knowing their roots and identified with the national values, the national goals, prepared to work for the betterment of his country and fellowmen. If we continue to teach our young to be world-ready and yet rooted in Singapore, we would not lose them, just because of globalisation and the IT culture. And these values of commitment are equally relevant in a modern, technological, knowledge-based economy.

As long as we teach our children that they should be proud of the Singapore heritage, of how the country and their parents and brothers and sisters have done well against all the odds, all Singaporeans will be inspired by the Singapore Story. Their hearts beat as one. The moment we categorise them into heartlanders and cosmopolitans, we are creating an unnecessary divide.

Sir, our economy faces many serious challenges in the years ahead. It is not just about going by how many percent per year. It is really about how we can sustain a meaningful quality of life for our workforce, our working population and a rapidly ageing one - a large portion of whom may find increasing difficulties in staying employed with an adequate income. Many of them need to continue working to be able to live comfortably. There are about 700,000 workers in the 45 years and above category with only a secondary two level of education. In a rapidly changing economy, there is always a danger of not being able to stay employed. The impact of this on our social fabric is something deserving our attention.

One of the greatest challenges our Government and economy will face is to set forth the platform and strategic implementation for our training and skills retraining programmes for our people to launch and implement the Manpower 21 plan. The National Skills Recognition Scheme and the 'one institution two systems' approach' in our educational and training institutes are very important pillars. We must implement this fast because there is very little time. The sooner we implement this across our industries, the better chance we give our people to stay competitive and give them a better chance to a better quality of life.

The second important thing that we must do is to professionalise more the jobs we create in the service or manufacturing sectors. This will allow more people to work efficiently and proudly in the service sector.

The knowledge-based economy does not exist in a vacuum. Just now, we have heard my colleague, Mr Matthias Yao, expound very deeply into the meaning of a knowledge-based economy. I fully agree with him. Long before the use of minis and PCs, the Americans and the Japanese were already applying critical knowledge systems in their manufacturing or production processes. For them, the knowledge-based system was fused with the production system. In the manufacturing sector, they started by being craftsmen. Then, the machines replaced the craftsmen and the large scale production of goods replaced more and more skills in the jobs.

Economists not long ago measured the comparative advantage of countries by their skill intensity in the production process. Knowledge-based systems were also present but not so intense. Today, production and service sectors require higher knowledge intensity to be competitive. It does not mean that skills are no more important. More and more sophisticated machines in production can be built to replace specific operations and skills but it does not mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water. We should upgrade the skills of our workers. Hence, I find the Manpower Minister's speech yesterday very appropriate with his elaboration on the programmes that are available now to enable workers to upgrade their skills.

In the United States, it has been found that the service sector is the one that gave the most employment during the period when the IT sector and productivity growth was highest in the last few years. For many workers who are not so IT savvy, there is still hope in the KBE. Even in the new economy, people need to eat, drink and travel. They need goods to be delivered, served and to be entertained. We need to raise the level of skills in our workers, especially in certain sectors - construction is one of them; retail, cleaning and the general service sectors. Professionalising these jobs will give better efficiency, justify more value-added and productivity.

We cannot expect every Singaporean to be able to say he works in a knowledge economy. But we can ensure that production processes be fused with a significant component of the knowledge-based system so that our competitive edge is sharpened and maintained, and our people at the downstream services continue to stay employed, and earn a decent living.

I once asked a well-known American economist who pioneered the study on the knowledge economy, Prof. Paul Romer, whether there is a typical sectoral profile in a knowledge-based economy. In other words, whether there is a special pattern in the sectoral distribution of the GDP in a knowledge-based economy. He said quite correctly that there was none. You do not even need to be IT savvy. Knowledge of IT is only the enabler. The business is all up to you.

Hence, I feel very reassured that the Government is still very much focused on making our manufacturing sector a driving sector, maintaining at 25% share of GDP, to prevent the hollowing out of the economy. This is important for the manufacturing sector will provide the base and the linkage for jobs and exports.

All Singaporean workers should be assured, because of the changes we are going to introduce to our training and work certification process. I ask all workers not to miss out on the many avenues and opportunities for training that the NTUC has established jointly with the Government. I wish to remind all my Singaporean workers that it was the NTUC who sounded the bell early last year on the impending issues of employability and retraining for our workers and came up with the positive solutions. Over the last one and a half years, much has been achieved by the NTUC together with the tripartite partners. Today, there is a Skills Redevelopment Programme workers can tap on. Our workers ought to be proud that there is a labour movement, led by leaders who can see further than many, the storms on the horizon and prepare the ground with the solution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Gerard Ee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Many speakers have extolled the merits of the vision sketched by the President and some reservations have been expressed. I share in the excitement over the vision as it promises much to look forward to. I see it as an extensive home improvement programme.

Sir, the President's Address is but a sketch of what Singapore can be - a progressive nation with its citizens playing an active role in his journey into the next millennium. The devil is in the details, the parts to be painted in - the choice of colours and shades. Not everyone will have the same view of the completed picture. Not everyone will see the sketch the way it is nor will they have the same interpretation of the picture being painted. Whilst it will be impossible to cater to everyone's expectations, there must be an understanding of what they are.

Sir, broadly speaking, there are three milieus in any society - conveniently termed as lower, middle and upper income groups. Each milieu will see things differently as their priorities in life are different. A "need" for one group may be inconsequential for another group. Some can afford to spend a weekend at golf whilst others must scrap for a better living, sometimes a matter of survival for them.

A long time ago, as one of the pioneer counsellors for ex-drug addicts, a counselee said to me, "It is easy for you. With your educational qualification, you do not have to worry about getting a decent job. My future is different from yours. So how can you truly understand what I feel."

Many people feel that there are no longer any truly poor in Singapore. Yet, if they are more alert, they may spot the elderly hunched lady dragging home her precious cart of cardboard materials at the bewitching hour whilst most people are in sweet slumber.

Sir, whilst everyone will accept the importance of education and the need to invest time and effort into it, some children have to cope with helping out at the family's business and some may even have to adopt the parental role and be both mum and dad to their siblings. These children are handicapped in their educational pursuit.

Whether one is cosmopolitan, a heartlander, or a bit of each, one's view of things and expectations will be significantly influenced by the milieu that he or she belongs to. In the call to work together and to commit not just to Singapore, but also to one another, there must be recognition that there are different milieus in our society. There has first to be an awareness of this divide and there must be genuine empathy for each other's fears, difficulties and aspirations. The concerns of the milieus cut across races - it is the same for each milieu, whatever their race. Perhaps, it is the desire to be sensitive that we do not want to recognise this divide. But in so doing, we become less sensitive to each other's needs.

There cannot be social cohesion if any one milieu feels, rightly or wrongly, that it is being treated unfairly. It is only by conscious effort that such misunderstandings can be minimised. There is a need to find ways to explain policies in the language and in the context of each milieu.

Much attention was paid to involve a cross section of Singaporeans in the development of the S21 vision. However, at the end of the day, the intelligentsia are the ones who packaged and presented it to the people. The challenge is to help people of all milieus see that S21 is for them and that they all have a role to play. The people who keep our environment clean and healthy must see that they too are contributing to the well-being of our nation and are just as important as those generating exports. It is only when everyone at every stratum can feel that they are playing an important role in the progress of our nation that the spirit of S21 can take root, be nourished and grow.

Social cohesion must be the foundation, the canvas upon which we sketch and paint our vision for tomorrow. Without social cohesion, we have little chance of completing the picture of Singapore in the new millennium. The sketching presented will end up as just blotches of paint with clashing colours and shades, to be passed on as 21st century art. It may belong to everyone but only a few will appreciate it.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

The President in his Address promised that the Government will be promoting active citizenship "to get Singaporeans to play a full part in shaping our future." Mr Singh has waxed lyrical about active citizenship and I cannot match his eloquence and wisdom on the subject. I wish merely to add two points to help us understand the full import of these two simple words.

First, active citizens must have realistic and informed expectations and opinions. Second, active citizens must learn to disagree without being divisive. Let me elaborate.

As Mr Singh pointed out in his speech, we have a new generation of Singaporeans who expect to be consulted and to have their voices heard. The Government has promised to hear them. At the same time, as Mr Singh has noted, those who propose alternatives must be prepared to defend them in the robust arena of debate. I would add that the debate, to be meaningful, must also be well-informed and have realistic expectations. Otherwise, the debate will end up with no greater merit than the bar brawl over a drunkard's view of the world.

For example, those who argue for more financial welfare for the poor, along the lines of western social systems, lose their credibility if they do not know why the very societies which have these systems are trying to ditch them. As Mr Lim Boon Heng pointed out on Monday, welfare and minimum wage levels in these countries are predicated upon providing the poor with shelter and basic needs, with the bulk of the aid going to the cost of shelter. In Singapore, 90% of our people already own their own homes. Demanding the same level or model of welfare would be uninformed, unrealistic, unwise and an altogether unfair debating point.

As another example, journalist Chua Lee Hoong has expressed her dismay that MPs in this House are not following up on each other's points, affirming, elaborating or countering. She totally misunderstands the purpose of a Parliamentary debate to thank the President for his Address. Procedurally, the debate is on Mr Singh's motion, whether or not to thank the President. It is a device for Members to explore the issues raised by the President's Address and the Addenda. If we were to debate Mr Singh's points alone, this would be a very narrow debate indeed! She has probably also not informed herself of how debate is carried out in other Parliaments. Her criticism is thus unfair, as unfair as her comment that His Excellency the President's Address is devoid of wit and passion.

One, the President's Address is a ceremonial speech outlining the Government's programme. It is not a politician's speech. The passion within it is understated. Surely, she does not expect him to punctuate his Speech with shouts of "Merdeka"? Has she never seen the Queen of England deliver similar speeches in stately fashion? The Constitutional convention allows for passion only in politicians' speeches!

Two, Miss Chua certainly has not seen Parliamentarians debating in the Lok Sabha in India. There, as here, Parliamentary time is short, the opportunities to speak limited and the agenda long. Parliamentarians need to espouse the views of their constituents; they have to push the interests and promote programmes for the well-being of those they represent. So, in the Lok Sabha, it is a common sight to see several MPs all talking at the top of their voices at the same time. Would they be listening to each other, I wonder?

On the other hand, you have the fine example of Congressmen in the US House of Representatives. I visited that august institution in 1985 when the House was in session. In a chamber that sits 435 people, I saw a handful seated and one standing and speaking. At first, I thought he was rehearsing his speech, until I saw the Speaker of the House move to make a ruling on something. In the US Congress, the more important work is done in its hallowed halls - and thus the word "lobby" - not in the debating chamber. Not many Congressmen were listening to his debate to counter it.

This House, Sir, I am glad to say, is more orderly than the Lok Sabha and more diligent than the US House of Representatives. We have many points to push, many petitions to plead, and some pet projects to promote. We do not do it for show, but to air the views of our citizens. To paraphrase the Senior Minister who said this before in this House, if what Members say in here do not resonate outside, we are done for. The debate on the President's Address is not a school debate with thrust and counter thrust. In the past, many ideas were floated in these debates, some of which were later picked up by the Front Bench and incorporated into the Government's programmes. We do not wish it any other way.

My second point on active citizens is that we must learn to disagree without coming to blows. Robust debate is not necessarily a personal attack. Passion must not be mistaken for aggression. As Mr Singh asked, "Can we take the heat?" If we cannot, we should not stay in the kitchen.

When I was a student in America, and again in England, I often saw my friends argue with each other (and even with the Professors) until their faces were blue. And yet, they never became enemies. Here, in our culture, the moment you contradict someone just a little too vigorously, you have lost a friend. For active citizens to benefit from active debates, we must learn to take as well as we give, and adjourn for a happy drink together afterwards. "Defeat" can be accepted with grace, not a feeling of humiliation. Disagreement does not mean division.

Once we have learnt that we can agree to disagree, it would not make headlines anymore every time a Minister appears to disagree with another, or a Member of Parliament does not align himself with a Government position. It does not mean that the PAP has begun to split, nor that the Member in question is embittered and is "hitting out". Such is the grist of active gossip, not citizenship.

When we have occasion to disagree with the Government, we must have the conviction that we are right and are ready to defend our stand. That is why we must be well-informed. If we hit hard, we must expect to be hit hard. As Mr Singh said, in moving this motion, this Government is not known for the subtlety of its replies. Perhaps as time goes by, all of us will learn how to modulate our blows in debate, though the calibration is an art to be learnt from experience, not a science that is acquired from the books. While we call on the Government to be more thick-skinned when criticised, we must not apply double standards. The active citizen must learn to be thick-skinned too! Ask Mr Simon Tay, or perhaps Prof. Walter Woon. No active citizen should throw in the towel and proclaim that he has stopped because he is now cowering in fear. If he fears his own shadow, the public forum and its floodlights is not a place where he should be found.

The President in his Address offered another set of buzzwords: Singapore as a "knowledge-based economy". Sir, permit me next to say a few words on this topic.

Knowledge is acquired, usually from education. This is probably why many Members before me have majored on educational reform. Our educational system has traditionally been knowledge-intensive, pressed down by dedicated drill masters. In the Information Age, however, knowledge has a very short shelf life. What you learn in school may become obsolete a short six years after you graduate. It is not productive in such a world to cram our children with knowledge. We must equip them with skill sets which will help them acquire useful knowledge all through their lives and sound values for them to discern between good and evil.

Education in such a world should not be examination-interrupted as it is currently. There are important examinations at the end of Primary 3, 4, 6; Secondary 2, 4 and Junior College. If we set aside two months to prepare for each examination, we would have wasted a full one year doing nothing but cram. We would have lost productivity in the economy too, because parents have to take leave from work to rehearse the children for their examinations. Perhaps school in the future will not be examination-interrupted but examination-terminated. One graduation examination, the 'A' levels. I am thrilled therefore that the Minister for Education is taking a step in that direction by considering dropping the 'O' level for some students.

We want "thinking schools". For that not to be an empty slogan, we must allow students time to think; time to be creative; time to sieve good from bad, gold from dross. On the Internet, there are lots of information, and misinformation. Our children must learn how to choose and discern what is harmful and what is not. If school is full of examinations and cramming, how would they find time to think? Ian Buruma condemns us as a nation afraid to think. Actually, our problem is that we have no time to think. To my knowledge, only a certain Member without a constituency is afraid to think, as I noticed that he plagiarised a whole chunk of Buruma's article and passed it off as his own analysis of Singapore in his speech during this debate.

Our children are so busy that they have no time to be children, no time to play. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Peh Chin Hua that we should stop driving them from class to class, tuition to tuition, enrichment programme to enrichment programme. To everything, there is a season - a season for study, a season for play; a season for stress, a season for de-stress. Play is productive, even creative. Why are we so afraid to let our children play? So afraid that we teach them Primary One things in kindergarten!

I am so glad that the Senior Minister of State for Education has declared that henceforth this will stop. I do hope that the Ministry will next stop the hideous practice of ranking schools purely on academic performance. Rank if you must, but do not forget to give high scores to schools which give their students a balanced education, rounding them up with sports, arts and character-building programmes.

The President's Address has clearly stated that school curricula will be revised to cater for these. I am deeply appreciative, as many Singaporean parents would be, with that promise.

With the one year that we save in not having examinations, we should send our children for sports and music camps perhaps, or SIF overseas volunteer programmes, student exchange programmes, Operation Raleigh projects, Outward Bound School. We should challenge them to climb Mt Everest, Mt Kinabalu or at least Mt Ophir. Presently, they do not even have time to climb Mt Faber! We cannot allow this to continue.

At the end of the day, we must not forget that we have taught them to pledge, "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation." They cannot learn about a democratic society by suffering six major examinations in 12 years of schooling. They must leave their books and visit Parliament, the courts, the civil institutions. They cannot learn about justice and equality from textbooks and endless assessment papers. They must experience these from interaction with their classmates, multi-racial classmates at that, and with their community.

In conclusion, Sir, let me say that hitherto, the Government in all its policies has over-emphasised, dare I say, "achieving prosperity and progress" and left out "happiness" for the most part. The Chinese version of our pledge refers to "happiness" as xin fu ( ) which, loosely translated, can mean "blessing". Blessing is a state of contentment, much deeper than happiness, and it comes from spiritual and emotional well-being. Even happiness itself cannot come simply from material prosperity and progress. Happiness comes from fond memories of Singapore, our home. Our hearts must beat, as the President said in his Address, for Singapore - for its foods and smells, for its sounds and colours, its history, its landmarks and its people.

We must learn to restrain our urge to demolish every building we see that does not fit into our plans. We must stop removing the landmarks of our history. Architectural merit must not be the only consideration for preservation. I regret, for example, the demolition of my alma mater many years ago in the past, the first school in Singapore with a very, very large history, because it was not economical or distinctive enough architecturally to save. Is the National Library building at Stamford Road really not possible to save and refurbish for future generations to mark our history?

Happiness too, Sir, comes from making life more meaningful for others, especially those less fortunate than ourselves. That is active citizenship. Happiness too comes from having fun. We say that every Singaporean counts. His welfare counts. For him, we need to make Singapore a fun place to live in, not just because it helps us to make a quick tourist dollar, but because it is what we have pledged to do. I am glad that finally in MITA's programmes, we have a plan to promote fun in Singapore. As many of our Western friends might say, "Come on Singapore, loosen up!"

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, I am grateful to join in this debate. I wish to speak on this Government's promise to focus on people and to promote active citizenship. In so doing, there are three fundamental questions we need to ask ourselves: (1) Why is this important? (2) What specifically should and will be done, and by whom? (3) What obstacles and limits stand in our way?

Allow me to begin with an observation not about Singapore but about Vietnam, where I have been and why I missed the first two days of this debate. We are not alone in facing change and the new millennium for our society. Vietnam is in something of a dilemma. They recognise that they need to open up their country to the world market and to foreign investors. This is their doi moi policy. However, they are concerned about foreign influence on their society and how society and politics will change as they open up. So they seem to muddle through.

A very astute observer remarked to me, "the problem is that they won the war." The problem is that they won the war. This statement is not to wish that they lost. But this statement acutely sees the problem of success. When you have won the war, you believe you have the formula for success. You have the veterans you must take care of, and a system that brought victory. It is therefore very hard to change, to say, "we need something new". Instead, there is some tinkering, some muddling around, half measures. In this sense, past success inhibits real and necessary change to meet the future.

In contrast, where people lose, there is justification and occasion for widespread change. Something like what Japan experienced after World War II, just as before, in the Meiji restoration. A crisis and a failure bring a country the opportunity for a deep change, a transformation. Japan is, by the way, now looking at a commission, much like the Singapore 21, on Japan's role in the 21st century.

Singapore, of course, is very different from Vietnam or Japan. We did not fight the kind of war (although in the 1970s, the conventional wisdom said that we might if the dominoes in Southeast Asia fell). But we did win through another struggle for economic success and survival. We too had succeeded.

In achieving this success, this victory, we have our own veterans and our own system of society and politics. These have served us well in the past and in the present, and it is very difficult to abandon them abruptly. Indeed, there are those among us who also fear that if we open up too fast, they are not sure what influences will work on our society, and change our politics.

Are we then too successful to truly change? Will we just simply tinker around and hope to muddle through the 21st century? Or can we truly commit ourselves to necessary and real change for an active people sector? Much depends on our motivation.

Why do we need active citizens?

This brings me to my first point. Why do we need this change? Why do we need active citizens? Why do we need people to actively participate in the nation's affairs? The Presidential Address gives us two main reasons for this goal. First, active citizens can improve Government policies. Second, active citizenship and participation gives people a stake in the country. The second of these two reasons - giving all a stake - ties with the overall goal of developing stronger social cohesion to make sure we gel together as a people. This is important as we prepare for a knowledge-based economy because such an economy will tend to reward people very differently and can potentially divide us.

The call for active citizenship in this sense has a very rational economic basis. First, and most immediately, we can improve on policies. Second, and more broadly, "heartware" is to be the social bond for a vast and rapid economic change.

Are these rational and economic reasons enough to motivate real and necessary change? Some Singaporeans will, of course, always queue up if there is a sale. If there is a dollar sign, they will queue up. For some people, it is. But not for all of us, and not always. Some of us respond to other stimulus.

One of these is the goal of becoming a "democracy". When I use this word, I do not want to embroil this House in a debate about definitions. Democracy is a loaded term. It is often used to mean a certain form of liberal democracy, as we see in some Western societies. But here, I use the word "democracy", in the terms of our own pledge. We pledge to build a "democratic society, based on justice and equality". If we hold true to this goal, this ideal of democracy, this can be a third and potent reason to have active citizens. In a democracy, more than any other society or system, people count. Literally they vote, and their vote counts. More than that, they participate in the society and in the political processes.

In this sense, I do not see that active citizens are an option, a luxury for good times. They are essential to face the coming challenges for Singapore to be a home amidst the open, competitive, rapidly changing and often turbulent world that is coming. We should not wish for a crisis or to lose a war in order to have real change. But we have to be motivated for real change. Only then can the goals set by the Presidential Address be reached.

In this regard, I must confess that I am disappointed on this point of active citizens by the plans announced by the different Ministries in their Addenda to the Presidential Address.

What specifically should and will be done, and by whom?

Let me deal with this in the second question: What specifically should and will be done, and by whom? If we go through the Addenda of the different Ministries, there are relatively few references to plans to make active citizenship possible. Perhaps they have their own more immediate concerns with existing policies and plans. There is, after all, no Ministry in overall charge of this initiative for active citizens.

Where the Ministries do mention plans for active citizens, these plans do not seem to me to go very far beyond what we already have. Take, for example, the Ministry of Community Development's plans for the Feedback Unit. This Unit is very important for active citizens to be heard and to also listen. But if you look at paragraph 9 of the Addendum, and I quote:

"The Feedback Unit will reach out to more Singaporeans to obtain varied and representative feedback. It will also inform and explain to opinion makers and grassroots leaders the rationale and details of Government policies."

How is this different from what they have done before and what they are doing now? Why is the emphasis still on a downward communication to opinion makers and grassroots leaders to explain to them why policies are as they are? If there is no difference, and an emphasis on downward communication, how will this status quo promote the change towards an active citizen sector?

The plans by the Ministry of Information and the Arts are similar in this regard. It talks about the access to information and again this is obviously very important to an active people sector. But there seems in their Addenda to be more concern that the greater and easier access to information will impinge on economic, social and political life. While this is true and should be studied, I would have hoped that there would be an equal study on enabling citizens to have use of greater access to become more knowledgeable and aware of important issues facing our society. This will be the necessary basis, the foundation, for more informed, reasoned and active people.

I turn next to the Prime Minister's Office. I was heartened here to see a subsection of the Addendum entitled "Towards Active Citizenship", and by the pledge in this Addendum to have the public service play its part towards attaining this goal. But the particulars of the Addendum fall short, in my view.

The promise here is to "consult the private and public sectors more, in order to obtain feedback, tap their specialised knowledge, and [I want to emphasise] ensure smoother implementation of Government's policies."

"Smoother implementation of Government's policies" is a necessary and helpful step. But it is not enough for an active people. Active citizens are not just there to help Government policy implementation.

In this regard, it is worth pointing out that all of us citizens have at least three parts - hands, a heart and a head. Government wants helping hands. Government increasingly wants the hearts of Singaporeans too, if this is to be our home. But it is less clear from the various plans whether Government also wants the head. Not on a chopping block. But a head, a mind that can independently think and want to propose or oppose policies, rather than just helping smoother implementation. And with that head comes mouths that can freely and reasonably speak.

What the Ministries have proposed is a start, but a very modest one at best. The Singapore 21 Committee on the idea of active citizens went quite a bit further. The subject committee which I chaired with Mr Lim Swee Say, now Minister of State, on "consensus and consultation against decisiveness and quick action" made a number of concrete suggestions that have yet to find a place in the Addenda announced by Government. I hope perhaps they will.

In making these points, I want to emphasise that I am not arguing for free licence and a rowdy free-for-all. Those who argue against a status quo can often be mischaracterised in this way, and they find their proposals labelled "radical" or "unrealistic".

The approach I am arguing for finds its analogy in the liberalisation of the financial sector. First, we must have a broad vision of what the Government wants and an identification of present limits. Second, we need a recognition that while Government will have a regulatory role, that role has changed. Third, we need an emerging practice that shows all the practitioners concerned that the philosophy and tools for regulation have changed. And, fourth, we need a series of measures that will push and change the existing limits. In financial liberalisation, the Government's approach has been, I believe, for a series of "small bangs". Not radical, but readily discernible. Measured but measurable.

I would call for a similar approach to the liberalisation of our laws and policies towards an active people sector. And I am disappointed that I do not find such a series of small bangs in the Ministerial Addenda.

But while I criticise, I certainly do not want to be seen as an armchair critic, or even a Parliamentary chair critic. I and my fellow NMP, Zulkifli Baharudin, will undertake a study on civil society in 21st century Singapore. We will roll up our sleeves as an active citizen, do our part to study this problem. The study will focus on three areas: (1) the registration of societies; (2) the limits to speech and assembly, especially in public; and (3) the role of private foundations and Government agencies in supporting and fostering civil society organisations.

These are, to us, three of the key limits and obstacles to a more active people sector. Mr Zulkifli and I do not prejudge what the conclusions of the study will be. In each area, while there is a need for more openness, there may also be valid reasons for limits and obstacles.

Take the first area, for example. The registration of societies is fundamental to having active citizens organise themselves. If they do not register, they may be considered illegal and prosecuted. Yet, it is within the discretion of the Registrar of Societies to refuse their registration on a number of grounds. So some cases take time. In comparison, the registration of private companies is automatic and easy. There are historical reasons for this, and also some present day concerns. We therefore have to more closely examine how to balance the needs, on the one hand, of a more active people sector to organise themselves and be lawfully registered and recognised, with, on the other hand, the need for caution and control.

In the second area too of public speech, I think there is a need to examine the balance. It cannot be, on the one hand, that we allow speech without responsibility, and allow for sedition, racial slurs, defamation, mis-information and possible disorder in the streets. But, on the other hand, should we continue to have all public speech, including that on political and social issues, licensed under a Public Entertainment Act, and decided by some faceless bureaucrats? In comparison, our censorship of films has, in the last decade, moved far beyond this already.

Let me at this juncture, mention this debate about having thick skin. In my case, I think, it is more just bad skin which people mistake for thick skin. I want to point out that, of course, people who want to participate in public debate must have thick skin. But I also want to emphasise the question of whether, in this robust engagement, it is truly equal and truly fair. The analogy I have, in a sense, is traffic. We all drive. You may have a car, I may have a car. Others drive in bigger cars and some of us may be bus drivers. Buses today are big, fast, turbo-charged. Both cars and buses have honks. I may sound my "horn", or to use Singlish, I may horn. But if I am driving a car and I honk, it does not mean that I will be able to engage the bus, even if it is in the wrong. He is probably a wiser man who values his car, his life and that of his passengers who gives way to the bus. I think this analogy needs careful consideration when we talk about debates between a fledgling, young people sector with an established strong, knowledgeable and determined Government.

These are some of the issues that we hope to consider in our study over the next few months and to seek a new balance for. But, as I said, I do not prejudge our conclusions. What I can tell you is our approach. We will consult and canvass our initial thoughts with relevant actors, especially those in civil society and also those in relevant Government agencies. We will aim for consensus. But that is not always possible. I think we should not water down our study to the lowest common denominator. Therefore, we will not shy away from controversy.

We hope to coach and also to criticise. We hope to persuade and debate and also press. Those who do not have power, who do not sit in the seat of power in Government, can do no more. But active citizens should do no less. With this, I support the motion.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the motion to thank the President.

The next millennium will be a different era from this century. Two major trends will have a major impact on Singapore in the next century. The socio-economic landscape of Singapore will be transformed by the Internet and information technology revolution and the small modern Singapore family will face the challenges of managing an increasingly aging population.

The emphasis on people development, active citizenship and development of heartware will take a different dimension with the explosion of the Internet, broadband technology, wireless technology and other developments in the IT revolution.

The IT revolution will change the social and economic landscape of the world. As we prepare the younger generation in our educational institutions for the future, we must also prepare ourselves for the consequences of the IT explosion, especially the Internet. The Internet will have far-reaching implications for Singapore.

In the Internet world, speed is everything, and the extremely fast pace of development has opened an entirely new social and economic virtual world that only the Internet-savvy can keep pace with. Entirely new businesses have sprouted out that have grown rapidly to challenge established institutions. Many virtual Internet companies are now worth more than their competitors and are increasingly eating into the economic pie of the real world competitors. Those who have the vision to understand the power of the Internet and harness its power will be leaders in the next economic revolution.

In the mid-70s when this American Charles Schwab decided to transform his full-service brokerage into a discount brokerage firm, he insisted, against a trend, that he would develop in-house technology. He placed his bet on technology and signed a cheque that was equal to the entire net worth of his company. By 1996 it had begun offering Web training. In January 1998, it weaved all its electronic services into one integrated service. Now, according to the IT research firm company, IDC, Charles Schwab & Company commands more than 70% of the assets traded online, and its trading volume is that of its nearest three competitors combined. Worth US$36.5 billion, Charles Schwab & Company is widely acknowledged as the only traditional retail operation, financial services or otherwise, to have successfully adapted its business to the Web. Charles Schwab has become bigger than established financial institutions, like Merryl Lynch.

The success story is not only confined to USA. Despite a non-supportive environment in Japan, Mr Mikitani, a 1988 graduate in Japan, launched his Internet site in 1997, and since then he has developed Rakuten into the most popular online business-to-consumer e-commerce designation in Japan, averaging approximately US$3.5 million in transactions every month and more than 400,000 visits per day. He said, "In Japan, everyone was pessimistic about e-commerce, and I wanted to do something that everyone was pessimistic about." Two-and-a-half years later, Rakuten has become Japan's largest on-line shopping mall, providing auction, hosting and transaction-processing services and market-analysis tools to more than 750 of Japan's largest companies.

The Internet will affect every industry. Interactive video on demand, music on the Internet and the broadband revolution are shaking up the entertainment industry. No business will be spared.

For Singapore to be relevant in the next century, we must become a top class Internet and technological hub. We must have the right ingredients to succeed.

The essential ingredient we have to add to ignite any significant revolutionary development in the information technology industry is the entrepreneur or technopreneur. A rare species, they are imbued with clear vision, great foresight, utmost determination, inexhaustible drive, extreme passion, immense resourcefulness and perhaps a foolhardy love for risk. The spirit of the entrepreneurs exudes boundless and infective optimism that drives the belief that they can achieve the most wonderful things in the face of gargantuan obstacles. For any market or economy to prosper, entrepreneuers are indispensable. They are the agents of change. As the economist Lester Thurow observes in his latest book, Building Wealth, "Change requires individuals who recognize that new things can be done and who take the initiative to get them done. . The existing bureaucracies, public and private, will not take on the job of changing what is."

Our bureaucracies will have to constantly modify the rules to create a conducive environment that will ensure that the entrepreneur will thrive. We have taken some concrete measures but more needs to be done. I have been told by companies that have taken grants from NSTB that they lament about the bureaucracy. Perhaps it is time to review the administration of such grants to IT companies to establish a comfortable balance between protecting the interest of NSTB and the non-hindrance of company efficiency.

Mindsets have to be changed. The Internet will make the world a giant information hub. Information cannot be hidden as Internet allows us to harness the wealth of information on the Net. For example, health and medical information sites in the USA provide equal access to all users, regardless of whether he is a medical doctor or a lay person. However, many Singapore sites tend to bar the lay public from the restricted areas which are only accessible to professionals. The irony of it is that the same information, or even better information, is available on the US sites and accessible to the lay public. Singaporeans must learn to understand that the Internet world is a borderless world. Instead of hiding information, we can play an important role in optimising the use of information available. We can help Net users distinguish the good sites from those with poor quality information.

If the Singapore Government wants to fulfill its dream of becoming a world-class virtual hub, Government Ministries and bodies must be bold enough to make the changes that can help technopreneurs and entrepreneurs blaze their way into the realm of the Internet and stand on the pedestal of success. In this case, it is not a case of more speed, less haste; but rather more speed is the best pace.

Through the key elements of entrepreneurship and the creation of the right milieu for Singapore to succeed in the new era, we need to add the element of a trained IT workforce. A strong focus on IT in the educational system will prepare a new generation for the IT era. However, we must not forget that there is also a significant segment of the population that is not Internet-savvy. I am glad that the PA (People's Association), has stated that it wants to change its image. The Community Clubs have the potential to become a natural foci to start this Internet revolution for the uninitiated, as it is visited by a wide spectrum of our society, be it men or women, young or old. The virtual world is also where the Singapore Government needs to engage its citizens. If we do not do so, we will have an increasingly larger segment of Singaporeans spending more time in the virtual world oblivious to the realities of the real world Singapore. The virtual world will be a place where the Singapore Government will find it more difficult to reach out to the virtual citizens.

Hence, Government Ministries must take the lead in engaging Singaporeans in this virtual world and move towards having websites that are not merely static information portals but truly interactive portals. I must commend HDB, for example, which has an extremely comprehensive site, and it would be made complete if it was truly interactive and in more than one language. There is a very impressive list of e-mails which you can actually send to the different branches and even to the headquarters. But feedback from people who have seen me is that often you do not get much of a reply. So I think if we want it to be a truly active and interactive site and promote active citizenship, this is one step that we have to take.

The Internet revolution has provided Singapore with an opportunity to become a top service and financial hub centre in the world. It will create an e-commerce entity that will one day rival and perhaps even exceed the size of the real world economy. We have to have the right recipe to succeed - we have the entrepreneurs, we have the people who are Web trained; what we need now is a bureaucracy that is Net literate and perhaps even Net savvy.

The other major issue that will have a major impact on Singapore is the issue of an ageing population. The smaller families that have resulted from our earlier successful family planning programmes have meant that each family will have more difficulty in supporting the elderly, both financially and socially. The small working families, for example, will find it extremely difficult to look after the elderly, especially if any one of their parents has a disabling disease, such as a stroke or in a terminally-ill condition. Hence, I support the move to increase the promotion of CDC as a social anchor in our community. The CDCs must be equipped with the infrastructure as they take upon more responsibilities that were previously administered by the different Government agencies. The CDC will be the most appropriate body to coordinate the provision of social services and facilities for the aged and be the link between the Ministries and the voluntary welfare organisations. It should be a one-stop centre for the coordination of services for the elderly. The volunteers who help the CDCs and VWOs are a special breed of people and though they do it selflessly, we must never take their effort for granted. I think more must be done to recognise their effort and time.

Mr Speaker, as we move into the next millennium, we have to recognise these trends and act with more speed at the fastest pace if we want to succeed in building a successful virtual Singapore that is as successful, if not more successful, than the real world Singapore.

Dr Lily Neo (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President, in his Address to Parliament, has outlined several new and significant directives for the various Ministries. These directives will put Singapore in good stead for the new millennium and I therefore would like to support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.

There is a sense of urgency amongst the many healthcare providers who wish to see our healthcare system make even more adequate and affordable and even more effective in terms of both cost and quality. Ironically, it is not the lack of activity and anxiety that bothers many. It is the very vibrant and tremendous pace of change happening to the whole system that is worrying. Sir, now is the time for us to look at our future needs and I seek indulgence of this House to deliberate on this today. I would like to suggest that unless we adopt a new mindset, there would not be any scope for further significant improvements to our system when the new millennium unfolds.

Are we planning adequately in accordance with the requirements of the present and future population trends? Have we enough safeguards against the very fast changing trends in medicine and medical technology? Are we bold enough to discard any remaining illogical philosophy and historical baggage? Are we utilising and coordinating our resources to the fullest? I fear we do not have a resounding "yes" to all these questions just yet.

Although our healthcare system is in a healthy state and the Government has done a very good job thus far, we are in no position to rest on our laurels. We have many good policies in place and we would do well to keep them. We also have some policies that require re-evaluation so as to be either improved upon or removed from our forward planning. This may involve fundamental changes in philosophy and will require the Government to be open-minded and willing to do the right thing when the right thing comes along.

The Ministry of Health has done well in keeping our healthcare cost at about 3% of our GDP for the past 10 years. Considering that Government's expenditure was 0.9% of GDP last year, it would be seen that the national healthcare expenditure here has remained relatively low compared with other major industrialised countries. It is remarkable that, this notwithstanding, the Government can still affirm that no Singaporean will be denied of any medical treatment due to the lack of means. Singapore has engineered and given sound foundations to the Medisave, MediShield and Medifund schemes as means of ensuring affordable medical healthcare. By improving primary healthcare affordability, controlling public hospital funding and regulating private hospital charges for Medisave users through a "casemix" system, we expect to further enhance quality affordable healthcare.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do have the broad picture of what we need to ensure "good and cheap" healthcare. What we do have is also the work ahead and the need for caution and care in our approach. In this respect, Sir, I would be well pleased when the Ministry of Health could consider the suggestions I have on the following:

(1) Capitalise fully on our "talent" pool of doctors. There should be a directive calling for better use of our medical doctors and specialists. Every year, many of our best brains in Singapore take up medicine. We should have a lot of talent amongst our medical doctors. The maximum potentials of many, especially those in the private practice, have not been harnessed. The Ministry should change its commonly perceived mindset of looking at the doctors in public and private sectors as two different and opposing camps. Sir, I would have thought that it would be better for all doctors to work together as one continuum. They would all be better trying at all times to exchange new information and experience, to share the workload of looking after subsidised patients, to help train junior doctors, and to save on heavy expenditure by maximising joint usage of those expensive technology and equipment. The mindset must be to function as one force to further excel in medicine, to work as a team steering ourselves to better heights for the better of all patients and to develop Singapore into a "regional medical hub".

Sir, the stumbling block here is the Government's directive, as set out in the 1993 White Paper, to rely on competition and market forces to improve service and raise efficiency. This mindset has been entrenched in our medical sector for years, although it is a known fact that healthcare is an instance of market failure. It is not good when the public sector starts having to compete with the private sector and it is worse when the Ministry of Health is becoming more and more synonymous with the public sector. Sir, cooperation rather than competition should reap us better results here and there is a need for all parties to modify or change the existing philosophy. The details on how to go about getting better use of all the medical doctors in Singapore are another topic by itself.

(2) Make full use of our resources. Mr Speaker, Sir, all our hospitals should complement rather than compete with each other. Better cooperation between hospitals would enable us to maximise our own resources. It would be better if there is no excessive re-duplication of specialty and especially super specialty services. It would also be better to allow for the free flow of medical personnel, where applicable, to maximise the results of service. At the moment, even public hospitals compete with each other. Terms like 'double standards', 'competition', 'level playing fields', 'limited use of Medisave' and the like are frequently used nowadays.

Many restructured hospitals are under pressure to perform well, especially in monetary "bottom-line" at the end of each year. If that becomes the dominant factor, the ensuing policies that the hospitals make will invariably take on pecuniary inclinations. Consider, for instance, the situation when hospitals remunerate doctors for the number of patients they see. Theoretically, the doctors might hold on to a few more of those patients that could be discharged and thereby increase their patient-load. The resultant effect would be insufficient time being allocated to each patient. The patients would be at a disadvantage because the excessive numbers of patients would diminish the quality of care. This is another example of market failure at work. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Health must have directives that ensure our public hospitals are there to treat our sick and not to make money with Government subvention.

(3) Prioritise preventive healthcare. The directive on preventive healthcare should be put firmly in place. The various Ministries involved should work in concert and view this as a matter of priority. The successful implementation of preventive healthcare will translate into quality life for our people and with enormous savings for the people and the nation on healthcare cost. Sir, I have brought up and discussed this important issue at an Adjournment motion earlier.

(4) Plan for an ageing population. It is important for us to adopt correct and effective policies in this area right now so that we may cater for the diverse and varied needs of an ageing population. Done the right way, we will also be cushioned against increasing demands in future. I am glad that the President, in his Presidential Address, referred to the recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Ageing Population and said, "We must start now to implement policies and programmes to address these future needs." Mr Speaker, Sir, bear in mind that the ageing people will be the main users of our medical healthcare, I would suggest that we consider the following points:

(a) Plan for more "cheaper to run" community hospitals for the chronic sick. We do not need more acute hospitals as we do have more than enough of them at the moment.

(b) We need to better postulate the needs of an ageing population, especially in terms of the number of nursing homes, dementia homes, geriatric departments and geriatricians.

(c) We seriously consider the most effective way to cater for the chronic sick in the future and that would be to get the primary healthcare doctors to share the workload. Sir, I would like to declare, at this juncture, that I am a primary healthcare doctor. Shared care and step-down care to the primary practitioners will certainly reduce the use of acute hospitals and community hospitals. Moreover, patients will also benefit through staying at home and close to their own families.

(d) We increase the teaching of gerontology for all medical personnel and establish geriatrics as a worthy specialty for younger doctors to pursue.

(5) Establish better distribution of subsidy. Directive on funding should be towards better distribution of the subsidy to those that are really in need. We must make sure that there is no loophole in our system that may lead to abuse, misuse or "buffet syndrome". Singaporeans are pragmatic and will usually not "waste" any windows of opportunity that comes to hand. Our present subsidy guidelines are not the most rational because anyone can get the maximum subsidy if he so chooses. The Ministry of Health does not apply any "means test" as compared to the Ministry of Community Development or the Ministry of National Development. New funding for the chronic sick for long-term healthcare should be worked out as soon as possible. Perhaps, we should look at utilising a Medisave-type of funding here. A lot of work will be needed to establish the criteria on the use of funds for long-term healthcare as in, say, how primary healthcare providers could be remunerated in a reasonable and controlled manner to ensure affordability.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are fortunate here in Singapore. We have the means to afford world-class medical care for our people. We have the personnel and premises to dispense the medical excellence to our people. We also have an abundance of ideas and means to turn this country into a regional medical hub we allude to not infrequently. So let us make sure we get the best mileage from what we have.

Sir, I support the motion of thanks on the President's Address.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.57 pm until 3.20 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Cheng San): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Before I begin with my speech, I must say a few words in fairness to our sage mentor Confucius. On Monday, Mr Chiam See Tong said that the philosophy in Singapore is authoritarianism because it is based on Confucianism. He could not have been more wrong. Confucianism advocates a benevolent government like what the famous Tang poet Du Fu described in one of his poems, "Build thousands of homes to shelter the poor and make them happy." Confucianism emphasizes "cultivating the moral characters of oneself, putting the family in good order" as a basis of the people-focused philosophy in ruling the country. Due to time constraint I am unable to spend time to explain the details to Mr Chiam in this House.

Let me cite him a historical fact to prove him wrong. Just imagine, if Confucianism is authoritarianism, then why had the first Emperor of China, Qing Shi Huang, to bury alive the Confucian scholars and to burn the Confucian books? Mr Chiam's one-sided evaluation of Confucism and the NCMP's lopsided criticism of the President's Speech reminded me of the story about a blind man describing the elephant, as told to me by my teacher when I was a little boy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have some real-life examples here. When we discuss national issues and topics affecting the daily lives of our people, we should first make some in-depth studies and research from a macro view. We should not generalize and be lopsided in our assessment. Otherwise, we will be like the blind man who caught hold of the elephant's trunk and said that the elephant was like a snake.

One of Singapore's key competitive strengths is its active and effective practice of tripartism. As one of the social partners, the labour movement in Singapore has over the years, strengthened its commitment to harmonious industrial relations as well as raising productivity at the workplace. Our unions understand that a better life for workers and their families is only possible when investments are forthcoming and good jobs are available. To ensure this, all the tripartite partners should continue to work closely for a harmonious industrial climate and industrial peace. So, we have to help our workers acquire the requisite skills to meet the challenges that lie ahead and give them the relevant and proper knowledge and skills that we can continue to remain competitive.

Today, with the increasing global competition, jobs that are deemed the iron rice bowl may well become a thing of the past. This kind of long-term job security does not exist anymore. Our goal is how to ensure life-long employability. As the old Chinese saying goes, "as you live till an old age, you must keep on learning". This is even more true today as we move towards a knowledge-based economy. As Mr Matthias Yao had said, our workers need a completely new set of skills, very different from those applicable to our early years of industrialisation. Our workers must continually upgrade their skills and knowledge so that they will be able to perform better than others. It is only then that they will be able to operate computers and other advanced equipment. We need workers to constantly make use of knowledge and perform better.

A recent article in the Far Eastern Economic Review observed how countries like Singapore had scored well in labour rankings, aided more by factors like political stability, infrastructure and telecommunications. But we should not be too quick to pop the champagne as the article went on to say and I quote, "And they (Singapore and Hong Kong) cease to be competitive in tasks such as technical support and accounting. Hong Kong and Singapore will need to improve general education levels to prepare their workforce for more sophisticated white collar jobs." Indeed, the article cited a study by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) that Singapore fared poorly as far as the quality, cost and availability of skilled labour are concerned. So companies that require large numbers of manual workers will continue to be moved out of Singapore to cheaper locations. To stay employable, our people must have a good grasp of the core skills. We must be able to do this, otherwise our workers will have to suffer from unemployment and hardship because of severe structural unemployment.

In the knowledge-based economy, workers must have a reasonable degree of skills and know-how. If workers are not up to it, they will find it difficult to find jobs here and you cannot compete with others.

On the other hand, when we are facing the challenges of the 21st century, we have to build up our heartware and social cohesion so that we will not be phased out. We must not overlook the consolidation and the maintenance of the heartware. I hope that the employers will cooperate with the unions to provide a better and safer working environment to ensure that the employees enjoy good health.

The modern computer may be attacked by virus and it becomes paralysed. Likewise, the workers' productivity and efficiency may be affected by illnesses or occupational hazards that cause them to be unable to work effectively. This is a matter which we must look into seriously.

The National Health Survey 1998 showed that hypertension has increased to 27% of the population recently and for high cholesterol, it has gone up to 24%. Diabetes affected 9% of the adult population. The situation is more alarming among the older people. Among those in their 50s or older, half of them have hypertension, 2 out of 3 have high cholesterol, and 1 in 5 is diabetic. For those in their 60s and above, it is even more alarming. Over 3 in 5 have hypertension, half have high cholesterol and 1 in 3 is diabetic. More than half had not been previously diagnosed and this is also very alarming. They do not know that they are having health problems. Another area of concern is that 3 in 4 think that Singapore is a stressful place to live in. Although a little stress is good for motivation in work, chronic stress could lead to serious health breakdown.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope to see more employers carrying out workplace health programmes to help the workers look after their health. There is a need to set up a structural framework such as a simple annual health screening to detect health risk factors and medical problems among the workers early, so as to prevent complications and disability. A follow-up programme can then be established at workplaces to help promote healthy lifestyle, encourage people to exercise regularly, and have regular health checks. It is just as important that workers choose healthier diets, learn to cope with stress and say "no" to cigarettes.

We need to further improve occupational safety and health at the workplace to minimise the number of industrial accidents and incidence of occupational diseases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of offenders paying composition fines for infringement of safety rules increased from 2,617 in 1997 to 3,218 in 1998. Last year, 99 workers died in industrial accidents, and 162 others were permanently disabled. There were 897 confirmed occupational diseases, with 674 suffering from noise-induced deafness, and 132 others from industrial dermatitis. Occupational disease cases with permanent disability for the last three years, from 1996 to 1998, were 96. Our workers deserve a safer working environment.

Healthy living is as important as a safe working environment. Healthy workers are more productive. Enhancing the quality of life of workers is the primary objective of a trade union. Job creation, job security, a safe working environment and good wages will be meaningless if our workers are unable to reap the benefits because of their poor health.

In conclusion, the survival of Singapore depends, to a large extent, on our ability to continue to be relevant to the market place in the world. This primarily rests on the skill levels of our workers. But this alone will not be sufficient. The skilled worker will be of no use when he continues to be on medical leave or he works under the impending dangers to his health and life at the workplace. This is an awesome challenge that requires no less than a full commitment from the Government, the employers and the unions working hand in hand. This is a very important area that we must look into. So all the three partners in the prosperity of Singapore must work together closely to implement measures to ensure the safety of our workers, how to safeguard our human resource as our asset. Sir, our workers are our very important asset and we have to face this new challenge to enhance our work safety.