DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Debate resumed.

Mr R. Ravindran (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am excited by the programme of the Government which focuses on people development. The concrete plans to re-engineer the education system, upgrade worker skills, caring for the aged and the disadvantaged, and preparing the population for the IT age are indeed commendable. It is something we can achieve, and achieve well.

I must also commend the Government for being bold in recognising the challenges that lie ahead for the nation and what it intends to do to meet it head on.

Sir, I am even more impressed by what it intends to do in the sphere of active citizenship. The move to engage the citizens in every sphere of Singapore life is laudable and is progressing gradually and well.

Active citizenship is a concept that has to be understood well by all players. Mr Davinder Singh, in his opening address, has highlighted well that the people look to the Government for a road map with clear pointers. Similarly, the private sector is also looking to the Government for these clear pointers. Naturally, there is an assumption that the Government has charted the terrain and has marked it with clear pointers, but that such a map is not available for public use.

Sir, I reckon the truth is that the Government is also moving into uncharted terrain. I think my parliamentary colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, put it aptly when he said that even at the top "we are still grappling for some form of consensus about the desirable pace of change." So the reality may be that there is no road map, more so a road map with clear pointers.

Can there be a road map with clear pointers in real life when the terrain itself is not surveyed and planted with markers? We have to work together as pioneers to chart the terrain collectively premised on a common purpose.

One has to recognise that there are some things in life that one cannot put down in detail. Even a good road map sometimes does not point the hidden danger zones and potholes. One has to travel the road to discover the road and the pitfalls there. We may meet speed cameras, bumps, potholes, traffic policemen and other impediments. Different drivers also react and drive differently according to temperament and experience. We become wiser and experienced. We must also know that if one takes great risk and drives dangerously, we can endanger ourselves, our passengers and other road users. It all boils down to a call of judgment. I hope my analogy highlights the real life situation. In real life, everyone, including the Government, has to make a judgment call. When, how and why it will be made cannot be predicted as there are many factors that will be at play.

One must also acknowledge that all this call for active citizenship will come to a dead end if the political leadership is keen but the bureaucracy resists the same and fears encroachment and criticism. Similarly, it would fail in its infancy if the political leadership takes to task any unconstructive disagreement.

Sir, to the credit of the Government and the civil service, they have accepted the need for active citizens and have come out with several steps to engage them in policy making. I can vouch for it because I have seen it in action in innumerable instances. The bigger question is whether the people really understand what is meant by active citizenship.

Sir, there is a pool of intellectuals in Singapore who are naturally excited and are looking forward to the blossoming of a civil society. Here, I must caution the advocates of the civil society itself. There are varying definitions of civil society among different theorists. In fact, two scholars, Michael W. Foley and Bob Edwards, wrote an article in the Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7.3, entitled "The Paradox of Civil Society". In their article, they state (if I may summarise the gist) that some see civil society as a state where non-government organisations spontaneously appear to allow for participation and involvement by citizens in non-political areas such as social clubs and volunteer organisations. They call it civil society model 1, and this is their first definition. Robert D. Putman who is an advocate of this model states that such associations must not be polarised and politicised.

What these organisations attempt to do is that they attempt to bridge social and political divisions and thus, presumably, are autonomous from political forces. The issue then arises: how can such associations shape political participation and "civic engagement" without engaging in specifically political issues and without representing compelling social interests? Can these organisations under the civil society model 1 really meet the clamour from Singaporeans for greater participation?

Then there is another group of theorists who advocate that the civil society becomes a check on undemocratic or tyrannical governments. This version is articulated by Jacek Kuron, Adam Michnik and others. Clearly, they see their role as harbingers of democratic change and see their involvement in politics as natural. These theorists lay special emphasis on civil society as a sphere of action that is independent of the state and that is capable of energising resistance to a tyrannical regime. This is the model seen in the past in many Latin American and Eastern European states. And I would call it the civil society model 2.

Sir, as you can see, at the definition stage, there is a degree of great difference between civil society model 1 and model 2, for while the former postulates the positive effects of association for governance, the latter emphasises the importance of civil association as a counterweight to the state. There is no reason, in principle, why this counterweight of civil society will not become a burden to a democracy or an authoritarian state.

In fact, the two scholars, Michael W. Foley and Bob Edwards, in the same article "The Paradox of Civil Society" described that the "concept of civil society seems to take on the property of a gas, expanding or contracting to fit the analytic space afforded it by each historical or socio-political setting." That is how elusive the concept of civil society is.

Sir, what is clear is that the civil society model 1 does not entail participants entering the sphere of politics and challenging the state (or government) as a counterweight. Those who insist on pushing a political agenda or on challenging the government of the day should then move on to the arena of political organisations. The civil society model 2, as it stands, cannot be acceptable in Singapore as a counterweight to the Government, because we have a Government that is democratically elected in elections every five years, and only they have the right of representing the people and of making key decisions for the people. However, it is unclear which is the model that the civil society of Singapore will become.

I welcome the statement by the hon. NMPs, Mr Zulkifli Baharudin and Mr Simon Tay, that they will look into the challenges facing civil society in Singapore. But as I listened to the speech of Mr Simon Tay earlier, I noted that they will be addressing three issues: (1) registration of societies; (2) the limit of speeches; and (3) the role of government, private society and civil society. What I would urge them to do is try, in the first place, to establish what exactly is the type of civil society that we want in Singapore, because if they do not clarify right at the outset what is the type of civil society that we wish to create in Singapore, looking at the two models that are available, I think there is potential for conflict ahead.

Sir, I feel that it is no help to ask the Government to define the scope of participation for civil society as, by its nature, civil society must be spontaneous and autonomous of state. Even if the Government were to define such parameters as called by Mr Davinder Singh, would it not then be accused of setting OB markers and be accused of stifling a greater civil society? Similarly, the very call for tolerance of constructive disagreement is a sine qua non for trouble, as the issue arises who defines constructive, or its corollary destructive, disagreement. Naturally, everyone with the present mindset will look to the Government to define the same. But then, would we not all come back to square one where all is state defined.

In fact, just as much as Mr Simon Tay earlier called in his speech for a civil society, I noted that he called upon the Feedback Unit to come back with measures on how to get more feedback, and also how the various Government departments had failed in certain aspects. Civil society naturally must also be involved and that there must be a spontaneous reaction from people to see how they can improve the society and the nation.

Sir, I was even more amused that in today's Straits Times, Mr Zulkifli Baharudin has called (i) on the Government to help finance organisations and lend administrative support; and (ii) for civil servants and GLC employees to become involved in civic groups. This is in itself unacceptable to the purists of the civil society proponents who do not want to see the hand of the Government in civil society. Even if one were to accept Mr Zulkifli's call for help, would not the civil society then be accused of being a "guided civil society"?

Sir, if the full extent of the plea of Mr Zulkifli is analysed, one would realise that we will be back to where we are now. We already have a "dense network of civil organisations" which is considered necessary for a civil society, and which is a key requirement for civil society. Perhaps the purists do not realise that in the real world, there can be no civil society in a vacuum and that you need support, whether from government, political parties or other interest groups to survive, thrive and stay relevant.

Sir, it is my wish that we create our own model civil society which meets our requirements, our aspirations and common purpose. In the process, Sir, it is equally important that we do not exclude the existing key components of our society. We should include the grassroots organisations, our unions and many other organisations which are present in Singapore in any civil society that we intend to create because civil society must mean participation by everybody in that society. It is something for thought for everyone.

My call to all Singaporeans is that the Government is ready for active citizenry. The ball is in the people's court. They decide what is the appropriate model. You may be rebuked unexpectedly. You may be challenged vigorously and not too subtly, but change, particularly radical change, does not come easily and we may have to work together to reach our destination together. One must never forget the key message in the President's Address that the Government wishes to engage all its citizens in a constructive manner in various aspects of decision making and to get Singaporeans to play a greater constructive role in national life.

Sir, we have defined politics as a serious business in Singapore. If some Singaporeans see civil society as a cloak to make good populist speeches and not take responsibility for it, then my advice is, go join the Toastmasters' Club where good speeches get commended. But if there are serious people who want to champion political issues or political causes, then join political organisations and champion the cause or seek to become an NMP. Let us all welcome this new dynamic phase of national development, ie, building the heartware. Let us all collectively survey the terrain, mark out the safe and unsafe areas and work together in making Singapore our home the best home.

Sir, I support the motion. 3.48 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the Opening of the last Session of Parliament in June 1997, I spoke on Singapore 21 and our vision for a new era. But visions must confront realities, and in case our feet left the ground, I cautioned that there were many things in the future we could not possibly foresee.

One month later, a financial crisis erupted in Thailand, swept across Asia, and devastated several economies. It permanently changed the strategic landscape in the region. The forces of change that the regional crisis unleashed are still at work, and we do not yet know their full impact.

Who could have foreseen the traumatic changes in Indonesia, or that Singapore, at the UN's and Indonesia's invitation, is participating in the INTERFET mission in East Timor? What will Indonesia be like after 20th October when a new President is chosen? What will the region be like in five years' time?

In addition, technology and globalisation will continue to transform businesses, economic structures and human society. We have to face intense economic competition in an increasingly borderless world, and manage change in our society as well.

This volatility and uncertainty in our regional environment and the rapidity of changes in the world are realities we have to live with.

Our response should be strategic and robust. In essence, we shall focus on our people, investing in them, enhancing their capabilities, stretching their minds, stimulating their creative and entrepreneurial spirit, and harnessing their ideas and energy to build a first-world economy and a world-class home. This is our bold strategy to tackle the challenges ahead.

A first-world economy and a world-class home are not two separate goals. They are two sides of the same coin. We need the resources from a sound, competitive economy to build a world-class home, and we need a world-class home to anchor Singaporeans to create a first-world economy for Singapore.

Between the two facets, a first-world economy is the easier goal to achieve. Our economic foundation is strong and our reputation as a pro-business economy is excellent. By implementing the right policies consistently and building new capabilities, we will succeed in becoming a first-world economy.

Building a world-class home presents a trickier challenge. It is not just about nice houses, modern conveniences and bright city lights. It is about people, relationships, motivation, commitment, passion, dedication and determination. The irony is that the more Singapore improves its infrastructure and amenities, the less unique and indistinguishable from other cities it becomes. Singapore risks becoming like one of those well-run, comfortable international hotels which successful business executives check in and out.

Building a world-class home

What makes a home different from a hotel is where the heart is. Most homes are less comfortable than a hotel, but they are where the people feel they belong, where they are king and where they can decorate and arrange the furniture anyway they like. This, in essence, is what distinguishes a home from a hotel. Singapore is a place where Singaporeans can be themselves, where they can make a difference, and where they care for one another and rally together when faced with challenges. The best home for Singaporeans is a world-class home.

Here, I want to highlight two demographic trends which may undermine our effort to build our world-class home.

Falling fertility rates

The first trend concerns the growth of the population. The statistics show clearly that we are not replacing ourselves. This is a serious problem. The Government has warned against this trend 12 years ago. We tried to reverse it but we have not been successful.

Our Total Fertility Rate or TFR has fallen steadily since 1990, despite our scrapping the "Stop At Two" policy and encouraging married couples to "Have three or more, if you can afford it". The TFR is a fertility indicator which shows whether the population is replacing itself. A population is considered to be replacing itself if it can maintain a TFR of about two. This means a woman in our population would on average have two children in her lifetime. Our TFR has fallen steadily from 1.87 in 1990 to 1.5 in 1998.

1998 was the Year of the Tiger so one would not expect a large number of births. But the Year of the Rabbit has not been prolific either. The number of births in the first eight months is, in fact, 3% lower than that of the same period last year. Unless the Rabbit surprises us in the next three months, the TFR for 1999 is likely to fall below 1.5.

In 1987 when I announced the Government's New Population Policy, I also expressed the hope that there would be at least 50,000 births a year. This provides the minimum cohort size to sustain our economy, defence and other manpower needs. Our actual birth numbers were nowhere near the 50,000 mark in the past five years. In 1998, the number of births came to only 43,664, far short of the target that the Government set.

If this declining fertility trend persists, and it is likely to be the case, our citizen population of three million will grow to about 3.5 million by 2030 and then start to decline. Ang Mong Seng and Dr Michael Lim raised the needs of the old. The needs of the old will become even more acute after 2030. The proportion of older people then will be far higher compared to what it is today. There will also be fewer people in the working-age group. This means that the 3.5 million people in Singapore in 2030 may not produce sufficient wealth to look after the needs of the old and society in general. Can a shrinking population sustain a first-world economy?

The statistics also show that the more educated mothers are, the fewer kids they are likely to have. The more educated have on average a family size that is about 15% smaller than those with lower education. As the educational standard of our people will go up, we must expect our TFR to fall even further. There are many reasons for the declining TFR - urbanisation, education, changing lifestyles, singlehood and late marriages. Having babies also involve personal choices and trade-offs. I am not optimistic that we can achieve a significant increase in fertility level. But we must never give up trying to get Singaporeans who can afford it to have more children. Dr Jennifer Lee talked about incentives for fathers. I am not sure paternity leave is the solution because our main problem is the large number of highly-educated women who remain single. Among those with post-secondary qualifications, about one in five women is likely to remain single in her life time. So we must try to increase the marriage rate of our women, especially those with higher education.

Adopting an "inclusive" mindset

Given that our citizen population is not replacing itself, we have no choice but to top up our population with new immigrants. They provide a much-needed boost to our manpower strength, augmenting shortfalls in the productive age groups and increasing our talent pool. Since we have to take in new immigrants, we should be selective, admitting only those with skills, high education and talents, from wherever they are. This way, we make sure that foreigners who become Permanent Residents and Singaporeans are a definite plus to our country. These foreign-born Singaporeans will help enhance the vibrancy and dynamism of our economy and society.

We should make every effort to absorb these foreign-born Singaporeans into our society. We should strengthen their commitment by giving them a sense of ownership of Singapore too. This inclusive approach will ensure that a generation from now, these new Singaporeans and their children will be as nationalistic as any one of us. Their children will have to do national service as Singaporeans. Singaporeans Overseas

This brings me to the second trend - the increased number of Singaporeans going overseas. I asked the Ministry of Manpower how many Singaporeans are overseas on a long-term basis. The Ministry came up with an estimate of 150,000, which included working adults and their dependants, emigrants and students.

Based on the number of Good Conduct Certificates issued by the Police, each year some 2,000 Singaporeans pack up their bags and emigrate. More than half are females, many of whom married foreigners and leave Singapore to join their husbands. There are also some 6,000 applications to MINDEF each year for reservist training deferment on grounds of overseas employment of duration longer than six months.

Whether we like it or not, more Singaporeans will take wing, given the pace of globalisation and their own personal mobility. As Singaporeans become even more cosmopolitan, the issue of concern to us is whether they will become less rooted to Singapore. We now have to even compete for the hearts of Singaporeans against attractions elsewhere.

Developing each and every Singaporean

With this background, you will appreciate better the significance of the statement - every Singaporean matters. There are not many of us to build and protect our home. So we have to provide every Singaporean with the opportunity to develop his or her potential to the fullest. We have cut down our school dropout rate. So it shocked me to learn that each year some 1,500 children, or 3% of a cohort, are not even registered for Primary One in national schools. The Ministry of Education has argued against compulsory education because the number of non-registration is considered small. But every Singaporean matters. And every Singaporean child should be given the same head start in life, ie, to attend school. I favour compulsory education, at least up to Primary 4 level. Beyond that, if a child does not want to study, or wants to drop out, there is little we can do. I am asking the Ministry of Education to consider the introduction of compulsory education.

Giving Singaporeans an emotional stake

We have given Singaporeans a physical stake in the country - home-ownership, upgrading of HDB estates, shares of privatised Government companies, cash top-up of their CPF and Medisave accounts, good infrastructure and ample facilities for sports and leisure activities.

We must now give Singaporeans an emotional stake in the country. This is why I have made consultation and participation one of the Government's major goals. It is to give Singaporeans a bigger say in their own future, and thus bond them to Singapore. We want Singaporeans to sprout ideas to make Singapore better, take responsibility for their ideas and make them work.

The Government has successfully tapped private sector expertise for major Government-led committees such as the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness of 1997 and the Financial Sector Review Committee of 1998. We found the private sector involvement very useful, both in terms of coming to grips with the problem and of forging a consensus on the way forward. We will continue to involve the private sector in major review of important policies, not just in economics, but also in non-economic areas.

At the same time, we have systematically opened up more channels for citizens to participate, to involve them in building a world-class home. Besides writing to the press, Singaporeans can channel their views through the Feedback Unit, Service Improvement Unit, Institute of Policy Studies, Members of Parliament, dialogue sessions, GPC resource panels and so on.

The recently-completed Singapore 21 exercise was noteworthy for its involvement of Singaporeans from all walks of life, in particular, younger Singaporeans. Their vision and recommendations are now accepted as national policies. Due to such extensive and active participation, we were able to come up with a Singapore 21 vision which fully reflected the needs and aspirations of our people. The opposition may dismiss Singapore 21 as empty elections talk. The point is, it is a collective product of Singaporeans, and the opposition has nothing fresh to offer.

Simon Tay expressed his disappointment that the President's Address and Addenda fell short on details on fostering an active citizenry. If the Government were to spell out each and every step, or a series of bangs, as he put it, then it is contrary to what active citizenship is all about and what we are trying to do, that is, more initiatives from the people sector. Ravindran has answered this question very well - that you want spontaneity from the people sector. What Simon Tay and Zulkifli are doing is right, that is, do a study on how to foster civil society and submit it to the Government, and then we take it from there. This is what I mean by active citizenry. You take the initiative, and not expect the Government to outline the steps all the way for you.

Turning Singapore into a nation of ideas

Each year, thousands of Singaporeans submit their suggestions and views to the Feedback Unit. In 1997, we took the feedback process further by organising regular feedback contributors into groups. So far, 27 feedback groups have been formed. These feedback units are the people sector's equivalent of Quality Circles and Work Improvement Teams. We now want to go beyond feedback on how policies affect the people to encouraging Singaporeans to submit constructive suggestions and new ideas.

In the Civil Service, we reward Work Improvement Teams when they submit cost-saving ideas. Singaporeans may wish to form themselves into similar work improvement teams to submit ideas on any aspect of government. We will introduce an award scheme to give symbolic recognition for useful ideas put up by Singaporeans, either individually or as a team. Big ideas or small ideas, let them flow. Turn Singapore into a nation of ideas.

Consultation and Participation

Here, let me explain what I expect of consultation and participation, to avoid misunderstanding and cynicism.

First, consultation does not mean that every Singaporean must be consulted, or that every policy discussed with the public before it is implemented. That is not practical. If it were practical, you would not need Members of Parliament or representative government. Parliamentary democracy means electing a group of Members of Parliament to represent the people's interests. The Government consults the people mainly through their MPs, and is answerable to Parliament for its performance. That is why having good MPs who can understand the concerns and solve problems for the people is important.

Second, when the Government consults, it is with people who have good knowledge of the subject. It consults people who can help improve the formulation of policies. It is not necessarily with people who may be affected by the policy. Every policy of the Government affects the whole population. No government consults its citizens on every policy.

Third, Singaporeans must not expect every suggestion and idea of theirs to be accepted. If a proposal is well argued, it will get a fair hearing. Even if it is rejected, it is also valuable if it has challenged existing assumptions and thinking and provided the opportunity for the Government to reaffirm its policies.

Fourth, while Singaporeans will have more space for political debate, it does not mean that the Government is vacating the arena. Anyone who wants a policy changed, or to set the national agenda, must expect a debate with the Government. Every Government policy has been carefully considered before implementation. But anyone is free to challenge it. However, he must expect a response from the Government. The Government will defend its policies, principles and programmes openly and robustly. Not to do so is contrary to the whole purpose of public debate. If the Government remains silent, views contrary to what the Government believes is right, will soon prevail. This will confuse the ground because the public may think the Government, by its silence, agrees with the contrary views.

Zulkifli Baharudin said that "being thick-skinned must certainly be one of the necessary pre-requisites for anyone intending to engage in public debate". No, we do not want Singaporeans to develop hides. Even the thickest hide can be stripped. We do not want a querulous population with thick skins. An important pre-requisite for public debate is a keen mind - how sound an idea is, and how it will benefit public interests.

Let me add that those without mischievous intention or a hidden agenda need not fear a rebuttal from Government. They should not be discouraged to speak up simply because Government may challenge their views. Constructive debate is a necessary part of the process for determining what is best for Singapore. This is what consultation and participation is about.

But those out to undermine the Government, or to wrest power from the ruling party, is another matter altogether. They must expect a political response from the Government. This political response can be extremely robust because whoever wins in the political arena will decide the future of Singapore. The PAP will guard its turf jealously, not for itself, but for the good of Singapore.

Singapore will always be like a boat shooting the rapids. Those who have done white-water rafting would understand my analogy. They will understand the importance of the steersman as the boat negotiates the rocks in a fast-flowing, frothy river. The Government is like this steersman or captain.

I have experienced the thrills and dangers of white-water rafting in New Zealand. Once in the boat, I put my faith in the captain and do what he told me to do. Consultation took place before I stepped into the boat. Once I was in, I had to play my part as a member of the crew.

Do not think that Singapore is sailing in calm waters and therefore we can take risks. Or that we are freer to rock the boat because we now have a sturdier boat and each one of us is equipped with a safety helmet and a life jacket.

The political landscape of our neighbours is changing. It will affect the strategic and security environment of our region. And however well-governed Singapore is, however strong our economy is, and however united our people are, we will be reminded from time to time that we are a little red dot, or an adik, or a predominantly Chinese country within a Muslim region.

This does not mean we have to have a siege mentality. It means we must be robust, forward-thinking and innovative to break out of the confines of our geography, which is why we are changing the way we teach in schools, and getting our people to be more resourceful, creative and better informed.

Our revamp of the education system will lead in the future to a questioning electorate. A questioning electorate and population will demand a higher performance from Parliament and the Government. It will demand more political space, more debate.

Will such a population throw up an alternative party to challenge the PAP, or will it throw up more good men and women to join or support the PAP and help it carry on with its work?

Does it matter so long as it produces a group of leaders who are honest, committed to Singapore and more competent than the PAP leaders? Does it matter if it is a population which understands Singapore's uniqueness and vulnerabilities and backs its leaders?

But I do know that to survive in an intensely competitive borderless and volatile world, it does matter if we do not have a well-informed, thinking, resourceful, innovative and cohesive population with the resolve to keep Singapore going.

This is why for the remaining term of this Parliament, we are emphasising people - numbers, quality, commitment, relationships, roots, responsibility, freedom, participation and passion. But more than talking and consultation, there must be action. This is where I salute the thousands of social workers, volunteers, grassroots leaders and others who do more than talk. They go about quietly, looking after the interests of their community and fellow Singaporeans. They are a critical part of our people sector. The Government values such people.

Conclusion

Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, must believe firmly in what Singapore stands for - our ideals, ethos, principles and values, and be willing to do their part to safeguard our way of life. They have done well in life because the Singapore system offers them a level playing field, abundant opportunities, and a helping hand to develop their potential to the fullest. Singapore's future is in their hands. They have to make a difference to Singapore and make us proud to be Singaporeans. This is what active citizenry is about.

If our hearts beat together for Singapore, we will succeed as a nation no matter what challenges lie ahead. [Applause.]

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise in full-hearted support of this motion and thank the President for his timely pronouncement that people will be the focus of the Government's policy in the new millennium.

Sir, there has been so much debate, just a few minutes ago with PM's discourse and in the last two years on Singapore 21, in particular on how the State must create more opportunities for every citizen to contribute ideas and actions to be active citizens.

The Government has implicitly accepted, I presume, that the relationship between the State and society need not be a "flight or fight" choice for Singaporeans. In other words, Singaporeans who are critical of certain policies need not either totally disengage - take "flight" so to speak, physically through migration or psychologically through "tuning out" - from public discourse, or "fight" by taking part in partisan politics. If they do not want to take "flight" or "fight", is there a third way? I would like to think so because I clearly do not believe that the options before us are dichotomous: that active citizenship is about whether you join the Government or against it.

The Government, in the last two years, has been far more respectful of different viewpoints and took them seriously. A process of engagement between the State and the people sector, however unclear it is still in terms of rights and responsibilities, has begun. Nevertheless, we are still struggling and will continue to do so with regard to the amount of space the Government is prepared to give its citizens.

Sir, I would like to cite for discussion the case of Chinese High students who organised a spontaneous signing petition to request their Principal to consider his retirement, which, to me, was a seemingly peaceful and heartfelt gesture that was absent of any ill intention. The Ministry made a public statement that students must stay off staff matters.

I share the Ministry's concern that well-meaning and idealistic students may be made use of for purposes which students only vaguely understood. But, Sir, for future references, who, how and by what standards shall we judge when to put a curb on student's civic involvement? Should we, as adults, let them take their own responsibilities as thinking individuals, by adopting a greater latitude of tolerance, even for acts which they did not always understand completely? Sir, children learn by making mistakes in doing things. While this may be frowned upon in our society, in our strive to create a zero defect and zero mistake society, we have to accept that it is a natural human limitation to make mistakes. That being so, is it not then the responsibility of the adults and the authorities to create that climate of tolerance for learning purposes?

Like one student alumni from Chinese High said to me, "if we do not first learn to bond with the school and our Principal, how can we learn to bond with the nation?" The Chinese High students appreciated what the Principal had done for the school and wanted him to stay, an emotion that seemed natural enough. They would have liked to hear from the Ministry that this was a good thing to do too. The Ministry made them feel as though they could not act on their own without being easily manipulated. Although the Ministry did say it was understandable for students to express their feelings in a press release issued by Mrs Lim Soon Tze afterwards, the students nevertheless felt let down.

Sir, we are talking about future leaders of Singapore. We expect them to think and make mistakes. Even if they had been influenced by the Board members whose involvement in the management of the school was inappropriate, we have to respect the students for reaching a decision to do what they did. Then it is our job to persuade them otherwise.

Sir, I bring this up as a concerned mother because apart from academic achievement, I would like my children to get leadership experiences from their schools on civic responsibilities. But I would also be disturbed if I feel that they were being used. In this particular case, I ask what rights were the students asking for? Nothing for themselves, it was simply an expression of affection and hope that the Ministry will help them to retain their Principal. What was the responsibility which they must reciprocate to get this right of expression, if we agree with Mr Davinder Singh that there cannot be greater rights without greater responsibilities? I assume in this case is to conduct the act in a peaceful manner, without disruption to school routine and order. That they had done too. So what did the students do wrong?

If students do not care about anything, they are accused of being apathetic. If they express strong feelings about a subject which, one has to admit, they certainly have first hand feelings about, and act, as PM encourages people should do so, they are accused of being gullible and naive and manipulated by others. Is this not the classic catch-22 situation?

Is it not wiser then to consider a leadership style of stepping back a little and "letting it be" (remember the song "Let it be" in the words of a famous baby-boomer rock singer) - a strategy of diffusing conflict and gaining some headway in a difficult situation? In Chinese, we say "yi tui wei jin" ( ). Is it not better that a separate session be spent with the entire Chinese High School to commend the students for what they have done, then explain clearly but gently that this is an administrative matter which is best settled officially? I think the students will totally agree with you because most of them did not see their act as intervening in staff matters, even less a "wish to join the picket line of employment disputes" as feared by Mr Loh Meng See.

The Ministry may be right to chastise the Board members who should know better, but it must handle the students' emotions separately by attempting to earn their understanding through facilitative communication and persuasion. Such openness from the Ministry including a little risk taking initiative on its part will go a long way in nurturing teenagers to becoming self-empowered adults. We do not learn lateral thinking by doing De Bono classes; it is by doing activities with people and learning from all.

Sir, I agree that active citizenship encapsulates a bargain, but in any bargain, it involves two way risk-taking and resolution process being adopted by the parties in negotiation. If only one party dictates the terms, it is not a bargain; it is an authoritarian imposition. I hope Mr Simon Tay and Mr Zulkifli Baharudin will use the case of Chinese High School as their study on civil society.

On a separate encouraging note, in my own experiences as an advocate in the community, I have been given the opportunity to persuade policy makers and be persuaded to give feedback to certain Ministries and be corrected and educated in return. I have to register my gratitude here to the Ministries of Community Development and Home Affairs for opening their doors to me and the groups which I represented in these 10 years. In our constructive engagement process, we have collaborated on many projects together. I hope all the Ministries will continue to open up more, to a broader range of people in small group meetings to gather diverse viewpoints, or even radically different ones.

This process of engaging the people sector is clearly what I am focusing on, because in the process, we are constructing the norms and values on how to do things together and how to negotiate differences. Mr Ravindran has eloquently talked about what civil society is not, how elusive it is and the dangers ahead. It is an evolving process of definition. I do not think Mr Simon Tay or Mr Zulkifli Baharudin will find the definition. It is a collective process that we all here in this House must reach.

I simply ask at this point for an engagement. In this engagement, we learn to give and take. We learn what can be negotiated and attempted. If no resolution can be reached, we learn how to put the matter at hand aside for further review and wait for another round of discussion, always with an open mind and willingness to give the issue a fresh look. Never mind in the end whose proposals got accepted, rejected or amended - the time spent in constructive engagement is the humanising dimension of participatory democracy. If the Government only consults those people who can help it formulate policy, ie, the highly educated individuals, then it will fail to reach and feel the community. Civil servants, MPs and community leaders must do their part. And I hope all Members of Parliament will take this seriously.

"The road map with clear pointers and markers" asked by Mr Davinder Singh cannot be established overnight. I agree with Prof. Toh See Kiat that disagreement is not division. But when there are disagreements, it is important that we keep an open mind to review the issues and reach a middle ground. Too many disagreements will lead to division. With sufficient time and opportunity given to relationship building between the Government and society, we are closer to knowing how "to take the heat" as Mr Davinder said, and identify what Singaporeans truly want which cannot be assumed to be homogenous, as Mr Sin Boon Ann cautioned. The process of engagement does help, I believe, to restore the emotional bonding that Mr Inderjit Singh hopes for, the loyalty and patriotism that Mr Kenneth Chen wishes for in Singaporeans, and the trust that Mr Zainul Abidin finds essential in a pluralistic society.

Sir, the people have to act, not just pontificate or ponder like what Mr Iswaran said. I would quickly add that the Government too has to roll up its sleeves and act with the people. It is evidently in the interest of the Government to say "Trust me". But it has to meet the demand of the voters who yell "Show me." Between this tension, it is a whole lot of effort and sincerity that must be poured in from the State and the people sector. It is easy to shut people up with robust sanctions, but what do we get in return? Demoralisation, indifference, escapism, low voluntarism, low motivation - all the attributes which kill creativity. Thick-skinnedness is a necessary trait. I agree with Mr Zulkifli Baharudin, but let us not forget that the skin gets thicker only with age and experience, not everyone gets there yet. It is up to those in authority to step back sometimes and let it be.

Without the space to express and create, we slowly kill people's imagination. Let me quote what Albert Einstein said: "In moments of crisis, only imagination is more valuable than knowledge." Has the Government provided the people with an environment to imagine and create, to better face up to any crisis in the unpredictable times ahead, which PM just a few minutes ago warned us?

Sir, permit me to switch gear and look at broader issues. The Government has said that developing heartware in our society is top priority. Arising from this commitment, I propose greater attention to four areas.

(1) The need for a broader definition of success beyond just material criteria so that we can tap the diversity of talents within our people. To begin with, I would like all schools and all learning institutions to develop a wider range of curriculum components to cater to students with different intelligence and talents. The future demands a multi-disciplinary approach to problem-solving, the more flexibility there is in subject mix as well as teaching and learning methodologies, the more prepared Singapore is in producing the kind of adults who are dynamic and adaptable. I am glad to hear from the Minister for Education yesterday that his Ministry is reviewing the teaching methods and teachers' quality at the pre-school level and I am so glad to hear PM's call earlier for compulsory education up to Primary 4 level. I believe that learning challenges at the secondary, primary and pre-school levels are very important.

(2) The need to address the social divide between those who possess the competencies and connections to make it in the knowledge-based economy and those who cannot, by increasing the awareness of the "haves" regarding the needs of the "have nots". I attended a seminar organised by the AMP last weekend. They highlighted rising social problems, divorce rates, increasing family violence, increasing teenage crimes, high drug recidivism, low morale and motivation among the disadvantaged families. These are not the issues of a Malay community alone. These concern all of us as Singaporeans.

I agree with Mr Zainul Abidin who said in his speech that we cannot take multi-culturalism for granted, and it is no longer sufficient for different ethnic groups to just co-exist. We need to enhance their mutual understanding and trust for one another, not by institutionalising one Multi-Cultural Day, but more by getting different groups to do projects and programmes together. And here, I am responding to the call to act.

I propose a buddy programme in schools to encourage cross-cultural interaction by pairing up different ethnic groups to study together, even stay with one another for a few days. At another level, we can also think about "shadowing" programmes for schools to encourage different ethnic groups to pair up and shadow a CEO or manager at work in the public and private sectors for one week, three days, or even one day. I had volunteered our company for this programme initiated by Raffles Girls' Secondary School.

I believe that such a programme helps to restore in our young a certain degree of realism about work, and the importance of teamwork and mutual support, all the values which are extremely important in cross-cultural relationship building. I am confident that this programme would reap positive benefits in the case of teenage boys "at the edge", whose restlessness could steer them towards deviant activities if unharnessed, but could yield productive outcome if captured and properly channelled.

Sir, these are just a few examples for me to illustrate the need for new ways of motivating our teenagers and enhancing cross-cultural understanding. We cannot talk about racial harmony. We must actively work at it with good programmes.

Third, the need to create a separate, distinct Youth 21 programme similar to the S21 programme, so that we can specifically tackle the hopes and fears of our young generation. The under-25 generation today will dominate the new millennium. If they feel bored, irrelevant and trapped in their own homeland, Singapore will be the poorer for it. If they migrate, we are in a worse shape. As PM said earlier, we are not replacing ourselves, therefore keeping every Singaporean is a priority concern.

I propose more resources to be given to the National Youth Council and community agencies to create "youth centres", as Dr Tan Boon Wan talked about yesterday, to let them meet regularly and identify clearly what teenagers want, what we can do to meet these expectations and how we can shape their community responsibilities.

The last is the need to look at family values and increasing gender conflicts, and restore a sense of family equilibrium that we have lost in the last few decades in our incessant search for material wealth, at both the personal and national level. In the larger perspective, families are still strong, but it serves us well to find out why the bonds are weakening, how women and men can be helped in coping with their changing roles and where the fault lines are and why 1,000 women left Singapore and married foreigners. This is a serious problem for the sons of the MPs in this House today!

Within the discussion of the impact of a knowledge-based economy on society, what new policies can be designed to enable families, not just workers, to become "knowledge families", able to transmit the kind of information and values to the children to make them learn well and willing to serve the community with pride. I support Dr Jennifer Lee's call for identifying more pro-family work policies and job redesigns to help working couples in balancing work and family responsibilities.

Sir, I would like to end with an endorsement of the view that we need more centres of prestige to be created within our society. More functions should feature guests-of-honour who are not Ministers and MPs, but other leaders of our community in their chosen fields. I feel this effort in creating horizontal connections of influence to include not just politicians and civil servants, but credible champions in the people sector, be it in the industry, the arts, education, social services, and so forth, will add healthy diversity and new leadership to public events.

The newspapers have said that they intend to support this by covering not just ministerial functions, but all kinds of people functions, even if no Minister is officiating. This is a good start of powering people to be on the front-line to lead and influence. May I even propose that one of the two newspapers that SPH is going to publish be called the "The Unofficial News" and contain no pronouncements from officialdom.

Sir, we need to power the imagination, the idealism and the hopes of all Singaporeans. If the Government delivers a leadership style with the same measure of creativity and innovation which it expects of Singaporeans, we are closer to building the people power for a better millennium for Singapore.

Mr Ong Kian Min (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

Sir, many Members before me have spoken on the President's Speech, touching on the Government's commitment to the Singapore 21 Vision and its focus and at this juncture of this debate, I would just like to touch on those aspects of the President's Speech which serve to focus our minds on many post-crisis concerns of today.

As a country, we have withstood the economic crisis of the past two years which was described as one of our most severe economic tests since independence and are emerging relatively unscathed in general compared to other countries in the region. But before we give ourselves a pat on the back, congratulate each other for a job well-done and become complacent in believing that what needs to be done has been done, we should examine how the crisis has affected the different segments of our population and how we are handling the challenges ahead.

We should ask ourselves whether the same measures that we took to survive the crisis have weakened or will weaken our social fabric and our social cohesion in the long-term, and if so, what must be done to avoid such consequence. How the impact of the economic crisis is felt differs from people to people, person to person, family to family. For some, it was just like sitting through a horror movie. Although it was frightening while it lasted, they were watching the events as if from a distance, as an observer. And now that it is behind us, they let out a sigh of relief and say, "Boy, that was scary. Good thing we were not that badly affected and emerged basically intact."

The monetary value of their property, their shares and their assets is now back to pre-crisis levels and they have managed to maintain their source and level of income. There is no denying that the last two years were valuable lessons but they are history now and we move on. But there are also many others among us who have literally lost their pants in the crisis. They lost their jobs, ran up huge debts, compelled to sell their assets, their homes were foresold and some were even made bankrupt. Even today, when the general consensus is that the economy is picking up, mortgagee sales of private homes are still happening.

Different people went through the crisis differently and are now assessing their future from different perspectives. I felt this when I told my constituents the crisis is receding and we are emerging stronger than before. They were not unanimous in agreement. Some did not agree wholeheartedly with this observation because the crisis and the structural changes and restructuring that it brought about had impacted them adversely and in a profound manner, and they are now worse off than before. This crisis has brought about many fundamental structural changes to our economy. Certain skills that were valuable in the past are now no longer needed. Some of the old wealth has been eroded, even dissipated, while new wealth has been created. If you are not careful, this will result in a widening of the disparity between at the one end, those who are well-placed to tap into and take advantage of the new restructured economic environment and, at the other end, those who are still struggling to find their feet and whose skills no longer command the same value as they are being offered by a multitude of others who are prepared to accept lower wages. If this issue is not effectively dealt with, there is a danger that those who feel deprived and left out will become alienated and resentful. I am therefore heartened to hear the President's note of caution that the new restructured economy must not widen the gap between those who sprint ahead with the new technologies and those who struggle to master them.

Sir, our Government has all along pursued policies to enhance the cohesion of our society where even while the able is called upon to lead in the growth of the economy, the rest of the population is not deprived of the rewards but has enjoyed a share in our economic growth. Since independence, Singapore has achieved remarkable success. For decades, we have sustained one of the fastest growing economies in the world, while maintaining low inflation, virtually full employment since 1973, and a steady rise in real income and standard of living of Singaporeans as a whole. Unlike some developing countries, this overall increase in income has not been confined to a privileged minority but is enjoyed by a broad section of the population. Over the years, there has been a reduction of poverty and income disparity. This is because we have not pursued policies favouring the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes. No one should accuse our Government of doing little to help the lower income group get out of the rut.

The fundamental principles that we have adopted to organise our society have helped to ensure that any gap between the various segments of the population does not become unmanageable. Many people would agree that the gap at present is small. I found a recent example of this in the reaction and our Prime Minister using the terms "cosmopolitans" and "heartlanders". Many people I spoke to felt that there was not a clear distinction between the two groups. They felt that they could quite easily be cosmopolitan at times and a heartlander at other times. But that is in terms of outward behaviour. While our Prime Minister spoke about the difference in outlook, orientation and interests, nevertheless, in Singapore, a typical cosmopolitan can be very comfortable, behaving outwardly as a heartlander at times, and doing things heartlanders do because of the deliberate efforts of the Government over a long period of time.

Throughout the years, many of our Government programmes have brought along a narrowing of the differences in standards of living and quality of life in the material sense. For example, our campaigns to keep Singapore clean, to flush the toilets, to be courteous and campaigns against spitting and smoking have caused a change in the behaviour of people over time. And the norm is being established and accepted by Singaporeans in general. This has narrowed any differences in behaviour and averted a situation where one social group finds the behaviour of another social group despicable. So, most hawker centres today are of an acceptable standard. But if this were not the case, and if hawker centres are dirty and rat-infested, and many people there spit on the floor, some people would probably avoid such places because they do not fit into the idea of a desirable place to enjoy a meal. This would then lead to a divide among Singaporeans based on where they frequent to take their meals.

In our public housing and social amenities, the standards have improved and the gap in the material sense is not wide. Amenities built to cater to the public have improved in standard and even the rich do not shun them. Our NTUC supermarkets, wet markets, hawker centres, and national parks are frequented by people from all walks of life. Cosmopolitans are not shy to say that they do so. This is an encouraging sign and we must continue in our efforts to narrow any gap in the quality of these facilities, so that they do not just cater to a particular segment of the population.

Sir, the basic principles are in place and without abandoning them, I believe more can be done in each of these areas to gel the people together to enhance social cohesion. With a cohesive people supporting the Government and its policies, we can confront and tackle problems head on and pull everyone together to focus on the challenges and the possibilities that are ahead of us. However, any measure to distribute income more evenly must not stifle the drive to excel, but must be balanced with other needs of retaining talent and promoting economic growth. We must continue to maintain the meritocratic society of equal opportunities while, at the same time, working together to narrow any economic disparity among the different segments of Singaporeans. In the process, we can cultivate a sense of belonging and identity that is firmly grounded and resilient to weather any turbulence ahead.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate. I rise to support the motion put forth by Mr Davinder Singh.

Sir, the regional crisis has demonstrated yet again how precarious Singapore, the island state, is in this developing region. Yes, we are an independent nation, but totally dependent on the health and the well-being of the region and the international community for us to continue to be a significant global player.

Singapore has always demonstrated its wits and tenacity in building up its attractiveness as a premier business centre in Asia with a global orientation. Rapid globalisation, advancement in technology and communications now mean that we have to adapt our strategies to fit into the new world order or be left out.

I support the various Ministries' recognition of meeting the global challenge by taking the bull by the horns. However, in the quest to achieve and maintain Singapore's edge as a premier Asian global city, we must ensure that the Singaporean entrepreneurs and businessmen are not left behind. Just as Singapore has grown from strength to strength, the small and medium local enterprises of today could be the multi-nationals of tomorrow. As global companies locating in Singapore compete for the limited resources we have, in particular the people resource, we must ensure that Singapore deliberately supports such local enterprises and ventures through more liberal programmes like, for instance, funding assistance, start-up and R&D grants, training grants and maybe even a lower corporate tax rate for such subsidies to be reinvested in the business.

Singapore has a host of fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for multi-nationals to avail themselves. I understand that the qualifying rules are stringent to attract the appropriate players in the high growth and high value added areas, which will enhance Singapore's competitive edge. However, the local SMEs should be identified as a group on its own with an appropriate development programme. I am totally in support of the Ministry of Trade and Industry's intention to nurture a hundred promising local enterprises to become world-class companies by 2005.

Sir, on the issue of foreign talent, let me say that I am in broad agreement with the argument that in order to keep our competitive edge, Singapore has to supplement our limited talent pool by attracting suitably skilled and qualified foreign talent. In this respect, I commend the Ministry of Manpower's plans to make Singapore an international talent city and intellectual focal point where diverse talents from all over the world congregate and supplement our own talent.

I believe that this policy is very much in keeping with the process of globalisation sweeping the world. The communications and information technology revolution in tandem with the emergence of a single global economy has produced a new cosmopolitanism which is impossible to ignore. Today, it is not unusual to find a Taiwanese, for instance, studying in the United States, then find a job in Hong Kong where he meets and marries a Canadian Chinese partner. Even closer to home, when you watch CNN, it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that the Asian presenters are speaking in American accented English. In other words, the concept of a pure unadulterated national identity is becoming increasingly untenable, given the impact of global economic and perhaps even cultural integration. Singaporeans must thus accept that we are increasingly global citizens, and that to succeed in an increasingly sophisticated and competitive world, we need to be open to the idea that our friends from overseas can and must play a role in the process. In short, we should see them not as foreigners but rather as fellow global citizens who have joined us in helping us keep an international edge. In fact, to further enhance our competitive edge, I would like to suggest that we also try to tap into the other rather neglected talent pool, the Singaporean professionals who have emigrated overseas.

Sir, there is a large community of what I would like to call quasi foreign talent available whose resources and skills would be invaluable to our economy. The Prime Minister has alluded to this group of Singaporeans and given us some statistics. From experience, I know that many of these expatriate Singaporeans and former Singaporeans would like to return home but they are dissuaded by the fact that they would have to give up their present overseas standard of living and cope with the Singapore reality of high property and car prices, as well as in their perception, whether true or not is an entirely separate matter, the more regulated social and political environment. However, if these former Singaporeans could be persuaded to return, their impact would be considerable. For, let us face the facts, unlike foreigners who would probably work for, say, five years before returning home, these former Singaporeans, after all, grew up here and their roots are here. Their loyalty would be to Singapore. Of course, there will be those who argue that the very fact that they left Singapore in the first place is proof of disloyalty, but that is a very parochial point of view.

Sir, in an open global economy, talent migrates to where it can earn the greatest returns. Singapore, which has always believed in the logic of free and unfettered competition, recognises this. Thus, the Singapore way has never been to brow beat our people into engaging in certain behaviour by loading them with guilt, but rather to convince them that it is in their interest that it makes perfect sense for them to adopt that particular pattern of behaviour. This hard edge realism is precisely why we pay our civil servants good and competitive salaries, and why our civil service is consequently world famous for its proficiency and incorruptibility. In this respect, if Singapore can provide these quasi foreign talents sufficient incentives, whether material or otherwise, and support and encouragement, we will indeed be hard to beat and will become an intellectual focal point which will be irresistible to our sons and daughters who are now overseas. I wonder whether the Government, through its contacts with Singapore offices world-wide, has any plans to try to attract this particular pool of talent home where they belong.

Moving on, I note that the Ministry of Community Development has projected that the ageing population will triple by 2030 when one in four citizens will be aged above 65. In this connection, I am happy with the several Government initiatives to cope with this development. I note with approval that MCD is to strengthen public education programmes on ageing and, in particular, will encourage Singaporeans to value their elderly as a resource and actively harness their contributions. I look forward to the MCD's masterplan for services to the elderly which will be ready next year.

I also applaud the Ministry of Health for recognising the increasingly urgent need for step-down care, and especially its intention to work with voluntary welfare organisations and the private sector to build community hospitals and nursing homes. I fully agree with the future policy to introduce an insurance scheme to defray the high cost of long-term step-down care for the elderly who suffer from disabilities. And I think the idea of a means test for all step-down care services to allocate Government subsidies for deserving cases is a sound one.

I am also pleased with the recent report that existing MRT stations will be retrofitted with lifts and ramps, and the North East Line and the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit System will also incorporate these elderly friendly features, and that the Government will pay for this to be done. But I believe that more can be done to meet the specific needs of the elderly, eg, will SMRT be willing, for instance, to designate one carriage as an elderly only carriage?

The MRT aside, how will public buses be configured to facilitate usage by elderly folk, especially those who are disabled? The Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, has said that bus operators will be left to decide how to make their buses more accessible to the old. But bearing in mind that they are, in essence, profit driven organisations, how likely are they to put the convenience and welfare of the elderly as a major concern? Moreover, is it possible to introduce a system as in the UK where elderly people travel on public buses for free, rather than the partial subsidy and limited travel arrangement? Sir, I do hope that the Ministry will give sufficient thought to these issues, especially if the elderly proportion of the commuting public increases and in the light of vehicle ownership policy.

I note that the Ministry of Manpower is looking into fine-tuning the CPF system to ensure members have adequate savings to meet old age needs and medical care. I agree wholeheartedly with this review, as CPF funds should be invested wisely and not whittled away through speculative trades on the stock market.

Our elderly should be encouraged to retire with savings and dignity. In this respect, I would like the Government to consider reinstating the tax exemption for retirement gratuities, as was the case pre-1993. This once-a-lifetime tax exemption would further provide for adequate financial security on retirement.

For the self-employed, I would also like to see compulsory tax free CPF contributions beyond Medisave, which would equate at least to the gross percentage which salaried employees are accumulating in their CPF accounts.

In connection with the issue of catering to the needs of the elderly, I would like to stress the importance of the people factor, part of the heartware we want to build in ensuring that the various schemes succeed in bringing about a population which ages graciously. By the people factor, I am referring to the attitudes of service providers like, for example, bus and taxi drivers. How many bus drivers actually wait for the elderly to see them safely before moving off? And very few taxi drivers actually help passengers to load and unload their shopping or luggage. Will they constantly go the extra mile as a rule of thumb for the elderly? I was also appalled to hear how a 90-year old lady in a wheelchair had problems getting to a hospital and clinic appointment, as very few taxi drivers are keen to ferry the wheel-chair bound.

I am aware that these are issues which have come up time and again, but unless we consciously change these attitudes they will not go away, and even the best infrastructure will not make us the gracious society we want to be.

Finally, I would like to make a few comments on education. I believe that the MOE's emphasis on ability-driven education is the right one. It is important to ensure that the innate talents and abilities of each particular child are identified, honed and harnessed not only for his own optimal personal development but also for higher ends. In this respect, I commend MOE's focus on the five areas of the school environment - the curriculum development system, teacher development, pre- and post-school development, and developing Singapore as an education hub.

I would like to focus particularly on curriculum and assessment. I note with approval that MOE intends to teach our young to think creatively and apply knowledge innovatively. I also note that to this end, MOE intends to revise the curriculum to infuse thinking skills and incorporate the use of IT in the design and delivery of syllabuses.

I understand that every child would learn in an IT-enriched school environment over the next several years. I fully understand the rationale for integrating IT into the very fabric of our curriculum. Information technology is transforming the world we live in, and to be computer literate is today a basic prerequisite for success in the global economy. However, I am not entirely convinced that fostering IT savvy young people is synonymous with breeding a creative and thinking young people.

Sir, computer literacy is very important but it must never supplant books as a child's best friend. I believe that in our quest to create an IT savvy next generation, we must not lose sight of the truth that true creativity comes not from five hours of surfing on the Internet but from reading and appreciating the classics of the past. Reading good books forces the mind to visualise and to imagine the basic skills of creative thinking. I thus would argue that in tandem with the effort to promote computer literacy, MOE should also promote a basic reading programme to encourage the habit of reading amongst our young people.

A list of good books can be drawn which would comprise the classics, which every young person should read as part of his intellectual, aesthetic and cultural education and stimulation.

Sir, starting this reading programme at a late primary school level would ensure that by the time our young reach university and branch out into the hard sciences and engineering disciplines, in particular, they would at least have had some exposure to good literature. Hence, the opportunity to enhance their imaginative and creative skills. This policy would ensure that it is not only students in the arts and humanities who benefit from world literature. In short, what we need to foster creativity amongst our young is not so much computer literacy, but a true literacy in every sense of the word. In other words, the habit and even love of reading must be inculcated in our students.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Aline K. Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to just take a short while to respond to Mdm Claire Chiang's points about Chinese High School.

While I was a little aware of her thinking on the matter, I was taken by surprise by the strong stand and the emphatic way in which she described the matter, especially in the context of civil society. In the case of the students who are in their teen years, they still need strong guidance. It is not exactly a very good example to use, just from this issue alone, and say that we should be sympathetic to the students because we are talking about civil society and this is the kind of emotions that we want people to express.

In the case of the Chinese High School, I also felt, at the beginning, that there was nothing wrong with the students expressing their sentiments towards their school and the principal, who has done a marvellous job for the school. As Mdm Claire Chiang said, the students themselves also think that they have done nothing wrong. They have only expressed their tremendous attachment to the school and the principal. But Mdm Claire Chaing also said that, as a parent herself, she may be worried that these young people may get themselves into a situation where they could easily be misled and perhaps even made use of. Actually this is the way that MOE has looked at it. MOE's view is that there is nothing wrong with the students expressing their sentiments towards the school and the principal. But it was inappropriate for the students to be drawn into management matters where already, at that point of time, the board of directors of the company that owns the school was no longer in control of the management of the school. The management of the school was already in the hands of the Committee of Management of MOE. So it was inappropriate for the students to be drawn into a matter which relates to the management of the school under the influence of the board of directors.

When I knew more about the details, that there was in fact a press conference called by the Chairman of the board of directors and the students were present, my reaction was very different. I said that this was wrong. The students should not have allowed themselves to be drawn into a dispute that involved a board of directors that had already gone into dispute with the school. My worry at that time was: are the students sure what they are doing? Do they really know the complexities of the situation and whether all the factors have been made clear to them?

In fact, I also felt that it was inappropriate for the board of directors to draw in the students. Things could have been resolved within the school. If the principal and vice-principals of the school had explained clearly to the students their decision to resign - and in fact it was known that the principal had wanted to retire and he had handed in his letter in August, and the Committee of Management of MOE had asked him to stay on until the end of the year, but he said no and that he had decided to retire early - he could have managed the situation better and the whole thing could be resolved. So the Chinese High School incident should not be made into such a big thing to become an illustration of how civil society should be like. That is really stretching the matter a bit too much.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: I agree with the Senior Minister of State, Dr Wong, with what she said that board matters should not be the concern of students. If I had sounded emphatic (here I am trying to lower my tone just now) it is because I spoke with passion when dealing with teenagers. I must declare my interest here. My son who is 17 years old is from Hwa Chong. He is therefore an ex-student of Chinese High School. Therefore, I am in contact with the Chinese High School students who shared this with me, for which reason I therefore brought this up as a case for discussion, not to illustrate the extent of civil society per se, but to look at the permissions that can be given to 14-16 years old to act. That was the spirit with which I brought this case illustration to this House.

I would agree that they do need strong guidance. But, as I said, I belong to a school of thought that also believes that people should be left alone to learn on their own. If you are holding their hands all the time, they will never learn independently. This is a judgment call. We are all trained differently and think differently. That is where maybe the constructive disagreement that Mr Davinder Singh said comes about. From constructive disagreement, we have not reached a point of consensus which should be weighed to help us in this constructive engagement to discuss this further and perhaps look for some constructive resolution. This is an evolving process and I hope that the Ministry does not take this as a blaming session but to take this as an opportunity for us to think it through one way or the other and debate in the true sense of the word.

Dr Aline Wong: Mr Speaker, as a parent myself, if my son had been involved in this kind of incident in this manner and he told me afterwards, my advice would be: "You be very careful the next time. You do not know what is going on behind all the complications of the dispute and so on. Don't be used by anybody. There is nothing wrong with you expressing your feelings, but there are also other ways of expressing." But if my son had consulted me beforehand and asked, "Should I go and be involved?" I would say, "You be careful and do not get involved. You can also write a nice letter to your principal and say how much you appreciate him and you really wish he did not make the decision to resign."

I want to point out to the House that the Chinese High School has been having problems over the last two or three years. It is not unknown. There are problems with the management in terms of the style, methods and so on. This has affected the standing of the school in the eyes of the public. Does Mdm Claire Chiang really want students also to get involved and complicate matters?

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Point of clarification. My son was not involved in the signing petition. He is an ex-student. The signing petition is only done by the student council of Chinese High School and all that the students did was to express their affection. My son and the Ex-student Alumni signed another letter of gratitude and appreciation for the teachers. So it is a separate matter.

As a mother, and maybe a different mother, I will not approach the subject with fear of constantly reminding my children about what will happen to them. If we act and conduct our lives in fear, how can we ever teach our children the determination, courage, and creativity that we are also hoping for? I think there are different mothering styles and we should respect their differences too.

Dr Aline Wong: We are not here to discuss different mothering styles. I think how you advise the children to carry on in life, to deal with matters rationally, to look at various sides of the matter and to teach your child to know the facts before he jumps, to me, that is responsible motherhood.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Sir, with due respect, she has not told me what did the students do wrong. What was so wrong in what they have done in signing a petition of appreciation? What are the pitfalls that I have to warn them against? What are the problems?

Dr Aline Wong: There is nothing wrong with expressing their affection for their principal or teacher. But MOE's point is that it is inappropriate for the students to be drawn in by the board of directors which is having problems.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I speak in support of the motion by Mr Davinder Singh to express a motion of thanks to the President for the Address he has given.

With the election of President S R Nathan in which he himself has expressed that he is in his twilight years, he is an example to our workers that they are never too old to take on new tasks or to learn new skills.

In connection with our manpower in Singapore, two changes that will certainly affect our workers more concretely are the faster pace of globalisation of human resources at one time and the ageing of our workforce. Both processes will influence the contact between employers and workers and thus affect the credibility of our aged workers to continue working. We have seen the trend from various sectors affecting our workers regardless of age. Unfortunately, this trend will affect more the older workers aged 40 years and above.

Mr Speaker, we are not concerned with the young workers or future workers who are now studying who will gain the skills because the opportunity for them to be employable for life is being nurtured now. The problem is with older workers aged 40 years and above who are without the basic skills even though they may have the experience. This issue has been raised by many parties, including Members of Parliament, in these three days of debate. But I believe this has to be emphasised.

I do not have dramatic stories to tell but I hope that our workers will grab all opportunities that they have to enhance their skills so that they will remain employable for their own interest. In the midst of the economic downturn early this year, I met a worker who was retrenched after 16 years because his company transferred its manufacturing operations to Batam. He saw me after four months of being unemployed and seemed concerned. He said that half of his compensation of $16,000 which he received would be gone within a matter of months if he did not find an alternative job. The money was compensation of half a month's salary for every year of service as a production supervisor in the company. Fortunately, he found an alternative job as a maintenance supervisor, but I was concerned that such an alternative job would also not remain for long if his new employer restructures his operations and practises outsourcing. The irony was that the constituent had an NTC-3 qualification 16 years ago. The qualification is no longer relevant in other factories, especially in view of the competition from younger workers.

In short, while we should help the workers who need to find alternative jobs, what is more important is how we can widen this assistance to ensure that our workers who are vulnerable to retrenchment can have their employability enhanced through retraining and skills upgrading.

Based on a number of visits to the Skills Development Centre in Bukit Merah, I find that our workers who have lost their jobs and who have undergone skills training there generally have a positive attitude towards skills upgrading. They realise the need for technical skills. Government and employers should encourage and open more opportunities for workers such as my constituent, to enhance their skills through the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) for workers in service, so that they can remain employable. But no less important is the need for the Government to open many more opportunities for workers who have lost their jobs to gain skills training through the facilitated programme under the SRP. The type of courses offered must also be widened. As for companies, I hope that they will employ more retrenched workers who have been retrained so that they can be independent and support their families.

One major problem may arise if these retrained workers find difficulty in getting jobs just because employers or future employers pay very little attention to older workers. Mr Speaker, this is a form of investment. Just like any other investment, there must be returns. Our workers must at least respond seriously to opportunities offered in their interest. Indeed, I believe that workers should also share the responsibility of bearing some of the cost for their skills training. We should study in detail as to how we can obtain the best benefit, whether through the CPF scheme or channelling some of the retrenchment benefits or some other means.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.19 pm

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): Our labour movement plays a major role in assisting our workers to ensure their welfare through enhancement of their employability. NTUC and its affiliates play a role in preserving jobs during our economic downturn. Our unions have taken proactive measures to ensure the welfare of our workers by identifying the challenges and problems that may arise in future and to propose solutions, even though they seem to be bitter initially. In other words, NTUC and the labour movement in Singapore are members of the civil society that is important to Singapore. As a result of their roles, the life and welfare of Singapore has been improved.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to be a member of the civil society, we should not only make political comments. Hundreds and thousands of union leaders at the various levels have played a constructive role in further improving the lives in Singapore without touching on political matters alone. We should encourage active citizenship such as this in various fields. That includes grassroots activities such as the Residents' Committees and self-help groups. This would enhance the bond between the people of Singapore, whether racially, between people of different socio-economic backgrounds and between Singaporeans and foreign workers who are living here.

Active citizenship need not be separate from organs of state. In the matter of inter-racial relations, I agree with the proposal by Mr Yatiman Yusof that we set up an agency for policy studies to build a Singapore nation. Or at least there should be periodic studies to evaluate how far Singapore has been more cohesive. Besides enhancing understanding between the people, the races and religions, through studies and discussions, this effort can suggest new activities towards this objective to enhance cohesion among the people of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to ethnic relations, it is indeed sensitive but it has to be discussed. The statement by the Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has caused many Malays to be unhappy because they felt that it is questioning their loyalty. Some also felt that these questions should not have been raised openly. If some Malays have expressed their disappointment and unhappiness, they need not be irrational. This is an expression of their feelings. However, generally, Malays feel that Singapore is their motherland and it is where their loyalty lies. Indeed, if we are going to build a Singapore nation, we need to discuss sensitive matters such as this. However, although it is true that mutual trust will take time to achieve, it need not be allowed to take forever. The Malays and Muslims and other minorities must decide how to manage their feelings whenever sensitive issues such as these are discussed. However, although they feel unhappy, considering their position as the minority group, they must also understand that, as has been discussed before in this House and raised by the Prime Minister just now, the Chinese who form the majority in Singapore are a minority in the region. Other races too must understand their sensitivities. However, as I mentioned earlier, at the same time, the sensitivities of the Malays and the minorities must also be understood.

We will not completely cover the fissures between the races just by discussing or debating sensitive issues. Just because we want to fill up these fissures, it does not mean that these fissures will no longer exist. And if we have made progress, it does not mean that differences of opinions and sensitivities will not occur in future. What is clear is that we must continue to improve on it. We must strengthen the understanding among each other to build cohesion in Singapore. I hope that further discussion on such issues can take these matters into consideration. All participants of the civil society must understand this reality.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion by Mr Davinder Singh.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Marine Parade): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President stressed in his Speech that we must strengthen our social cohesion, that we must strengthen our common Singaporean identity and, at the same time, we must encourage all our people to become active citizens, thus showing the major focus of our Government's policy.

People form the foundation of a nation. When the foundation is strong, the nation will prosper. All along, the Government's policy has been benefiting the people and the country. To our people, we stress the importance of education and training as the way to develop the intellect of the people, to increase their knowledge and to enhance their skills. Therefore, it is ridiculous for Buruma, a foreign columnist, to say that Singapore is a country practising the obscurantist policy under which people become stupid and cannot think. This is far from the truth. If we say that the Singapore Government is an autocratic government, then all the policies practised by the Government will all be wrong. Because an autocratic government will implement obscurantist policy like the first emperor of the Qin Dynasty to burn all books and to bury the scholars. But the Singapore Government did no such thing. On the contrary, its policy is aimed at helping our people to march towards the high technology and knowledge-based IT society.

As a matter of fact, I can say that the Government has been taking very good care of the people. Over time, this has caused the people to be over-dependent on the Government. In other words, our people expect the Government to do everything for them, and they seem to be losing their initiative. I think this is an anomaly that we must correct. The society cannot always depend on the Government to drive them around. The people must have their own initiative to take part actively. I think this is the true meaning of active citizenship.

As of now, as the President has pointed out in his Speech, we have enjoyed one whole generation of racial harmony. But we cannot presume that the various social fault lines have already disappeared. There still exist in our society some clear and obvious barriers, including racial barriers, religious barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, and even barriers in education streams. To create a more cohesive society and to forge a stronger sense of Singaporean identity, we must try our best to remove all these barriers. We must encourage our people to become active citizens. We must create a more participatory society. In terms of removing the barriers, we must adopt a more positive attitude and active approach. So I feel that the initiative should not always come from the Government. More initiatives should now come from our people.

The school is a place where we inculcate in our young the right values and national identity. So the unification of the language streams in our schools has removed the language barrier. But this is only applicable to the case of the new generation. Those who have come from the past language stream schools, I think the barriers still exist.

We can approach the problem from the following areas: Firstly, through the grassroots and the community. Secondly, through the mass media. Thirdly, through the Government. Let me first talk about the grassroots and the community. The grassroots organisations (GROs) and the community centres play a very important role. The GRO members, such as RC members, CCC members, CCMC members, etc, have set a very good example. Through the grassroots network, we are able to communicate a very important message to our people and, that is, the citizens can actively take part. There are many channels for them to take part in public affairs. The question is whether you want to take part or not. It is not a question of whether you can or cannot take part. The question is whether or not you want. So the various activities organised by the grassroots organisations encourage the various residents of different ethnic groups to take part to interact and to break through the barrier.

Although the mid-Autumn Festival or the Lantern Festival is basically a Chinese festival, I noticed that there was a breakthrough in the Festival this year. The grassroots organisations encouraged children from the various ethnic groups to take part in the traditionally Chinese festival. It helped to promote some kind of interaction among the children of the various ethnic groups, and gave them some good time together. This is very important in strengthening our Singaporean identity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all our ethnic communities have their own wealth of cultural traditions. It is important to preserve one's own cultural traditions. But if you want to create a stronger Singaporean consciousness and identity, we must break through these traditions. In this regard, I think the activities organised by the grassroots organisations are good examples. Leaders of the various ethnic groups should change their mindset and must put in efforts to ensure that while maintaining their own fine cultural traditions, they must also actively try to remove the barriers among the various ethnic groups. I think there is no contradiction between the two. One is to maintain the differences and the other is to try and create common ground.

At the social level, the mass media have not been given enough attention in this regard. Take the newspapers, for example. As of now, our newspapers basically go along language lines. The newspapers of the different languages have different emphasis in their coverage of events and they also reflect mainly the views of communities speaking the respective languages. This appears to be a commonly accepted model but, objectively speaking, this kind of situation will create barriers and imbalance in information dissemination. For example, the Lianhe Zaobao has a lot of stories about the Chinese community every day, some of which are hardly carried in the other language newspapers. On the other hand, Berita Harian, the Malay language newspaper, concentrates on reports on the Malay community and carries the views of Malay MPs and activities in the Malay community. In my view, to have a more cohesive society, this kind of arrangement should be adjusted.

Let me cite three examples to illustrate this point: the SAP school, the Chinese High School incident and the Malay community's request for dialogue with SM Lee. Not long ago, the question of SAP schools was debated quite intensively both inside and outside this House. This highlights a very important point that people from different communities with different educational backgrounds have different understanding. There is a barrier in their understanding. So from the English newspaper's point of view or reaction, you can observe that many of the English educated do not quite understand the meaning of a SAP school. The Chinese and English newspaper readers have different reactions. The English educated are more critical on the issue, whereas the Chinese newspaper readers are more defensive about the SAP schools.

From the Chinese newspapers you can hear the views on the subject from the Chinese educated. They represent the voice of the Chinese community, but we do not see or hear the views or reactions from the Malay community or the Indian community. This is one example.

Next, the Chinese High School incident. I am not here to comment on this matter, but the Chinese High School incident is a matter of concern to various people. The same incident as reported in the different language newspapers can create different impressions. For instance, on the issue of whether the students should be involved in this affair, the English-educated readers reacted very strongly. They wrote to the Forum page and advocated that students have their rights, but there is no such view reflected in the Chinese newspaper. The Chinese educated parents feel that it is very important that the problem be resolved quickly, but the students should not be involved. A presumably English-educated columnist in an English language newspaper mistakenly took the singing of Yue Fei's Man Jiang Hong ( ) to mean a bloodshed that forms a blood-red river, and even extended her imagination to visualize a Bukit Timah canal becoming a blood-red river. You do not find such a thing in the Chinese newspaper.

The three characters man jiang hong ( ) may literally mean the whole river is red. But actually, this is merely the name of the tune to which ci ( ) poems were composed, predominantly in the Song dynasty. Examples of other such tunes are: man ting fang ( ), shui long yin ( ), shui diao getou ( ) etc. Man Jiang Hong is just one of these names of set tunes. It does not signify that the whole river is red, full of blood. There is no such meaning.

What I am trying to point out is that the reports of the various language newspapers reflect different views and different understanding of issues. So if you read only the Chinese newspapers or only the English newspapers, then on the same event, for example, the Chinese High School incident, you may have different impressions, and come to different conclusions.

The last example or illustration I would like to mention is on the statement of SM Lee which generated some reactions among the Malay community. This is about the position of Malays in our armed forces. This is not a new issue. But every time it is mentioned, it creates a strong reaction. Just now, Mr Hawazi also mentioned about this in his speech. Some members of the Malay community have requested for a dialogue with SM Lee. On this issue, if you have read the Berita Harian, you will know that the Malay community's reaction on the matter is very strong. There are also comments and opinions expressed. But in the case of the newspapers of other languages, the report is less prominent. So we would not be able to learn from the other language newspapers that kind of strong reaction as reflected in the Malay language newspaper.

So for those people who do not read the Malay newspaper or those who read only the Chinese or English newspaper, they may even get the wrong impression that this is not an important issue. They may not even be interested in this issue at all. But actually, this is an issue that all Singaporeans should be concerned with. There is nothing wrong with newspapers of different languages giving prominence to news or events concerning their own respective communities. But in order to strengthen our social cohesion, the newspapers of different languages should go one step further to play a positive role. For example, the various newspapers of different languages should set up a separate column to report on other communities so as to exchange information throughout all the various communities to promote better understanding of one another and for better dissemination of information.

Finally, I would like to deal with the Government and the public sector. The unification of the language streams of schools is important for the creation of a common identity. But this development has also created a sense of alienation among some communities, especially in the Chinese community. The older members of the Chinese community have all along been active in the grassroots organisations. In fact, they are the backbone of the grassroots organisations. They have not only taken part in charitable work, in the clan activities, community activities, but they have also taken part in the grassroots organisations like the CCC, RC and the CCMC. They donate money. They put in efforts. I think this is very closely linked with their educational background because most of these people are businessmen. So they practise the idea of deriving from society and repaying society. They have this belief and philosophy. They are different from our younger generation who are basically wage-earners. So financially, the younger generation may not be able to contribute so much by donating money and spending time and efforts at the same time. However, because of the dominance of the English language in our society, this group of active Chinese community leaders begin to feel cut off from the mainstream in our society. They have a sense of loss. They feel that they are being rejected out of the mainstream of society. This is a question which we must seriously look into in our attempt to create a more cohesive society. This group of people may not be able to speak English or may not be able to speak English well. But they have set up, as I have pointed out earlier, good examples as active citizens in our society. We must continue to give them the due respect, listen to their views, listen to what they have in their hearts.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in short, we want to create a common heartware of Singaporeans. Then we must change the present social make-up. Now we still have different kinds of heartware in our different communities. For example, we have different heartware of different ethnic groups, different educational streams, and so on and so forth. We want to create a common Singapore heartware. If we want to break through the old model and create a new one here, we must put in more efforts.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion.

Mr Davinder Singh (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members who have joined in the debate. It was lively and interesting.

Members spoke on a wide variety of issues. Their speeches reflect the views of Singaporeans. Some of their concerns have been addressed by the Prime Minister and the Ministers who joined in the debate. But many of the questions which have been raised are not capable of easy or ready answers. The dialogue on these issues between Singaporeans and the Government will continue for years to come.

This debate has been characterised by three broad themes. First, the Government's people orientation. Second, the consensus in this House about what the Government has done right and, third, the sad and disappointing recurrence of cliches from Members of the Opposition.

First, the policies for the people. The focus on people took centre stage. There was a useful exchange of views about civil society and active citizenship. Many MPs spoke about the need to give people more space, while recognising that it is a two-way deal. We are agreed on certain fundamental points. Firstly, that it will take us a long, long time to settle on a consensus. Secondly, that to a large extent, the initiative lies with the people because a top-down dictate on public participation in the affairs of the nation is a paradox. And thirdly, we must involve people of all backgrounds, different education, English, Chinese, different races, different religions to settle at an acceptable compromise. But we also have to understand that these concepts of civil society and active citizenship are not pegs on which to hang any argument because the moment we descend into argument for argument sake, we will not only lose but kill the momentum.

A number of MPs made the very good point that there is nothing new in this emphasis on people. The Government has, ever since it has taken office, had people at the forefront of its policies. In return for being elected, the Government has looked after the needs of Singaporeans - housing, jobs, education, safety, healthcare, money in the pocket and in the bank. We have, in a manner of speaking, moved from black and white to colour. We have moved from basics in many instances to luxuries and in terms of material needs and dignity of life, we have very little to complain about. To many Singaporeans, these policies have had and will continue to have a far greater impact on them and their families than the issue of political space.

It is because these fundamentals have been settled that we can afford to shift the emphasis to the next phase of development. Questions like, should we tinker with our model of democracy, how do we change the attitudes of Singaporeans to learning and life-long employability, how do we keep Singaporeans rooted, have been discussed in this House.

In the nature of the issue, people development is very much tied to our education policy. That explains the huge interest in this debate in our education system. We clearly have a good system but changes need to be made. MPs have made useful suggestions. The Minister for Education has talked about his Ministry's efforts to enhance the talent of every student, make them world-ready while rooted to Singapore. These experiments will not address everyone's concerns. They will generate anxieties of their own. But the point is, that MPs are willing to speak up in a rational and moderate fashion if they and their constituents are unhappy, and more importantly, that the Government is willing to change and experiment to deal with these concerns.

And this afternoon, we saw first-hand the impact of the pleas of some of the MPs and NMPs in relation to compulsory education. That effort has paid dividends with the Prime Minister saying that he is going to instruct the Ministry of Education to look at compulsory education.

We have truly come a long way. We are now concerned about the definition of "success". But it is not an esoteric or philosophical discussion. It is important because it is an issue whose time has come. Parents are concerned about the pressure in schools. They grew up in a system where the bright lights shone only on those who excel academically. They are not sure if they want their children to go through the same grind. MPs have spoken about the need for more character, as opposed to content development in the schools. The Government is reacting to this shift in attitudes. At the end of the day, we must strike some practical balance between our determination to be number one in everything we do and easing out on the pressure.

It is not going to be easy, all the more so when given our ageing society and the fact that we are not replacing ourselves. How do we continue to top the charts with an increasingly aging workforce and when the shrinking group of younger workers do not consider that drive is always a virtue? If success is redefined to mean that endeavours in enterprise are matters of fashion as opposed to necessity, we will all pay an economic price, what the Americans call "a double whammy", with lower growth and the increased burden of supporting an aging society. It is easy to talk about letting up on the pressure, but it is very difficult to strike that balance of continuing to be at the forefront and relevant.

The second theme which has marked this debate is the consensus in this House about what the Government has done right. Interestingly enough, that consensus is apparent more from what was not said in the debate than from what was. This debate has been significant for the non-issues as much as it has been for the issues. We have had three days of debate. There were more than 50 speakers. They spoke at length. There was ample time and opportunity to express dissatisfaction. Yet, not one Member had anything critical to say about the honesty, integrity and credibility of our institutions. As the criticism in this House of Government policies reflects the view of Singaporeans, so too the lack of criticism about our institutions. Let us look at a few examples which we tend to take for granted and which explain why they are not raised in the debate.

First, the Singapore judiciary. It is respected here and around the world for its integrity and credibility. Not many people appreciate the importance of a credible judiciary to a country. A weak or pliant judiciary can have a devastating effect on people and their morale. Like the decisions of civil servants, the decisions of judges affect people more directly than the policies which we discuss in this House. Judges ensure that there is a level-playing field, that every Singaporean, rich or poor, is treated fairly and on the merits. A country is in big trouble when people lose trust in the legal and judicial system. I do not overstate the case. If a judicial system is corrupt, the rich get justice, the poor do not. The powerful get justice, the weak do not. Commercial disputes are settled not by the merits, but by the strength of a party's purchasing power. When the poor and the weak have no justice or believe that they have no chance in the system, that system will soon unravel, maybe not in a year or two, but in time.

In Singapore, our rights are protected regardless of who we are. Our disputes are settled by a fair and proper application of the law. Our judges, like our civil servants and leaders, act on the principle that their credibility is everything. I am glad that we have a ringing consensus albeit by silence on that.

Neither was there an issue on the integrity of our civil service. No amount of talk about policy changes or about political space and the right to participate will and can stop a people from deserting a country physically and in spirit, if people feel that the system is crooked and that they have no chance. There was no issue in this debate about our credibility and consistency. In Singapore, when we set the rules, we play by those rules, in good times and in bad. Foreign investors know and have come to respect that. Very few people understand the value of that asset. It accounts for our standing in the commercial world. It accounts for our standing in the political world.

I now move to the third broad theme of this debate. I do it with some degree of sadness and disappointment. When I opened the debate, I said that cliches and platitudes are not going to help the debate. I was naive. Despite the opportunity to make constructive suggestions about improving the system, there has been nothing but a torrent of wild propositions from the Opposition. We are told, for example, that the Government fears that the people will one day rise against it. Not only does it ring hollow, it is bizarre. Is that what people are talking about in the streets? Are Singaporeans who have come out best in this crisis clamouring for a change of Government? How do these absurd statements help in the debate? How are Singaporeans better off from this kind of contribution?

We are also told that there is no democracy in Singapore. This, from a man who makes the point in a forum to which he is democratically elected, in a debate which is open to the public and the media. This, from a man who has spent his political life vilifying this Government and yet remains free to enjoy the freedom to do it again and again. Is that a helpful contribution to the debate? Are we any wiser about the kind of model that we should seek to construct?

At the end of the day, the question we have to ask ourselves is: has this debate helped in the process of nation-building? Have we contributed to a constructive discussion which is good for the country? Members have made many thought provoking comments and suggestions. They deserve further consideration. For that, I thank Members. I also thank them for supporting the motion.

Finally, I thank you, Sir, and Mr Speaker, Sir, for your patience. [Applause.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

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

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, my Parliamentary colleague in my GRC has moved a motion to thank the President for his Speech and, on behalf of Members, I thank him for moving that motion.