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

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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 First Session of this Parliament.".

Mr Speaker, Sir, we Singaporeans have, in the short space of the last three to four years, received many wake-up calls in our relatively cosy rooms. In his Address at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament, the President has elaborated on the challenges confronting Singapore. I would like to relate these challenges to what I see as the three wake-up calls at the individual Singaporean level. I shall begin with the one that is ringing the loudest and most incessantly.

Wake-up Call Number 1

What we thought were unshakeable areas of competitive advantage that Singapore has are now vulnerable, and this is largely due to a confluence of several factors: firstly, the global slowdown led by the US economy; secondly, challenging regional economic and political conditions; and, thirdly, increasing competition.

As a regional hub, Singapore will face intensifying risks of losing key parts of the critical mass. I would like now to discuss this against a backdrop of shifts in economic growth concentration and investments.

Sir, economists are projecting that economic growth in our immediate region of around 3-4% for each of the next two years will be overshadowed by the North Asian region, led by a potential 7-8% growth in the huge China market. If we were to consider this concentration on an even wider perspective and think GNP rather than GDP, then China's reach extends even further. China has taken a strategic decision to invest abroad for a variety of reasons, including plans to secure new supplies of natural resources. According to the Far Eastern Economic Review, Chinese state-owned offshore oil company, CNOOC (China National Off-Shore Oil Corporation), plonked US$585 million for some Indonesian oil and gas assets. In Australia itself, Chinese investment, primarily in iron ore and aluminium businesses, stood at US$1.2 billion at last count.

Secondly, long-range planes, when available, or huge shipping alliances, may not need to call at Singapore, if there is no business reason to do so. Therefore, an excellent Changi Airport or a successful PSA alone will not get us very far. Likewise, our stronghold on derivatives trading in the region will constantly be challenged unless we give reasons to traders to always use us, and so on.

I would now like to move on to the twin effects of technology and globalisation on competition itself.

Sir, globalisation itself is already increasing competition, and technology is accelerating the pace of globalisation. So businesses are now growing slowly, if at all, and only if they adapt. Businesses cannot sit still and let uncomfortable trends destroy them. Not to react would only mean they die out. Businesses really have no choice but to react ruthlessly, and this would come in many forms, eg, downsizing in response to a dip in demand, very much like what we have seen in the travel business in the aftermath of September 11 (911); secondly, relocating lower-end production out of Singapore; thirdly, bringing in talent from elsewhere to keep the business going; fourthly, merging for critical mass, such as that we have seen in the banks; or fifthly, even getting out of certain businesses altogether.

Sir, all these factors have an impact at the individual level. Whilst retrenchment at the personal level is painful, it would be better to accept such restructuring as harsh realities than to hope that something can be done by the Government to these seemingly unsympathetic banks or ungrateful large companies. Even if our jobs were intact, we would have to accept that we would probably have to do more, learn new skills and adjust to new working conditions, perhaps all at the same time. For those of us who have been retrenched, new employment would be difficult to come by and would most likely mean taking a lower pay and position.

Sir, at the individual level, self-esteem will go down and this is where the moral support of the family or the community can be extremely helpful. There are anecdotal signs that more marriages come under stress when one partner, especially the breadwinner, loses his job.

So what are some of the hopes we can hold on to and those that we should inject a sense of reality? Sir, we can certainly cling onto the assurance that the Government will continue to devote plenty of resources to developing human capital to the whole spectrum of pre-school to tertiary education, for skills upgrading, re-skilling and job-matching whilst ensuring at the same time that we anchor enough economic activity in and from Singapore into the global or regional market. As long as we are proactive and receptive, we will be able to receive help on adapting to changing job and market demands.

However, Sir, we would also have to manage our wage expectations. For the past decade, our wage growth has averaged more than 7% in nominal terms and about 5% in real terms. This will no longer be a sure thing, which means that we can no longer use this assumption to make investments or consume the way we could have in the past.

Going forward, there will also be a change in the employer-employee relationship. We now have less control over our working lives and loyalties to companies will weaken as we realise that companies can no longer be paternalistic and avoid laying off workers.

Sir, in a nutshell, this wake-up call is all about change, and having to cope with a more rapid pace of change, much of which is uncomfortable. Most of the jobs that are lost are gone forever so we should not hold out for a US-led recovery and for a return of the same old jobs. Instead, we have to continually make ourselves relevant and think in terms of our skills, ie, what we can do and contribute, rather than the jobs we would like.

Wake-up Call Number 2

We Singaporeans have to work towards preserving our racial and religious harmony, that harmony will not continue as a matter of course, and that external events and stresses can attack our harmony. Until the infamous 911 terrorist attacks in the US, the war in Afghanistan, the fighting in the West Bank and some other events, we did not realise that we need to pay attention to our own racial and religious harmony. Now, Sir, we realise that these external events can surface or resurface old issues stemming from differences.

The wake-up call can cut both ways. If we allow it, external stresses can undo whatever precious harmony we have built up, or we can become even more conscious of the differences between races and religions and seek to proactively integrate and understand even more.

Sir, we have come a long way in fostering inter-racial and inter-religious ties. As a small country, we can ill-afford to let external events and external influences exert pressure on us. In a nutshell, we must jealously guard our racial and religious harmony.

Wake-up Call Number 3

This wake-up call, which probably takes on a more subtle and dull tone, is that we Singaporeans have to take ownership of our future and strengthen our sense of belonging to the country and to one another.

Sir, there is a need to bond even closer to increase our survival as a small nation with no natural resources. There is also a need to give the Government full moral authority and support so as to bring about the much-needed wide-ranging and transformational changes.

The sense of ownership to Singapore and one another is all the more important because of our aging population and the need to help fellow Singaporeans cope with the digital, information and wealth divide.

Sir, the key really is, how do we react to these three wake-up calls? Do we break out in cold sweat or have we been tossing and turning and dreading the wake-up call, or do we arise and take these changes in our stride?

If we break out in cold sweat, we should check why we have fears and concerns and how we can address them. If we have just lost a job that we have had for the past 15-20 years, then we can try examining what skills and experience we have accumulated and seek to apply these skills to jobs outside of the natural industry. If we now shudder at how insecure our surroundings have become, no thanks to terrorism, then we should discuss with our friends and community how we can look out for each other.

However, if we have been tossing and turning, and dreading the calls, then we should no longer wait for the seemingly inevitable events to happen. Instead, we should actively look for alternatives and explore opportunities to learn new skills for other jobs. We should also not allow isolated incidents of inter-racial discord to fester. We should actively reach out to friends and fellow Singaporeans to gain a better understanding and build common ground.

Above all, if we have been alerted to these challenges, we can then take all these in our stride - assess what we have to do and how we can respond to yet another set of challenges or changing circumstances.

Sir, I would like to conclude by observing that we have a lot going for us. We have huge savings as a nation, a sound financial and physical infrastructure, substantial goodwill from the Singapore branding - in terms of integrity, transparency and an excellent workforce - and most importantly, political and economic stability.

We can therefore embrace the changes to policy and strategies that the Government will have to painstakingly undertake and be receptive to the need for a change, especially at the personal level.

Sir, I believe that Singaporeans are a pragmatic and sensible lot and the resounding mandate of 75% at the last GE reflects, firstly, a common destiny and appreciation for the need for survival in challenging times and, secondly, the trust the Singaporeans have in the PAP Government to take us through the necessary transformations, and to help us cope with change.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion of Thanks, moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, to the President for his Address in this House a week ago. Before that, may I offer my congratulations to you and the newly elected Deputy Speakers. I am sure that the high standards of decorum and dignity in Parliamentary debate set by your distinguished predecessor will be continued.

Sir, observers might have remarked before that proceedings in this House were conducted in a tame, even somnambulistic manner. There might have been some video evidence of this after we moved into this House, where no corner of this Chamber is left uncovered by a TV camera or from the sharp eyes of the reporters above us. I say this now as a victim of the all-seeing electronic eyes, so that our new colleagues would not, well, be caught napping.

I am not sure that we will be entirely rid of soporific speeches in this Tenth Parliament, but let us hope that with the measures announced to "liven" up debates in this House, such speeches would be in shorter supply. Lest I be accused of inducing sleep, may I say at once that I believe the measures announced recently would go some way to help foster more lively debates, but the effectiveness of them remains to be seen. How willing will Ministers and others in the Government accept the challenge to re-examine policies and legislation, how often will they accept suggestions to set up Select Committees to examine the language and impact of proposed legislation, how willing are they to engage in debate, and even concede to a winning argument - we will have to wait and see. Indeed, Sir, I think there is one more thing worth emphasising - and that is, there should be a signal from political leaders that our civil servants, the ones dealing with the everyday running of the country, should also listen and may I say, more frequently, listen with their hearts rather than applying policies and rules blindly.

Sir, if the truth be told, in fact, the man-in-the-street sees the Government in its most elemental form through the actions of civil servants and other public officials he deals with, and not through the comparatively rare occasions when he actually listens to a speech by a Minister or other political leader. If the public were to have confidence in the Government, it would be through how responsive the civil servants or public officials are to their problems, whether it be their summonses for traffic offences, or their utilities bills or their HDB problems or their children's schooling problems. Too often, we have seen replies that are hardly helpful and the response is very frequently in terms of a negative decision, without any reason being given. The citizen is left in the dark to contemplate his next move, which is to see the MP, who is also in the dark, as he is seldom told more than what is told to the citizen. This gives rise to further appeals and further letters of rejection from officers who follow policies laid down without question. Sometimes, I wonder whether any GLC has a controlling interest in the paper industry.

Sir, there would be a quantum leap in confidence building if we can have public officials who take the extra step to view such appeals as appeals from an individual rather than from a class. We want civil servants in this new era who do not take comfort in the uniformity of replies. We want public officials who can think. We also want civil servants who can feel - civil servants whose hearts are not left at home when they go to work every day. To borrow a phrase from American Express, never leave home without it.

Let me illustrate with an example from HDB. (I should state at the outset that I admire HDB's comprehensive replies to residents on every conceivable problem that might arise. I am only using this illustration because many Members must have faced this problem.) I refer to the treatment of cases where the owner in the recession that we are facing now wants to change down from his original choice of flat because he can no longer afford it as he had lost his job and means of support. The stock answer is that if you have not stayed in the flat for five years, you cannot sell, whether you can afford to pay for it or not. If there is a genuine case, if someone has been retrenched and is making a painful decision to change down, why do we prolong his agony? Sir, the way to foster meaningful relationships between Government and people is to allow the official to take the extra step, without adverse consequences to himself or herself, to question policies and to see whether a reasonable solution can be reached, whether an exception to a policy can be justified. Otherwise, we will have a civil service that is recognised as being super efficient, but which remains out of sync with those whom they serve.

Sir, the President's Address contains much to think about and to debate on. Its key message seems to be that Singapore must "remake" itself to face tougher global competition and global terrorism. Economic restructuring, social cohesion and political renewal - these are the themes that will matter in the remaking of Singapore. Quite frankly, the themes are the same as those in the making of Singapore since independence. What is different is in the ways and means in which we seek to "remake" Singapore.

I cannot agree more that entrepreneurship and risk-taking must be encouraged, and that our young people must have a more inquiring and adventurous spirit. But I cannot agree, as stated in the President's Address that "developing arts, sports and a stronger civic society" would be part of the process to bring this about, as if developing arts, sports and a stronger civic society is a means to bringing about entreprenuership. I should have thought that developing arts, sports and a stronger civic society are ends in themselves, not as a means to foster entrepreneurship. I am not sure that the founder of Creative Technologies indulgently sees himself as an artist, poet or writer. And the Sound Blaster card, we are sure, does not write music - it merely reproduces it, or more accurately, blasts it out.

Sir, literature, poetry, arts, music - these are the things that define the culture of a nation, the soul of a nation. They should be encouraged so that Singaporeans can see themselves in prose, in poetry, in art or in music. They add to the uniqueness of being Singaporean. As for sportsmen and women who excel and do Singapore proud in schools, constituency, national or international competitions, they are to be valued for their sporting achievements, and hopefully not for their entrepreneurship potential. Singaporeans draw together to salute such achievers. If anything, they help promote national pride and solidarity.

We must adopt the development of the arts and sports as primary aims, and not as secondary aims to promote entrepreneurship. I want to emphasise this in case an argument is made that certain types of art or music have no economic or entrepreneurial value and therefore should not be encouraged or supported. We must avoid this type of thinking. I am sure that some Members will return to this theme in the next few days or in the Budget debates to come.

Sir, the Address rightly refers to the widening income gap between those who are able and willing to embrace the new technologies and those who are not. We are already in an economic recession - and many Singaporeans have faced the traumatic experience of being out of a job. With a family to feed, and no job on the horizon, it takes a lot out of a person. Many Members of this House would have had to deal with many jobless persons - you can see the despair and the frustration. They have lost their dignity - and they do not want pity. They accept but are not satisfied with an interim grant to them to tide things over. They just want a job. Being jobless affects not just one's income, but one's belief in oneself - and above all, the family's belief in his ability to provide for their basic needs and happiness.

Sir, I am glad that the Address signals the Government's determination to tackle this problem. Job creation and retraining of our workforce remain top priorities for the new Government. But, one particularly difficult problem which hitherto still remains unresolved is how do we provide for the increasing group of jobless workers who are either unwilling or unable to retrain or find jobs. The problem is particularly acute for those around 50 years old. Who will provide for them? Very often, for those about 50 or so, companies do not want them even after they have been retrained. I believe that this problem needs to be tackled immediately. Do we need regulation or legislation to make it unlawful for employers who refuse to hire on the basis of age, if the applicant otherwise has all the necessary qualifications? I know that we do not want to put too many barriers for employers - but on occasions, some are justified so that we can forestall a serious social problem.

Sir, as we move from the economic to the political, one of the most positive statements in the Address is the intention of the Government to "widen the out-of-bounds" markers for political engagement and debate, not just in this House, but generally in Singapore. We must once again wait and see how these OB markers will be defined. What is interesting too is how this intention is read by the younger generation. I asked my daughter who recently finished her Junior College studies how she and her friends would view this increase in freedom. Her answer in a way surprised me. She said that some feel (I suppose including herself) that the intention is not quite genuine. Somehow they feel that the Government will still control the exercise of such freedoms and will only pretend to listen. We must take steps to remove such doubts and cynicism among the young people in Singapore - indeed, among all Singaporeans, otherwise the problem will remain unresolved.

Sir, I believe that care must be taken in this move towards greater opportunity for the people to express themselves. We do not want a situation where the expressions of individual opinions turn into a claim for rights, and where legal action is always contemplated. I know many young people, especially those familiar with the law, look towards well-developed countries such as the US or the UK and bemoan the fact that we do not have an administrative law structure that allows individuals to challenge public servants' decisions on a myriad of matters. But in this, my opinion is that we should be careful about putting such decisions onto the legal plane for it takes away the discretion from the people who can resolve the matters without going through an elaborate legal process. The truth is, so long as we have wise leadership, willing to listen and to take into account individual circumstances in the special case, we should be able to "remake" Singapore, not in anybody else's image, but one that is uniquely our own.

There must be confidence in all Singaporeans that they will be listened to. But all Singaporeans must also exercise their freedoms reasonably and responsibly. It must not degenerate into a series of demands based on self-interest. We must have and cultivate a politically sophisticated population - willing to see and understand the wider picture even if it impinges on their own interests. Then, and only then, can the Singapore heart-beat be heard to beat as one.

Sir, I support the motion of thanks.

Mr Loh Meng See (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua.

The significant events of last year and especially September 11, 2001 showed us that times have changed, and changing ever so dramatically. Globalisation which was just a concept not too long ago has become a reality. Transformations are taking place on the global scale that we need to change our perspective in the way we do business, work and live.

In globalisation, local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away. The terrorist attacks of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers in New York have brought threats to our door-step in Singapore. It is a frightening revelation that even terrorism has taken on a global perspective.

Globalisation offers us both challenges and opportunities. For a small country with a small domestic market, globalisation provides us with opportunities of larger markets. It also means stiffer competition from more countries competing against us, especially for foreign direct investments.

We have seen what happened during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the staggering impact on the regional financial markets. Thomas Friedman in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalisation, used the term "the global herd" to describe the millions of investors world-wide, who can be stampeded into running from an economy by the slightest signal of danger. It is very important that we keep the reputation of our financial institutions intact and maintaining a system that is open, honest and transparent. When we adopt very high ethical standards in the public, private and people sectors, we will win the trust and confidence of investors in the long run.

There has been much talk about PSA Corporation's loss of Maersk Sealand to the Port of Tanjung Pelepas in Johor and the competition hotting up between Singapore and Malaysia in port services and the risk of other major shipping lines exiting from Singapore. Malaysia's attempt to compete against Singapore in port services is not new. It was Port Klang, then Pasir Gudang and now Tanjung Pelepas. Malaysia has also developed the Multi-Super Corridor, the Sepang International Airport and Senai International Airport. Singapore cannot prevent external competition whether from Malaysia or elsewhere. The way for Singapore to respond is to do so calmly by examining ourselves, our strengths and weaknesses and take all necessary measures to tackle the competition and come out tops in the long run. I think it is too early and premature to conclude, as some pundits seem to suggest, that PSA Corporation has already failed in its ability to compete. What is needed is for the Government Ministries to take an integrated and multi-disciplinary attitude in providing PSA Corporation with all the assistance it needs to compete. PSA Corporation will have to stay on course and remain focussed, taking a systems and team approach in meeting the competition head on. By providing highly cost competitive and value added services, PSA Corporation's management and workers, working together, hold the key to winning the competition and doing Singapore proud.

Sir, in meeting Singapore's increasing demand for land, we should make no apologies to anyone in our extra efforts to reclaim more land within our territory for future use. We owe it to our citizens to cater to their housing and other land needs. We also need to secure our land for the present and future generation of Singaporeans.

The Malaysian politicians are an irksome and incredulous lot. They should know that Singaporeans are a discerning group who has wised up to their antics in the issues they try to stir up. These no longer cut any ice with Singaporeans. Instead, they have helped to rally and bond Singaporeans closer together. In the workplace, we have this saying, "Idle minds are the devil's workshop." Singaporeans can no longer be idle. To stay ahead, we cannot afford to be distracted by unproductive, frivolous and meaningless talks and utterances. In everything we do we are accountable to the stakeholders. We have to be prudent and frugal in our financial stewardship. In times of crisis, we are prepared and ready to weather the ups and downs of economic cycles better.

We are living in times of a highly volatile economic environment. With the process of employment destruction taking place in the Singapore labour market, this has given rise to greater insecurity and job uncertainty. For the first time after many years of strong economic growth, a large number of managers, executives and professionals have been thrown out of work. Who would imagine that even well qualified and experienced senior staff could lose their jobs through retrenchments? The sign is clear that with economic restructuring, no one is spared from the effects. All levels of staff have just to be prepared to make the next move and move on. There is no longer the stigma when someone loses his job because of mergers and acquisitions and company restructuring. However, I believe employers can adopt a more open and humane approach when releasing surplus staff. Employers should give affected staff as much notice as possible to help them to come to terms and prepare for the next job move. Time could be given to put surplus staff through relevant training and skills upgrading programmes to equip them for new jobs. In this way, those who are not immediately affected can take comfort that when their turn comes and their services no longer required, they can leave the organisation graciously and with their dignity intact.

In order to avoid the larger scale retrenchments in the future, I wish to propose that the tripartite bodies of the Singapore National Employers' Federation, the NTUC and the Ministry of Manpower work out schemes of arrangement to make it easier for employers to periodically place out staff that the company does not need. By having regular out-placement exercises in small numbers, the companies may be saved from the trauma and distress of retrenching large numbers of staff at one go, and worse still, do so during hard times when there is a dearth of alternative jobs in the employment market.

Singapore's home grown entrepreneurs usually come from the small and medium enterprises (SMEs). They are the ones with the most prospects and potential to grow further, and appropriate help should be extended to them. I am glad to read that SPRING Singapore, the new name for PSB, is giving all the support they can to the SMEs. These SMEs also need to professionalise their management. I hope that many young aspiring professionals and executives will join the management ranks of the SMEs to help them develop and grow further. I do not believe that only the very large companies can benefit from the global markets. Our SMEs can also find their rightful places in niche markets. The SMEs usually attract less public attention and with their lower profiles can strike profitable ventures for themselves in overseas markets.

We should also not forget the traders and merchants who are doing roaring overseas businesses. The High Street Centre merchants have been concerned for some years about their long-term future. Incidentally, High Street Centre is in my constituency. These merchants have established their business contacts and network with customers from the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent for many years. I am glad that only recently the URA has finally decided to retain the High Street Centre which is across Parliament House.

Another example is the Wholesale Centre at Victoria Street, again in my constituency. This group of dry goods merchants was relocated from the former Ellenborough Market at Tew Chew Street to make way for the construction of the North-East MRT Line. This enterprising group of wholesalers has trading businesses with many overseas countries including Latin America. Over the years, in our efforts to redevelop Singapore's urban landscape, we may have unwittingly caused the demise of some important segments of our old economy. We should not close down businesses just because they belong to the old economy. Some of these businesses can be viable and highly profitable. It would be a shame that we lose them for good.

In the coming decade, we have reached the stage of development and the capacity to generate 4-5% growth per year. Singaporeans have to moderate their expectations and plan their own future with this prospect in mind. The challenge before us is to seek and understand what is happening in the world around us and to adapt and respond to the changing times. With inspiring and visionary leadership and a people with a positive attitude supporting and cheering each other along in the steep climb, I have no doubt that we will still make it again in the next decade and beyond.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, I support the President's Speech. I think that what the President said in his speech are no exaggeration and are true. However, a journalist in The Sunday Times reported that the Government is reverting to its rule of crisis tactics again. I do not think that the Government is exaggerating or trying to create a crisis situation when it says that, "In 2001 the US economy slowed, the global electronics industry slumped, and we experienced our most severe recession since independence. .The next few years will present us with the most severe challenges in our nation's history."

Sir, I have been a Member of Parliament for 18 years, and during that period Singapore experienced three recessions: one in 1984/85, then again in 1998/99, and now in 2001/2002. The present round of recession is probably the worst of the three. All HDB shops in my constituency, without exception, complain of poor business. And at my weekly meet-the-people-session, I get regularly one or two applications for jobs per week either from my own constituency's residents or from persons of other constituencies. Whereas in the past recessions, I did not get any applications for jobs at all. I have no doubt that the recession this time is the worst of the three recessions I have come across as an MP.

As for the challenges to be faced by our nation in the next few years, I think they are also very real. The most obvious challenge shall come from China. They have a massive population of one billion people. The workers there are just as intelligent, hardworking and disciplined as our Singapore workers and they have made a success of whatever foreign investments that have been ploughed into their country so far. If one visits America, one cannot escape the fact that nearly all clothing, toys, jackets, shoes, towels and many other retail items are made in China. Those goods that are made in China and sold in America are of very high quality. I am certain that this is not the end of the road but only the beginning. There shall be more investments brought into China from America and other developed western countries and it shall certainly affect Singapore and the region. It shall not be easy for Singapore and the region to get foreign investments from now on because of the competition from China.

The foreign investments shall not only go to China in massive scale but also go to other copy-cat countries, for example, Dubai. I have been informed by a banker in Dubai that that country has fashioned its economy after that of Singapore. Dubai even starts its own airline, the Emirates, like that of SIA of Singapore. From what I see, the Emirates Airline is now operating very successfully. It certainly can give SIA a run for its money. Its fare structure, I believe, is even more competitive than that of SIA. In a recent stopover at Dubai, I noted that that enclave has become very prosperous. Dubai has also a high percentage of foreign workers, showing that its industries are booming. As for Singapore's attempt to branch into higher value-added industries, like the IT business and industries in the life sciences, and attempts to attract foreign talent, we are also beset with challenges from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. It appears that there are no easy solutions to our problems. It looks like indeed we have to truly settle for lower growth rates, growth rates at single rather than double digits of the past, unless, of course, we make material changes to our present situation.

The Government has set up the Economic Review Committee to try to find solutions to maintain our high growth and to sustain our prosperity. But what can this Committee do? It cannot really do much. There is no quick-fix to the present world economic recession. It is a case of over-production in the world economy. It is a cyclical phenomenon. The world shall just have to sit this one out. As for Singapore, what can we do? I suppose the Committee shall recommend cost-cutting measures and be more competitive. The last time in 1998, it was our workers who bore the brunt of the Government's cost-cutting measures. I sincerely hope that that remedy is not used again. It must be recalled that the workers' 10% employer's component of CPF cut has still not been fully restored. It would be most unfair to our workers if their CPF is cut again when the damage done to them the last time has still not been made good. I hope that the labour MPs in this House shall fight for the workers' rights not to have another CPF and pay cuts. My view is that this time round, the Government should suffer some of the cost-cutting measures, if any, and not the workers. The Government could forgo some of its taxes, levies, fees and charges.

Now with a change of economic situation in the world, the Government intends to change its political and social paradigms. It now falls on Singaporeans to be more inquiring and to adopt an adventurous spirit. It wants Singaporeans to be leaders in business, to be great entrepreneurs, to take more risks. I would say that the Government is probably 20 years too late. Twenty years have been wasted mainly in trying to contain the Opposition, instead of spending that time to open up our society and allow more freedom, allow more people who are not sympathetic to the PAP to speak up. I would say that if that had been done, the spirit of leadership and entrepreneurship would have been built up in our people. Instead, the Government took those 20 years to teach Confucianism in our schools, heralded the virtues of Confucius. What that means was that Government wants the people to be more subservient, to be more obedient and not to criticise Government policies too much. What happened in those 20 years was that the private sector was subdued and could not be vibrant and dynamic, and only the Government side took the initiative. That means more Government-linked companies are formed and there would be only in-breeding in our business environment. No wonder, most of our industrial activities are connected with the manufacture of electronic goods. Once that sector collapses in the world market, Singapore gets into a bad recession. We have not diversified enough in our industries as there are no entrepreneurs to take the lead.

The other initiative taken by the Government is to have greater social cohesion. The Government feels that with greater economic changes, there shall be more dislocation and adjustments by our people. With greater social cohesion, the people can cope better with the faster pace of change. I would agree with what the President said on those points.

Promotion of entrepreneurship of our people and the inculcation of greater social cohesion are all one of the same issue. They are social and political in nature. I would say that the success of the Government's intention to open up our society to encourage entrepreneurship and to build greater social cohesion shall depend mostly on how it treats the Opposition. If the Government continues to treat the Opposition very shabbily, as it is doing now, then the people know that the Government is not sincere and shall not respond positively. At the moment, the Opposition is treated like a step-child. The Government, as far as I know, has never officially said that it recognises the Opposition as one of our national institutions, and that the Opposition has a rightful place in Parliament. Instead, it says that the Opposition shall drive our foreign investors away from Singapore; the Opposition shall only be disruptive, which are all not true. The Opposition has an important role to play in Singapore's nation-building process, especially at this time of globalisation where competition shall be fierce.

If the Government wants to succeed in its new programme of encouraging entrepreneurship and promote closer social cohesion, then it must change its treatment of the Opposition. It must treat the Opposition more civilly and show some respect for the Opposition, for after all they are elected by the people and not appointed by the Government and they are paid by taxpayers' money and not by the PAP. As a concrete proof of the Government's sincerity in wanting to build social cohesion, it must first restore the walled-up areas of the void decks for Opposition MPs to have a proper place to meet their constituents. The Opposition MPs cannot be treated like roadside fortune-tellers. There cannot be social cohesion where the two Opposition representatives of the people are not shown the proper respect they deserve. Social cohesion can only be promoted in Singapore where the Government treats the whole population equally and fairly. The Government must stop its discriminatory attitude towards those who voted against the Government candidates in each election. The Government must stop its policy of using Government programmes to punish those who refuse to vote for it by saying that should the people not vote its candidates, then those constituencies will get their flats upgraded last, or that the MRT line shall not run through their constituency, or that the MRT station, having being built there, shall not be opened. How can the Government hope to build social cohesion if it practises discrimination? I really hope that the Government is really sincere in wanting to build social cohesion in Singapore and immediately stop its discrimination towards the Opposition MPs, Opposition members and Opposition supporters, for they too are Singaporeans and have an important role to play in nation building.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Marine Parade GRC, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, to thank the President for his Address at the Opening of the Tenth Parliament.. The President's Address outlines the severe tests and challenges that Singapore is facing and the Government's determination to counter such challenges. In her speech, Mrs Lim mentioned that the Presidential Address has sounded three "wake-up calls", reminding us that we must work together with the Government to overcome these difficulties. Can Singapore sustain its success stories after our pioneers have stepped down? The key to this question lies with the quality of our nationals. There is a saying in Hokkien, "A generation of centipedes, a generation of earthworms." Will the nationals of Singapore become less and less capable, turning from a generation of strong centipedes to that of some weak earthworms, or will it transform itself into a generation of robust, flying dragons?

I feel that in this area, education plays a very, very important role. Education is the key to the long-term survival of our people. But promotion of education should not be confined to the Ministry of Education alone. It should be the concern of everybody. Everybody must take part in the learning process. In the Addendum to the President's Address, the Minister for Education reiterated that we must implement policies which can bring out the best potential of our students, so that they will not only be able to master the skills and knowledge, but also possess the right attitude and values. Here, I am not trying to advertise for the film "I Not Stupid". But this film has given rise to a lot of discussions and talks among our people. It emphasise the importance of education. It also shows that our people are deeply concerned with our education system, especially the streaming system. Are there many defects and faults in our streaming system?

Our human resources are limited, Mr Speaker, Sir. If we want to bring out the potential of every citizen, we must also teach the students according to their ability. Streaming is only a way, a means. But why after more than 20 years of implementation, there is such a reaction from our people? I would look at this question in three aspects: Firstly, the expectation of the parents and the perception of the society in general. Something is apparently wrong here. Secondly, the attitude of the schools towards those students who are being streamed into EM3 or ITE. And, thirdly, the age at which students are streamed. These three points are inter-related.

In our society, general importance is attached to the position in school. As a result, parents' expectations for their children are very high. Because of this, for better results, a lot of parents put a lot of pressure on their children so that the children are made to feel averse to learning. This becomes a vicious cycle. In addition, the society and parents also have a wrong perception on the EM3 and the ITE or technical education stream. "I Not Stupid" described ITE as "It's The End". This is a typical example.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the society regards those weak in learning and slow in learning as born losers. This is against the intention of the streaming system. Streaming is intended to help this group of students who are slow learners and to allow them to cope better in a more comfortable pace, so that they can eventually develop their potential to the fullest, in due course. It is therefore necessary that we correct this wrong attitude and wrong perception of the parents and the society in general. Under the new system of technical education, these students will be able to learn new skills, whereas under the old system, these slow starters would be eliminated and sieved out of the school system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after many years of changes and innovation, our technical education system is now upgraded. Students who join the ITE get to learn a lot of new and advanced technology and skills. As far as I know, ITE has established direct links with some well-known technical schools overseas. For example, Yishun ITE in which I serve as a memebr of the Advisory Committee, has joined up with the Albuquerque College of the United States of America to jointly develop technical courses on wafer technology. Students of Yishun ITE have the opportunity to learn the most advanced technology, and even go over to the United States for training. Graduates of the ITE nowadays enjoy good job prospects. Last year, because of recession, many university graduates could not find a job. But 86% of the graduates of ITE secured their first jobs upon graduation. So, ITE is not "It's The End" after all!

We must correct the attitude of certain schools towards the EM3 and ITE students. Many parents and students have given feedback that in some schools, these students are regarded as "problem students" and are discriminated against. Some have even regarded the EM3 students as some kind of liability, likely to affect the ranking of the school. We should implement the idea of teaching according to their ability. We must give these students more help and good teachers. And as parents and members of the society, we must give them encouragement and help them to restore their confidence and self-respect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, basically, I am supportive of the streaming policy. But in implementing the streaming system, we must correct certain misconceptions and the wrong attitude of some people.

The next point is on the question of age at which streaming should be implemented. Normally, the students are streamed between 9 and 10 years. At this stage of their development, their intellect has not been fully developed yet. Sir, according to the Piaget Theory of Cognitive Development, there are four stages of development in the children's life. First, the sensory-motor phase from ages 0 to 2. Secondly, the pre-operational phase from ages 2 to 7. Thirdly, the concrete operational phase from ages 7 to 11. Lastly, the formal operational phase from age 12 onwards. It is only at this last stage that the children will be capable of abstract thinking. From this theory, it may seem not to be correct to stream students at the age of 10. I think this should be reviewed, although it has been practised for more than 20 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from the inculcation of skills and knowledge, we must also stress on the character-building aspect of education, the inculcation of values and moral standards. We must be able to cultivate students with the right character in order to survive and prosper in the changing world. If our students do not have a comprehensive build-up of their strong character with adaptability and responsibility to the society, family, loyalty and the sense of belonging to the nation, then we will not be able to attain the objective of our nation building. The family and the schools are the best places for building and developing the character of our students. We must systematically inculcate in the minds of our children the right values. We must make sure that our children are knowledgeable. In addition, they must be benevolent and courageous. We cannot think without learning. As Confucius said, "Learning without thinking is futile, and thinking without learning is dangerous." So here, I would like to refute what Mr Chiam See Tong had said about the teaching of Confucius. He alleged that Confucianism made us subservient and obedient to the Government. I think he has misunderstood the Confucius teaching. Confucius stresses the importance between the individual in the society and the family. It does not suggest that the people should just be subservient and obedient to the Government, with no questions asked.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our students must also have the sense of benevolence in the modern society. It should take on a wider meaning to imply that we must have the spirit of care and concern to society, to our friends and our family. And finally, our students must also be brave, have a strong character and a strong will power. It is only with this kind of spiritual strength that our students will be able to survive and become undaunted in the ever changing world. So once the character of the students has been built up and developed, we must ensure that this virtue will be reflected in our social bonding and also in our sense of belonging to the nation.

In a multi-racial society like Singapore, we must teach our children, from the very early ages, to understand and appreciate the importance of racial and religious harmony in our society. We must give them the religious knowledge and understanding so that they will understand the different features of the various religions and the different ways of life. And this will not be confined to just one single education system or religion. It is only with this kind of understanding and through the organised activities involving students of different ethnic groups, will our students learn to interact with one another, and to have tolerance for one another's religious and cultural practice.

Our young people generally are indifferent to political affairs. I feel that in our National Education Programme in the schools, we should enhance the political awareness of our students, and arouse their interest in current affairs so that they can be involved in the social and political well-being. They should be encouraged to participate in community work, and to show their care and concern for the society and community. To enhance the political awareness of the students, we will be able to strengthen their identification with the nation.

Finally, I would like to raise the question of mother-tongue education, especially the Chinese language in our schools. The standard of Chinese language is an issue. After the opening up of China, our society claims to have a lot of bilingual people and they feel that they can hitch a ride on the fast train to China. If we want to maintain this advantage, then we should ensure that the standard of Chinese language among our students must attain a certain standard of proficiency, so that we will be able to take advantage of the development of China and communicate with the Chinese people. Then we can find our place there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is said, "It takes 10 years to grow a tree and 100 years to develop a person." So, education is not a simple task. Over the past few decades, our education system has been implemented with vision and practical means. I believe that so long as we continue with this spirit and attitude, we will be able to ensure that the quality of our people will become better so that the future generations will be better than our current generation, and our success story can be sustained.

In this spirit, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua to thank the President for his Address to Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has outlined the changed world scenarios after the September 11 incident. Singaporeans are faced with tougher challenges ahead. The foundation at home must continue to be built on.

Being one of the new Members of Parliament, we have been repeatedly advised to keep our speeches short and to the point. I will take heed and plunge into the concerns that I have.

Last year-end and beginning of this year, I was faced with cases which deeply concern me. Among my close associates, there are two cases of teenaged children leaving school prematurely at secondary 3 and 4. I have also seen two other cases at my meet-the-people session of two children being asked to leave school by their principals due to disciplinary problems and asking for help to find alternative neighbourhood schools. Taking this simple statistic sampling by the count of one person and extrapolating to the 84 + 1 MPs, I am concerned with the statistics as I am certain there are many more such cases. In one of the reports that I have read from the Nanyang Technological University on factors affecting adolescent delinquency in Singapore, age and family income are found to be significant in influencing the delinquency of adolescents. The report indicated that delinquency tends to peak at age 15, ie, mid-adolescence. Coincidentally, this matches the cases that I have experienced on the early school-leavers at secondary 3 and 4. The other significant factor from the report suggests dual-income family or parents who have to spend more time on their jobs, resulting in the reduction of time for their children. Three out of the four cases I highlighted earlier are dual-income families. It therefore gives me great concern, as looking at the present economic situation, most parents need to work extra hours and extra hard for fear of losing their jobs.

You must be wondering, since I have been talking of early school-leavers, how many are we talking about: I read the report by the Ministry of Education from the MOE website and got the yearly secondary school-leaver figure of 3.5% in 1999. Checking again the website, I could only find the cohort of the "A" level students. However, knowing that about 29% of the "O" levels go to the "A"-level helps, extrapolate it, the figure should be about 40,000. Then the question is: 3.5% of each level of the secondary schools or 3.5% of the four levels? This is not clear in the Minister's report. So the numbers come to the range of 1,400 to 5,600. And you may ask why I did not ask the Ministry directly. I did. I was told that they must be fair to all MPs. And I also had the opportunity to speak to DPM Lee and he told me that is fair treatment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight to our Opposition Members that we do not get special treatment in this House.

To gain another approach to quantify this number of school-leavers, I found through the MHA website that the number of juvenile delinquents hovers around 2,000 each year. Part of this number of delinquents might be from the early school-leavers. As these children have more free time in their hands, their working parents might find it more difficult to handle them. Some parents who actually lose control of them, most of these teenagers could not work as they are underaged. They will simply loiter around and mix with older youths who may be of bad company. Furthermore, these children are very vulnerable at this tender age, as can be seen in the Anthony Ler murder case.

Coming to my point, the number of early secondary school leavers is still large each year. There is an old Biblical saying that I find very true: "You shall reap what you sow". Therefore, if we do not take the right steps now to safeguard our youths and help those who are at risk due to the complexities of families today, then I am sad to say we will risk reaping a bad harvest, with more complex societal issues to manage, in the years to come.

So what are the possible actions? I would like to appeal for an integrated multi-agency approach in identifying the potential early school leavers. I wish to call for a tripartite relationship with the teachers, the parents and the students. In view of the fact that both the parents are working, I would say the contact time of the children will be much longer with their teachers instead of their parents. I am not pushing the responsibility of upbringing to the teachers, but ask for collaboration with the teachers. The teachers who are being trained to deal with children would be able to identify the high-risk children from as early as secondary 1 and quickly refer them to appropriate counselling for closer attention.

"Closer attention" - what do we mean by that? I would like to urge the Ministry of Education, jointly with the Ministry of Community Development and Sports, to consider having a student care service at the secondary level, and I applaud the Ministry of Community Development and Sports for having done well in the provision of child-care and student-care services for pre-nursery to primary school children. When these children reach secondary school, most of them are left alone in the afternoon. As the school hours are not fixed, in view of curriculum activities and the ad-hoc remedial classes, parents have no way of knowing the hours except from the children themselves. Employ retired teachers or suitable professionals in supervising these children in the afternoon and parents can be asked to pay for the service. Subsidy, like the case of child-care services, can be given to the lower-income family. Some of these supervisors could be trained as counsellors and we could identify and create second careers in this area too, especially for middle and late professionals and managers. We have been very successful in getting mid-career professionals to become teachers. Now we can try training these middle and late career professionals to be counsellors as well as student caregivers. With their extended background experience in the workforce and their experience in bringing up their children, they could also be a source of role models for them. It could be even better if we could attract male professionals. Why? Because the report revealed that paternal care is very important in the behavioral development of adolescents. The male figure is still seen as the disciplinary figure in the Asian culture.

At this point, I would like to applaud the Inter-Ministry Committee on Youth Crime on its efforts in bringing down the youth crime rate by identifying youth crime trends and high-risk youths early. This was reported recently by Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, and Chairman of the Inter-Ministry Committee on Youth Crime.

Next, I would like to congratulate the five Mayors on their appointment earlier this year. Most of them have been serving as Chairmen of the CDCs before and, now, as Mayors. The CDCs were created in 1997. The concept of CDCs has been explained as a local community approach to the building of community bonds and the delivery of local social services. Here, I would like to urge the CDC to realign its resources in the delivery of local social services. Two aspects of social services which I wish to highlight are: (1) job-matching and retraining; (2) the use of the established network of the Family Service Centres (FSCs). Most of the CDCs are organising job fairs frequently and have job-matching service. Most of the jobs offered are from those available at the MOM Job Bank. I also found that some CDCs did a little bit more by forming a Corporate Relations Committee to identify potential employers, and some were innovative of revamping from JAP (Job Application and Placement) to JELL (Jobs, Employability and Lifelong Learning). The result of job-matching is still poor. Yes, the reasons are many. But many blame it on the attitude and mindset of the people. So when they come to the MPS with many unpaid bills, who and how do we solve these difficulties?

I would like to urge the CDCs and MOM to comprehensively take a fresh look at the job-matching service. Go beyond just job matching and instead introduce intervention job matching. And what do I mean by that?

I would like to urge MOM and the CDCs to work with the potential employers, understand their requirements and identify the suitable set of skills that is required to perform this work. Identify the target groups of employees, re-engineer the skill sets, if necessary, to suit the target groups of employees.

I must say that McDonald's has done a very good job in this area. They know that it is difficult for older employees at the service counter to remember all the different items to collect and pack when they serve a drink, such as coffee and tea. But they prepare the sugar, the stirrer and the creamer into a bag. So instead of remembering three items, they just remember to take out the pack.

In the area of retraining, there could be better matching of training needs and training demands. For example, MOM or CDC could advise on the type of job skills needed after discussing with the potential employers and then encourage the unemployed to go for retraining in the specified skill sets. Once the opportunity for employment is there, people would be more willing to spend the time and go for the specific training. Here, the joint agency could do more to assist the potential employers actively on identifying the necessary retraining funding. If the success rate for finding a job can be improved and publicised, this will encourage people to go for the right type of skills retraining.

On the second aspect of Family Service Centres, I would also like to urge the CDCs to concentrate on the delivery of social services to the families at the local community through the established networks of FSCs, especially during this economic downturn. The importance of families cannot be underestimated. Families are the foundation of our society. And why do I choose FSCs? It is because the family service areas are already set up at the focal points providing social service to promote and strengthen the well-being of families in the local community.

FSCs have three unique features. FSCs focus on the family as a primary unit of intervention and services. FSCs provide a spectrum of services that address the wide variety of family needs either directly or indirectly. FSCs have established linkages in other social and grassroots organisations situated in a local community. The FSCs lack the publicity and recognition as compared to the important roles FSCs play. The FSCs are well-positioned to foster greater inter-agency collaboration to build a closer network of service for the family. There are about 35 FSCs in the various housing estates compared to our five CDCs.

The FSCs could be the branch offices of the CDCs for family-focused services. Presently, for the family and social service cases, the CDC undertakes the investigation role and refers their cases to the FSC, if necessary, and this takes up a long time before we could get any answers. I would suggest that the role be reversed. As FSCs are now nearer to the families, they should undertake the investigation role and the result would be much faster.

CDC at the district level is still remote for the family to access its services. The time taken for the investigation and help to the families in need would be shorter through the network of FSCs. In the Addendum to the President's Address, Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim, Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports, had mentioned that the Ministry would work with CDCs to improve the training of social workers at the district level in order to increase the responsiveness of social agencies within the community. I urge the Minister to include the FSCs in his review. In summary, I appeal for support to be given to, first, working parents - about 49% of the working force are women. Second, in order to reduce the number of early secondary school leavers, to work actively with the employers to either identify the skill set for the job and to persuade the unemployed to undergo retraining for the identified skill set or to re-engineer their job specifications for the ready pool of unemployed. Third, the CDC should tap the already established FSCs to handle the primary investigation of the family assistance cases at the local community and support the working parents and promote a closely-knit family.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address, President Nathan highlighted the challenges which Singapore faces. I believe most Singaporeans are aware of this fact, but it takes time for them to understand the long-term implications of these challenges. Only when they have personally experienced the effects of these changes will they appreciate the seriousness of the implications brought about by the emergence of China and the unpredictable situation of our region.

For the moment, the main concern of most people is on the bread and butter issue. When you have entered middle-age, say, 40 and above, retrenchment means instant unemployment as it will be difficult to find another job. This affects not only the lowly-educated people, but even the degree-holders and executives, as we see many companies which are making huge profits are also retrenching. The executives find it difficult getting alternative jobs because they are often deemed to be over-qualified. We can only urge them to lower their expectation and to go for re-skilling. But even with re-skilling, there is no guarantee that they will find a job. So, what should we do?

Everyone expects the Government to come up with a solution and there are indeed various programmes instituted by the Government to help older workers seek re-employment, including incentives for employers to engage older workers. These strategies have helped some affected workers get jobs but it is very tough to convince all affected workers to go for re-skilling. In NTUC, we have worked very hard with our affiliated trade unions to urge our workers to go for re-skilling and to equip themselves in order to be in a better position to seek re-employment. Just now, Mr Chiam See Tong mentioned that NTUC and the labour MPs should fight against lowering of wages and CPF. I think if he had participated in our dialogue sessions, he would know that our workers are more concerned with keeping their jobs than keeping their wages intact. If the factories cannot survive and have to close down, their jobs are gone. If the orders are reduced, then they would have to settle for shorter working hours, and that means less income. If Mr Chiam See Tong does not understand this problem, then let me give him an analogy. Many people are complaining that they have been working so hard that their hair has turned grey. To them, I would say, "Consider yourselves lucky that you are still having hair on your head. There are many others who have no hair at all." So having grey hair is still better than having no hair at all! I think having a job is surely better than having no job. This is the reality of life.

If Mr Chiam does not understand, I would urge him to come with us to visit the factories. We, labour MPs, have been visiting the factories and speaking to the workers. We know what the workers are going through. At the present moment of recession, the workers' concern is not for higher income. They are more concerned with keeping their jobs. They also know where the challenges are and they are adjusting their expectation. But it takes time.

I think our union leaders understand the situation better than Mr Chiam See Tong. Even in Vietnam, they are facing challenges from China. In the past, they had a lot of bicycles on the road. Now there are a lot of motorcycles. Why is it so? This is because Vietnam is also getting affluent. They are challenging us. Their workers' salary is only one-fifth of what our workers are getting. In the past, they had a Japanese motorcycle company, Honda, which produced a very popular locally manufactured model called "Dreamy". It was selling at US$2,000. But now, with motorcycles being imported from China, "Dreamy" has to be sold at less than US$2,000. The Chinese produced a motorcycle known as "Hong Da" and it is now selling at only $600. The Vietnamese manufacturers soon find that they could not sleep at night, and hence "dreamy" no more!

Mr Chiam See Tong also mentioned that the Government has not given the Opposition parties their due recognition. He said that they are now being reduced to the status of a fortune teller. I do not think he is a fortune teller, otherwise he would not have introduced Dr Chee Soon Juan to his Singapore Democratic Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, some people said that Singaporeans are very obedient to the Government. When the Government asks them not to do something, they would not do it. But now the Government wants them to change jobs. They called upon the employers to employ the older workers. But there are still problems. Why?

Basically, when the Government formulates its policies, it often fails to have a good grasp of the human nature. Very often, it will take the available statistics as the basis to work out some solutions, without making some in-depth analysis of the characteristics of Singaporeans.

There is this argument that there are a few hundred thousand foreign workers here and there are less than 100,000 unemployed Singaporeans, and if all Singaporeans are prepared to take up these jobs which are currently taken up by the foreign workers, then there should not be any unemployment problem. But then, we must not forget that in the process of transition, there are many problems relating to their children's education, family members, etc, which have to be taken into consideration. Of course, we know that the Government has recognised the importance of re-skilling for our workers, but then, even after re-skilling, the employers might not want to employ them.

Let me cite another example. In Singapore, there are many people who are unmarried. By the same logic, if we ask all the unmarried males to marry all the unmarried females, there would not be any problem of low population growth and excessive unmarried young people in our society. But we observe that there are a lot of foreign brides and a lot of foreign grooms in Singapore, while the unmarried ones remain unmarried. This is a problem similar to that of the foreign workers. Even when these people get married, it does not necessarily mean that they would have children, and many marriages even end up in divorces.

All these figures and statistics can only serve as a reference. We must not neglect the human factor when we formulate Government policies. We cannot always explain the trends by the data and figures at hand. In the past two years, many events have happened in Singapore, such as the DBS incident and the erroneous utilities bills. HDB planned their building programmes based on the demands of the people. Yet, there is now an over supply of flats. These are some examples of how we have neglected the human nature when we formulated the policies.

In the initial period of our nation-building, we wanted to build a rugged society, one that can withstand all the thunderstorms, one where the people fear no difficulties and one where the people could actually move forward courageously. Over the years, Singapore has become prosperous and there is home for everyone. With the various HDB upgrading programmes, we have covered walkways that link the apartment blocks to the bus stops, and linkways that connect one block to another. But now the residents are still complaining. They cried, "No linkway, how to go to market?" Yes, they are never contented.

Nowadays, many Singaporeans do not bother to use their heads to resolve even very minute problems. Many complain that they are "stuck". They cannot go up or go down. In actual fact, all they need to do is just to use their heads, put in a little effort, make some adjustments, you can go up or get down. They can easily get themselves "unstuck". Yet, all they do is to sit around and wait for the Government to solve their problems, and alas, the Government has come!

Now, everybody is waiting to see what the Economic Review Committee can do to cut business cost and enhance our global competitiveness. The people are also waiting to see how the "Re-making Singapore Committee" is going to reshape Singapore to establish itself as a regional hub and metropolitan city of excellence.

It is my sincere hope that while transforming and restructuring, these committees and the various ministries and statutory boards would take into consideration not only the data and statistics but also the characteristics of Singaporeans, typified by the kiasu (afraid to lose) and kiasi (afraid to die) mentalities. We should train our people and cultivate in them what I would call the "camel spirit".

The camel is a very kind-natured animal. It can move steadily and steadfastly, even in very difficult situations. They are not afraid of the sand-storm, and not afraid of having no water supply - even if Malaysia cuts off the water supply, no problem! They can carry heavy objects and travel afar.

Singaporeans certainly have this potential. We have already seen many Singaporean "camels" in action. In fact, when Singaporeans, young or old, men or women, travel abroad, their "camel spirit" is fully manifested. The moment they have checked into the hotel, they will rush out into the streets, making full use of every second available. They are not afraid of going the wrong way, not afraid of walking for miles and miles, not afraid of missing dinner, and not afraid of having no water to drink. They would just go ahead and shop, shop and shop, so much so they need to buy a few more suitcases to bring home their purchases. If you go to Changi Airport, you can see all these "troops of camels" coming home after some triumphant shopping expeditions, and showing off their trophies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all realise that Singapore is facing a lot of challenges. We want to participate and shape a new Singapore so that we can be victorious in the global competition. But we must not be afraid of suffering, nor afraid of facing difficulties. This is the "camel spirit". The first generation of Singaporeans acquired this camel spirit, while the second generation strove to maintain this camel spirit. Now, the third generation of Singaporeans must also possess this camel spirit of not being afraid of sufferings and not afraid of facing hardships. They must not end up like the ostrich instead! 2.10 pm

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion by the Member for Marine Parade GRC. Sir, I know the daunting task of holding the attention of Members after seven speakers before me. Therefore, I intend to keep my speech brief.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is at a crossroad. As we look back into the history of nation-building, we have indeed come a long way. We saw the nation struggled for independence. We felt the anguish of Singapore's separation from Malaysia and we saw the turbulence of racial conflicts. We enjoyed the unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. We went through the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. We experienced world economic recession and the emergence of international terrorism in the new millennium.

Many of our parents had witnessed the birth of our nation, the struggle it went through and the success it achieved. They identified readily with the first generation leaders who have led them through the early dead years of our history. They have developed a strong sense of comradeship. They understand the sacrifices and the price that one has to pay for the security and prosperity that so many of us have enjoyed and taken for granted today. They can appreciate the necessity of building a strong and cohesive multi-racial society. Some of us in our own generation may have seen or experienced part of that and can relate to the issues of concern to the leadership. However, when we look at our next generation, future leaders of our nation, we will invariably come away with a sense of anxiety and uncertainty. The younger generation was born and brought up in a relatively secure and prosperous period of our history. They have not seen the turbulence nor the struggle our nation has gone through. You can expect quite a different perspective from the younger generation. Furthermore, as we become increasingly globalised, many Singaporeans will be travelling overseas, and some of them may end up working overseas, especially the younger generation and the entrepreneurs. The attraction of better pay and perceived greater opportunities in these countries may cause some of them to think of migration. It is therefore crucial that we deal with the aspirations and expectations of our younger generation in order to prepare them for the future.

In our search for new economic opportunities, we must also be mindful of the need to strengthen our social cohesion. In his speech, the President also mentioned that in addition to economic restructuring, the Government will also focus on promoting social cohesion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that other than the Economic Review Committee that was set up to chart the new direction for our economy and develop new engines of growth, the Government has also set up the Remaking Singapore Committee to look into the non-economic aspects of our renewal.

Indeed, nation building is more than rebuilding the economy. In fact, to build a nation, we need to start with building a people, because our people are our only real asset. With a strong and committed people, we will then be able to build a connected and cohesive society. And with that, we can begin to build a progressive and prosperous nation.

Sir, to build a Singaporean people, I think three areas need to be looked at. Firstly, we need to inculcate a strong sense of belonging. We are, first and foremost, Singaporeans. We may speak different languages or practise different religions and traditions, but we are Singaporeans. We are all members of the same family, regardless of our academic or financial achievements. We are a small nation. We need to constantly strive for excellence just to survive. However, in our pursuit of excellence, it is inevitable that some members of the family may lag behind. Some of them would eventually catch up, but some may not be able to do so for various reasons and would feel a sense of despair. They are nonetheless members of the Singapore family. We need to reassure them that they remain so and there is always a place for them here in their home. Through the actions of the Government and the society, we must not label them as a burden or as a liability to the nation, but as an asset. While it is critical that we attract foreign talents to help make us internationally competitive, we must also be mindful to intensify our efforts to nurture and develop local talents as well.

Recently, I had a meeting with a neighbourhood primary school principal. She told me that her school had a banner that said, "Every child is a gift to us, taught and cared for as a gifted child". She wanted to remind every teacher, every student and every parent that each child is special and a gift to be treasured regardless of their results. I am sure students and parents of that school would feel proud to belong to such a school.

Sir, if we can succeed in making Singaporeans feel that they are a gift to the nation and that we treasure them regardless of their achievements, they in turn will feel proud to be Singaporeans. We will then have taken the first step towards building a united Singapore people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second thing I believe we must do is to inculcate among Singaporeans a sense of responsibility, not only towards oneself but to fellow Singaporeans, to the society and to the nation. As we push for economic progress, there is a risk that some Singaporeans may become somewhat individualistic, and seek progress at the expense of others. We are beginning to see some signs of this among our younger generation. If we are to build a cohesive society, we will need to constantly remind ourselves that we survive and thrive not as individuals but as a collective people.

In my university where I studied, there was a very popular sports event - boat racing. Boat racing is one of the most demanding team sports. Other than physical fitness, coordination and team work are often what give the team a winning edge. We are like rowing a boat. We need everyone in the boat to pull in the same direction in order to arrive and win as a team. If one of us decides to push ahead at the expense of others, we will simply go around in circles. As our economy progresses and our society matures, income gap is likely to widen and social tension likely to increase. To ensure social cohesion, it is necessary to have a safety net to help those who fall between the cracks. However, I think it is equally important, if not more important, to strengthen the social fabric by promoting mutual help and support. It is particularly crucial for us to remind our younger generation that as they strive for higher achievements, they have a responsibility towards fellow Singaporeans, especially those who are not as economically successful. We need to encourage charity and volunteerism and to provide the necessary framework to facilitate them.

It is also important for us to develop a greater capacity and tolerance for failures. There was a Chinese saying se pai nai chng kung chi mu, failure is the mother of success. Indeed, failure is but a stepping stone to success for as long as one continues to try. One will truly fail when one stops trying. Our emphasis on excellence and achievement might have caused us to be somewhat less tolerant for failures. We need to be mindful of the risk of becoming a perfectionist society, be it our education system, our economy or our society at large. We need to consciously enlarge our tolerance for failures. We can then begin to build not just a progressive society but also a responsible, caring and tolerant society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the third area of focus in building a people is to develop a sense of ownership. Many Singaporeans own a home today, be it a Housing and Development Board flat or private property. In fact, quite a number of them own more than one property, and not just in Singapore but overseas as well. Therefore, property ownership is no longer the sole factor in Singaporeans' minds when they consider the issue of national ownership.

I travel widely in my private job and stay in hotels regularly. It is clear to me that hotels are not my home. If the hotel I stay in is poorly managed, I will switch to other hotels next time. If the hotel suffers a major crisis and has to shut down, I just move on to another one. I have no say in how the hotel is run and I have no relationship with the hotel. But my home is not a hotel. My home is where my family is. My home is where I have a say in how things are done after consulting my wife, of course. If there is a problem in my home, I do not run away and move on to the next home. I will stay and help solve the problem, because I am involved in building the home.

Singapore is not a hotel. It is a home. It is our home. The five-star facilities it has do not make it a home. It is you and I that make it our home. It is therefore important for us to continue to encourage Singaporeans in all quarters as we build our nation to involve them. Greater participation and involvement by Singaporeans will undoubtedly give them a greater sense of ownership. When the country needs them, they will stay and help because this is their home.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the starting point to build a nation is to build a sense of belonging, a sense of responsibility and a sense of ownership. And the starting point of that process is education. We take pride in the academic achievements of our students which have been outstanding compared to many other countries, even better than some of the developed countries. It is perhaps equally crucial to develop the character of our students, their moral standards and their value system. In the early years, this has primarily been the task of parents. Other than verbal instructions, parents also serve as role models. But as our society progresses, I am afraid this is fast becoming a lost art. Many young parents today are no longer equipped to impart sound moral standards or value systems to their children. In many instances, both parents are working and they spend little time with their children during their formative years. Granted that parents cannot absolve their duty in bringing up their children properly, we need to recognise their practical limitations.

It is perhaps useful for us to revisit the curriculum of our schools to see if it is possible to strengthen those components relating to moral education and character building, and to provide more opportunities to allow them to interact and develop their social skills. I think pre-school education in particular should perhaps focus more on character building rather than academic work. I read with great interest the Ministry of Education's Addendum to the President's Address wherein the Minister said that his Ministry will pay particular attention to curriculum design, teacher training and regulation in pre-school education. I hope the Minister will take into account the need for greater emphasis on character building in its reviews.

In primary and secondary schools, we should perhaps consider enhancing the community involvement programmes. Some of these programmes may be conducted in collaboration with selected community and welfare organisations so that there is greater professionalism and more meaningful focus. Effective and early participation in community and volunteer work will allow our students to develop a strong sense of responsibility to the community during their formative years, which ultimately may become the foundation of their character as they mature into adulthood.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the President has said in his Address, the world has changed. We must change too if we want to remain relevant. A good Government and a cohesive people are what brought us here so far. We will need an equally good Government, different style perhaps, but good nonetheless to lead us forward. We need an equally strong and cohesive people, different aspirations and dreams perhaps, but cohesive nonetheless as our source of strength when we face the challenges and explore the opportunities the future holds for us.

On this note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker: I propose to take the break now. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.30 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion of Thanks moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to join the other speakers before me in congratulating the President for a significant and comprehensive speech touching on issues of national security, economic survival and social cohesion which deeply concern all Singaporeans. I also welcome the President's reminder on the need to engage all Singaporeans, including those who disagree with specific Government policies, so long as they have Singapore's interest at heart. I agree that there is no monopoly on wisdom and those who are not represented in this House or who do not agree with us must still have a role to play. So I would like to encourage all Singaporeans to come forward and participate actively in debating policies and contributing ideas. Cynics and sceptics should dispense with their judgements and allow this maturing phase of our political process to develop.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we face serious challenges as we move ahead. So we need to bring everyone on board in our quest for better solutions and ideas. It is my belief that we stand a much better chance to succeed if there is a greater sense of involvement and ownership of the changes that take place which affect all our lives. We share a common destiny and whether or not we reach our destination rests in our hands.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I note the President's concern that as we restructure our economy, there will be dislocations. And I completely agree with him that we have to intensify efforts to help lower-income and low-skilled Singaporeans. In this respect, the Ministry of Finance's aim for a modest budget surplus over this financial year so that it could deal with the social challenges of economic restructuring and ageing population in a sustainable way is greatly welcomed. This is an important policy consideration, as I note that the President had also mentioned that taxes should be kept as light as possible to provide incentives for corporations and high-income Singaporeans to work hard. If there are changes, I do hope that adequate measures will be put in place to help our lower-income Singaporeans to adjust. It is my strong belief, Mr Speaker, Sir, that long-term economic development is only sustainable if it is also complemented by an effective social development programme.

For most Singaporeans, education and health care are key concerns. In this respect, I note in the Addendum of the Ministry of Health that the Ministry intends to introduce a selective means testing to ensure that health care subsidies which are targeted for low-income groups actually reach them. While I welcome this move, as it can weed out undeserving cases, I would also like to advise caution in its implementation so as not to result in a system which is very rigid, and make it difficult for people to enjoy the subsidy. Means testing of public assistance programmes is a difficult issue. While the intention is to assist those in need, and income level is one yardstick, too much procedural red-tape can cause delay and frustration and limits access to what many Singaporeans would consider as basic needs. At the same time, a lot of middle-income Singaporeans also need help, as health care cost has been rising and medical treatment can cause a squeeze on their finances as well. So, quality and pricing of medical services impact on the accessibility of health care in Singapore and remain a key concern of Singaporeans.

I therefore urge the Ministry of Health to ensure that medical services continue to be affordable and within the means of the average Singaporean. I also call on the Ministry to ensure that all existing hospitals, as well as the two new ones that are being built, contain enough C class and B2 wards to take care of the needs of the low income.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Ministry of Manpower, I support its mission and objectives wholeheartedly. Tripartite cooperation and industrial harmony have been the cornerstone of Singapore's industrialisation strategy. Many countries envy our good track record and many have studied our system in an attempt to duplicate it. Our unique system has functioned well because the Government treats employers and trade unions as social partners. Trade unions are consulted not only on issues affecting workers but also on economic and social policies. This has provided us with an effective channel to voice workers' concerns and aspirations and to play a significant role in Singapore's progress and development. If trade unions had been ignored or marginalised, as it is happening in many countries, I am sure that we will have a completely different outcome today. We, in the NTUC and the trade unions, will continue to do our part to ensure Singapore's competitiveness, focus on jobs, articulate workers' concerns and ensure a fair distribution of the rewards.

Sir, I also support the call for a review of our employment regulations to ensure their relevance. Tremendous changes are taking place in the world of work. Employment relationships are being redefined. The traditional lifelong employment model that characterised the industrial era is now increasingly being replaced by contract, part-time and temporary work. In Japan, about 23% of those employed are in this kind of work. In the Netherlands, it is 37%; in the United Kingdom, 24%; and in Korea, almost 50%. Singapore is no exception although at present the number is still small. A key employment legislation is the Employment Act, which was passed in 1968 during the first phase of our industrialisation programme. It was one of the most progressive pieces of legislation of its time. Many of the aspects that other countries are grappling with today and are trying to include in their labour laws, causing much industrial strife in the process, were already included in our laws at that time. Key among these is discipline at work and labour flexibility, but with clear basic protection for workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the overall framework of the legislation remains very much relevant today for the reasons I have mentioned, refinements are necessary. Our economy has shifted from being labour intensive to capital intensive to one which is increasingly knowledge intensive. One critical area of review would clearly have to be the scope of coverage of the Employment Act. There are three issues here.

Firstly, the Act makes a distinction between workmen and employees. But as we can no longer classify jobs so neatly into manual and non-manual, the underlying rationale for the distinction, it will be increasingly difficult to implement. Secondly, the present restriction which allows only employees, that is, non-manual workers earning not more than $1,600 to benefit under the Act, is unrealistic as income levels have risen over the years, and the Act runs the risk of covering an ever shrinking base of workers. We should work out a mechanism that will be self-adjusting so that the salary ceiling can move automatically. Thirdly, the Act covers only those employed under contract of service. Increasingly, there will be more portfolio workers or those employed under contract for services. Such portfolio workers may not be formally classified as employees but their relationships with companies retain a major component of an employment relationship that is dependent on the user company and brings to the contract only their own labour or expertise and nothing else. So, even if there is a review of the income ceiling, as more contract or portfolio workers are employed, they will fall outside the ambit of the Act and will not have the protection of the Act. It is therefore imperative that we review the scope of this legislation to ensure that enough numbers of workers are covered under the legislation.

The laws of many countries extend coverage to all workers, regardless of whether there is an employment relationship. In this respect, the UK's Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidated Act of 1992, for instance, defines a worker as someone who is employed under a contract of service or a contract for service. Likewise, the position in Japan where under both the Labour Standard Law and the Trade Union Law, a worker is defined as a person who lives on his wages, salaries or other remuneration, regardless of the nature of his employment contract.

A review of the Employment Act will not be complete without a review of the other labour legislation as well, in particular the Trade Unions Act and the Industrial Relations Act. I call upon the Ministry of Manpower to consider reviewing these laws as well. In particular, for the reasons mentioned earlier, it will be opportune to assess whether there is a need to restrict the scope of unions' coverage so narrowly to only those with employment relationships. As I have mentioned, as more and more people are employed as contract or portfolio workers, we have to look at this aspect of covering them as well, in relation to our social security legislation, in this instance, the CPF Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's statement that the Government will protect the minority communities, their cultures and their ways of life is most reassuring. At the same time, the President has called upon groups to adjust and compromise in order to live harmoniously in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. This is a timely reminder as events around the world show time and again just how precarious racial relations can be. Sometimes people of different races and religions that have co-existed peacefully for many years could fall apart when certain events take place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Malay Muslims in Singapore are in many ways at the crossroads. Globalisation and modernisation have brought about new opportunities but also cultural changes that have caused some concerns in the community, fearful that this would erode its values. There is therefore a greater fall back on religion to provide the ballast and counter what are perceived as negative influences. This is very much like the discussion that has taken place in the Chinese community and the strong sense that Mandarin is critical in ensuring that Chinese Singaporeans retain their cultural and traditional linkages. Lest I give an erroneous impression, Sir, let me assure Members that these concerns of the community have not resulted in a withdrawal, rather Malay Muslim Singaporeans have participated actively in Singapore's development and nation-building process and have benefited from it. The median monthly income of Malay workers, for instance, was $954 in 1990, but has increased to $1,790 in 2000. But I think that it is important that we understand what are some of the concerns and stresses that affect the Malay Muslim community, so that there will be a more meaningful and effective dialogue process when we discuss issues and formulate responses.

Sir, the Malay Muslim community can carve a very strong niche for ourselves provided we continue to invest heavily in education and skills upgrading. A critical factor will be in creating a conducive home environment where parents provide adequate supervision over their children's activities and a learning environment. There is clearly greater scope for parents, schools, Ministries and organisations to cooperate on this.

Sir, an equally important issue that we must focus on is the impact of the economic restructuring on Malay workers. As there are more Malay workers in the lower end jobs and in certain sectors, such as manufacturing, Malay workers have been affected quite badly as a result of the recent downturn, and will continue to do so as the economy restructures and goes into even more higher value-added activities. The situation will worsen if Malay workers fail to seize the opportunity now and seriously upgrade our skills and qualification level. We have to bear in mind that even after the economy recovers, old jobs will not return. New jobs will be created which require new skills, aptitudes and qualifications. Even a simple manufacturing job today will require the ability for workers to read English and perhaps some Mathematics as well. MOM's statistics have shown that, on average, those without skills find it more difficult and take a longer time to find another job. If Malay workers do not want to end up doing the kind of jobs that are currently being done by work permit holders, then we must treat the President's message as a strong wake up call for the community to urgently and immediately get into action to prepare ourselves for the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the economy itself is undergoing rapid changes. From now on, the race will assume a completely new dimension. It is no longer even a brisk walk but we have to actually run in order to achieve not a higher level but perhaps even a lower level of growth, compared to previous years. This is the real challenge for all Singaporeans. The President's Address has highlighted many issues and challenges. I would like to urge all Singaporeans to study these carefully and consider the impact on Singapore and on our lives. They should guide us as we plan and prepare for the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I wish to call upon all Singaporeans to rally together, stand united. Although we may have different views and approaches, we should be prepared to defend what we hold sacrosanct and dear to us as an independent nation - values, such as meritocracy, multi-racialism and help and support for the poor and less able.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion of thanks.

The Minister of State for Education and Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to add my voice to the chorus of thanks to the President. He has reminded Singaporeans that times have changed and we must adapt to survive.

Sir, it appears that change spares no one. Take me, for example. This time last year, I would have been in a different chamber. No doubt, the operating theatre would have been less august, but equally bright. I would have been comfortable and confident, the environment predictable, the patient blissfully asleep, while I did what had to be done. Little could I guess that within a few months, I would have to switch from grappling with the problems of patients to solving the nation's woes.

When the Prime Minister said that he would throw us, new office holders, into the deep end, I had not realised the full implications, neither the extent nor the pace of his intent. Barely two weeks after agreeing to be in office and still operating on humans, I mean, the waves flowed fast and furious - the Jobs Task Force, an unemployment high of 15 years and climbing, 100,000 unemployed, economic restructuring, terrorism within our borders, racial harmony, tudung, water, frictions with our neighbouring countries, remake Singapore, review our educational institutions. All in a day's work? Not quite.

As the President has said, and I quote:

"The next few years will present us with the most severe challenge since independence. Singapore is at a turning point."

Sir, I chose the change. But I can empathise with those whose change was neither invited nor welcomed, who had change foisted rudely upon them. It must indeed be unsettling for many to be out of job, to feel that they are no longer in control of their destiny, to be unable to provide for their families. How do we help Singaporeans respond to and cope with this change and more to come? In his Address and Addenda, the President has wisely outlined the challenges and how we must respond to continue to thrive and prosper in an uncertain world.

Sir, I believe that all of us will have to dig deeper within ourselves if we are to meet these challenges. Permit me to use a medical analogy. The bug that causes tuberculosis is endemic, that is, it is always present. But not all those who are exposed will get tuberculosis. Those that do get infected are more likely to be those with a weakened constitution. Similarly, in an Intensive Care Unit, some patients are treated with every known antibiotic but will still succumb because they have lost their innate immunity. Nature teaches us that each individual must develop his own set of survival skills.

Sir, in this regard, our past successes may have created a sterile environment, such that when exposed to a germ attack, some Singaporeans may develop full-blown pneumonia rather than a self-limiting infection. The last time we had a protracted unemployment of this magnitude was 15 years ago. So it would be quite natural for some Singaporeans and their children who live in such an environment to expect lifelong employment. Just a year ago, we had two jobs for every worker. Now, we have three jobless looking for one job. When we first launched the Economic Downturn Relief Scheme (EDRS) last year, I had quite a few constituents who were young and able-bodied, who requested for the EDRS but had not even put themselves on any job search list. My grassroots leaders and I decided that we would not succumb to the soft approach. It would have been like giving steroids when you make the patient feel good but reduce his immunity. Doctors use steroids judiciously, even though, to many, it is a miracle drug. Ask the wheezing asthmatic or the patient with rheumatoid arthritis with painful joints. To these patients steroids alleviate discomfort and suffering. But there is a downside.

Steroids also weaken a person's immune system so that they are less able to mount appropriate responses to infection. An appendicitis, for example, becomes a critical event because the steroids prevent the patient from displaying early warning signs of fever and pain, until it is too late and the infection overwhelming and systemic. Steroids also weaken the bones so that prolonged users are prone to fractures.

Sir, the parallel between liberal administration of steroids and the indiscriminate use of assistance is too close for comfort. Both can erode the basic strength and structure on which our health and prosperity were built. We decided, my grassroots leaders and I, to award the EDRS only to those who have signed up for training or looking for jobs. By the beginning of this year, things improved and the message got through, such that most of them were at least on the job bank when applying for assistance.

Sir, I believe we need to go further and invoke the spirit of resilience and self-sufficiency that our pioneers had when they built this nation, and if I may add against much greater odds. I have two such grassroots leaders that come to mind who exemplify this spirit. One is in his mid-50s, survived and prospered by selling provisions to hotels and the like, speaks mostly Hokkien. A minor celebration erupts in my constituency when we can persuade him to put on shoes rather than his Japanese slippers. Regales me with stories of how heavy a load he can carry on his shoulders, even though he can afford to hire others to do it. He is wealthy but chooses to live in Toa Payoh where he has lived for over half a century. Walks up to his flat rather than takes the lift for exercise. Supports my meet-the-people-session (MPS) faithfully by his physical presence since he cannot draft the letter. But came election time last year, he was sweating away putting my posters up. Picture a millionaire putting up my plywood posters!

Sir, do not misunderstand me. I am not extolling this man's virtues because he helps me during the election. I praise him because he knows that there can be dignity in labour. Sir, this is a man that is unschooled and the less enlightened might even say uncouth. But I have more respect for him than most because he has made good despite his shortcomings.

The other is a man in his 60s, another provision shop owner. We have many of those. About a month ago, he had difficulty breathing. His lung burst, probably from scarring due to an old infection. So when I visited him in Tan Tock Seng Hospital, he had a tube sticking out of his left chest to drain out the air that escaped. I asked him, "Do you know what the doctors are going to do?" He said stoically and matter-of-factly, "Yes. They used some chemical or powder to seal up the hole or perform surgery." Two weeks after his discharge, he is back at my MPS and helping me as usual.

Sir, these people bounce back because they have an innate resilience of spirit born of adversity. Do not misunderstand me again! I am not advocating a return to menial labour. The world and our population have changed too drastically for that model to be sustainable. 80% of each cohort now has at least a post-secondary education. We have educated them well but we must do more to inculcate the attitude of self-sufficiency, endeavour and enterprise.

By whim of geography and capricious twist of history, we were landed up with 680 sq km of land after reclamation, and each other. Lifelong learning applies to everyone. Let me give you a personal anecdote. I have always struggled with my second language. Chinese has been my bane. When I went into medical school, I was quite glad to be rid of it. I thought, as a doctor, I would use less. When I did indeed become a doctor, I found that most patients spoke Hokkien or Mandarin and to get a consistent and proper history, I had to speak Mandarin. When I went into private practice, there were Indonesian patients who spoke Chinese. So there I was speaking half the time in Chinese. Then, of course, I became a Member of Parliament and had to make speeches in Mandarin. So there I was studying hanyu pinyin listening to the correct diction with CDAC's help. And I thought what a bitter irony or bitter twist life deals to me. When you are bad in something and you have to learn again, your occupation forces you to do it, I was getting a bit paranoid. I thought perhaps the PAP particularly put me in Toa Payoh to brush up my Chinese. When that did not work, they put me in the Ministry of Education. So I thought before this got any further, I better brush up my Chinese and get tuition. So here I am, aged 44 and taking Chinese tuition.

Sir, lifelong learning is for everyone. The road ahead is uncertain for our people. Business cycles are shorter and likely to be more disruptive. Globalisation and interconnectivity have created rapid response times. The just-in-time concept applies both to manufacturing and service sectors. I read recently that Starbucks has a quality target based on what is known as the "Order to Froth Time". This is the time it takes for a customer to give his order and for him to receive or to drink the froth of his coffee. Their software tracks this in all their branches and mobilise their workforce to meet this demand and deliver coffee within a prescribed interval. Sir, the "Order to Froth Time".

In the aftermath and havoc following September 11, inventories were slashed with astonishing speed because of the rapid assimilation of information. Correspondingly, the downsizing of companies must have followed just as responsively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this brave new world, employment cycles are likely to be disruptive and discontinuous. While Government will do everything within its power to assist Singaporeans, each must take personal responsibility for his or her well-being. Government can help the citizens turn the corner. But without an intrinsic level of resistance, minor infections can become fatal. We should help our people face these challenges squarely without the use of steroids. Our pioneers succeeded with this approach and so shall this generation. Within the Jobs Task Force, we decided collectively to speak plainly to those unemployed and risked the accusation of being insensitive. I am happy to report that, as a result of this strategy, our job placements have gone up.

Singaporeans have understood, and now about 1,000 a month are finding new jobs through the CareerLinks at MOM and CDCs. We must continue to cultivate strength in our people, to give them respect and help them survive and indeed prosper.

Does this then mean the Government can take a reduced role? On the contrary, adversity provides us the opportunity to work harder. The Government must intensify our search for new growth areas. We must continue to invest in our people and capitalise on opportunities when the global economy recovers. But, above all, we, this generation of new political leaders, must win by their own merit and effort, trust and confidence. Almost 75% of voters reaffirmed last October their belief in us to govern. But for me, this trust was vicariously obtained. Did the people vote for this Government so resoundingly because of the new faces and their great abilities? I would be the greater fool if I chose to believe that. No, they did so because the party and the Government before me has never broken faith with the people.

I am acutely aware that my position is obtained through the sacrifices and efforts of those who preceded me. I reap where others have toiled. How have previous Governments won the explicit trust of its citizens? Through sustained honesty and consistency. It never promised what it could not give and accomplished only what it could promise. It never went for soft options, believed that its people could rise to the challenges and, as a result, prospered. This trust is a source of our nation's strength. This recession will pass but there will be another. The tudung issue will revisit us in a different form and religion constantly seeking to divide and weaken us. But the trust that exists between us and the people is that which sustains us. When that is shattered, all else is lost.

The Government is a marathon not a sprint, Senior Minister says. I take heed. Learn how they did it, I tell myself, more so than what they did. What have I learned? You see, just as I expect each Singaporean to take personal responsibility for his well-being, I must be personally accountable to the people. What then is the ethos with which I hope to serve? Of what do I remind myself? Expect people to come to you with problems. That is what you got elected for and appointed to do. Remember your oath before the President. Be a servant, but do not diminish your people or your office as a Member of Parliament. Be honest and upfront. The patient never got better through empty platitudes; neither will the nation. Be diligent. Get to the root of the problem. Ask and listen. Do not get bedazzled by brilliance and be wary of those who try to befuddle you. Diagnose wrongs and say plainly what you need to do. Do not promise more than what you give, but when you say something, see it through. If the problem needs fixing and surgery is required, for goodness sake, get a good anaesthetist to minimise the pain. You are not perfect and will make mistakes. Admit them, correct the complications and move on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I started by saying how change can be unsettling. Despite these difficult times, I have been strangely calm. I am confident that we will emerge stronger and more united. My confidence and strength come from the people's trust, the commitment of my comrades and my captains' ability. In my captains, I have only seen care, never fear. Their calmness and collectedness have inspired me.

Sir, I am, by training, not a poet. I cut better than I speak. But since we are encouraging creativity and innovation in our schools, I thought it wise, or foolish, to lead by example and close with a poem. At the very worst, both you and I will know that I am completely lacking in literary skills. Here I am, through the sacrifices of those before me, sacred trust received, honour and duty conceived. On my plate of service, offerings of diligence, compassion and integrity. Tis I have. Nothing more, nothing less you shall receive. Tis enough I hope. Must be enough, I wish. Here I am, stand or fall with me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this time last year, I would have been in a different chamber, and the poorer for it.

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

There are signs that our economy is bottoming out. We may see recovery in the second half of this year. We are out of a crisis situation. But we may well go into a crisis if we are slow in reacting to the changes around us.

The current crisis in Argentina's financial system is instructive. After a period of hyper-inflation in the 1980s, Argentina adopted a currency board and pegged the peso to the US dollar. This brought down the inflation rate to a comfortable level. For several years, Argentina's economy grew strongly.

But the world is not static. In 1994, Mexico entered the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Almost immediately, exports from Mexico into the US boomed. This resulted in strong growth for Mexico. Before 1994, the total GDP of Mexico was only half that of Brazil's in US dollar terms. Today, Mexico's GDP is bigger than Brazil's.

Because of keen competition from Mexico and the fallout of the Asian financial crisis, Brazil had to devalue its currency in 1999. That put pressure on Argentina, but Argentina kept to its currency peg. Exports suffered, debt mounted and the financial system collapsed. Of course, there are also other contributing factors. But the changing dynamics of trade and capital flow external to Argentina became a key cause of her internal problems. A solution that worked for them for a while failed to work any more.

Well, Argentina is far away from here. But can there be a parallel scenario in our part of the world?

China has entered the WTO. What is the impact on Southeast Asia? The President said in his Address that "China's low costs, abundant talent and huge domestic market are attracting MNCs to relocate plants to China. Good quality but cheaper Chinese products are flooding world markets. Adapting to China's emergence and economic transformation will pose a major challenge for many Asian countries, including Singapore."

What does all this mean to our workers? To see for themselves, several groups of trade union leaders have visited China in recent years. They visited companies located in Beijing, Suzhou, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Xiamen. They spoke to managers, union officials, factory workers, taxi drivers and shopkeepers. They came home impressed by the focus, the hunger and the confidence of the Chinese workers.

Before their trips, some thought that Chinese workers were not very productive. They discovered that the Chinese workers were highly educated and well trained, and the monthly salary was just the equivalent of our own employers' CPF contribution in Singapore. Some thought that the Chinese products might not be very good. They discovered in one Singapore-owned factory in China that the tools and precision die used by the workers in Singapore were made by the China factory, not the other way round. Some thought that the public toilets had no doors or flushing system and they prepared themselves psychologically before they went. They were surprised by 5-star toilets that had TV screens all around on the walls showing CNN broadcasts.

The union leaders who visited China now understand why companies want to relocate there. They are worried that we will lose more jobs to China. Yes, they are worried, but they are not defeated. They have all come back with a firmer resolve to urge their fellow workers to retrain and upgrade themselves so that we can all float on the moving tide of global economic change, and not sink under its currents.

The problem our workers face is serious, and will remain serious. There were 25,000 retrenchments last year. There will be more to come, at least in the first half of this year. The nature of retrenchments is changing. Last year, poor business accounted for 44% of the retrenchments in the unionised companies. In the first quarter of this year, this has dropped to just 18%. Now, the most common reason for retrenchment is business restructuring, which includes downsizing and relocation. Last year, restructuring accounted for only 32% of retrenchments. In the first three months of this year, the percentage has shot up to 59%.

More restructuring and relocation will be carried out, whether we like it or not. We cannot dictate that investors must come to Singapore and stay here. We can only attract them to come here by offering to them what they need.

Even if the companies do not relocate, old industries die and new industries take their place. Remember we used to have factories making typewriters here? They are all gone. Soon, the factories making TV picture tubes will also go, to be replaced by those making thin-screen TV sets. Technological change will cause many more industries to rise and fall.

What will happen to our workers in these circumstances? If we are complacent, if we are slow to react, if we hang on to the old solutions hoping that they will solve our new problems, we will not be able to keep the good jobs here and create new ones. If our workers do not take full advantage of the opportunities to learn and retrain, it will be difficult for them to get out of work that is no longer competitive into new growth industries.

China is growing not by staying still. It is undertaking a huge restructuring programme. Its workers are adapting swiftly to the change. We cannot afford to be left behind.

The President's Address and the Addenda from the various Ministries set out the challenges we face and the direction we should take. Our workers, employers and the Government must work hand-in-hand together to make our plans succeed.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion by the Member for Marine Parade GRC absolutely and completely.

The President, in his Address, touched on many aspects of the things that we are facing today, and it is quite clear that we are at a crossroad. We are facing a great deal of change. The only question is, in Singapore, how do we respond to this change? Well, for those of you who studied in the 1970s, there is a Billy Ocean song "When the going gets tough, the tough gets going", and that is what we in Singapore must be like. We must be able to respond to the changes that face us today and to be able to find a new balance to deal with the changed circumstances.

There are three areas I would like to raise in respect of how we can change. The first is changing our mindsets. In many ways, we in Singapore are the victims of our own success. We have come from a Third-World country that was poor and had a lot of low-income people, to a country which is affluent in the region. What has happened as a result is that Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, have taken success and economic prosperity for granted. That, in turn, results in a certain complacency of thinking and a feeling that there will always be jobs there, there will always be comfortable situations and circumstances.

But modern Singapore did not come into existence just like that. If we think about it, what are we? A very small red dot, or so we are told, with no natural resources. The only thing that we have is our people. The making of modern Singapore is very much an act of will. It was an act of will of a small group of people who sat down and said, "These are the overwhelming odds, but we will make it." And we stand at a very similar crossroad today, in slightly different circumstances where we are a bit more affluent. But the challenge is exactly the same. It is how to overcome odds that are put before us. And in order to do that, Singaporeans today need to have a certain mental toughness, a certain resilience and the ability to overcome the odds that face us. We must not back down in the face of difficult circumstances. We must be, really, like bamboos: firmly rooted in our constitutional principles, but able to bend with the wind. We do not break. We bend but we stay firm. And that is what we need in the modern Singaporean mindset.

President John F Kennedy once famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." I do not agree entirely. I think there is no good reason why a Singaporean cannot ask what the PAP Government can do for him. The PAP Government says it can do lots of things, so by all means ask. But, at the same time, the Singaporean must also ask himself or herself "What can I do to help myself and what can I do to help others in Singapore?" It is a two-way street. It is not just the burden of the Government, it is not just the burden of the Ministries. It is a challenge that faces all of us and something which all of us work and pull together.

Coming to the subject of employment and how we can change mindsets here, there is a need to change mindsets because, for some employees whose jobs have gone, I think they have to accept that these jobs are gone and will probably never come back. Not in the same form. So what the employee has to do is to be able, ready and willing to try an alternative employment. I hear, for example, from the Central CDC that someone in Bukit Merah was offered a job in Marine Parade but did not want to go there because it was too far. In a situation like that, it is very difficult to say to that person "I can give you financial assistance", because that person has the option to earn. So we do need changing mindsets on the part of employees.

But having said that, there are some people who are willing to work but cannot find work, and this is because the employers do not change their mindsets. There are many employers out there who do not want to employ people in their 40s and 50s because they feel that they are old, difficult to retrain and simply would not take them.

I met a woman in my constituency the other day who had been looking for a job. She had applied to the CDC, she had gone for an interview, but in the end, they did not want her because she was too old. She had been turned down in some other applications that she had made. And what she said to me was, "What is there for someone like me? The only thing that I can do now is to sit here and wait to die." She is in her late 50s. I think that was one of the saddest things that I ever heard. I would do something and try to see what I can do to give that woman a job or to find one. It is a very difficult thing for people in that situation when they are honestly looking, honestly wanting but cannot find a job. In this kind of situation, what we need to do is to try and see whether there is something out there for people who fall within this age group.

One thing I can think of is this. There are many young people who do not have the time to do their domestic chores, simply because they have a lot of work. It is difficult for them to do grocery shopping, find the time to do the ironing or, in some cases, just to do cooking at home. But you do have a lot of the aunties in the HDB areas who are able to cook, able to provide ironing services and who can help with purchase of groceries. But the only thing you need to do is to ensure that there is some kind of quality control. What I think the CDCs could do is, perhaps, help bridge this gap between the demand and the supply and hopefully, come up with a sort of training programme for some of these ladies who are in their late 40s or 50s, who are willing to provide domestic services for which they can earn a certain amount. At least if they provide these services, where there is a demand, they can earn and have a feeling of self-respect, and a feeling that they are contributing and able to stand on their own. That is the first change I would advocate - changing mindsets.

The second is changing traditional attitudes. In this respect, I have found in my MPS that there are many poor income families who come to me and yet have many children, and you can just see that this is a cycle of poverty because the parents are poor, the children's education is neglected and the children are going to grow up poor and are not going to be able to advance and progress. The key to this is education. It is extremely important. And in this regard, I would also strongly advocate education for the girls. I think across the board and certainly for some of the minority communities, education for the girls may not be considered as important as it is for the boys simply because there is the traditional perception of a woman's role in society which is that, ultimately, one day, she will meet her Prince Charming who will provide for her and be able to look after her from the day of marriage to the day she dies. Unfortunately, it does not quite happen like that.

There are many women out there who either get divorced or are victims of domestic violence or, at some stage in their lives, are not able to fend for themselves. I think education for women at all levels is very important. It is the one single defence that a woman has against poverty, against being dependent, against the kind of vicissitudes in life. It is important for women to have the option of financial independence. If you do not want to exercise that option and if you wish to be a homemaker, that is fine. But there may be circumstances when you are not so fortunate, and in that situation, you do need to have that option. Education for women is very important.

On traditional attitudes, there are also the stresses and strains in Singapore faced by professional working women. Let me tell you a story that illustrates the point I am trying to make. Somewhere out there in Singapore, there is a little boy and he is brought up, as in all immigrant societies, because we want our children to have the best, either his mother would wash his plate, make his bed or if he is more affluent, the maid will do it. He is brought up to have someone to look after him, always taking care of the domestic chores and he is socially conditioned to expect that this is going to be done for him and chances are that if it is a woman who is doing it for him, then he is going to have that expectation in life.

Somewhere out there, there is a little girl and she has been socially conditioned by her parents that she must get an education, she must become an entrepreneur and she must get a good job later on in life. And one day, they are going to meet. Then you know what happens when the irresistible objects meet the immovable force because they have completely different expectations. We are having more women in Singapore who are being more educated. Their aspirations are different from the generation of women before them. But, at the same time, we need to understand that there are pressures on them because they are expected by the husband, their mother, their mother-in-law, to also, in addition to holding down a job, take care of the children. What we must seek to do is to find a new balance and to understand that parenting and family are a shared responsibility and you need to allow them some space in order to be able to achieve all of their aspirations which, in many cases, is to be able to work as well as to have a family. That is something where we need a change in traditional attitudes.

I come to the next point where I think we could also do some change and this is in housing policy. By and large, we have done a wonderful job because we have been able to house a very large percentage of the population. But there is a segment which does not have access or full access to public housing and that is of course those who are single. A person who is under 35 years will not be able to purchase a HDB flat; 35 years and above, as I understand it, they can purchase a resale flat. With respect to rental, there are joint rental schemes but you have to be 35 years and above and you have to find somebody else.

In Singapore, especially among the younger ones, the expectations and the needs are changing. There is a greater desire for personal space. They are not any less filial. They just need or want to have some personal space and this is simply a function of the fact that the society in which we live is changing. So you cannot say to a young person, "You cannot have a HDB flat and, by the way, we want you to be an entrepreneur, but please live with your mommy and daddy until you are 35 years old." It would not work. We have to seriously consider and think about how the mindsets of the younger ones are changing. I do understand that public housing is funded by public funds and therefore, it should also meet the public policy. But, as the President said in his Address, no policy is so cast in stone that it cannot be changed and this is one policy which is worth looking at because the numbers of singles are not going to go down. The pressures of the society are such that there is a great possibility that they will increase and they should not be denied access to public housing simply because of their marital status.

I then come to the changing environment on entrepreneurship. We have made a call for entrepreneurs but you cannot have entrepreneurs overnight. Entrepreneurs are a combination of two things. One, there are some people, by their very nature and character, entrepreneurial by instinct but there are also others who will become entrepreneurial if the circumstances are right. If we want people to be more entrepreneurial in Singapore, there has to be a lighter touch on regulation, the environment must be such that it enables them to feel free to be entrepreneurial and they must not feel stifled. There are various ways in which this can be achieved. But the simple point that I am making is that you cannot just snap your fingers and say that we need more entrepreneurs and have them appear overnight. They would not. They are a result of both nature as well as nurture. With this, I conclude my address to this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have overcome many major political and economic crises in the past. These crises have taught us many lessons. A key lesson must be that situations are never static. Our achievements today do not guarantee our successes in future. We must stand ready at all times, not just to react to unexpected changes, but also to position ourselves for the future. In this context, I fully support the initiatives to remake Singapore.

Mr Speaker, "restructuring" and "remaking" have been very much in the news lately. The letter "R" seems to have a lot of exposure.

Sir, we understand that it is important that we have to find new energies and directions to bring us forward. However, as we seek to rejuvenate ourselves, perhaps we can seek some inspiration from how companies renew and reposition themselves to changing consumer trends and market situations.

I was recently at the Equinox Restaurant, a new restaurant at Raffles City, for lunch last month. Equinox occupies the top level of Raffles City Complex, at what used to be Compass Rose. It is, however, almost completely different from what we know about Compass Rose. There are now five restaurants and bars. It is a completely new environment with different dining experiences. It is an example of renewal and rejuvenation.

The economic, political and social challenges ahead of us require us to respond with new strategies and renewed energies. Remaking ourselves will give us the new strategies, while rejuvenation will give us the strength to carry the strategies through. Both are equally important.

Mr Speaker, Sir, however in the example that I have just mentioned of the new restaurant in Raffles City, not everything was renewed and rejuvenated. One key strength of the new restaurant remains from Compass Rose - the excellent view from the top of Raffles City. In fact, I have observed that the restaurant's renovation had further enhanced the view to attract customers to come back. It is an example where a key strength was "recycled", not necessarily "remaking". Recycling is based on the principle of finding new uses of things that are useful. The same principle can be applied in how we tackle our future challenges.

What are some of the strengths that we can recycle as we remake ourselves? As a labour MP, I immediately think of the tripartite partnership between workers, employers and the Government. The partnership is based on trust and respect. It has helped us tackle all the past crises.

I am glad that the Minister for Manpower has given the assurance in his Addendum to the President's Address that the Government will continue to strengthen the tripartite partnership. This partnership must be preserved and built upon. It is a pillar that binds us workers, employers and the Government to the future of Singapore. That pillar will provide strength as we collectively face the challenges ahead.

Mr Speaker, the President talked about how the world has changed and how severe the challenges ahead. Indeed, we live in uncertain times. I would even say that we live in unsettling times.

Unemployment remains high. Our workers face wage restraints, wage cuts and retrenchment as the economy restructures. The jobs that they lose today will not come back tomorrow.

Our regional environment is worrying too. The terrorist threats have not been completely eliminated. There remain issues in our relations with our neighbour Malaysia. One union leader tells me that he is worried when he travels to Malaysia. He said he was in a taxi in Malaysia and the taxi driver was so angry with Singapore. He could not understand why Malaysians are so angry with Singapore over what are essentially our domestic affairs.

Sir, even the talks about restructuring of the economy and remaking of Singapore are so worrying from the point of view of the workers. The CPF will also be reviewed. MOM will be refining the components of the employment benefit system, including the payment of retrenchment benefits. How will these changes affect workers? The tax system is undergoing review as well. How will this affect workers and how will it impact Singaporeans? There is indeed uncertainty and when there is uncertainty, worry is unavoidable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in such an environment of uncertainty, it is important that we bring in another "R", that is, the Government must constantly and clearly reassure Singaporeans. Such reassurance will cushion the impact of uncertainty and prepare Singaporeans for the policy changes ahead. For workers, the reassurance can take many forms, such as affirming the commitment to help them move into new job areas in the new growth industries through training and skills upgrading and such as those schemes to ensure that their healthcare needs will be looked after. As a labour movement, the NTUC has repeatedly reassured workers that the unions will protect their interests even as the economy restructures. We will do our part. We will call on the Government and employers to do theirs too.

For Singaporeans, it is important to reassure them that the Government has their best interest at heart. For major policy changes, the reassurance must be through concrete actions taken to minimise the policy impact.

In short, the most important "R" that we have talked about today is reassurance. If workers and Singaporeans are not reassured, it will be difficult for them to understand the policy changes, much less accept them. I thus urge the Government not to neglect the importance of reassuring Singaporeans, from the initial stages of discussions, right through the end of the policy formulation and implementation.

We are at a critical juncture of our development. The steps that we take today will shape our future. We can do more to build and improve the infrastructure to fuel our growth ahead. Let me cite three examples.

First, our public transport system. The public transport system links our homes to our workplaces, our relatives and families, and the recreational facilities as well. It gives us greater mobility in our lives. We already have a sound public transport system. However, we can do even more to improve it. For example, we know of workers who are reluctant to take up jobs in far away places because of the transportation time and cost. So I urge the Government to bring forward its plan to improve our public transport system by extending the MRT and LRT network to cover all housing estates as soon as possible.

Second, our telecommunications system. We now have features of a world-class telecommunications system, as we have one of the highest mobile phone penetration rates in the world. However, I think another area we should also be able to do it fast is to quickly link up all homes with broadband as well. While I am sure that there must be sound reasons behind the current policy, I hope that the authorities can continue to study and review other options.

Third, our living environment. We have almost universal home ownership today. We have embarked on programmes to upgrade our living environment for our residents. We must not stop there. As our population grows and ages, demands will change, and we must stay ahead and anticipate these changes. We have to lay the bricks and foundations today so that we can build a much better living environment for our people in the future.

In conclusion, the seeds we plant today will bear fruit in future. While we remake and rejuvenate ourselves to meet future challenges, we cannot completely discard the sources of strength that have brought us successes thus far. We can recycle and reuse some of them and, most importantly, we must continue to clearly reassure Singaporeans that we will always have their best interests in mind. This will prepare them for the challenges ahead.