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

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [1st April, 2002],

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.". - [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].

Question again proposed.

The Minister of State for Health and the Environment (Dr Balaji Sadasivan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President.

Singapore is at the crossroads in its history. The crisis we face is in part the result of forces that we have no control over. These forces were responsible for our past success. They are responsible for our present recession; and if managed correctly, they will bring us future prosperity.

The first force is the force of the free market. In historical terms, the force of the free market is a relatively new force. When kings and queens controlled all the factors of production, there was no free market. Only when individuals had the right to private ownership of wealth, no matter how little or how much the wealth was, did the free market emerge as a force. Industrialisation and the division of labour greatly amplified its power.

The last century has shown us that the free market is the most efficient way of organising the factors of production and producing wealth. The collapse of the Soviet Union is proof of the inefficiency of centrally controlled economies. The recent rapid prosperity of China is proof of the effectiveness of free market principles in generating wealth.

When people of a common culture are divided by an accident of history, and one half follows a free market economy and the other half a centrally controlled economy, the free market economy has always performed better. West Germany was more prosperous than East Germany and South Korea is more prosperous than North Korea.

Singapore by embracing the free market system and by having one of the most open economies in the world has become an affluent nation. However, the free market system is also responsible for our current recession. We can react in two ways. The first approach is to try and ringfence our economy and preserve the status quo. Our economy will remain preserved, frozen in time, but the world will move on. Twenty years from now, foreigners will find us quaint. Just as we often remark when we are in less developed countries - this is how Singapore used to be in the 60s - they will say this is how their country used to be in the 90s.

Or we take the second approach and look at the recession as an opportunity to allow the free market to reorganise our economy so that we will be more efficient and will enter a period of growth in the 21st century. We must not expect that when we come out of this recession, things will be like they used to be in the mid-90s. Our economy will change. Like the mature economies of the world, there will be a shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a more service-oriented economy. Like the mature economies, our dependence on construction must decrease.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the 1980s, I lived in the United States for five years in the State of Michigan, about a minute's drive from the World Headquarters of General Motors and about 15 minutes' drive from the World Headquarters of Ford Motors. The output of these two companies is greater than the GDP of Singapore. The 1980s were a period of anguish for many Americans. The Japanese economy appeared strong and many contemplated a future where Japan would be the premier country of the world. A Japanese corporation had purchased that icon of New York - the Rockefeller Center. Many thought the American auto industry would perish. Instead of protecting the auto industry, the US allowed market forces to restructure the industry. The auto industry was forced to make better cars more efficiently and by the 1990s, the American auto industry was again the strongest in the world.

Today, it is the Japanese auto industry that is in trouble. Nissan required a foreigner to restructure and save the company. Japan's reluctance to allow restructuring of its economy after its bubble economy burst has hindered its recovery. We must avoid the mistakes that Japan has made. To recover from this recession, we must further deregulate and allow market forces to make us more efficient.

The second factor that we have no control over is globalisation. The search for profits has made globalisation a powerful force. It was the desire of Europeans to make huge profits from the spice trade that drove them to explore the world, discover America and circumnavigate the world. Since then, the world has become inter-linked and we cannot escape globalisation.

Consider the fate of the African living in his village in the 17th century. European taste for sugar fuelled a triangular trade whereby trinkets from Europe were sold in Africa for African slaves who were then transported to the Caribbean to be worked to death to grow sugar, which would be sold in Europe for huge profits. Whether globalisation is morally good or bad is for philosophers to decide, but like the African in the 17th century, we cannot escape globalisation.

What is new, however, is the degree to which the political and economic fates of countries are becoming inter-linked and the speed at which globalisation affects countries. Just imagine, Osama sitting in his office in Afghanistan reviewing the videos of Yishun MRT and the World Trade Center in New York. Because he chose to strike in New York, we were spared death and destruction. On September 11th, I was watching CNN. The first plane had hit the towers. The instant I saw the second plane hit the building, I knew it was a terrorist attack. So did millions of others across the world who viewed CNN. This is the speed at which information moves across the globe today.

When Enron collapsed, dragging Arthur Andersen into the controversy, within days, our honest Singapore accountants working under the Arthur Andersen umbrella had to consider merging with other firms.

Globalisation brought the electronics industry to Singapore because it was efficient to locate the industry here. Globalisation is taking many of these factories to China and elsewhere because it is more efficient to be located there. We cannot fight globalisation. What we can do is to find a new niche in the global market where we are efficient and where we have an edge in competitiveness.

The third force is the progress in the application of science. Discoveries in science by themselves may have no impact. But when they are applied, they can change the course of history. The Chinese discovered gunpowder but the application of gunpowder to cannons by the Ottomans brought the collapse of Constantinople and changed world history. Although the transistor was invented in the United States, it was Sony and other Japanese companies that were able to exploit its applications and have dominated consumer electronics ever since.

The last two decades have seen a revolution in applied science due to the mass introduction of computers in the workplace and in the home. We must be thankful to the Economic Development Board for seeing the potential in the computer industry and bringing the computer industry to Singapore. But as the computer industry plateaus, we need to look for a new niche where advances in the application of science will fuel growth. The life sciences is an area that Singapore should consider.

Although the Government cannot control the three forces I described, the Government must play an active role to complement and manage these forces for the benefit of Singapore. I believe there are three areas where the Government has a major role.

The first area is with regard to the civil service and the statutory boards. Our civil servants and statutory board employees are men and women of integrity working diligently in the service of the nation. But these institutions are shielded from the forces of the free market. Yet, they too must restructure and become more efficient or they may gradually become what Bertrand Russell called "a collection of officials, different for different purposes, drawing comfortable incomes", happy "so long as the status quo is preserved." It is Parliament's duty, those on the Frontbench and those on the Backbench, who must ensure that the civil service and statutory boards remain efficient and give the people the maximum at the minimum cost.

The second area where the Government must act is to reduce the real difficulties faced by our citizens as a result of the recession and restructuring. We must do our best to help people through this period. However, we must be careful not to create a welfare state and avoid creating a dependency culture in our citizens. We should consider Abraham Lincoln's advice: "In all that people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."

The third area where the Government should act is to see how we can utilise the economics of QWERTY, spelt Capital Q, W, E, R, T, Y, to help us. If you look at your keyboard, the keys at the upper left corner are Q, W, E, R, T, Y. When the typewriter was first invented, the machine would often jam when the operator typed too fast. So the keyboard was designed to be as inefficient as possible. Today keyboards do not jam, but we continue to use the same format for the keyboard, even though it is inefficient. Economists like Paul David call this, the law of positive returns or the economics of QWERTY after the keyboard.

We can see examples of QWERTY all around. The IT industry began in the Silicon Valley through the foresight of Stanford University. Today, all those interested in the IT industry still continue to converge to the Silicon Valley, even though it is one of the most expensive places in the United States. Likewise, the entertainment industry gravitates to Hollywood. Even Chinese films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Indian films like Lagaan look to Hollywood for approval at the Oscars as this translates into millions of dollars in the global film market. Patients from around the world travel to a small town in the middle of wheat fields in Minnesota to see the doctors of the Mayo Clinic. These are examples of QWERTY where an established practice gives a place a competitive advantage.

About a month ago, I was introduced to a former Indian Minister who is now a top lawyer. He came to Singapore because an Indian company had a dispute with an Indian State government. The arbitration was being conducted in Singapore because it is becoming an established practice in many contracts in India to choose Singapore as a location for arbitration for disputes. I was greatly encouraged by this.

Singapore has a brand name. If we can create a pattern where people within seven hours flying time come to Singapore for services in education, health, insurance, banking, law, research, entertainment, the arts, shopping and other services, these patterns will self-perpetuate and get fully established. Then, even if we are a high cost centre, the economics of QWERTY will work in our favour because we will have a competitive edge as established patterns tend to persist.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are at the crossroads. The people of Singapore are pragmatic. They know there are no easy solutions to difficult problems. They do not pine for a lost past that will not come back. We, Singaporeans, are the children of tough and hardy immigrants. Survival is in our genes. If we, people and Parliament, see the future not as one full of problems but as one full of opportunities, opportunities for us to seize for our benefit, we can make Singapore one of the greatest cities of the 21st century.

Mr R. Ravindran (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

The President in his Address highlighted that as we upgrade the economy we must maintain and strengthen our social cohesion. Our income distribution is already stretched out. At the lower end of our society, those without skills have difficulty raising their incomes or even finding jobs.

One of the tasks of the Economic Review Committee is to look at how to lower business costs. I think we pay greater attention to business costs because businessmen are a powerful group and they power the economy. I would urge the Government to go further and see whether the overall costs of goods and services can be relooked in Singapore. I would like to urge the Government to set up a committee to see how cost of living in Singapore can be reduced further.

Sir, I meet and interact with many residents in Singapore. In my meetings with my constituents, it is clear that they are concerned with managing their lives on a day-to-day basis. For many low income families, the daily challenge is not only about the cost of living, but actually the cost of survival in Singapore. Many are struggling to upkeep themselves and their families. I am confident that there are many areas in the provision of Government goods and services where we can further lower our charges.

Sir, there are many areas of expenditure where we can undertake a detailed audit of what is the real cost and what is being charged by the various Government departments. For example, I was pleasantly surprised when the Registry of Companies launched a new fees structure for registration of new companies from a minimum of $1,200 to $300 recently. Similarly, for a business registration, it has come down from $55 per year to $105 for three years. I am sure there are many other Government departments where there can be greater transparency on what is the real cost and what is being charged.

Similarly, many statutory bodies must become more transparent on what they charge and what is their true cost. Can some of the key goods and service providers, like the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Trade and Industry, including the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, become more transparent on their costs and charges so that we can better understand whether the Government departments are recovering cost or whether they are profiteering marginally or grossly? This becomes even more necessary when the goods or services are provided by a monopoly. In fact, Sir, I take on and support the call by the Minister of State who spoke earlier that the Government must provide services and goods for maximum benefit at minimum cost. But somehow that is not the impression among many members of the public.

I do hope that many statutory boards and Government autonomous bodies can adopt such accounting disclosures so that the true cost and revenue picture is well understood by the public. It will certainly help to restrain some of these organisations and moderate what they charge the public. I am convinced that some departments charge what the public can pay rather than what is cost recovery or even a reasonable return.

Sir, recently, IRAS sounded out getting charitable organisations to disclose their income and expenditure statement of charitable organisations. It will also require disclosure about the top three salaries of their employees. I am very sure that it is a positive move as many donors would like to know how their donations are being used. If we can start setting benchmarks on how public donations are being used, I am sure that the Government can set even higher standards on the cost and revenue for each service and goods it provides to the public.

Sir, there are many who are keen to know how much does Traffic Police charge for a police report as against the true cost of providing such a service. Some want to know how much is the cost of medicine to our hospitals as against what the particular hospital charges the public. I am confident that such public scrutiny about our Government and quasi-Government bodies' income and expenditure will encourage them to be sensitive as to how they can charge the public. I am concerned as I am convinced that there are several Government departments that may be profiteering in the provision of some public services as against working on a cost recovery basis.

I would similarly like to urge the NTUC, as the key provider of many services to the public, to similarly disclose to the public where it is possible on what is the cost of their services and goods they provide to the public and their union members. NTUC FairPrice, for example, can disclose to the public on how much they subsidise the public by disclosing the purchasing and operating costs and the selling price. Perhaps, such public disclosure would allow the public to better appreciate the subsidy or profit being made by our Government department or NTUC in the provision of goods and services. I am confident that this is also an area where CASE can play a useful role in looking into the areas highlighted and work towards reducing the prices of these goods and services.

Sir, my hope is that the Government will not only lower costs for businesses but also for all Singaporeans. This will certainly go a long way in helping ordinary Singaporeans.

Let me now move on to my second topic on relations with our neighbours. Sir, the President has spoken succinctly when he stated that our own region has fundamentally altered. Our two immediate neighbours are facing different challenges.

Indonesia is still on the course of finding stability in many areas. We have seen the change of three Presidents in three years and the emergence of hitherto hidden but powerful forces. Their foreign and economic policies will be strongly dictated by a myriad of political parties and leaders and the need to soothe an increasingly stronger Muslim electorate. Compounding the problem is the emergence of the media as a new power in Indonesia. The media is still groping on the markers between absolute free speech and responsible journalism. Important issues are commented and debated according to the political flavour of the day and the political affiliations of the media. Fortunately, our ties are deep and our friendship network is extensive.

Sir, I am happy that we have helped and continue to help Indonesia recover economically. The participation of GIC in the purchase of assets by IBRA, the government-to-government loan assistance package, and recently the idea of including Bintan as an export corridor to the USA under the proposed US-Singapore FTA are laudable. The actions will help show that Singapore is indeed a friend in need.

Sir, we must continue to remain engaged in a big way in Indonesia. It is a big and very large neighbour. Although some Singaporeans have turned negative about investing in Indonesia, we must never take our sights from Indonesia. Sir, regional autonomy offers tremendous business and other opportunities to Singapore businessmen. I have spoken to many Indonesians and many have highlighted of new investments from Europe, Japan and China into the provinces. I am not hearing much of substantial private Singapore investments in the provinces. I do hope that the Ministry of Trade and Industry will study ways to help Singapore businessmen explore and invest in Indonesia. My fear is that when real economic recovery returns to Indonesia, Singaporeans may be too late to join the bandwagon. Let us not ignore our own backyard where we have a distinct advantage and concentrate on faraway markets where the competition may be greater.

In the case of Malaysia, it is the same old story. The season for Singapore bashing used to be spread out over a longer period of time. Recently, the time gap appears to be narrowing. The several by-elections there could be a factor. Well, the bad news is that analysts are predicting an early general election next year. The media in Malaysia has dutifully done its part in portraying Singapore as the bad boy down south. Much as we ignore the Malaysian media, we must also understand that there is a whole new generation of Malaysians who get a regular dosage of anti-Singapore articles and news reports. Many have come to believe that many of these articles and reports are true.

Sir, the latest issue on the land reclamation is a case in point. What started out as a comment by someone has now snowballed as a serious issue for them. Interestingly, no report has been disclosed by the state of Johor or the Federal government on what exactly is the damage done. The newspaper reports faithfully the comments by politicians, businessmen, academics, bureaucrats and even fishermen on the effects of reclamation in Singapore. What is clear from the press reports is that there is as yet no comprehensive report on the matter. The various reports are still being waited by the central government. Sir, their own government has stated that they are waiting for the reports to come from the various authorities. It may become embarrassing if later it transpires that (a) the reclamation does not infringe Malaysian territory (which we already know) and (b) that there is no substantial damage to Malaysia in any way. Having taken a stance that the reclamation is damaging even before the official reports have come in, clearly shows the mentality of our Malaysian neighbours - "Shoot first - we will find a reason later". Fortunately, neither our Government nor Singaporeans are rattled by this present rhetoric or past rhetoric.

What is puzzling to me is what are the intellects in Malaysia thinking? Are they wondering why the Malaysian government has not done a proper study on the matter earlier? Were their government leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and diplomats so inept and inefficient that they were unaware of these reclamation works? Mind you, these reclamation works are well publicised in advance. In some cases, the reclamation project has been completed some years ago, eg, at Tuas. What then is the latest agenda of the Malaysians? To tell us what we should do and not do within our territory? To rally their ground for their domestic politics? I really do not know and it may not be worth our time pondering over it.

What is more puzzling is the new style of diplomacy that is emerging in Malaysia. Whenever there is a bilateral issue, the position there is to use the media. It is elementary diplomatic convention that relations between states are conducted through diplomatic channels. There are proper and a range of diplomatic tools to raise matters of concern between nations. While one can forgive small time politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and businessmen for not understanding the art and use of diplomacy, it puzzles me that the lack of understanding reaches the upper echelon of the Malaysian leadership. Perhaps, we can offer them some scholarships to undertake academic programmes in diplomacy and international law at some renowned universities.

To compound the matter, the Malaysian press has been unhelpful in publishing the truth when explanations are given on why the reclamation will not impact or affect Malaysia. In fact, it gets no coverage at all. I recall the article put out by the Straits Times on 30th March which reads "Reclamation will not hit shipping lanes". It has yet to be reprinted or published in Malaysia. In fact, to show the attitude of the Malaysian press, let me just highlight one case. The New Straits Times just last week deliberately omitted a crucial paragraph that refuted the "underclass" claim in an article about Malays in Singapore. Well, that certainly helps us to know where the Malaysian media stands on matters concerning Singapore.

Sir, in fact, if you want a joke, I picked up one last week. Malaysia's Berita Harian ran a comment by an unnamed retired navy rear admiral that our reclamation had paralysed a Malaysian navy centre in the Johor Straits. The article stated that the narrow gap between the two countries would cause sedimentation over the next few decades. This would allow Singapore's amphibious military vehicles to cross into Malaysia with ease. When I first read the article, I thought, "What a brilliant planner we had in the SAF who was able to think decades ahead" because they alleged that in a few decades we will be able to cross the straits through this process of sedimentation. Then, I reflected, "But are they not making it easier for Malaysian amphibious vehicles to come to Singapore with ease?", in which case, our reclamation will end up helping the Malaysian Armed Forces to fix Singapore.

Maybe this is a game of reverse psychology or even a case of poor logic or poor argument. I do not know. But what one can think for sure is that this "tak ada logic" barrage from across the Causeway will continue. What is clear is that there are many voices emanating from across the Causeway. By the time it reaches us, it becomes noise, a noise we have gotten used to just like aircraft noise generated from time to time over Singapore. They are a pain, but we have got used to it. Our destiny is here and we have to do business here. Let us continue to be friendly but firm, respect each other and not denigrate each other, let us discuss but not be talked to or talked down. Let us work for our mutual benefit and not for our mutual detriment.

Sir, our Government has been doing right in treating our Malaysian neighbour fairly but firmly. We demand respect as a sovereign nation and we give them respect as a sovereign nation. We encourage investments and tourism in Malaysia. We have many relatives and friends on both sides of the border. We wish them well, for their prosperity augurs well for regional prosperity, as does ours for them.

Sir, Singapore is a small nation. We have been successful in finding a place under the sun for our people. We must work as a team and look beyond these problems. We should leapfrog and establish our economic and political links everywhere. But we must remind ourselves that our home base is here and we learn to live in this tough neighbourhood. We have done so as a nation for the past 37 years. I am confident that with a sound Government, united people and a strong SAF, we can meet these challenges.

I support again the Motion.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua in thanking the President for his Address at the Opening of this Tenth Parliament.

The President's Address focuses on our need to be pragmatic in the light of a dramatically changed world and the challenges ahead of us. We are indeed facing unprecedented economic competition from all fronts, as we now emerge from last year's recession. This is placing us in an increasingly tight spot as our neighbours and many others, particularly China, eye for the same economic pie. We must sharpen our pencils to find new avenues to preserve our competitiveness while also holding our social cohesion, or risk becoming irrelevant in this increasingly harsher globalised world.

However, Sir, as competition spurs on us, we must always bear in our subconscious that it is not a zero-sum game. As countries in the region and beyond grow their economies and raise their standard of living, there will be more opportunities created. Some degree of interdependence on one another will create collaborative opportunities for win-win situations rather than being at loggerheads with each other.

In our context, Sir, whether we collaborate or compete, at the core of it is ensuring that our goods and services provide the best value to our customers at home and the rest of the world. We cannot, therefore, afford to rest on our laurels. We must continue to strengthen our infrastructure, continually upgrade the knowledge and skills of our people, and take a critical review of Government policies to keep us economically competitive. I am glad, Sir, that we have the Economic Review Committee and the Remaking of Singapore Committee in place, in the light of many significant events which have occurred in the recent past, to deliberate on the future of Singapore.

As our people are our key assets, and it takes people to bring about the difference we are seeking in remaking Singapore, I would like, Mr Speaker, Sir, to address two people-related issues in our continuing effort to unleash the best out of our people.

First, Sir, is the need to educate our people that the real challenges before us are not getting out of this recession per se, but to remake and re-engineer the Singapore economy, so that we remain competitive as a nation and are able to secure good growth in the next decade and beyond. To face the uncertainty and the China challenge, we need to create an environment in which individuals and firms are more willing to take risks and succeed on the strength of their capabilities and efforts, rather than dependence on Government subsidies and direction. We must find ways and means to encourage individuals and our SMEs to look for opportunities in this area of perpetual motion and to experiment with new approaches in return for, hopefully, higher rewards.

I know much of this is already being promoted by various Government agencies to evolve an enterprise-eco system. In addition to these agencies, Sir, I suggest that the various chambers of commerce and industry, and even self-help groups, be also used as vehicles to help create greater awareness of this direction we need to take, not only because of the changing nature of employment contracts between employers and employees but also the need to quickly evolve an entrepreneurial culture so that a wider base of successful home-grown, smart and innovative companies could be created to help propel our economy in the longer term. It is understandable that this will not be easy and will take many years to evolve, but we must start somewhere, and sooner rather than later.

The China threat has been quite often linked to this subject. Allow me, Sir, to share my own experience in doing business in China. I started my manufacturing operation in the Singapore-Suzhou Industrial Park, or now better known as SIP in short, in 1996 as a result of Mr Chan Soo Sen's strong persuasion then when he was CEO of SIP. Since then, he and Mr David Lim have subsequently come and gone, and I am stuck there. The "Suzhou GRC" has disappeared. Sales of my company's product were initially slow, but have more than quadrupled in the last two years. I studied the order pattern of my Chinese customers and discovered that much of these increased sales are from four companies which did not even exist when I began in 1996. The owners are young professional managers who chose to leave the comfort of their jobs in search of bigger opportunities. Each of them is a qualified engineer and has smartly used consultants to draw up viable plans and used their consultants' network to obtain capital infusion into their respective companies. There must be thousands of similar successful ventures out there which are quietly but surely contributing to China's GDP.

Sir, the Government has done plenty to prepare us for the innovation and entrepreneurial age, but we need to do more to get the spirit of innovation, enterprise and tolerance for risk-taking to sink into our people and help this to take off. I see this as an opportune time to encourage and assist many mid-level executives who are displaced as a result of the recession and, more recently, from the banking and service sectors, to take up this challenge. Job matching programmes by CDCs and job listings in MOM's Employment Town websites have limitations. Many executives still need help and have expressed frustration in not being able to find jobs. As a further alternative, we should reach out to this group as well as promising SMEs through the various Government assistance schemes, and assist the deserving ones to become entrepreneurs. Wherever applicable, we should connect such individuals and firms with credible consultants who could help them package meaningful business plans and lead them to appropriate sources of funds. Successful entrepreneurs should be more regularly profiled in the media to spur others to follow suit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now turn to my next subject matter which concerns the importance of maintaining strong social cohesion and enhancing the spirit of caring and sharing. We survived in the initial years of independence and prospered through the later decades because of the existence of such a spirit.

However, our younger generation today is growing up in the face of a different set of challenges. We are now feeling the pressures of living in a fundamentally uncertain world. We have to make our living in this unprecedented rapidly changing environment that may even be more unpredictable than at any time since our independence in the 60s. The September 11th incident in the US and the recent arrest of the Jemaah Islamiyah radicalists are examples which come to mind, which have dramatically affected the lives of people the world over. These are realities which we must face, whether we like it or not.

As we struggle to get ourselves out of recession and re-engineer our economy, it is also essential that we continue with the need to strengthen our racial tolerance and religious harmony in the light of the incidents I mentioned earlier. The Government has shown sensitivity to this as evidenced by the timely call by the Prime Minister for the creation of Inter-Racial Confidence Circles or IRCCs to foster inter-racial and inter-religious rapport among the different communities by having them interact more frequently.

Beyond the IRCCs, individuals, families and our grassroots organisations can also play an active role and should not wait for Government initiatives to be in place. They can organise activities to bring neighbours together to get to know each other better and to create mutual care and share groups. With many people still facing hardship as a result of the recession, they can, for instance, work with the CDCs to seek out people in difficulty within their neighbourhoods, and also link up with schools to extend help to the unfortunate families and children. Such acts will go a long way in fostering harmony and in enlivening the spirit of care and share, and will readily pave the way for greater tolerance for one another.

Sir, I was recently invited to a temple function attended by more than 6,000 people. In response to the call for greater understanding of our diverse religious backgrounds, the temple invited, among others, mosque committee members from 12 different mosques in the east and, beyond that, also extended donations to several of them. Such acts, I believe, will go a long way in fostering understanding among our multi-ethnic communities. In interacting with some of the mosque committee members after the event, several of them are already thinking about how they could reciprocate in similar fashion to their non-Muslim counterparts. These are developments that we must continue to encourage and nurture in our endeavour to enhance the understanding between the various ethnic groups in Singapore. I call upon the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports and the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs to get his Ministry to build upon and encourage such initiatives as we move forward.

Sir, I believe the majority in the Muslim community are aware that the process of integration takes time and effort to build. Behind the challenges, as a result of issues on Islam coming to the fore, is this positive development and earnestness among our various ethnic groups to want to know and learn about each other's racial, religious and cultural practices better. Being in a multi-racial society requires every member of society to exhibit rationality and adopt a give-and-take attitude in order to foster stronger bonds between us. While I am glad that the majority of Muslims in Singapore are rational and understand the bigger picture of what it entails in living in a multi-racial society, we should also try to win over the radical few in the community to understand this so that we could collectively, as Singaporeans, regardless of race and religious backgrounds, focus on more difficult issues of jobs and addressing our competitiveness which afflict our communities. Again, the MCDS, through MUIS, MENDAKI and various community organisations could help in propagating this message.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has been frank in presenting us with a potentially more difficult and challenging scenario ahead of us. I believe Singaporeans are a pragmatic lot and we have proven to be a people with a collective will to succeed, and in doing so, have shown compassion and care for each other. This is glaringly demonstrated when we sing Majulah Singapura collectively at the National Stadium when we celebrate National Day and in the recent General Elections when it comes to deciding who is best to lead us for the future. Although the future holds no guarantee of success, we Singaporeans are spurred on by the words "Count on me, Singapore" and the knowledge that together we can achieve, and make Singapore the best home for our future generation.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President.

In his Address, the President stressed on the need to maintain and strengthen our social cohesion. I see this as the most pressing issue facing us today.

Sir, I would like to highlight four insidious divides that threaten us from within.

First, there is the nationality divide, as Singapore pursues its policy of attracting international talent to sharpen its competitive edge in the global economy. While this is a sound policy, some Singaporeans are increasingly concerned that they would be treated as second class citizens in their own country. Many continue to harbour misgivings that employers are hiring foreigners for jobs that they can do just as well themselves.

Second, there is the age divide, as older Singaporeans find themselves left behind by the new economy and increasingly disconnected from the aspirations of the younger generation. Many older workers complain of age discrimination in the workplace and in the job market. And this is despite all the incentives and persuasion by the Manpower Ministry for employers to hire older workers.

Third, the gender divide. Despite making up 54% of the workforce today, women earn only about 78% of what their male counterparts earn. There are still pockets of sexual discrimination, such as unequal benefits for equal work at the civil service. While there have been advances for women in some areas, they have not kept pace with the massive influx of women into the labour market. As a consequence, women run a much higher risk of being poorer than men. They are also more vulnerable to retrenchments. Census 2000 found that women in their late 30s and 40s had relatively large increases in unemployment rate compared to their male counterparts. The women's unemployment rate rose from about 4% in 1999 to above 6% in 2000. The increase for their male counterparts was lower.

Finally, the ethnic divide. While all ethnic groups have enjoyed good income growth over the years, the Malays continue to lag behind the other races. Still, they have made tangible progress - more Malays are better-educated and better-skilled today, and more are taking on professional, managerial and executive jobs.

However, since the September 11th terrorist attacks, there has been some concern among the Malay-Muslim community if employers may now treat them differently because of their increasing religiosity. Their concern may well be unfounded, but still, they persist. We need to address these divides and these genuine concerns.

Meritocracy is one of our founding principles, so is the principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination. We must make it clear that discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age or national origin is not tolerated in Singapore. We must give each individual and each group the confidence and hope that they have equal opportunities to realise their aspirations, even if unequal outcomes are the result. We cannot guarantee success, but we must guarantee equality of opportunity.

The progress may be uneven, each person or group sometimes gaining, sometimes losing, sometimes climbing, sometimes stumbling, but always treated fairly and with respect. And above all, always given a fair hearing. When this process is working, even those who have the least success in realising their objectives will conclude that the system itself is fair, just and legitimate. In this respect, we need to examine if our social structures and institutions are adequate to ensure that our Constitutional principles of non-discrimination and equality are protected and promoted.

If a woman is discriminated at the workplace because she is pregnant, where can she go to seek redress? If a company discriminates at the workplace in terms of its recruitment and promotion by race, nationality or age, where can the aggrieved workers go to seek a fair hearing? Members of Parliament, unions and the Manpower Ministry can and do occasionally take up such complaints. But they tend to be piecemeal, ad hoc affairs. And let us face it - they lack the time and resources to investigate each case thoroughly.

The Employment Act does give some protection to those who have been sacked unfairly because of discrimination. But its effect is rather like a band-aid plastered over a crack on the wall when gaps are opening up from beneath our feet. The right to equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination are entrenched in our Constitution. But Singapore has yet to establish a body with teeth to enforce these principles. It prefers to use "the persuasion, moral suasion and promotional way'' to nudge employers down the path. I question if this is good enough, especially in this increasingly stressful environment. If we do not give people a legitimate avenue to seek redress, the gaps will become political traps. Instead of working positively to find solutions, people will politicize the issues and political opportunists, both at home and abroad, will jump on the bandwagon gladly. This will do greater harm to our social cohesion in the long run.

It is time that we considered setting up an agency such as the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC), found in countries such as the United States, Britain, Hongkong and Australia. It enforces all the laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, gender or national origin in their countries. The laws include the Equal Pay Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as well as the Age Discrimination Act which protects individuals who are 40 years or older. We do not have such provisions.

In recommending a version of the Equal Opportunity Commission for Singapore, I am not advocating that the legal whip be brandished at every opportunity. Even in the United States, its EOC has placed increasing emphasis on mediation, rather than taking employers to court. In Australia, its Commissioner for Equal Opportunity investigates and tries to conciliate complaints. The Commissioner refers the complaints to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal only when the conciliation process has failed. The Equal Opportunity Tribunal is an independent statutory body in Australia.

Some may be concerned whether this mechanism will introduce job rigidities and affect economic growth. It is an unnecessary worry. There is little evidence of this in the countries that have the equal opportunity laws. Indeed, one can argue that it strengthens the job market as it ensures transparency and meritocracy; the best person for the job.

But having an EOC alone, I submit, may not be adequate for the challenges ahead. We need more. We also need to build institutional pillars for specific areas. If I may, I would like to focus on two areas: gender equality and multi-racialism.

Women in Singapore have made great strides in Singapore over the years, yet they are still under-represented in the upper echelons of power in society. Women have a particular interest in ensuring that our social and economic policies are sound. Women are often combining several jobs at one time - as a mother, a wife, a caregiver to elderly parents, a volunteer in the community, and as a worker. They know that issues like child care, access to healthcare services and to training programmes are closely connected to their ability to participate on an equal basis in the labour market.

To ensure that the voices of women are heard at all levels and that their potential is maximised, the Government should set up a national body to promote their full participation in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. Why not set up a Women Affairs Ministry or department for this? Or at the very least, a National Women's Council, on par with the National Youth Council which is headed by a Cabinet Minister?

Many countries have entire Ministries or departments to promote the status of women and their full integration into the national development process. These countries include the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Sweden and Fiji. In Sweden, its Minister for Gender Equality Affairs works with the Equal Opportunity Ombudsman to promote gender equality in working life. Not surprisingly, many of these countries have produced strong women leaders.

In Singapore, it has been said that we are a patriarchal society and some of our policies have to reflect this, such as medical benefits for civil servants. But the last time I checked the Constitution, Sir, I did not see patriarchy being enshrined as one of its founding principles. The principle of equality and non-discrimination is.

Sir, if I may turn to multi-racialism. We stand for multi-racialism and gradual integration but presently, we lack national institutions to promote it in a coordinated and concerted way. We have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, but it is preventive. It prevents matters from escalating and creating tensions and conflicts between different religious groups.

We also have the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. Its role is also preventive. It is to review and draw attention to any Bill or to any subsidiary legislation that, when put in practice, might discriminate against any racial or religious community. They serve important functions, but neither is set up to promote multi-racialism positively and to push the multi-racial agenda forward.

The Prime Minister has recently set up a new National Steering Committee on the Inter-Racial Confidence Circles to foster confidence between the different races. This is a promising step forward. But I would argue that it can and should go further. We should build on this gradually. In time, it should be the umbrella body for all the ethnic-based self-help groups and be the institution to promote a multi-racial approach to solving problems. I hope we will eventually also see a Minister in charge of multi-cultural affairs overseeing this crucial area, just as we have a Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs overseeing the Malay community's interests.

Sir, it is important to institutionalise our founding principles because they define who we are as a people and as a nation. Our founding fathers had fought long and hard for these principles of equality and multi-racialism. It was because of these principles that Singapore separated from Malaysia and we are today an independent country.

Sir, these principles strike a deep chord in me. I left Malaysia for Singapore when I was 16 because this country offered me the opportunity to live my life based on these principles. I became a Singaporean because I wanted to be a part of a country that upholds these principles. Its ideals have become my own. And I became an MP because I want to contribute to a country that pursues these precious ideals. I know only too well that they cannot be taken for granted. We need to institutionalise them. Leaders may come and go, but institutions stay.

In his Address, the President called on us to remake Singapore together, so that we will continue to thrive and prosper as a country. Sir, the Government also needs to remake itself, to respond more readily to the genuine concerns of the people. I have met too many Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans who wonder, somewhat sceptically, whether the Government really listens. They say, "Why bother to speak up when the Government has already made up its mind?" But to take this attitude is to throw in the towel even before the bell rings. "Why?" a young Singaporean might ask, "Why should I get involved in this difficult process of remaking Singapore?" To answer that it is for this country's survival is only begging the question, because why is this country's survival so important?

The earth is a big place. When the going gets tough, we can disperse and leave for other lands as our forefathers did. I would answer that Singaporean this way - because this is the very essence of being a Singaporean! It is about overcoming adversity. It is a personal and national investment in a future that we hope to create for ourselves and our children, with a national character we can be proud of and can call our own. But more importantly, it must be because we want to realise our hopes and ideals as Singaporeans - one united people, regardless of race, language and religion, building a democratic society based on justice and equality.

Sir, on that note, I support the motion. 1.30 pm

Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion of thanks to our President.

In his Speech to this House, the President reminded all Singaporeans that "the world has changed." To me, this describes the crux of the challenge that we face.

Sir, technology has bound all parts of our world more tightly together. In this sense, it has made our world smaller. In this smaller and more crowded world, all countries and peoples vie constantly with one another for resources, opportunities and results. Power and influence are also peddled on a global scale by all kinds of forces, some legitimate and others not. In this global stage, winners win big. Losers also lose big. Societies are therefore stressed by competition, and strained by the accentuated differences in outcomes and increased dislocation of people.

Amid such whirling change, people seek relief, solace and expression in solidarity with others like themselves. Transnational and supranational forces of race, religion, class, business and even iconic worship have become stronger. While they may help bring comfort, hope and gain to their supporters, they can also affect and amplify underlying tensions and cracks in society, rendering the governing of nations ever more difficult.

Sir, in my work as Mayor, as Member of Parliament and with the trade union movement, I see these trends and its forces being played out in the lives of ordinary people. I think that it is important for Singapore to put in effort in three areas in the context of the world that we now face, so that we can continue to be successful. And these are helping the individual develop and deal with change, the strengthening of adjustment infrastructure and the promotion of social cohesion.

Sir, for more than 30 years, Singapore has succeeded against the odds through a combination of right policies and tight organisation. In that time, we have moved from being a cheap operational base to a high value-added location. I believe we have moved ourselves as far as that formula can take us. From here on, we will have to contend with many others who have much larger endowments of land, population and market, in an environment that is decidedly much more uncertain than before. And in such a setting, we must go beyond picking winning industries to creating an overall more conducive and vibrant business environment. Our hope must be that the life force in such an environment will generate innovation, possibilities and the growth of winners and winning industries, thereby creating more jobs and uplifting the living standard of Singaporeans. But my concentration today is on the individual. How is the individual Singaporean, regardless of age, to be developed so that he can fit well into such an environment, and thrive amid such change?

Here, I would like to highlight three factors that I believe will drive successful outcome. First, the individual must have more understanding of the situation that he is getting into. Although this seems obvious enough, I think it cannot be presumed upon. For many years now, the message of training for employability has been highlighted. Yet, there remain large numbers of employees, including those at executive levels, who had not yet taken action. Perhaps many did not get the message. Maybe others did not believe that they would fall prey to restructuring. While the retrenchments during this ongoing recession may have punctured such illusions of security for many, more still needs to be done. And the earlier we get our entire workforce to understand the situation and its urgency, the earlier we start on the road to adjustment and adaptation.

Second, we must emphasise the importance of resilience and resourcefulness in individual development. Traditional training has concentrated on technical skills. This was partly due to the strong focus on the manufacturing needs, and partly because technical skills tended to be easier to gauge and test. While competence in technical content must remain an important and integral part of training, support for training that improves individual confidence and flexibility must be increased. In a more uncertain environment, our people must not only be very good at scaling ladders, but they must also be quick to determine for themselves which are the right ladders to scale in the battlefield, given the overall mission. This adaptability is critical in maximising our capacity to seize opportunities and minimising the risk of premature or permanent dislocation.

Third, we must enable more individual-initiated training to take place. Looking at the jobs that the EDB-induced investments create, we can say that some two-thirds to four-fifths of them require skilled manpower, increasingly of very specialised kinds. I think that mirrors the changing skill needs elsewhere in the economy. With growing demand for skilled manpower, can we therefore assume that companies will devote more resources to training their workers to meet their own needs?

Sir, in my view, this may not necessarily be so. Why? Because many companies, especially SMEs, have traditionally not been able or not willing to send their workers for much training, while all companies will face rapidly shortening product cycles. The end result might be a tendency to "buy" the needed skilled manpower from the market rather than invest directly in training. And when that happens, and where there is a shortage of skilled manpower, a vicious cycle of increased cost, stunted company development and dislocation of obsolete manpower will form. From the nation's perspective, we have to see how best to help individuals initiate their own skills upgrading, complementary to how we help companies train their manpower, as that would enhance the employability of workers and, at the same time, help create a supply of needed skilled manpower for industries' use.

Sir, beyond what the individual must be motivated or assisted to do, there is also the need to enhance the transition infrastructure. Here, I am thinking of such capabilities and industries such as counselling and job placement. In an economy that has seen almost continuous, strong and steady growth over 30 years, where unemployment has been effectively negative, there is no big need for well-developed transition infrastructure or expertise. Put simply, when jobs are chasing after people, there is little need for such assistance.

The road ahead is very different. Intermittent periods of unemployment caused by the restructuring of companies and industries will become more common. And this will happen not only during recessions but even when the economy is registering good growth. Old jobs will go, never to come back. Those affected may be young or old, rank-and-file or executive. Not all of them will find new work easily. Some may be at real risk of becoming permanently dislocated or structurally unemployed.

Sir, experience on the ground has shown that when left on their own, displaced workers tend to look for, or wait for a new job that is very similar to the one that they have lost. This is their way of operating within familiar territory, hoping at the same time that relevant experience will help fetch a better pay.

Yet, as the economy restructures, the need to change lines of work, to retool for a completely new industry will become part and parcel of the job search process. The need to facilitate the crossing of a proportion of the workforce from one job to another, from one sector to another, will become a standard feature of our landscape. This capability to work with displaced employees at the technical, emotional and practical levels to bring about acceptance and adaptation does not happen on its own but must be developed. And I hope that the relevant Ministries can look into this suggestion and see how we can add to the further development of such capability, building on current efforts, such as those championed by the Manpower Ministry and the trade union movement. This is a capability, whether performed by the public or private sectors, which the country will need on an ongoing basis from now on.

Sir, the third area of focus that I want to highlight is the promotion of social cohesion. Singapore suffers from severe inherent constraints of land and population. We have very little to play with, and we enjoy very little margin of error indeed. Our people are literally our only resource. If our social cohesion erodes, our country cannot remain strong, regardless of our systems and technology. Our unity is our own hope, and disunity will be our ruin.

This fact must spur us to do all we can to promote social cohesion. We must undertake a myriad of activities regularly to nurture a sense of common identity, common space, common good and common destiny. This can only come about through broadening the mutual understanding and mutual respect among the different communities, and the strengthening of national education. By different communities, I refer not only to the obvious ones of race and religion but also the less obvious ones, such as income strata and educational levels. We must do our best to help different segments of society reach out to the others, to get the more able to help the less fortunate, the strong to uplift the weak. We must carefully consider the enhanced roles that community, clan, religious and voluntary organisations should play. We must not forget the place and responsibility for good corporate citizenship. We should also review the components of our social safety net to ensure that they are able to help citizens in a timely manner amid turbulence, and yet continue to motivate a strong work ethic and self-responsibility.

At the same time, despite our best efforts, there will be those who will not place national solidarity above other considerations. I urge continuous vigilance against those who seek to undermine the basis for peaceful coexistence of all in multi-racial Singapore. We must always bear in mind that we are not undertaking this task in isolation. We are doing so in the context of a globalised world in which forces tuck at primordial instincts. This is not an abstract, academic exercise but one that ultimately determines our viability as a society and nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the world that we have to navigate in has become much more complex and treacherous. We have to be nimble to adapt to the changes and swift to seize opportunities and avoid disaster. It will be difficult, but we will not be cowed. Singapore has succeeded despite the odds through the indomitable spirit and grit of our leadership and our people. And I am sure that we will again rise to the occasion.

Sir, on that note, I support the motion.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

Singapore is at the turning point. Rapid globalisation has posed formidable challenges to our country and our people. Globalisation will continue to impact the political, economic and social dimensions of Singapore, and push for changes which are inevitable. Singaporeans must face this reality that we are living in a globalised world today. Any event or happening outside Singapore will have almost instant repercussions on us, be it politically, economically or socially.

The recent financial crisis and terrorist attacks are clear examples of how global or regional events have affected the quality of life of Singaporeans. We experienced political brickbats, hollowing out of our economy, loss of jobs, and threats to our security and social cohesion. Today, we live in a connected world. Singaporeans must learn how to be global citizens and cope with global challenges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how can Singapore be a global player? How can Singaporeans be global citizens? What must we do to make a living in the global market? These are pertinent questions which all Singaporeans must address. It is not the sole responsibility of Government. Every Singaporean must play a role to make Singapore a global player.

To successfully position Singapore in the global market, we need to understand our strengths and weaknesses, and at the same time the opportunities and threats in the global marketplace. We know our weaknesses. Singapore has limited natural resources. We also have a small population and talent base.

But we do have certain unique competitive strengths. We enjoy strong political and social stability. We have a world-class infrastructure for our people and businesses. We have a hardworking and educated workforce. And, finally, Singapore is a beautiful country which receives accolades of admiration from people all over the world.

So, how can we harness our strengths to spearhead efforts to cope with globalisation? I would like to suggest a three-pronged strategy. We should focus on three areas: Integration, Teamwork and Quality.

Integration

(i) Integrating Government Ministries and Agencies

Sir, I fully support the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts' vision to make Singapore a connected and creative island. With the advent of information technology and modern communication devices, we can easily connect the Government, business and people sectors of Singapore. We must remove all territorial barriers among Ministries and Government agencies to achieve one integrated Government.

The public sector must take proactive measures to integrate Government agencies and services to provide more one-stop service centres for our people and business community. For example, the housing of various Government agencies in the Woodlands Civic Centre provides a convenient one-stop access for residents and businesses. We should develop more of such centres, and also a one-stop website providing all Government services.

The eCitizen website is a good example of how Government services and information can be integrated to provide a one-stop 24-hour service centre. We should expedite the integration process, and similarly set up a one-stop eBusiness website for businesses. The integration of Government agencies and services will definitely provide a boost to higher productivity and better quality of services.

(ii) Integrating our Universities and Research Institutions

Singapore is a small country with limited land area. We should consolidate our resources instead of having many small set-ups. We must aim to be a world-class learning and research centre. Instead of having three or four universities and several research institutions engaged in local competition, we should compete with other world-class research institutions to attract top-notch talent to Singapore.

We should integrate all our universities and research institutions into a mega university. In global competition, size does matter. A mega university will be more attractive to talent. It will help to spearhead Singapore's innovation and creative efforts. We should build one world class university which can provide first-class learning and research environment to the world. The quality of Singapore's education system does provide niches for us to provide world-class education and research services. We must aim to be an innovation centre which produces recipe for success, new products and services, and best practices. (iii) Integrating our construction industry

The construction industry has always been a "low productivity" industry. Despite all efforts by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), productivity remains low. Why is construction productivity low in Singapore? Let me explain the phenomenon. Almost every building in Singapore is developed by different teams of developers, consultants and contractors. A building is a complex product which comprises the inputs of a few hundred trades such as concrete, steel, bricks, tiles, glass, electrical and mechanical products, and many others.

In every building project, the developer will specify different design and building material requirements. As such, there is always a learning curve for the designers and contractors in every single project. This situation is further aggravated by the lack of standardisation and modular coordination of building components. Columns, beams, doors, windows, tiles and fittings all come in different shapes and sizes, thus making it difficult to achieve high productivity in construction.

While we encourage creative design, there is an urgent need to promote more standardisation and modular coordination in the construction industry. We must also integrate our design and construction teams through design and build. Developers must be encouraged to support standardisation and dry construction methods such as precast and off-site fabrication, without which construction productivity will always be low.

Another contributing factor to the low construction productivity is the lack of mandate of the Building and Construction Authority. BCA does not control the provision of manpower and administer building regulations, which come under MOM. It does not implement standards and codes of practice, which is the responsibility of PSB. The Environment Ministry regulates environmental and public health matters on construction sites. With so many different agencies acting together with different agendas, how can building projects progress smoothly on site? We need to review and integrate all regulations affecting the construction industry and encourage more self-regulation. We also need to remake BCA.

Teamwork

(i) Friends to all countries

Mr Speaker, Sir, no man is an island. Although Singapore is an island, we must work as a team with the international community. As a country, we should continue our foreign policy to be friends with as many countries as possible. We must be committed to ASEAN and be supportive of international organisations, in particular the United Nations. We must strengthen our friendships with other countries and forge economic partnerships where possible for mutual benefit. The pursuit of Free Trade Agreements will provide excellent opportunities for businesses to collaborate and provide products and services to growing markets such as China, Korea and Indochina.

(ii) Building a Singapore Team

Back home, we should encourage our people to work closely as a team to compete globally. We need to build a Singapore Team and brand our team. Both our Government-linked companies and local businesses must work as partners to provide global products and services. We should work as a team to develop more world-class companies. Thus, the Government must provide more support to nurture local businesses to be global players. The public sector and GLCs should also make concrete efforts to support local SMEs and provide opportunities for them to grow.

GLCs should reduce its local market share and give local businesses opportunity to provide their services and gain experience. We need the inertia from the private sector to drive our products and services overseas. We should also reduce the stake of Government in GLCs and provide opportunities for private entrepreneurs to build niche businesses. In addition, GLCs can support local businesses when venturing overseas.

(iii) Teamwork in Government Ministries and Agencies

To provide quality services for both our people and businesses, we need teamwork from all Government Ministries and agencies. Staff from the public sector must understand the macro perspective of policies and procedures. They must exercise more flexibility to safeguard the interests of our people and business. Top civil servants and Government agencies' chiefs must adopt both horizontal and vertical coordination and teamwork. Physical and mental barriers across Ministries and Government agencies must be removed to facilitate workflows and better delivery of services.

Furthermore, top management in the public sector must adopt a more hands-on approach in formulating policies and procedures. While we do not encourage micro-management, top management must constantly be in touch with their ground staff and customers to continually upgrade their operations. A hands-on approach will definitely provide more support and impetus in delivery of world-class services.

Quality

(i) Developing a quality culture and workforce

To achieve sustainable competitive advantage, we need to focus on the quality of our products and services. We must inculcate a quality culture in our workforce, like the Japanese. Workers must understand and be convinced that quality will ensure the survival of their companies and jobs. Although PSB has been spearheading the quality drive through the ISO 9000 and Singapore Quality Award schemes, not many local firms have achieved world-class quality.

In particular, the retail and construction sectors suffer from the image of poor quality of services. We need to address the issue of quality of services in our retail industry. Efforts by the Government to upgrade the retail industry will not succeed if there is no business for retailers. The constant push by PSB to upgrade retail businesses may suffer backlash, resulting in higher business costs and business failures. Instead, we should focus on how to bring business to businesses. This is especially so in Singapore where we have an oversupply of retail outlets. When there is business, businesses will be motivated to further improve their operations.

As for the construction industry, our open tendering system has severe setbacks in ensuring quality of construction. The competitive nature and low profit margin in construction do not provide much room for contractors to focus on quality. Many developers, including the public sector, are reluctant to pay a premium for quality work. Furthermore, there is inadequate independent quality assessment and easily accessible information on the quality performance of developers, designers and contractors. The Building and Construction Authority should develop a web-based database on the performance of developers, designers and contractors. We must also review the quality incentives for the construction industry.

(ii) Developing a Quality Tourism Hub

Singapore aspires to be a tourism hub. Each year, we attract about 7 million tourists to Singapore. If each tourist spends $200 in our retail outlets, we should have a billion-dollar retail industry. Is this the case in Singapore? We may need to check whether the GST rebate by tourists indicates the size of tourist dollars spent in Singapore. With so many countries competing for tourists, Singapore must establish our niches to attract tourists from all countries. Presently, our tourist attractions, such as Sentosa, Zoo, Bird Park and Botanic Garden are facing an uphill task to attract tourists. We need new tourist attractions and more aggressive marketing of our attractions. We have to market Singapore as a world-class city worthwhile visiting.

The low crime rate and safe environment, coupled with our beautiful garden city, provide excellent niches for Singapore to be a tourist attraction. We should capitalise on this to organise or bid for more world leaders meetings, international conferences, trade exhibitions, forums and gatherings. We can be the "World Business Centre" where political, economic and social discussions take place. In addition, we should develop Singapore into a food paradise with a wide range of international and local cuisines, ranging from hawker centres to fine dining outlets. The East Coast Park can be converted into a "World Food Paradise or Esplanade" where the best food in Singapore can be housed together.

Sir, we need to remake our Singapore Tourism Board (STB). Tourism can be a key driver of our service industry. It provides many jobs which our older workers can do, such as tour guides, housekeepers, drivers, customer relations officers, chefs, and so on. We must be more proactive to attract more tourists. STB must reach out and encourage tourists to spend money in Singapore, instead of using Singapore as a transit centre. We need to revitalise the Singapore Tourism Board, Orchard Road, and our tourist attractions. I am sure Singapore can easily accommodate 10 to 12 million tourists a year.

(iii) Quality of life.

Sad to say, Singapore has no quality of life index or measure to monitor our efforts in improving the quality of life of Singaporeans. Although many Ministries have put forward statements of vision and mission, no quality of life measures were stated to determine whether we have achieved our vision and mission. Many countries have some measures or benchmarks of quality of life. To be a world-class city, we need to establish our own set of quality of life indicators. This is to ensure that we utilise our resources properly to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

Sir, let me cite one example to illustrate the importance of having quality of life indicators to measure the performance of the public sector. Every year, we spend billions of dollars to develop and maintain parks in Singapore. However, not many Singaporeans visit these parks, especially the national parks. The lack of accessibility and supporting infrastructure has deterred many from visiting our parks. Not many activities or programmes are organised to attract Singaporeans to the parks.

Furthermore, inadequate or paid car parking has always deterred people from going to the parks. Sir, I am surprised to learn that you need to pay $1 for taking a walk at the Sungei Buloh nature trail. How many Singaporeans are willing to pay $1 per walk? The "pay as you use" principle or policy must be reviewed to facilitate better usage of our parks and nature reserves. The Government must invest in the well-being of our people. The use of parks has proved to be good relaxation places for many people in other countries. There is no point spending so much on parks when the utility is so low. Our National Parks Board should be more proactive to bring life into our parks.

To have a good quality of life, Singaporeans must learn how to work hard, stay healthy and enjoy life. Maybe, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts should set up a Department of Enjoyment to help Singaporeans enjoy life. To be a world-class city, we need to have a measure of our quality of life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that Singaporeans will stay united and integrated. We will work as a team and provide world-class products and services. Together, we can make Singapore a world-class city.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of thanks for the President's Address.

Sir, I concur with the President's sentiments that we are standing at the crossroads, and for the next few years will be confronted with the most severe challenges in Singapore's history.

Due to the changed environment we are in, there are several critical stress points that could become more pronounced in the future. I would like to elaborate on three of these stress points and the need to provide relief for them so that they do not manifest themselves into more serious ailments.

The first stress point relates to the people-Government relationship. There is a danger of an increasing chasm between the Government and its people which the President in his Address identifies broadly as the need for political renewal. It is undeniable that the political leadership has over the last 36-37 years done much good for Singapore. Most Singaporeans have a tacit understanding that Government policies have good intentions. It is just like the boy in Jack Neo's show "I Not Stupid" who said, "My mother is like the Government. Everything she does is - for our own good."

Singapore's past successes have hinged on meritocracy and pragmatism. Hitherto, economic issues drive Singapore and rightly so in view of her limited resources, smallness and thus vulnerability. Feedback from constituents suggests that Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, increasingly want to have a say in Government policies. While there has been more consultation and dialogue with the citizenry over the last few years, there is still a feeling that there is some way to go with the new consultative approach. Out-of-bound markers must be widened in order to engage Singaporeans, harness their energy and ideas and help them take ownership of the policies that will shape Singapore's future, thus increasing their sense of rootedness. I therefore welcome the President's call for opening up more space for Singaporeans to debate on national policies and issues.

However, the engagement between the Government and the people must go beyond mere rhetoric. The Government must show that it values and takes its citizens' views seriously. It must not be too quick to dismiss or put down ideas and feedback for, after all, no one can claim a monopoly on knowledge, experience or wisdom. Wherever possible, debates on policies should precede their implementation so that there will be maximum buy-in and support when these policies are put into practice.

The Government must take a proactive stance and respond quickly to feedback and suggestions. Feedback should be a two-way, not a one-way street. Otherwise, the citizens will view the Government feedback mechanism - however elaborate or sophisticated - as a black hole, where under the force of gravity, no light emerges. As a constituent once cynically remarked to me "Where is the Government's feedback to my feedback?" After public consultation and debate, the Government should take pains to indicate the changes or refinements made to its policies arising from feedback as well as the reasons for rejecting other proposals.

It must show that it will not hesitate to take concrete action and change its policies, where it benefits the majority of Singaporeans, even if it involves an about change or about face of an existing policy, such as in the Chek Jawa case. Otherwise, many Singaporeans would continue to feel that dialogue and debate are mere tokenism. By way of anecdotal evidence of this sentiment, even the CEO of an established private company in Singapore who has taken part in many feedback sessions and sits on the Board of a GLC, told me recently that he himself is still very sceptical about the Government listening to concerns about the impact of its policies. So this is not just the sentiment of the MP for Sembawang GRC's daughter or young friends. So what more the average man-in-the-street, most of whom have chosen to be the silent majority!

Indeed, Sir, as the President has so rightly pointed out, no policy is so cast in stone that it can never be changed. To ensure that policies remain relevant and enhance rather than impede stakeholders' welfare, as the MP for Sembawang GRC has so robustly argued, it is important to remind civil servants who are the face of the Government and facilitators of Government policies, that they must show compassion, be less rule-book bound and listen with a heart, not just with the mind. In other words, be customer-centric, in form and substance. Otherwise, they will not live up to their title of "civil servant" and will be considered neither civil nor servant.

It is acknowledged that the civil service and statutory boards have over the last few years improved tremendously in the delivery of its services to the public. My recent experience as a private sector representative on the JTC's Customer Services Panel and URA Concept Plan Review Committee 2001 have been positive. In these instances, the Government organisations concerned have been responsive to feedback and have made the effort to take into account some of the suggestions as well as explain why others cannot be implemented. However, more can be done, so that our civil service would be known not only for its incorruptibility and efficiency but also for being in-tune with the people and the needs of the time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point relates to the need for us to manage the imbalances arising from an inevitable widening income divide among the have-nots, the haves, and the have-lots, as a result of the inexorable forces of globalisation and IT.

As we promote entrepreneurship and risk-taking, there will be fabulous successes but there will also be spectacular losses. To quote the New York Times journalist, Thomas Friedman, there is no longer a First World, a Second World or a Third World. Only a Fast World where the forces of globalisation are embraced and a Slow World, where nations and communities who fail to do so are left behind. Singapore could become more and more a winner-takes-all society. The rich are likely to get richer while the poor will have increasing difficulty to play catch-up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to venture two proposals to address the needs and concerns arising from this tendency towards greater income disparity. Firstly, as income disparity becomes more pronounced and as job insecurity increases, our meritocratic system upon which much of Singapore's success lies must be peppered with a lot more compassion in its execution. While we celebrate the icons, the phoenixes, and the heroes of capitalism, we must never forget those who are left behind. A group is only as strong as its weakest member. In a 4 x 100 metre relay, a slow start by one runner, or a poor baton change by another, can cost the team a medal. We thus need to temper capitalism with compassion.

Existing financial assistance schemes for the low income groups, the handicapped, the sick and at risk families administered by grassroots organisations, the CDCs and MCDS are to be applauded. However, there is a need for constant review of such schemes as regards, say, the qualifying income ceiling and the quantum of such financial assistance as well as the criteria and conditions under which assistance is dispensed in order to ensure their adequacy and appropriateness.

Feedback from some constituents is that the financial assistance rendered by the Government, while very much appreciated, is paltry at times and, in some instances, not commensurate with the stringent requirements imposed. I am not advocating increased social benefits or an enhanced welfare system per se. Far from it, as I wholeheartedly support the promotion of self-help and the dignity of work, a point which the Minister of State for Manpower expounded so poetically yesterday.

However, there will always be a group of people where no amount of resolve on their part is enough. They need help due to their circumstances.

Let me cite an example. A resident in my constituency is an able-bodied odd job labourer. He is now unable to work as his wife is suffering from terminal liver cancer and he is looking after her and their two sons who are still schooling. It is this class of people that we must continue to acknowledge, remember and render help appropriately. As a volunteer worker recently remarked to me, "While it is right for the Government to promote self-reliance and the dignity of work to avoid the development of a crutch mentality, our means test must also not be so stringent that it is considered a mean test rather than a means test."

Another way to mitigate the income divide would be to ensure that ample avenues are given to all to maximise their potential and level up. Allowing the brightest and the best to excel economically and the worst off to receive assistance will address the top and the lowest echelons of society. But there is a growing number of those who are just "getting by" based on our current pragmatic economic definition of success. These people might be frustrated by the income squeeze and become envious of the successes of the heroes of capitalism. Sir, a tangible way to address this issue would be to provide them with ample avenues to level up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in relation to this, I subscribe to the President's argument that the key means to uplift the population is to redouble our emphasis on education and training. With the need to cope with the demands of the new economy, constant restructuring and, therefore, higher obsolescence of existing jobs, opportunities for lifelong learning should be created to cater to diverse groups of people. These include those who need to prepare for a new area of employment, are planning mid-career moves, are interested to return to the workforce, particularly the women, are interested to upgrade their qualifications or are just purely looking for intellectual satisfaction. The courses could be offered by tertiary and recognised professional institutions in cooperation with the industries. They need not be confined to new growth industries but also staple old economy sectors which will continue to need employees, like teaching and even in the field of property management. Such staple old economy sectors could hire mid-level middle-aged managers whose jobs have been made obsolete by restructuring or the changed economy.

Over time, the provision of a wide variety of lifelong learning opportunities will help maintain a highly skilled and knowledgeable labour force which is able to adapt to the changing job market and adjust to economic restructuring and downturns, such as what we have just experienced. In this respect, I am pleased to note that the MOM, with the cooperation of MOE, has mounted many schemes to promote and encourage lifelong learning.

To allow more to benefit from these lifelong learning opportunities, subsidised fees could be considered even for houswives preparing to return to work and low-income earners. More Singaporeans, and not just the best and brightest, would benefit from such lifelong educational opportunities. Those who miss the boat the first time can at least have another chance to reach their desired destination, and this is important since human capital is our most valuable asset.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point is the need to manage ethnic polarisation in our society. This has always been a thorny issue in domestic politics. One needs to bear in mind the context of race relations. The reality, whether we like it or not, is this: Singapore as a Chinese dominated society in a region comprising ethnic majorities. There are sometimes unspoken concerns that centre on where the stronger pull lies: (1) blood and kin and, increasingly, one's religious faith; or (2) loyalty to one's country.

Sometimes, the problems are compounded by the socio-economic distinctions that exist among ethnic groups that have led to the, at one time, controversial formation of self-help groups like MENDAKI and SINDA. These issues are not confined to our Malay compatriots, although they have, quite unfortunately, borne the brunt of the most intense scrutiny because of recent events.

Sir, notwithstanding all this, I do not forget that we have done very well indeed over the past few decades in building racial harmony among the major ethnic groups. We need only to recall the major strides we have made. Elsewhere, racial tensions are often resolved violently - in India, the Balkan republics and in Africa. We are blessed to have an enlightened leadership that lived through tumultuous times in our history and appreciates from bitter experience how racial fault lines can ruin everything we have so painfully built up over the years.

We now have racially integrated schools, racial limits in public housing to prevent the formation of enclaves, minority representation in politics through GRCs and community-level activities to bind people together, in the words of our pledge, "regardless of race, language or religion".

But, as the President has put it in his Address, "The task is never complete." The issue continues to haunt us after decades and continues to morph into new forms, whether it be madrasahs, tudung or something else. If we are not vigilant, the cracks will widen and undo everything. We must never allow that to happen. This is more important than ever before not merely due to recent events but also due to the international talents we are trying to attract who are also from diverse ethnic groups and religious persuasions. Indeed, the concept of a multi-racial, multi-religious society may be foreign to our foreign talent, some of whom hail from ethnically more homogeneous societies. The issue of social integration and cohesion could take on an added dimension when the number of foreign talent in Singapore becomes significant. Hence, we must never let up on efforts to foster greater cohesion among the people.

Sir, as a nation, we should re-affirm multi-racialism as a creed, as the only way forward. Efforts continue to be made in schools with the formation of the IRCCs and Harmony Circles at the community level. I applaud such moves.

But let us not forget the adults, especially those in their early 20s and 30s, and the middle income groups who tend to participate less in grassroots activities. Adulthood and, sometimes, affluence, rob us of our innocence. How often, as adults, do we sing the national anthem or say the pledge? Sometimes, we grow sceptical of the civic lessons we learn in school and need to relearn them. I remember some years ago, watching on TV a memorial service for the victims of the SilkAir MI185 crash. The nation had already grieved for the victims and their families. The service was a grim reminder to the rest of us who are not victims or their family members. While we will perhaps never fully understand the depth of pain they felt, the presence of other Singaporeans was an act of solidarity with fellow Singaporeans and fellow human beings. It showed that other Singaporeans understand, care and, most of all, share in that grief. I picture in my mind similar services the Americans held in their own country and throughout the world, commemorating the victims of the World Trade Centre collapse.

There is a binding power to such "rituals". One needs to think only of the National Day parades that in recent years have taken on a rather nationalistic tone. While some may be sceptical, many others I know, including middle income and successful professionals who have watched these parades "live", often speak of how proud they felt to be Singaporeans. Sir, when we stand side by side, hands held high with that of our neighbours, the colour of our skin, the language we speak at home, the type of cars we drive, the houses we live in, the country clubs we belong to and the things we do on Friday or Sunday, do not seem to matter anymore.

Sir, I would like to suggest that we could have much more of such national events - to re-enact our history, to celebrate our shared destiny - to instill this sense of our common humanity and, more importantly, our "Singaporean-ness".

If there are those who think such activities are propaganda, let them be. We must think of ways of bringing such events to reach adults in their communities, homes and workplaces. Perhaps, we need to form a National Unity Committee to coordinate all efforts to this end.

Sir, I echo the words of the President that "we must move beyond mere tolerance, in order to enhance appreciation and build confidence among the different groups." The national events I propose should, hopefully, "widen the common ground that all Singaporeans share".

Sir, I have dwelt at some length on these three critical stress points, which could become more acute over the next few years as Singapore operates in a changed environment. These stress points, in addition to others, need to be managed so that they do not fester and affect our political, economic and social health. A little stress helps to keep the adrenaline pumping and thus sharpen our competitive edge, but too much stress could pose serious health hazards for Singapore.

Sir, the world today is not the same as before. It has become competitive, complicated and even controversial. We need to adjust and innovate in order to progress and advance. While we want to narrow the divide between the poor and the rich, we also want Singaporeans to be self-reliant and independent. While we want to be more open and allow opportunities for dialogue and consultation, we also want to ensure constructive and useful debates. While we want to provide more space for individual communities to grow, we also want to build consensus and common grounds. These are some of the S21 dilemmas which continue to challenge each generation afresh. Nonetheless, Sir, the healthy constitution we have built, in terms of our social, economic and political capital, should serve us well in these turbulent times. I am sure with consultation, cooperation and commitment, we can overcome the obstacles ahead and advance as a nation.

Sir, I therefore unequivocally support the motion.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion of Thanks moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Member for Marine Parade GRC.

In the past months since the election in November 2001, Singaporeans have been informed, persuaded and warned many times over of the challenges and difficulties that Singapore is facing and will continue to face in the New Economy and the ever-changing political and security landscape of the world. In his Speech, the President has again reminded us, "Our region has been fundamentally altered and security problems that arise in the region will inevitably spill over to Singapore." With this as the backdrop, let us remember that during the election we have given the people some hope for jobs, jobs and jobs, and they have shown their support for the PAP Government via the ballot boxes. Similarly, this support was earlier translated in their unequivocal support for the cost-cutting measures introduced to ensure Singapore remains competitive.

After the burst of the Internet bubble, gone are the days when everybody wants to be associated with "e" something but, now, the buzzwords of the day must begin with "re": remake, reinvent, review and restructure. I sincerely hope that we do not get carried away by these fanciful words but, instead, clearly understand the reasons and implications of each of them to our country and, especially, to the citizens that we serve.

The President has outlined the key challenges and how we can respond to cope with these challenges. This is so that we can continue to strive and prosper if the environment is right. These challenges are real and we must face them head-on. Sir, there are clear indicators that there is malaise in the economy. I do not claim to be an economic expert but, on the ground, we can observe more requests for financial assistance arising from bankruptcy, business failures, retrenchments, job losses and reduction in sales revenue. It is well and good to say things like "remake" and "reinvent" Singapore. But what does it all mean for the man-in-the-street? Let us not be detached from the people. Singaporeans are worried, and their concerns are basic bread-and-kaya issues. I can assure you, Sir, that many out there still do not understand the rationale for such drastic moves that have resulted in the loss of jobs for many Singaporeans. I believe that one most important challenge for the Government is to ensure that the masses are with us, they must understand that these changes are necessary and that we have to do it no matter how painful it is going to be. It is just like bursting a pimple on our face. The troublesome pimple becomes a red dot, but the red dot will soon heal to reveal healthy new skin.

A case in point is the recent major development in the financial sector that has resulted in the merger of several banks and the introduction of new competition for our local banks. Many people do not understand the rationale of such a drastic move and has resulted in the loss of jobs for many Singaporeans. These retrenched workers are key family members and many are sole breadwinners with many financial commitments. Just this year, Sir, I had a resident who came to see me during my meet-the-people session. He was working for a local bank for seven years and he was earning a decent salary, a father of three, in the prime of his life, a typical Singaporean with the usual four Cs to maintain. Almost overnight, he became jobless. He could not find a job for several months and his savings are fast depleting. How is he going to feed his wife and three children? It takes a lot of courage and humility for someone like him to ask for help but he was at his wits' end and in despair. There is only so much that we can do to help him. He is just one of many such cases. I am afraid, Sir, we may be creating many disgruntled citizens who will be bitter, cynical and anti-establishment.

Thus, the Government and its agencies must, in my opinion, take the lead in changing and adapting a different style of governance for the new Singapore. It must not be seen as always giving directions and taking a paternalistic role but rather, it must be a partner of the people. We can tell the people to change their mindset but is the Government willing to do the same in its way of doing things? There must be clear indicators and not just lip service in the way our key institutions run their business. They are well-known for their efficiency and high standards. It is time that they showed the same high level of compassion and humanity. If not, cynical remarks and views about the Government not being sincere will continue to persist and the able will not come forward to take part in this process of change. Let us work together to change this negative thinking and get as many able and willing citizens to participate in the process.

The Government's willingness to change its mindset will be a bold effort but nevertheless, a necessary one. We cannot afford to have our strong and able simply sit by sipping their expensive cafe latte at Starbucks, not participating, just watching. This effort in our long journey of nation-building is essential and all concerned members of our homeland should be part of it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we ponder upon the means and ways to make these changes and adapt, there are several fundamental issues that I hope that we could revisit. The first is our workers' welfare. Our workers are constantly grappling with rapid changes and the need to acquire new skills and knowledge. Many are struggling and some are resisting the change. How then can we assist them to manage the change? I have to commend the Ministry of Manpower, NTUC and the CDCs for their efforts but more can be done to make these changes less painful and more meaningful for these workers.

The burden of change should not just fall on the employees but employers should also ensure that workers are regularly upgraded and retrained even during the good times. Employers should consciously make provisions for their employees to upgrade and pick up new skills. In this respect, I would like to cite the examples of SingTel and Mindef for their effort to upgrade their staff through the Skills Redevelopment Programme and the Specialist Manpower Programme. If at any time, the staff of these organisations were to leave for one reason or another, they would have obtained qualifications or special skills that would boost their employability. The willingness and experience of these organisations should be publicised so that more companies can pick up these good corporate practices and be good corporate citizens.

Secondly, I would like to highlight the importance of education in this process of change. From the feedback from my residents and grassroots leaders, I have concluded that many parents are very concerned about their children's future. As a parent myself, we worry whether our children can cope with the extremely competitive education system. Yes, we parents are more kiasu than our children. We are so afraid of our children not having enough to the point that we appear kiasi. Some cynics may say otherwise but the majority does agree that we do have a good education system in Singapore. I believe that we can still fine-tune it to make it even better. The education system should prepare the future generations for the rapid changes and produce nimble, creative and innovative minds. We know the importance that the Government puts in education by the sheer size of resources that have been brought into education. This cannot be denied. We cannot afford not to invest in our people. As we move into the knowledge economy, we need to have more knowledge workers that are multi-disciplined and can handle multi tasks at the same time.

Furthermore, we should have a more holistic approach towards education. Academic excellence should not be the only thrust for education. A child should be nurtured on values such as national education, community spirit, social services, volunteerism and sports. These would nurture a well-rounded individual with strong community ties. Ultimately, Sir, our education system should aim to develop citizens who are able to put Singapore and community before self.

I would like to propose to the Ministry of Education to seriously consider bringing the early childhood education into the formal education system - put it directly under the purview of MOE. This portion of our education system has mostly been left to the community organisations and to the private sector. Is this wise? As the pressure for economic excellence continues, we will see more dual income earning families. There are several developed countries that have incorporated the pre-school education into the primary education. For example, France, where there is a high number of working parents, the system takes in children from three to five years old in the ecole maternelle or the kindergarten. Very often, these pre-schools are part of the primary schools. The Compulsory Education Act that was passed in Parliament is a clear indication of the Government's commitment to educating our future generations. This augurs well for us. Let us take this a step further and incorporate the foundation years into the mainstream education provided by MOE.

The advantages of such a move are plenty and I would name a few. The dual income families need the support of the State so that both parents can contribute to the economy. The Ministry of Education can ensure the quality and standards of the early childhood education and the kindergartens. This is to ensure that a strong foundation is in place when they continue to primary education. The Ministry of Education has an impeccable record, locally and internationally, and I see no reason why we cannot do the same for early childhood education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to touch on education focused for the Malay community. Sir, the Malay community has made tremendous progress in the area of education over the past 10 years. Prime Minister Goh highlighted this last year. As a result, we have made inroads in many non-traditional fields. More Malay professionals are holding key positions in the private and public sectors. This is possible because of our system of meritocracy. However, there is a need to translate the culture of academic excellence seen in the Chinese and Indian communities into the Malay community. The community must understand that it should not aim for average results and mediocrity. We must aim to achieve high standards in education and attain world-class recognition in whatever we do.

Education is a great social leveller. Through education, the community will be able to stand tall, participate and be part of the mainstream. In this respect, I strongly encourage more involvement of the community at the national level. The Malay community should be more pro-active in reaching out and bonding with the other Singaporeans, for example, by involving themselves in associations or clubs, like the Rotary Club, Toastmasters Club, alumni associations and other secular associations like the community clubs. In doing so, we will create more opportunities for interaction and understanding.

Let me conclude, Sir, by saying that I do not profess to have all the solutions - far from that, but I hope to be able to contribute positively to the democratic process.

Mr Speaker: Order. 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 2.40 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address, the President said that we must build first-class infrastructure and provide services at competitive price. The Government must try to control the cost of doing business in Singapore if it wants the businesses to succeed. It is said that Singapore is a country where the business cost is high, such as rental, labour, transport and other Government levies. In the past, when our neighbouring countries were relatively backward as compared to us, despite our higher business cost we were still able to attract some investments here, because of other advantages we had. However, the neighbouring countries are now catching up on us and are able to do what we have been doing. They are now attracting foreign investors because of their lower business cost, and have become our serious competitors. This happens not only in the new areas of investments, but in areas which used to be our strongholds. Many established companies have been relocated to our neighbouring countries, and this is not confined to the multi-national companies only. Even our very own small and medium enterprises are relocating there.

No doubt, we are still able to attract some high-tech industries to invest here, it has brought about some structural unemployment in our labour market. Although the strong push for retraining and re-skilling has helped in some way to solve the unemployment problem, there are still some problems, particularly with the older workers who have difficulty coping with the new technology.

The Singapore economy is made up of many types of enterprises. Some are very strong and some are small, and the majority are SMEs. To them, the profit margin depends very much on the operating cost. Whether they can survive will have serious impact on unemployment in future. All the high-tech farms in Sungei Tengah, the wood factories in Sungei Kadut and the scores of department stores along Orchard Road are sensitive to the cost of business. There is no necessity for us to force the cost sensitive business to relocate. For certain reasons, we need to retain some of these companies. In order to reduce the cost of their business, we must think of ways and means to help them. At this juncture, while we are hoping to get out of the woods of recession, we should think of ways to retain these enterprises to save jobs for our workers, otherwise our recovery will be slower.

In the field of sea and air transport, there is over capacity in the region, and the competition from within the region has intensified, for example, the case of Evergreen Shipping Company. Even if our profit is less by $20 million per year, we should try to keep the patronage of this shipping company. We have to try to reduce our cost, enhance our quality of service in order to keep Singapore as an air and shipping hub of this region.

The following are some of the complaints about the high cost of business operation.

Rental cost. We often hear complaints from the businessmen that the rental cost here is very high. In our public tender system, we inevitably pick the highest bid as the successful bid. The fact is this successful tender does not necessarily reflect the true market value of rental in Singapore. It shows only the mentality of the successful tenderers. Some may tender at excessively high price out of desperation, or they use the premises to engage in lucrative side-line business, such as the collection of Toto or 4-D lotteries. Under such circumstances, if you take the successful tender price as a reflection of the market price, then you are wrong.

Transport costs. In Singapore, our cars are among the most expensive ones in the world. The prices of petrol and diesel are controlled by the five big oil companies operating in Singapore. Their high profit margins jacked up fuel prices and added on to our transport cost, and hence the business cost. The Government has the obligation to help bring down fuel prices in order to reduce the cost of transport to the businessmen.

Utilities charges. High utility charge is the most common complaint. Just a few years ago, the water tariff was just 55 cents per cubic metre. Today, it has gone up to $1.10 per cubic metre. With an additional tax of 40%, water now costs $1.55 per cubic metre. In other words, for the past few years, our water price has increased by some 300%. This has aroused the wrath of the people.

Corporate tax. The Finance Minister has reduced corporate income tax and shifted some taxation to indirect taxes. Some companies have many subsidiary companies, some profitable and some heavily in the red. All these companies' losses or gains cannot be set off. Our income tax system does not allow the main company to offset the losses of the losing companies with the high profits of the lucrative companies. As a result, the effective tax rate of the group is not the stipulated 28% but is effectively some 70% to 80%. Therefore, I hope the Inland Revenue Authority would review the system to see how the effective tax rate could be reduced to help the group of companies.

Apart from income tax, there are also some other taxes, such as property tax, which are a burden to the businessmen. For example, in the case of a warehouse, whether it is vacant or occupied, the owner has to pay property tax on it. This is another burden on the businessmen.

Many Government regulations are made in such a way that causes an increase in business cost. For example, in certain work sites, the rules stipulate that there must be at least one resident engineer and a safety officer to look after the work. In order to avoid running into trouble with the rules and the civil servants behind them, the developers have to employ more people. For example, some workers are employed just to make sure the mosquitoes do not fly into the worksite and start breeding there. Therefore, we should not have so many of these rules and regulations which tend to increase the cost to the businessmen.

In the Ministry of the Environment's Addendum, it states that we will endeavour to tap all sources of water supply. At present, although water supply is assured in the two water agreements with Malaysia, the first agreement will be expiring in 2016. By then, whether the Malaysian Government will continue to supply enough water to us at a reasonable price is an uncertainty. Although there are still some 14 years from now till 2016, we should take proactive measures to tap new sources of water, and to develop new technology in the generation of potable water. Otherwise we will be in trouble.

We are looking at the possibility of developing technology in the production of NEWater and the desalination technology. The potential for NEWater is very great. This is because the cost of NEWater is cheap and is very much lower than that of desalination. If there is a demand, and the price is attractive, we should produce this NEWater as much as possible. We could even turn Singapore into a centre for NEWater technology and water recycling industry. By 2016, we do not depend on Malaysia to supply us with enough drinking water, we should have enough water in meeting our needs. Although the manufacture of NEWater is relatively cheap, it would take some efforts to change the mindset of the people into accepting NEWater as an alternative of the traditional water from mother nature. There will be a limit to the NEWater production volume because it depends on the volume of available waste water. Therefore, we have to look at the overall picture of the water supply. We have to make use of seawater desalination to supplement the water supply. So we still need to develop the technology in desalination and we should be prepared within the next 10 years to cope with the demand.

In order to make a breakthrough in water technology, we should not depend on the Ministry of the Environment and the Public Works Department alone. We should allow private enterprises to take part in this industry, so that in the next 10 years some private enterprises which specialise in the NEWater technology will emerge. They will mould Singapore to be a centre for the NEWater technology and export their services and products to the region.

In future, if we depend upon high-price technology for our water, we have to decide whether we have to give up a single water source strategy. We have to look at the two types of water - one is potable and the other one non-drinkable. We may have to prepare for these two types of water. Maybe we have to include the piping system in our buildings so that the two types of water could be supplied to every household. HDB and the Ministry of National Development may want to take a good look at this issue.

In his Address, the President urged the people to be more inquiring and more creative. We all agree with this. The question is how are we going to encourage young people to be curious, to be more adventurous and more enterprising. We should give them more space and time. This is a basic condition. According to my experience at the university, the standard of thesis submitted by the graduates in the past was very high. However, the university adopted the two-semester system, instead of having one examination in a year, we have two examinations now. So students are too busy preparing for the examinations, and they do not have much time for their thesis. Therefore, the quality of the thesis now is inferior to what it used to be. This explains the fact that the will to gain knowledge and to be inquisitive is much affected by the time available in the university.

Looking at what the Ministry of Education had done in the past, there is a tendency to phase out the 'O' level examination and cut contact hours for classes. I think this is a great improvement, but not everything is perfect. For example, by 2003, to gain admission to the university, in addition to the traditional 'A' level results, the candidates have also to produce their SAT results as well as a special project. In this way, it will be a great burden on our Junior College students. We can either depend on SAT or our `A' level examination results for university entrance requirement, or depend on the special project. But now, we are asking for all these three requirements together! As a result, our students suffer. Our students are under great pressure. How are they going to have time to be inquisitive and creative?

The President's Address also touched on allowing people more opportunities to develop the hidden potential of some students. The secondary school and the JC will have new curriculum to develop the hidden talent of students in areas like music and art. However, in an article in Lianhe Zaobao, the writer wrote about a friend's child who was very good in Chinese, and had aspired to be a Chinese scholar. However, he failed his English paper in the `O' level examination. As a result, he could not fulfil his dream of joining a junior college with the view of going on to study Chinese Literature in the university. He could only gain admission to the polytechnic or even the ITE. This student was deprived of the opportunity to make use of his proficiency in Chinese, and Singapore lost one rare talent in Chinese. No doubt, we can import some Chinese scholars from China to replace this lost gem, but what if their English is even worse than this local student?

From this example, it would appear that the bureaucratic rules do not give room for each case to be assessed on its own merit. A student who excels in Chinese and aspires to major in Chinese is denied admission to the junior college simply because he fails his English. Can we not have some discretion so that the specific student could be given the opportunity to develop his or her talent and potential to the fullest?

The Senior Minister of State for Transport and Information, Communications and the Arts (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President.

Leaving Comfort Zone

The President's call for the remaking of Singapore prompted me to talk about why I moved out of the Public Gallery, from where I had observed the debate in Parliament for many years. I was very comfortable there. I could serve Singapore and Singaporeans. So why did I leave the comfort zone?

Leaving Starvation

Last year, I visited my father's hometown in China for the first time; a small hilly village somewhere in Fujian. Conditions there were harsh. But my relatives there were proud to observe that it was much better than even, say, five years ago. So I could imagine how it must have been like 70 years ago. No wonder my father had to leave his hometown and risk his life, sailing into the seas.

Simple Dream: Stark Choices

He left his hometown because there was not enough food to go around. His choices were stark: emigrate or starve. Economic mismanagement and political chaos made economic refugees of his generation. Arriving penniless in Penang, his expectations were low, aspirations were basic.

His dream was a simple one: so that his family would not have to starve. What he valued most were political stability and strong economic growth. Day and night, he toiled so that we would have food on the table, a good education and a ladder out of poverty.

Singapore Dream: Fair Play

My father had more than fulfilled his dream. As a result, I was never deprived. I was certainly not an economic refugee. So why did I end up here in Singapore?

When I was in school, some of us were deeply attracted to the value of meritocracy advanced by the Singapore leaders. Our dream was to fulfil the equivalent of the "Singapore Dream": to achieve our potential, regardless of race, language or religion.

After HSC, or the equivalent of the GCE 'A' Level, I applied to both governments for a scholarship. I was accepted by Singapore. Meritocracy is a powerful idea.

Singapore Cause

Singapore has succeeded because we have embraced certain values: meritocracy, fair play, equal opportunities, clean government, racial and religious tolerance. As a result, we have acquired certain core strengths. First, our ability to stay cohesive over time and across racial, income and union-management boundaries. Second, our ability to preserve our core, yet we can also make changes when the situation demands it. So while we are not a perfect society, we acknowledge that; we keep improving. That these have been fundamental tenets of our nation for the last 40 years does not mean that they are permanent. If we do not all chip in to actively preserve and advance the Singapore Cause, these core values may dissipate with the passing of time.

My Singapore Dream was initially a personal one - secure a good life for my family. But as I got involved in public policies and shaping the future, my Singapore Dream evolved into the Singapore Cause. My own experience is that going beyond the personal to dreaming for the community - to achieve our potential as one community - that is deeply fulfilling.

Global Dream

The Singapore Dream of my generation was to make it good in Singapore. But I think the Singapore Dream of the young generation is already quite different. Their Singapore Dream is probably to make it good in New York, London, Silicon Valley or Shanghai, and to fly home occasionally for char kway teow or roti prata. The Global Dream is today's reality.

When the Singapore Dream is actually a Global Dream, how do you ensure that Singaporeans remain rooted to Singapore? Will they call Singapore home and advance the Singapore Cause as their Singapore Dream? Or will they simply leave to pursue their personal Global Dream?

Economic dynamism is a key prerequisite to root Singaporeans to Singapore. But it is no longer sufficient. For the able, they can move to and succeed in wherever the economic opportunities are. Even char kway teow or roti prata is no longer sufficient as glue; you can now get them in Shanghai, Sydney or London in food courts run by Singaporeans.

And after all, we have been encouraging the Global Dream, as it is important for Singapore. Hence, we push our companies to venture abroad. We peg ourselves to global standards. This is also why we invest so much in education. So many Singaporean students subsequently go on to top US Ivy League Universities. Do you know that in recent years, our very own Raffles Junior College has consistently been among the largest single sources of undergraduate admissions to Stanford University? I am told that in the year 2000, it even beat Palo Alto High School to become the largest single source of admissions.

Without pursuing Global Dream, we cannot succeed as an economy. But it is critical for Singaporeans to remember that without a Singapore Cause, there can be no Global Dream for them.

Involvement: Making A Difference

In a strange way, in meritocratic Singapore, some of our able feel that there is no room for them to make a difference. With a competent Government worrying about the future and coming out with all the solutions, some of the able feel left out.

I was in public service, so I was involved and could make a difference in shaping the future. But must one be in public service to make a difference?

For the Singapore society to be robust, we need good leaders in all the three sectors: public, private and people sectors. We have done very well in the last 40 years, with a few outstanding leaders, especially in the public sector. But in the next phase of our development, we need everyone to play a role, and in each of the three sectors. The public sector does not need to lead, nor has it the right expertise and instincts in all private and people sector issues.

In the private sector, we need to go beyond GLCs and MNCs. Our SMEs must play and can play a bigger role in business.

In the public sector, key issues, such as defence, will have to be led by the Government. But there are others where the Government can now take a supporting role to allow the people sector to take a lead. For example, the Nature Society has taken a lead on nature preservation matters. I believe the public sector has benefited from their advice and expertise.

There must be more areas where the Government can devolve to the people sector, to let the community decide for themselves. But let us not go for quick fixes. As a young nation, shared vision and mode of participation will need time to evolve. We need to move at a pace that meets the expectation of the young, while balancing domestic concerns. What we seek is not diversity for its own sake, but the ability to integrate such diversity in a meaningful and useful way.

We do this very well in our schools. As a student, I remember there were so many activities I could get myself involved in, beyond the textbooks. I remember helping to set up the Red Cross Society in my school. I ran remedial classes. My classmates organised sports training sessions. Together, we initiated and took part in inter-school competitions. These activities built strong bonds amongst the students. They made us feel proud of our school, our heritage. Thirty years after leaving school, we still meet three, four times a year, sharing old jokes, but also always spending some time thinking about what we can do to help the school in its mission.

My experiences were in a Penang school. But from my children and colleagues, I gather that their experiences in Singapore schools are similar. But there is an unfortunate break in such active participation in the community, when one enters adult life. We should remedy this.

The sense of spontaneous participation, to connect with one another, should continue into adulthood. I hope everyone can come forward to make things better in our community, whether in VWOs, in NGOs, or whatever. If you are passionate about education, come and help in the schools. If you care about helping the elderly sick, come and help in the nursing homes. Business people and professionals from other fields can often bring new perspectives.

In fact, many Singaporeans do. I just came across the Centre for Fathering, not that I need any help. It was started by three fathers, to promote responsible fatherhood in Singapore. Two of them, at the initial stage, actually gave up their jobs, so that they can push their cause which they are passionate about whole-heartedly.

Permanent Secretary Lim Soo Hoon told me that just last week, at a low key, no publicity function to thank the volunteers at the Pelangi Home for the destitutes, Jack Neo turned up to entertain and encourage the volunteers, even as he was rushing off to catch a flight out.

Permanent Secretary Yong Ying-I told me about Helen Chia, a Volunteer Probation Officer who gave generously of her time helping the delinquents, besides giving tuition in an RC to children who cannot afford private tuition.

Jack Sim is another example. Driven by his commitment to good public education on restroom manners, he started an Association and went on to host the first WTO Conference here. It has nothing to do with MTI or Geneva. WTO stands for World Toilet Organisation. He even commissioned a Toilet Anthem.

There are many more such fine Singaporeans, from all walks of life, who come forward to help make our community better: Subaraj Rajathurai, Prof Bernard Tan, Brother Joseph McNally, Prof Aziz Nather, Henry Tay, just to name a few. They are excellent role models for all, as we contemplate how to expand the people sector.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, my father left his hometown. I left mine. I have left the comfort zone in the Public Gallery to help ensure that my children do not ever have to be forced to leave their hometown.

As we remake Singapore, one top priority must be to involve all Singaporeans in the Singapore Cause. To succeed in this, we must listen to their voices, whether from inside Singapore, or from overseas, from high or low, from EM1 or EM3. After all, let us have the humility to admit at the individual level we are all bundles of EM1 and EM3. We may be strong in one area, but we could be hopeless in many other areas. Take myself as an example. In economics and economic management, I probably qualify for EM1. In many other areas, I am at best EM3. In poetry, I fail, I think. But whether one fails or not, one must have hope. You are a failure only if you allow yourself to be condemned as one. That is why a few weeks ago when my grassroots leader suggested that at the next Tanjong Pagar constituency's National Day dinner, I should partner with Ms Indranee Rajah to sing a duet and in Cantonese, I looked at him and said, "Me singing? Some more in Cantonese?" Then I remember lifelong learning. So I am now croaking at EM3 level, but I am putting in the effort. Come National Day, I am confident I should be able to perform at least EM2 to match Indranee's EM1.

Sir, how do we engage all Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, in the remaking of Singapore? What do we need to do? Change our style? Change our assumptions about them? Change our attitudes as adults?

Through my work in the Economic Review Committee, I am experimenting by working with overseas Singaporeans who reside in the US. Yes, there was some initial scepticism, even cynicism, among some of the young participants. But as we engage them more, I sense a strong pool of goodwill and enthusiasm to want to contribute to make a difference. Many are now burning their weekends and their nights on this project, with lots of emails in between.

The media reports on their activities have in turn prompted a group of young professionals in Singapore, on their own initiative, to also work into the nights and weekends, so as to be able to contribute to the work of the Economic Review Committee. It has been a very heart-warming experience for me.

One key take-away in this experiment is that we should never assume that the young would not have much to contribute. They may have different values, different points of reference. They may see the need for "fun" together with being "serious". But that does not mean that they are frivolous. Their energy and freshness of ideas should find a happy merger with the older folk's wisdom and experience, to evolve and advance the Singapore Cause.

Singapore can make it economically and socially. We just need to dream big and work together for a great future. I continue to see the future of Singapore full of excitement and hope, and lots of scope for everyone to play a part, regardless of race, language or religion. There is a place under the sun for everyone, from all walks of life, to fulfil their dreams and to make a difference to the lives of others.

To succeed, we need to engage all Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, and transform their Singapore Dream, so that it is not just a Global Dream, but has the Singapore Cause deeply embedded in it.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday afternoon, Mr Seng Han Thong remarked in Parliament that his residents complained about having no linkway between the blocks and the market, and hence they were unable to go to the market. Let me tell him that in my constituency, there is no linkway to the market and the residents never complain. They have been going to the market on rainy days for many years. So I wonder whether this is the result of the education by the PAP in using the tactic of upgrading programmes to win voters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the General Election in 2001 was held in the midst of Singapore's economic slowdown, the September 11 event in the US and the turbulence in the regional politics. The Singapore electorate believed in the PAP's ability to run the country, expected more good years to come, and hoped to have continued assets value-enhancement and a better life. The PAP won an unprecedented victory and achieved its envisaged political goal. I want to remind the PAP Government that, in the next five years, its priorities in the governance of Singapore should be:

Firstly, how to restore our economic growth and to ensure that the people in general can enjoy the benefits derived from such economic growth. With changes in the overall economic restructuring, there may appear a situation in which only the high income people will benefit from Singapore's economic growth, while the older and unskilled workers remain in the lower income bracket. If the Government cannot narrow the widening income gap and economic growth does not spread throughout the whole nation, then economic growth is only a growth in numbers without any real meaning to the lower income people.

Secondly, when economic growth does not benefit the entire people and its growth rate is not as good as before, how do we reduce the burden of the people of Singapore in their daily lives? In his Address, the President pointed out that our national wage level was higher than before. I quote, "We can no longer expect to grow by 8 to 10 percent, year after year, as we did before the Asian Financial Crisis, even if we were to work as hard or harder than before. That phase of our economic development is over."

Since the PAP Government is asking the people not to expect high economic growth, can the people also expect the PAP Government to review the charges it has been levying for all the services it provides, and the criteria in which the Government says is "affordable to the people"? For example, in medical costs, selling price of HDB flats, utilities charges and the university tuition fees. All these prices are based on the so-called "affordability". Now the economic situation has changed. Should not the PAP Government have the moral obligation to re-define what are the prices that the ordinary citizens can really afford?

This is particularly so with our ageing population. There will be greater demand for medical services and convalescent homes. The PAP Government recently announced the policy of leaving convalescent homes to the private sector to operate. With such privately operated facilities, will the charges be so high that it will eventually become a burden on Singaporeans?

Thirdly, how is the PAP Government going to enable every Singaporean to make the best use of his or her talents? As we all know, we are facing unemployment problem. With economic restructuring, unemployed workers may not get back the same jobs and pay, even after the economy has recovered. Many of them are middle-aged. They need a regular income to maintain their families. Apart from a steady job to maintain the family, it is more important to make these employed people feel that what they have learned could be put to good use and that their respective talents could be given their full play, rather than merely doing a job and earning a living.

The PAP Government is of the view that Singapore is a small country with not enough talented people around. There is therefore a need to attract foreign talents to supplement the local ones. I agree with this principle. The question is: has the Government done all that it can to identify and develop the local talents? The PAP Government adopted certain policies to save cost and to avoid wastage in educational spending. Have these policies resulted in our today's shortage of talents? For example, the quota on the intake of medical students. In the past, students who studied at the polytechnics were not allowed to go to the universities. Students who were streamed into the monolingual stream would have no chance to go to a main-stream secondary school. Although these policies have been modified, I believe the PAP Government is capable of undertaking greater reform to enable Singaporeans to have more chances to become talented people, thereby strengthening their ability to compete with foreign talents.

Fourthly, how do we ensure that the workers are not treated unfairly by employers? In the high growth and tight labour market, we regard the workers as kings. But now, when the economic situation has changed, job opportunities are scarce, job seekers are at the mercy of the employers, and hence it is the turn for employers to become kings. How do we ensure that in such a situation, the workers are not exploited or treated unfairly by the employers should be the immediate concern of the Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of the September 11 event on Singaporeans and the recent arrest of Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists in Singapore make us better appreciate the vulnerability of Singapore and the importance of our social cohesion.

The Workers' Party equally cares for Singapore's security and regards as its responsibility the protection of Singapore's interest. Therefore, the Workers' Party supports the Government's efforts to safeguard the peace and security of Singapore. The Workers' Party also welcomes the Government's announcement to open up more space for Singaporeans to take part in political discussions and acknowledges that on specific policies, those with different views can also help in the policy making, to benefit the majority of the people.

But to achieve the aim of uniting the people to work together in remaking Singapore, the Government should exercise more tolerance. It should transcend party interest, and should not regard Singapore as though it belongs to the PAP alone. The PAP is the PAP. But, Singapore is our nation. Whether we agree or disagree with the PAP, we are all part of the nation. The rise and fall of a nation is the business of every citizen. It is only when the ruling party and the people in general get out of the shadow of failing to separate the party from the nation, can we truly be a united people in remaking a new Singapore.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion thanking the President for his Address in Parliament.

Sir, as I sat listening to the President's Address, I wondered how many in Singapore watched the telecast and listened to the President's Address. More so, how many Singaporeans felt the sense of vulnerability as we faced the many security, social and economic challenges before us. More importantly, I wondered how many had felt the overwhelming sense of urgency in facing up to and even to begin in an attempt to tackle these problems.

The remaking of Singapore is our roadmap to survival in the coming years. I am sure that in the remaking of Singapore, the various committees set up will address many of the areas that require shoring up, many of the areas that require revamps and new areas that need to be looked at. As we course through the uncertain future ahead, I am comforted by the stance taken by the Remaking of Singapore team to leave no stone unturned.

Sir, as we go about remaking, I urge the Government not to take lightly the understanding of the psyche of the Singaporean. As our honourable colleague, Mr Seng Han Thong, has interestingly pointed out yesterday in his speech, the uniqueness of the typical Singaporean qualities or, more specifically, the die-hard single-minded deployment of overseas shopping and travel survival techniques, can hopefully and plausibly turn around as an ingredient in our nation's survival. It is an example described by Mr Seng. It is evident that we must try to see what societal effects policies have on our people over a long term.

Sir, a Singaporean that we have so conditioned for the past 36 years can be seen as two sides of the same coin. A cannot-lose Singaporean is seen as kiasu. It is the same dogged, hardworking, innovative, persistent and going-to-be-more-creative Singaporean who strives for better grades in schools, one who wants to secure a better job, one who works hard - mind you, efficiently and productively - he also wants to move up in his or her career and to upgrade to a flat with another one or more rooms. There is nothing wrong with aspiring for a better tomorrow and to have the better things in life. After all, we work hard for these things.

What about the other side of the coin? As a competitive and street-savvy Singaporean took shape over the past 30 years to help steer our nation to where we are today, we did not count on the same Singaporean becoming very much focused on the five Cs. We need to temper and balance ourselves as we seek these five Cs. I think the addition of two other Cs - that of community and country - can and must be the only way forward. If Singaporeans can self-actualise and spend time serving the community and being an active citizen, I am sure, in time, we can have a more rounded, gracious Singaporean, and discard some of the stereotypes that we have been associated with. I believe that we can ignite that bit of altruism that I know exists in the heart of Singaporeans to serve their community. Yes, every Singaporean matters.

Sir, permit me to use an analogy. I call it the rear-view mirror analogy. Many Singaporeans drive, or at least have been backseat drivers. I wonder how many and how often these drivers look at their rear-view mirrors from time to time, except when they want to filter lanes, when someone honks at them, when flashing lights or someone in uniform gestures for them to pull aside. If drivers could glance at their rear-view mirrors from time to time to notice that they could let someone pass, filtering aside, letting the quicker traffic along, we would all have less stress on the highway and, definitely, more smiles and less rude glares.

In the pursuit of the five Cs, in driving for these, if we show some care and consideration for the community around us and initiate some sacrifice of time and effort, we will indeed have a more gracious society and a more balanced and meaningful life. In housing estates, I call on Singaporeans to flash the first smile to a resident passing by their flat, to offer the first handshake to the residents left, right, downstairs and upstairs of them. This would be the community that they can first be active in. Sir, I have noticed that, among Malay residents, the rapport between them, between units, between blocks, different zones, is very close and very warm. Perhaps, our Chinese residents could learn from that.

Another "C" that can be added to make these 8 Cs is compassion, shown on the Government's part. I hope that in the remaking of Singapore, the process and the Government organisations can show some compassion to Singaporeans who are caught in between policy changes. We do understand that implementation of changes in policies will affect some people negatively. Nevertheless, some compassion and consideration must be shown to these citizens affected and not treat them just as a negligible statistic or collateral damage. By showing more compassion in situations like these, citizens find it easier to buy in on the Government's call for Singaporeans to be active citizens or to do a part in community work and some other form of social outreach requiring a draw-down on one's capacity for compassion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the beginning of my speech, I wondered if many Singaporeans felt the vulnerabilities before us and the sense of urgency to face up to and to tackle these problems. We need to reach down deep into their hearts for the passion that they have for our country, that we will have some sense of hope for the years ahead. Sir, we need to instill in Singaporeans the kind of gut-wrenching commitment and conviction that our first-generation leaders had in them that brought us from the brink to the kind of Singapore we have today.

From time to time, we find our foot being stepped on. Then we are chided for deliberately keeping our toe nails long and hurt the sensitive souls of the stepper. Singaporeans must know that this will not change for quite a while yet. What can we do? Keep moving, keep shuffling, keep focused on our chosen path, and trim our nails from time to time and keep them sharp at other times. This situation is not helped by the constantly changing ground we are running on. We have little or no control of the direction in which the ground moves or the magnitude of the shift. We need to be nimble as a nation and to adapt and change directions quicker than the next guy in the same race. Singaporeans must know that each obstacle we face must add to the fire in the belly in all of us to press on. It is the fire in the belly that fuels our determination not to fail. That was true before, and it has to be true today and, especially, over the next few years.

Sir, we could hear, as recent as five years ago, the lament from the older generation that younger Singaporeans do not know what it means to be hungry, the uncertainty of not knowing whether there will be jobs tomorrow, or wonder if they would ever have decent homes or even a decent livelihood, as the older generations have had to experience. Although the idea, that young Singaporeans needed a crisis so that they could learn to appreciate and value what we had, bordered on idiocy, the Asian crisis in 1998, the economic downturn and the events of September 11, have presented this generation of Singaporeans some very sobering experiences. I hope that it does not take too long to ignite this passion and to find some common gut-wrenching sense of purpose to perpetuate the kind of life we are used to in Singapore. To ignite this passion and commitment to get all of us united to run this marathon, we better find a very short burning fuse very quickly.

The President's Address has underscored that some fuses had already started burning. The explosive growth of the Chinese market is something the world is watching carefully, each economy assessing where, what and how it can capture a slice of it. A Taiwanese businessman told me not too long ago that the cost of running his business in Taiwan has come to such a state that he could no longer continue and had to move his manufacturing facilities to mainland China. But then again, Sir, he added that if he was doing very well in Taiwan, the more reason he should move his business to mainland China. We are seeing that happening on our shores. Then, some fuses have already been ignited since September 11, and the charges are continually being laid, and the uncertainty and when the next fuse would be lit is a spectre hanging over us.

Sir, with so many wild cards on the horizon, I hope that the remaking of Singapore will carry as many Singaporeans as possible in its efforts not just to those who can identify with it on a higher cerebral level.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just as every Singaporean matters, Singapore should matter to every Singaporean. I think this is the essence of the remaking of Singapore. At this point I would like to make a few comments on the speech by the hon. Mr Low Thia Khiang. He mentioned that the talent pool in Singapore, our local talent, could have been the result of our policies. With this foreign talent that we have been talking about these many years, this supplements our local talent. And not only that, our local talent will learn and surpass these talents from overseas. Take, for example, in banking. Young men from overseas in the treasury rooms, who are dealing with derivatives, have been used to and have been dealing in, structuring, producing these derivative products at the age of 23 or 24, and they come to Singapore and they work with fairly older Singaporeans who are 27 to 30 and, very soon, the same Singaporeans are able to produce these products at the snap of a finger. Mr Low Thia Khiang comments that he supports the PAP Government's efforts in pulling our country together. It is admirable. However, I caution that Singaporeans must not be bought in on calls that could be divisive in times like this. The President's Address has stated succinctly what we will face and the urgent call to remake Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore support the Motion to thank the President.

Mr Wee Siew Kim (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President, and thank you for giving me the privilege to participate in this debate.

The President, in his Address to Parliament, has given us a realistic scenario of Singapore's future. It is not going to be smooth sailing. I remember someone once characterised Singapore's challenge as paddling upstream all the time. But, folks, it is not going to get better. We have to leave the safe waters of our rivers and venture into the open seas. There will be strong currents, we will be buffetted by waves caused by bigger passing ships over which we have little control. Inevitably, there will be storms. But it is not a totally gloomy voyage. If one is alert and careful, navigate well, there will still be beautiful skylines and shores to admire, and periods of calm seas to enjoy the fruits of our hard work. Against this backdrop, the President spoke of the challenges for Singapore, one of which is the priority to strengthen the spirit of entrepreneurship and risk-taking among Singaporeans as the basis for Singapore's future competitiveness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that there are two pillars required to nurture and enhance these qualities for survival. The first is to encourage and inculcate that spirit in individuals, especially our young. We must try to instill in our young thinking and questioning skills, curiosity to explore and the knack to take measured risks. Our young must not fear failures.

Let me recount a story from one of my constituents. The boy failed badly in the "O" levels and, in order to resit, he had to seek the permission of the principal who said that he would allow it if the boy could get 10 signatures from his former teachers to support his retake. He tried but he only managed to obtain five signatures. He was chided by some teachers and told not to bother and waste his time. He went home dejected. Thank goodness, his principal relented and the boy is now studying, relishing his second chance. While it is not time yet to say that this boy would succeed the second time round, the story hits home on the need to give a second chance, especially when one recognises failure and stoke that spark of courage to try again. What the principal did was to etch in the youngster's mind the value of a second opportunity and making him go round and work for it. Unfortunately, the incident also speaks of the teachers who turned their backs on him when he wanted to try again. But the fact that he managed to get even five signatures speaks of the graciousness of our society.

The young must view failures as opportunity to learn and how to do it better the next time. If we succeed in this investment in our young right here in our schools, we will have a generation of more entrepreneurial Singaporeans who are stout of heart and are more willing to take risk, for risk and entrepreneurship go hand in hand. In some ways, we have been victims of our own success. Singaporeans who had the opportunity to be better educated and had grown up in an economy that was experiencing high growth are naturally more likely to choose secure career paths. It has often been heard that opportunity cost is sometimes too high to do otherwise. Risk aversion is understandable. We must start in our schools. We have already incorporated many activities and programmes which will encourage our younger Singaporeans to think more on their feet, think out of the box, come up with new ideas and explore new frontiers that may well lead to new opportunities. Project work now scores towards qualification for a place in the university. Much has been done in this area. The curriculum in our educational institutions must be continuously adapted to teach thinking and discovery skills that will help everyone to manage through the continuous changes that can be expected in the new economy. However, it will still be some years before this generation comes of working age. It will still be some time before we have more Singaporeans, who by exposure and training, have a high affinity to take risks and reap the rewards.

Meantime, we are promoting this spirit of entrepreneurship in our working adults and to widen their perspective. There are now increased opportunities for many to explore outside their workplace. For example, many Singaporeans are given the opportunity to take on short-term or long-term jobs outside Singapore. This is essential and Singapore employers must push their employees to do so for nothing replaces the experience and exposure that such a working stint would bring. Others have the chance to further their studies or take short-term management courses elsewhere. Such exposure is necessary to give one a wider perspective and to learn from others. The interaction with other cultures and working styles all add to enhance one's experience and knowledge and plug Singapore into the regional and global economies. The Government has encouraged this through its many schemes and should continue to do its utmost to promote them.

The second pillar, I believe, is to do the same, ie, to inculcate this spirit of entrepreneurship, an element of risk-taking among our large local corporations and SMEs. We have to build up world-class enterprises that are able to compete globally. The 1960s and before, Singapore was essentially an entreport. To survive, our people had to depend on hard work and survival instincts to eke out a living. We provided labour, exported the natural resources of our region to the wider world and received in turn manufactured goods for onward transshipment. To survive and survive better, we worked at being better organised, more efficient and more competitive than the rest of the region. Then, the MNCs came and built some basic manufacturing plants. Our people became increasingly educated, and as a consequence, MNCs brought in their higher value-added activities.

Along the way, we learnt quickly. We took some necessary risks and went on to build our own companies, some of which today have gained some measure of regional and international reputation. For the successful ones, surpluses have piled up but, more importantly, there was an accumulation of intellectual know-how, technical skills and managerial competence. This happened across industries and the magnitude of this intellectual property that now exists in Singapore cannot be under-valued. We have now built up a workforce of Singaporeans who are very different from the 1960s. We now have the opportunity to export our intellectual software. In some ways, it is like coming full circle but, this time, it is not hard labour, but high value-added labour, backed up by institutional knowledge and expertise that we are able to provide. We have proven expertise in many areas. Some good examples are our airport, our seaport and how we have developed our petrochemical and logistics hubs. We must, therefore, be focused and concentrate our firepower in these and others that we excel in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while we have come a long way, we cannot rest on our laurels. We must move and move boldly. With a limited domestic base, we know we can only do so much. Growth must be export-led. We have to take our expertise outside Singapore. The proverbial external wing must spread and soar, for as Napoleon had said, "Ability is of little account without opportunity". For Singapore, we must go forth, create and seek these opportunities.

Services were featured prominently in the President's Speech. I truly believe that our people, on the coat-tails of the large Singapore companies and established SMEs, are able to venture abroad and bring with them the intellectual capital that is distinctly Singapore. We have begun to do so but we can do much more. No longer can we make incremental moves. We have to have that courage to make quantum leaps. Let us not be held back by the old ways we have handled competitiveness within our shores. Let us marshal the collective firepower of light-minded Singapore companies, concentrate their value offerings and venture abroad. Yes, there had been failures and there will be failures and pessimists abound. There would be more short-term setbacks. There would be those who would quickly say, "I told you so". But to succeed, we must take the longer term view and recognise our competitors likewise would pit against us with their own vehemence.

Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, countries that have similar constraints as Singapore, have companies that stand up among the global 150. Switzerland has 6, Nokia leads Finland's charge, Netherlands, through the Royal Dutch/Shell, ING, Philips, Unilever and Aegonelay claim to five. In our part of the world, Taiwan has one and even the tiny SAR of Hong Kong has two in the form of Hutchinson Whampoa and China Mobile. We can likewise do so. Success will breed success. When some of our companies succeed, others will have the courage to venture likewise. Let us have the courage to take the first steps and help some of our companies to succeed long term on a global scale.

While theorists will argue on a hands-off Hong Kong approach or the MITI-led Japanese extreme, we must recognise that Singapore must fine-tune its own approach, one that is appropriate to our circumstance. Here, I believe that the Government's role has two facets. One is to push certain companies out more quickly in a bolder fashion than they would otherwise do. And two, to ensure that they go forth with the collective capabilities and knowledge base that Singapore has to offer.

Several hon. Members have spoken on the need to merge for critical size. I strongly second that. If companies can come together and combine resources or complement expertise, we would be more formidable. This was the dimension that was missing in our arsenal of the 1960s. Now we cannot afford to forsake such growth engines. Take a couple of potential global champions and unleash them, nurture and support these global and regional champions in their forays while encouraging them to anchor their knowledge intensive IP-heavy economic activities in Singapore. They would be the motherships around which the SMEs would sail with, benefitting from the multiplier effects, further spawning more domestic players and providing employment for our workers. Yes, we will encounter storms. The flotilla must stay on course for among seamen it is aptly put that the winds and the waves are always on the side of the ablest navigators. We must keep faith. Just as MNCs had been the employer of choice for many young Singaporeans, it would come a day when Singapore-grown MNCs will hold the same prestige for the future young from within and without. Then can we attract the best talent, local and foreign, increase our gene pool, renew and enhance our intellectual capital.

Mr Speaker, Sir, nowhere am I suggesting that we should protect local enterprises at all costs. They must have viable product or service offerings. All I am saying is that competition is out there and not amongst ourselves. Competition is now on a global scale. This trend will not let up and global competition will be the norm for more industries in time to come. And if we are to come through and succeed, we better lie in our ships to deliver the most ferocious broadside. But what about our smaller enterprises? They may not yet have the capability to take that leap. How can we help them compete in this new global economy? We must not just give them a fish to survive another day, but rather teach them to fish so that they will survive a lifetime. For these companies, especially those in niche markets, we need to believe in them, to support their ventures with capital and management know-how. And more importantly, leave the scientists and the entrepreneurs, the people who are driven by passion and vision, to get on with their work. The challenge is perhaps seeking out these companies with the right formula for future growth. Next is to resist temptation to invade these companies and force-fit them into standard management models. It is about providing them with the right impetus to grow.

You may ask how the support I spoke about earlier for the larger companies co-exists with this nurture for smaller enterprises. There is no contradiction. Both are parts of the same vibrant eco-system, supporting the growth of each other to ensure continued survival. As the smaller enterprises grow, they could well be the seeds of reinvention. How else did Nokia, a lumber company, for most of its existence become synonymous with mobile telecommunications today?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, while I advocate bonus in seeking opportunities outside Singapore, I also advocate a Government role in focusing and driving the pace. Let us not get mired in ideological discourse but to implement an approach that best utilises the growth engines that we already have. Without intervention, some companies with the right expertise may not have the guts to go beyond our shores and the smaller ones may not have that opportunity to build up its expertise. It will always be a difficult risk-benefit equation but risk must be taken. Human and financial capital are all we have. Both are temporal in nature. We must make the best use of both and multiply them to ensure our continued survival so that the next generation will live in a steadfast and prosperous Singapore, just as our forefathers had prepared the ground for us. The time is now. We are at a crossroad. We must act and move boldly and quickly seize the opportunities. Future generations of Singaporeans depend on us to make steam and navigate well. Let us not fail them.