PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (Third 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.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua's motion to thank the President for his Speech during the Opening of the Tenth Parliament.

Before that, after hearing the introduction of the Bill on birds and animals, I will try and see whether I can make my point about more than just birds and bees. It is about harmony.

We are at the crossroads, said the President. Our collective rejoinder should be, let us make sure we know which route to take. The price can be high if we were to take the wrong turn. As stakeholders, we all have vested interests in that common destination. Equal rights, however, demand equally shared responsibilities.

Social cohesion and religious harmony are obviously the cornerstones of Singapore's future, after all, as the President had cautioned, it is one of our on-going challenges, except that it has taken a certain urgency post September 11. The earlier we recognise that, the better placed we are to prepare for the tasks ahead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was in Marrakech, Morocco, a fortnight ago, to attend the 107th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference. Leading the Singapore delegation, I was proud to announce at the Conference that Singapore celebrates pluralism. Even our delegation was symbolic of that. I am glad that Mr Chiam has just walked in. Although the majority of Singaporeans are Chinese, two of the representatives were Malay/Muslims, Mr Ahmad Khalis and myself. The other delegate, Mr Chiam See Tong, is Chinese, a Christian (not from the majority Buddhists/Taoists group), and from the Opposition too. I must add that Mr Chiam is a true Singaporean, especially overseas. I dare say that I look forward to my next trip travelling with Mr Chiam as a companion.

The IPU Conference, Sir, was also preoccupied with the issue of the global fight against terrorism. That reminded me about the UN Conference on Racism, Xenophobia and Intolerance, in Durban, a few days before the tragic and horrible attack by extremists and heartless terrorists on the World Trade Centre. Ego and emotion engulfed the minds at the conference, leaving it a failure, despite being held in the Land of the forgiving Nelson Mandela.

After September 11, the world is never the same again. But has the world really learnt its lesson? In the Middle East, the Israel-Palestinian time-bomb is fast ticking towards madness. The ghost of the Al Qaeda network continues to haunt, not only in Afghanistan but also in our backyard. The reality of the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests and the severity of the security risks they pose to Singapore still escape some. As Dr Balaji reminded us yesterday, imagine if they had chosen Singapore instead of the World Trade Centre. The sooner we realise the dangers of such extreme behaviour and take steps to minimise, if not eradicate it, the better it is.

How Muslims interpret Islam, in particular the need to champion moderation in the modern, progressive and secular world today, will have serious ramifications on how we live together in harmony in Singapore, the region, in fact, the world. It is not just about tolerance, neither coexistence. Coexistence can be described as a relationship between a farmer and a turkey, until Christmas. That is not good enough. We do not need `cold turkey' in our multi-racial and multi-religious relations. It needs better understanding and trust. That may sound a cliche, but that is a warning or reminder worth reiterating. This will be the most important test for Singapore's resilience. Indeed, it will be the most challenging.

Understanding Islam and the many faces of Muslims in the world today will be and must be an important agenda for us global and cosmopolitan Singapore. The concept of Ummah is important in the Islamic vocabulary, but do not misunderstand when they endeavour to be good Muslims or even religious. Muslims in Singapore, however, must be more discerning and rational in their judgment, especially when it involves extremism and conservatism. Fortunately for us, most Singaporeans are moderates, as was mentioned by Mr Ahmad Magad yesterday. Nevertheless, it is always the extreme minority that is strident and vocal. They can do serious damage to the interests of the silent moderate majority, just like the Talibans and the Al-Qaeda network.

Singapore Muslims have to be brave to go moderate and main stream, not extreme. No doubt, Muslims need to believe in the supremacy of the Koran and the Syariah, but look to the golden era of the Prophet and the Caliphs to see the open-mindedness, the emphasis on knowledge and science and technology. Not the quarrels over khilafiah or interpretations, or who is more Muslim or more sincere. The Islamic civilisation was the centre of trade, arts and sciences then, not veiled withdrawals into exclusivity and conservation.

The President of the Moroccan Parliament told me that Moroccans are proud of their Berber civilisation, Arab-Islamic background and close to the Western European world. They did not allow one to trouble the other. They achieve harmony of thought and mind, and progress in tandem with the modern world, not secular in approach, neither totally Muslim, as would be understood by some extreme groups, but humane, which is just as Islamic to them.

It is easy to stir trouble under the guise of defending fellow Muslim rights, but how many 'brothers' will come to our help when we are in deep waters ourselves. Muslims in Bosnia knew that. Chairman Arafat must be wondering now where will help come from. Muslims in Singapore must not allow Muslim `brothers' from outside who know little about our own developments and situation, or worse, with their own agenda, to make our challenges more complex. We have to resolve them ourselves, our way, whether tudung, madrasah or upliftment. I realise the issue of tudung in school is still bugging the minds of many Muslims, but we will have to continue to work on it. No minority extreme views should be allowed to dominate or influence the moderate majority.

The President's Address highlights the challenges we face together - not Malay problem, not Chinese problem, but Singaporean challenges. Voices accusing the Government of marginalising the Malay/Muslims have been heard when convenient by certain quarters and parties, inside and outside Singapore. Sure, for a community which has been lagging behind for decades in education and the economy, one does not and must not expect miracles to turn the situation around. Even affirmative action programmes in many countries have proven inadequate. There are still many areas that need urgent attention, education in particular. The Malay community recognises that, so does its leaders. It is that awareness that has allowed the community, through its upliftment programmes, to show credible progress. The performance of Malay students in mathematics was the 7th in the world in the 1999 World Mathematics and Science Survey, surpassing the US, Canada and UK.

Do not also say that there were no opportunities. Our first President was a Malay and we now, Sir, have yourself the Speaker of the House, a first for a Malay. The Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs is a PhD in Engineering from Stanford, and look at the new crop of MPs that we have brought in at the last general elections. With due respect to ex-teachers and journalists like myself, we have a lawyer, an international labour unionist, another PhD, a sociologist, and a polytechnic lecturer. Some may say that we have not come to the stage of producing people like the Senior Ministers of State Mr Tharman and Mr Khaw, and Ministers of State Mr Ng, Dr Balaji, Dr Balakrishnan and Mr Raymond Lim, but that should not be a point for us to gripe, neither despair, but indeed that should serve as a challenge for us to strive for.

The community should indeed feel inspired to work even harder to uplift and together build greater resilience. When the Malay community progresses and strengthen further its educational base, the stronger will the community become and thus the more resilient our multi-racial Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the President's Address makes me more convinced the importance of the CDCs. Make CDCs all the more relevant as catalysts for social cohesion. The Government needs to relook at the resources given to the CDCs to enhance their role.

If I may use the North East CDC as an example, and I declare my interest as Mayor of North East CDC, its philosophy and basic principles not only address short term immediate problems, but also tackle future challenges. Resilience means enhancing personal responsibility where assistance is aimed at helping individuals gain self-reliance. After all, all programmes are aimed at promoting community self-help. The responsibility of any social problems must be shared between the Government, the community and individuals. The CDC's role should be that of enabler of community. The CDC provides the infrastructure and resources to facilitate all to play their part.

Mr Speaker, Sir, ideas may be easy to come by but, more important, is the will to make multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore succeed as a more cohesive nation. For that, we need a greater sense of common destiny. That must be our shared destination, our shared responsibility. That is our road ahead.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Member for Marine Parade GRC.

The President has reflected a very tough external environment and has laid out several present and future challenges for Singapore. I would like, first, to comment on economic restructuring and why we need to develop a society of creative thinkers, before moving on to propose ways to build social cohesion. I will end by arguing why there is a need for more than just political renewal.

Economic restructuring and developing a society of creative thinkers

It is well known that Singapore's economy is highly dependent on electronics and manufacturing. The manufacturing sector has served Singapore very well in the last several decades. We have virtually exported our way out, from a third world to that of a developed nation. Credit is due and must be given to the founding leaders for their wisdom and foresight in pursuing this policy.

Reducing business cost

However, times have changed. We are now a developed economy and cost is awfully high. We are expensive and no longer cost-competitive. Our manufacturers cannot compete efficiently in terms of pricing alone. We are trying to move up the value chain and technological expertise. However, these are just ways to stall for time before other countries, like China, catch up.

In the meantime, we need to look into ways to reduce the high cost of doing business in Singapore. Most of these high costs, like licence fees, public service charges, land cost, rental, direct and indirect taxes, transport cost and so on, can be traced to the Government. Like Mr Ravindran said, I also wonder if the public service departments are recovering costs, or making huge profits.

Therefore, in the interim measures to make Singapore competitive, the Government should take the lead to lower these burdens and adjust them to a more competitive level. This is the best immediate way to help reduce business costs.

Developing a creative thinking society

For the longer term, we need greater initiative to develop more unique products and services that we can export. To achieve this, we must be free to think. Look at the USA - their emphasis on creativity and a free-thinking society have paid off very well economically.

Creativity is the current buzzword in education and society. What actually constitutes creativity? Sir, I believe there are two types of creativity - artistic and thinking. I cannot speak for artistic creativity, but thinking creativity is something that we can nurture and build upon. To be a nation of creative thinkers, we must first start by getting our citizens to ask the question "Why". For example, why must we rely so heavily on Malaysia for water? Why must we fear China's economic growth? Can there not be a better solution to what the Ministers proposed? There must be other fresh solutions to Singapore's many challenges.

Mr Sim Wong Hoo of Creative Technology must be spending a lot of time thinking, "What new products can I market to the world? How can I improve on the sound blaster card?" Sir, it is through the questioning attitude that opens our mindset to the possibility of looking for solutions out of the box. Had Sir Isaac Newton not asked, "Why did the apple drop from the tree?", he would not have gone on to discover the laws of gravity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Mr Wee Siew Kim, that for a truly questioning mind to be developed, it has to start from a young age. A safe and encouraging environment must be present for children to ask questions and speak their mind. This should be the priority in our schools. The Education Ministry must seriously look into this. It is not healthy for young Singaporeans to learn to keep their mouths shut - like the fishes in Jack Neo's movie "I Not Stupid".

To have a questioning mind is the beginning of wisdom. It is more important than constant mugging for examinations or the memorising of facts and figures. We must give our only natural resource, that is, our human talents, a lot more care, encouragement and empowerment to bring them to their full potential.

Although not all will turn out to be another Mr Sim Wong Hoo, at the very least, they will be equipped with the correct thinking skills to be creative thinkers. The art of asking questions will definitely kick start the thinking process, foster initiative and a sense of ownership of the problems on hand. It will break our infamous attitude of kiasu and kiasi that Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned on Monday.

I strongly believe that a "thinking person" will be a model citizen with the `spirit of resilience and self-sufficiency' that Dr Ng Eng Hen mentioned on Monday. Their first instinct will not be to run to the MPs to ask for help, but to think of the problems, and to take the initiative to solve the problems themselves. This will certainly boost the brand name of our Singaporean professionals and managers.

Building social cohesion

(a) Develop a more tolerant, magnanimous and forgiving culture

Mr Speaker, Sir, now I would like to move on to talk about building social cohesion.

To continue to develop this culture of creativity and initiative, we must restructure our society and political system, allow for differences in thinking and attitudes. We must let our citizens feel real ownership of our society, not just physical ownership.

As leaders, we must learn to agree to disagree. We can disagree professionally but we must always work together to uphold the decisions of the majority, while considering the concerns of the minority. This will provide the social glue for a more cohesive society.

Politics is very discouraging for the young, especially for those on the opposite side of the governing party. In past elections, there were many settling of scores and law suits. This does not make a more gracious or cohesive society, especially when it is seen as a big Goliath bullying a small David.

Sir, I believe as national leaders, we should learn to be more forgiving of political opponents. We should give more leeway for the heat generated during an electoral contest, and not make a big issue out of a molehill. We should be more magnanimous to those who spoke out and are highly critical of us.

For instance, I am on talking terms with my political opponent, Prof. Low, from Chua Chu Kang. I respect him - he is not here - for his electoral victory, but I shall continue to work the ground and try to win the support of the residents there. This is civil competition. It is healthy and should be encouraged.

"May the best person win" should be the motto of our society. This is the spirit of meritocracy.

(b) Adopt a balanced approach to managing society

Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to take on a balanced approach to society. I believe that our society has been over-managed to the extent that Senior Minister complained there is little buzz. The Government has been taking a very top-down approach in managing our society. I agree very much with the President's view that, and I quote: "We must open up more space for Singaporeans."

It is high time to set in motion this bottoms-up approach - to spend more time engaging and listening to the people, to understand their concerns and aspirations; to be more sensitive to their needs and wants.

A good way to start this bottoms-up approach is by having each Residents Committee (RC) and its Chairman elected by the residents themselves. Currently, it is being appointed by the MP, and for most residents they would not know who are the Chairmen of the RCs. By being elected, they will get to know the residents better, earn their respect and be their voice to Government officials. This interaction between the community and the Government will definitely build a more dynamic society.

The Government must trust the people and allow them to help shape policies that affect their lives. By empowering the people to make wise decisions, Singaporeans will be more supportive and pursue these policies wholeheartedly.

(c) Develop a sense of belonging for Singaporeans

Regarding the President's Speech on "international talent", I agree it is important to attract these talents to Singapore. I applaud the President for his use of the term international' over the often-controversial phrase foreign talents'.

I believe that not all foreigners are that talented. Some are just more outspoken or better in packaging themselves. In Jack Neo's movie, political satire, "I Not Stupid", the expatriate is only holding a very junior position in his home country and not very creative. But he became the creative director in the show because he is an expatriate. We must correct and stop this assumption that all foreigners are talented. Many are not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many young Singaporeans who are equally, if not more talented. They are either not given the right opportunity or not empowered to exercise their talents. It is important that we put greater emphasis in developing this talent pool.

We need to develop a stronger sense of belonging. Specifically, Singaporeans must have special privileges and rights that they hold dear in Singapore. If they decide to migrate overseas, they will forfeit these rights. Sir, let us all think of ways to build more privileges and rights for Singaporeans, so that even international talents may be attracted to become our citizens.

More than just political renewal

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President talked about political renewal. I think we need more than that. Ms Irene Ng yesterday had talked about the four divides. Today, I will add the fifth divide to it - the political divide, ie, the divide in the population between hardcore Opposition supporters and the Government.

Fair political competition in Singapore is almost non-existent, and so are constructive and rational non-governing political parties. Singaporeans want and hope that the General Elections will be fairer. The use of threats and goodies, together with the last-minute announcement of new electoral boundaries, does not make elections fair to non-governing party candidates.

Other than being known as kiasu and kiasi, Singaporeans are also known to kia zhenhu. They are afraid of offending the governing party based on - please correct me if I am wrong - the unfounded belief that their livelihood would be jeopardised. This is especially so when the ballot papers have serial numbers on the back.

It does not help to build confidence in the electoral process, especially when the vote could potentially be traced through the serial numbers. Something must be done once and for all to convince our voters that their votes are really secret. The best way is to completely remove the serial number at the back of the ballot papers.

Deputy Prime Minister Lee had mentioned before the last General Elections the introduction of the Fair Competition Act. It is very much our hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Act will also cover fair competition in the area of politics. In line with that, the Elections Department should come under the jurisdiction of the President, instead of the Prime Minister's Office.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House, during the debate on the motion for nomination of NMPs in the Ninth Parliament, said, and I quote:

"As Opposition Members, they will generally take an adversarial position in the debates though sometimes they have been constructive." Sir, by definition, I am from the Opposition. However, what am I opposing? We do not oppose for the sake of opposing. What is there to oppose if a policy is for the good of the people? If it is not good for the people or the country, I believe many Government party members will join me in opposing such a policy. Are they then considered the Opposition as well?

The General Elections are long over. Seventy-five percent of the voting population voted for the governing party. The rest have rejected it and voted for the Opposition. Whatever the reasons, it is time for us to rise above party politics and work together for the common good. My alliance Chairman, Mr Chiam, had expressed that here is an important role for us to play as non-PAP MPs. Sir, I believe that role is to represent the sizeable minority of the population who have supported us. It is very important for the Government to respect their desires and work closely with us to close this political divide.

Singapore is a very small and vulnerable country. It is very important for all of us to be objective, level-headed and not be adversarial for the sake of being adversarial.

In summing up, Mr Speaker, Sir, being a non-Government party Member, and being the youngest in this House, I have spoken my mind without fear or favour. Now, I volunteer my services to the sub-committees in the remaking of Singapore and its economy. Will I be invited to participate? Or will we be excluded? I would like to look forward to a good working relationship with all Members to restructure and prosper Singapore in this uncertain world.

Sir, with that, I support the motion to thank the President for his Speech.

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the name of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua.

Sir, the last five years have been very sobering years for the Government and the people of Singapore. While we saw about 30 years of almost uninterrupted growth, except for a couple of short downturns, in the last five years, things have been very different. We have seen two successive recessions in a short span of five years, something that we never expected.

With the awakening of the two sleeping giants in Asia, namely, China and India, the five tigers of the old industrial economy are facing tremendous threats. All these changes are going to redefine the rules of the game in the new economy. The five old tigers of Asia will have to search for new roles to play in this new economy while they struggle to redefine their models of economic development. Singapore is not alone in its quest to restructure its economy. All the five Asian tigers are very much at it and, so far, only South Korea seems to have had some success in restructuring, while Taiwan and Hong Kong are seeing a possible hollowing of their own domestic economies but are aggressively growing the external wing of their economy through China.

Remaking of Singapore Economy

Sir, it is an opportune time for Singapore to be looking at how she can change herself. The industrialisation formula of the past, driven mainly by foreign direct investments, is in no way going to help us in the future. The future lies in an innovation-based economy, driven by entrepreneurs and private enterprise, participating in a global market where technologies and business models are constantly changing. We need bold new strategies to succeed.

There are three fundamental points I would like to make on how we can find the right elements to successfully remake the Singapore economy. They are, firstly, changing the way we plan our economy; secondly, the economic colonisation model for Singapore; and finally, the role of Government in business, including GLCs.

Sir, the remaking of the Singapore economy is everyone's business. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and everyone involved in the process have invited every Singaporean to be involved and to come forward. So when Mr Steve Chia says that he hopes to be invited, I think he has already been invited. But he really needs to be a lot more proactive and take the initiative to do something about it to make proposals. I head the Indus entrepreneurs - and this is the chapter of entrepreneurs of Indian origin all around the world - and without the Government asking us, we have had about two months of activities in trying to come out with proposals in a few areas. In about two weeks' time, we will be ready to submit a report to the Government. So please do not sit and wait, do something about it.

Changing the way we plan our economy

Sir, the first point I want to make is about changing the way we plan our economy from central planning to distributed planning and from a straight line planning to fuzzy planning process. Looking back, while being an impressive development, our first 30 years of economic development have really been driven by a fixed model of growth, planned centrally where straight line planning was workable because of the type of economy we were growing.

In a straight line planning model, once we decided on the formula for growth, the rest was left to the administrators to plan and all they needed to do was to make straight line projections like the amount of foreign direct investments to bring in, number of jobs to create, number of training places to establish and other similar measures. The straight line planning model, driven by a strong central authority, managed by a few good men, worked because all we needed to do was to do more of the same and to do it better than our Asian neighbours.

In the last five years, we have entered into the era of the new economy and we have quickly realised that our planning models and theories do not work well as evidenced by our inability to forecast the economy well. We have not only seen near misses, in fact we have seen huge fluctuations and variations of what turned out to be the reality versus our expectations. The Government agencies have not been able to grasp the elements of the new economy because we cannot be planning an economy thinking narrowly within our own borders.

In a globalised world, we have to think of the whole world as our market and when we do this, we will have to think of new models simply because the Government cannot possibly have influence outside our borders. There is therefore an urgent need for us to understand how we can effectively participate in and find new ways to plan this economy. The sure thing is that the Government alone can no longer monopolise and drive economic planning and development in the future. It requires the involvement of many more people, especially the private sector, which can influence foreign markets by their presence there. We have to move away from a strong central planning approach to a distributed planning approach that many more people and not just a few good men are involved in planning and executing economic development.

A partnership formula with the private sector playing an active role needs to be defined. Government should define the broad visions and leave as much as possible the economic planning to the private sector. Since things will no longer be clear, our models will have to be changed to incorporate concepts of fuzzy planning, where we will never be able to have enough information to put together concrete forecasts and projections and where we will have to constantly redefine the rules of the games as the world around us changes. In such an approach, it is wise for the Government and our Government agencies to define the general directions and broad goals and then be involved in just facilitating and not driving the economy directly. The Government can no longer be involved in the minute details of planning the economy.

This distributed and fuzzy planning approach is consistent with what many of us have identified as a solution for the new Singapore economy. In this approach, the Government should focus on creating and nurturing a conducive environment, which breeds private enterprises and entrepreneurs who will in turn determine the success or failure of economies. In this model, we must accept some chaos, some unstructuredness, some mavericks and a much rougher ride for everyone, including the Government, and we must be prepared to take much higher risks than before. The Government needs to learn to let go and place more trust on the private sector for us to be effective in developing a new model of the Singapore economic development. The USA model is an example of what government agencies like the Fed control just a few levers and leave most of the economic development to private enterprises, while they create a business friendly environment.

As an illustration of the problems of central planning, let me use an example of Belgium. Why is Belgium still successful in the textile industry? By our approach of economic planning, Belgium should have thrown out textile manufacturing a long time ago by encouraging relocation to low cost countries. Instead, what they did was to work on continuously strengthening their core competencies such that they always stayed ahead, and how did they do it? Well, what I heard when I was in Brussels, about nine months ago, was that they operated highly automated and mechanised factories, less dependent on manual work and more on machines. The factories are so big that technicians cannot go on foot, they have to go round on bicycles to go and check the machines.

We therefore have to look at how we are restructuring ourselves. Many of our Government agencies, as a strategy, advocate throwing out the old industries to bring in the new ones too prematurely, either directly or indirectly, through policy changes or through incentive and disincentive schemes. Like the Belgians, instead of making complete transformations, we should stretch our competencies. The right thing to do is to focus on our core competencies, which we have developed over so many years and see how we can improve our productivity, efficiency and capabilities, such that we can continue to compete effectively in the same areas for a longer period of time.

So when we say, let us bring in life sciences and the petrochemical industries, we should not do it at the expense of the other strengths that we have developed over the past 30 years. Those new industries are important too but it may take time for us to build those capabilities. In the process, we cannot lose our old capabilities. We should also think of ways of continuing to be champions in those areas that we have invested so much in in the past years until there comes a point when we cannot improve any more. In the process, we would have a long overlapping period between the old and the new industries, thus minimising the stress to the economy and to the people of Singapore.

Economic colonisation

My second point is one of economic colonisation - setting up of a true external wing. Singapore should aggressively embark on a colonisation programme. We have so far successfully developed the external wing of our economy and I feel the way forward is through this colonisation programme, which will accelerate the growth of our external economy. We have to start building Singapore all around the world. And I would like to suggest three ways that we can achieve this accelerated growth.

New model of globalisation

Firstly, a new model of globalisation. Recently, there has been a lot of debate on how we can create local multinational companies. I feel that our failure in developing world-class companies may have been in the approach we are taking and Professor Peter Williamson of Insead University, who advises us on some of these things, very well summaries it, and I quote him:

"A lot of Singaporean companies want to become multinational. If they do the traditional route of taking what they learnt here and spreading it around the world, we think that is going to be very difficult because they are latecomers [ie, Singaporeans are latecomers] to the process and also the pool of knowledge in which they are fishing is too small."

Professor Williamson rightly points out that if we try to copy the models of the big developed economies of the US, Europe and Japan, we will not succeed and, for Singapore with a small domestic economy, we will never be able to learn the true needs of the world market if we do not quickly go out of Singapore to do our businesses. What this means is that we do not necessarily have to take the traditional route of growing global businesses by first growing a successful domestic market before we embark on internationalisation. Many of our companies, especially the Government-linked companies, are still thinking of the old model, and I feel that they must start thinking differently by sometimes doing more globally than locally. The Israelis are the best examples of how local companies went straight into international markets like the US and Europe to become the world's best companies in a number of areas. We have one home-grown example, ie, Interwoven, where the founder leap-frogged to the US market to create a successful technology business.

Setting up centres of competencies all over the world

Sir, the second approach for colonisation is setting up of centres of competencies all over the world. We really need a two-prong approach of setting up local capabilities as well as setting up bases of competencies in other parts of the world where talent and opportunities are in abundance. While we should attract talent into Singapore, we should also tap them from where they are located.

For example, instead of setting up a giant biopolis in Singapore, why do we not set up a few smaller units all over the world, with a much smaller one in Singapore? Why do we not set up a technopolis in India instead of one big facility in Singapore? The Government can take the lead by diversifying its research institutes to other parts of the world. Sir, my visit to Xian in China last year left me with an impression that it is an excellent place for us to set up research institutes in the area of life sciences to tap the wealth of expertise and talent of the people there. They have the potential to do truly world-class and leading edge work and, similarly, there are areas of competencies all around the world and we should try to locate ourselves there too.

Our net gain is that we immediately tap on the talents which we may have difficulty attracting into Singapore and we can, over time, also invite the best to come to Singapore, after years of cultivating them from where they are. I am glad to note that Mr Sim Wong Hoo has started the process by setting up the Creative-Dragon Science Park in Shandong, China, as a means to tap resources outside Singapore, and we hope that many more people will follow him, especially the Government agencies. As an example, Nokia, one of the world's most successful companies, coming from a country quite like Singapore in terms of size, Nokia used R&D capabilities from UK, customer needs and trends from Japan, and manufacturing efficiencies from Europe and Asia to overtake Motorola in a short span of five years.

Acquisition of businesses as an alternative of starting companies

Sir, the third route to economic colonisation is by acquisition of businesses as an alternative to starting companies. Our entrepreneurs and enterprises should start thinking of alternative formulae of starting companies. The way forward may not necessarily be through brand-new start-ups but through acquisition of businesses and companies already successful in foreign countries. With our ability to raise funds and to tap funds and good management skills, we have the opportunity to take over businesses which have proven track records, and in areas where it may take too long for us to build up competencies if we start from scratch. As an example, YTL Corporation in Malaysia, a construction company, recently acquired Wessex Waters from Enron Corporation. It was a good buy. Wessex specialises in supplying water and water-related activities to 1.2 million residents in the UK. Theirs is an example of jump-starting a business, which may have taken too long to build up had they done it in a Greenfield manner. Importantly, they are diversifying away from a slumping domestic construction industry to new areas of competencies. We must learn from YTL of Malaysia.

We have to go on the path of economic colonisation by developing our strengths, including all resources to be set up all over the world. We should be thinking of cultivating and harvesting competencies and capabilities from around the world as part of our formula of growing our economy. We have the means, the timing is right and opportunities all around the world are in abundance.

Role of Government in business

Sir, the final point I would like to make today is the role of Government in business. Whether we like it or not, whether we want to admit it or not, the Government and Government-linked companies do have a significant impact on the Singapore economy, whether directly as business units or indirectly by crowding out private enterprise and the private sector, or through incentive and disincentive schemes operated by Government agencies.

I feel that many of our GLCs have been operating too much in their comfort zones, being given too many privileges in the domestic economy and, therefore, unfairly beating private companies in competition with them in the local market. However, in the long term, success in the domestic economy alone is not sufficient as the whole world globalises. I personally feel that many of our GLCs will fail when they globalise and face global competition, where true market forces rule. We, therefore, need the Government and the Government-linked companies to find new roles and find a new strategic position for themselves in this global economy.

Some of the elements, which could constitute a good strategic position for them in the future, are:

Firstly, being globally-focused instead of locally-focused, and a spirit of partnership with other companies. With the increasing activity in global Free Trade Agreements, countries and companies will have to compete on a level playing field. While this will be a threat in the domestic market, it is also an opportunity which we should be ready to cultivate when the time comes. Our GLCs should, therefore, use their strengths to quickly go out and lead the way of economic colonisation and find success in globalisation, instead of working in their comfort zones at home. To do so, GLCs should also think about partnership with other local private companies or, for that matter, with other GLCs. The problem is that both GLCs and the private local companies have developed a culture of suspicion and distrust such that they seldom ventured into a collaboration approach by combining their core competencies to create a cluster of core competencies and then using this new combined strength to compete with large foreign companies, either locally or globally. I feel we can best globalise if we work on pooling our competencies together and with a spirit of partnership where each company, whether big or small, contributes in creating very strong clusters capable of competing with the best companies from around the world.

The second point about Government in business is on divesting and outsourcing. While we can accept that GLCs had a role to play in our economic development and still have a role to play in the future, it is not quite right for statutory boards to get involved in businesses. Over the years, we have seen many instances of statutory boards getting into businesses, which compete head-on with the private sector, and this definitely leads to unfair competition because of the strong backing of the Government agencies they are in. The Government needs to have more trust in the private sector and develop a culture of outsourcing as many activities as possible, especially to the private sector, and not only to the GLCs. Similarly, Temasek and other Government agencies should actively look out for opportunities to proactively divest companies which could better perform if they are run on a truly private-sector basis by inviting private-sector players to discuss opportunities to be partners at the shareholder level. I am not advocating that divestment be done blindly, but where it makes sense. For example, it makes no sense to ask that the Government divests SIA or PSA, because these are areas we obviously have world-class competencies and the current structures will work well in the future. There are, however, many more businesses where the Government has majority control and which, in the long term, will not be viable once they compete in the global marketplace. Instead of hanging on to such businesses until they collapse, it is wise to divest those to competent shareholders, whether foreign or local.

We have to realise that in a globalised world, Government's direct involvement in business can be viewed as a big negative and may not necessarily help our companies when they attempt to internationalise. Recently, we saw glimpses of this effect when the US Ambassador, Mr Frank Lavin, highlighted the concern of the Government's involvement as an issue which may hinder some of the negotiations leading up to the signing of the Free Trade Agreement. He quoted the practices of GLCs as a significant issue that has to be tackled before we can move forward.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to emphasise that we will only be successful in remaking the Singapore economy if we are prepared to change mindsets. The Government has to be prepared to play a new role, with a lighter touch, while Singaporeans and Singapore companies need to come forward to take on the responsibility of nation-building and in building our economy. We cannot expect the Government to do everything. Neither should the Government expect to be the sole driver in the whole process. Striking the right partnership model between the public, private and the people sector will be of utmost importance. We can do it and must start immediately.

With that, I support the motion, Sir.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just say a few words in response to Mr Inderjit Singh?

Mr Speaker: What are you going to say, Dr Tan?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I listened to Mr Inderjit Singh and all his comments. They were good comments.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, if you are going to make a speech, could you wait till your turn, please?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: No, I just want to caution him on the word "colonisation". I think the word connotes very different meanings. His meaning is economic colonisation. We were once a colony, and our colonial masters were the British. I do not want our Singapore ---

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, could I ask you to sit down and speak later when your turn comes, please.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Thank you. 1.25 pm

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion raised by the Member for Marine Parade GRC to thank the President for his Opening Address.

The President spoke about the many challenges that Singapore faces. Indeed, rapid changes in technology, coupled with globalisation and the terrorist threat, will pose a great challenge for Singapore.

The Government has said that it is making fundamental changes to Singapore's economic strategy, from an investment-driven economy to an innovation-driven economy. In restructuring the economy, we can expect dislocations in our society. Whether we succeed depends not only on our new economic policies but also on how Singaporeans jell as a people as we face the cut and thrust of our new challenges.

Hence, Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that Singapore will do well to build up its social capital. Sociologist Francis Fukuyama defines social capital as "a set of informal values and norms shared among members of a group that permits cooperation among them." Society depends on social capital to enable its members to coexist harmoniously even as they retain their individual uniqueness. High social capital will benefit Singapore in at least a couple of ways.

Firstly, social capital supports our new economic strategy. It is also a hedge against social disruptions that may arise from erratic economic performance and the widening income gap, both of which are likely to characterise our new economy.

Secondly, it supports our defence strategy. Social capital acts as a deterrent against conventional and asymmetrical warfare.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me discuss how social capital may support our economic strategy. National economic planners around the world are confronted with many questions about sustaining their economic viability. The overriding question is reduced to the following: how does a nation justify its workers' wage premium over the wages paid by a plant in China run by a multi-national corporation with all its process efficiency, high productivity and best practices culled from across the world? For good measure, China already produces half of the world's air-conditioners, a third of the world's refrigerators, and a quarter of the world's washing machines.

To justify Singapore's wage premium, we are moving away from value-adding activities to value-creating activities, from production efficiency to innovative capacity. The problem is that many other countries are also pursuing the same strategy. They too know that land and capital do not innovate. Only humans do. Therefore, human talent will be hotly sought after because it has become the most important factor of production. In the battle for talents, the country that offers the best homes will win the new economic war, and social capital is a pre-condition for good homes. With it, we will have better odds of keeping talented Singaporeans within our shores and will not lose them through emigration. It will also attract new talents to sink roots here in Singapore and help us rebuild our economy.

To boost our social capital, we must continue to be tough on crimes, especially heinous crimes and the types that infringe on the rights of others. Such crimes reduce the society's radius of trust and deplete our social capital. On the other hand, I feel we must lighten up. We need a mindset change. In Singapore, we want to do everything right but the new paradigm is really about doing the right things. We have too many rules and regulations that lead to a national psyche of conformance, a conformance to the status quo. It is hardly an environment where creativity may flourish.

One way to break this mould is to bring in more civil servants with work experiences in the private sector. Another way is to allow selected civil servants no-pay sabbatical leave to pursue their private sector interest, including starting their own businesses. If they succeed, well and good. Entrepreneurship in Singapore will get a boost. If not, they will return to serve in the public sector and their so-called "failures" would put them in good stead. They will help formulate Government policies that better reflect the harsh realities in our brave new world. They can then tell their bosses in the various Ministries that a certain policy has not worked and they have the 'battle scars' to show for it. Social capital between the public and private sectors will therefore be enhanced.

On education, although the streaming system in our national schools has been successful in reducing the number of school dropouts, we must find more ways for children of mixed ability to interact so that the strong may help the weak and the formation of social capital may take root from a young age.

The President has cautioned that Singapore is unlikely to perform at the sort of high economic growth rates that we enjoyed in the past. I believe that not only would our growth rates dip, they would also be more erratic. That is the nature of the new beast. This will put stress on our society and therefore developing more social capital in Singapore is a worthwhile and timely insurance against social disruptions.

As Members know, there is a widening income gap in Singapore and it is not likely to get better. The Government can only do so much. In fiscal policy, progressive tax rates do help to redistribute income but if overdone, it will drive away our high income earners to cheaper tax regimes. It is, therefore, much better if income redistribution occurs as a result of high social capital. When managers and employees elect to cut salaries instead of jobs, it demonstrates high social capital in the organisation. When our Government-linked companies lead our small and medium enterprises at the vanguard of a geese flight formation as they expand and seek new businesses, social capital is generated. The Straits Times' School Pocket Money Fund is a step in the right direction in building up our social capital. Although it hardly closes the income gap, it is not inconsequential. It is an example of how the seeds of giving and sharing are sowed from a young age. Singapore's volunteerism rates are also way below those of the developed world. We ought to promote volunteerism in our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me move on to discuss how our social capital may support our defence strategy. As a deterrent against conventional and terrorist attacks, social capital is no less important than sophisticated weapon systems and well-trained troops. It was a lead from a civic-minded resident that led to the arrest of the Jemaah Islamiyah operatives in Singapore. This person has prevented untold harm on Singapore, and that is social capital at work.

High social capital will go a long way in ensuring that we will make it through whatever adversity together as a people. The will of our people to preserve and defend our way of life is the best assurance of enduring peace in Singapore. And how might such 'will' be forged? Through a set of shared values embraced by all Singaporeans, or otherwise, known as social capital.

On that, I support the motion.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion to thank the President for his Address at the opening of this Parliament.

The President mentioned in his Speech that the opening up of the Chinese market will pose a great challenge to countries in the region, including Singapore. China is a huge country with rich natural sources and low labour cost. It has all the conducive conditions to attract a lot of foreign investments to China. With the entry of WTO and Olympic Games in 2008, China's economy is poised for a great leap forward. We must prepare ourselves in anticipation of the further opening up of the China market and the challenges that come with it.

China's domestic market is gigantic and its low business costs are already attracting and will continue to attract substantial foreign investments to China. These investments, with advanced technology and scientific management know-how that come with them, will improve the quality of their products which are flooding the market at low prices. Five years ago, when you see a product with the "Made in China" label, you would think twice before you decide to buy it. Nowadays, the "Made in China" label is already widespread throughout Europe, America and Asia. These products are welcomed by the consumers everywhere because they are cheap and good. This is particularly so in this time of recession. Low cost products become a very useful competitive edge over others. This capability to produce goods at lower production cost and reasonably good quality has boosted the confidence of foreign investors to go to China.

The development of China is very rapid, whether in urban or rural areas. Manufacturing, finance and insurance industries are developing at tremendous speed, and enterprises are springing up in the various cities in China. The prospects are very good.

Ten years ago, when you go to Pudong, Shanghai, you could probably still see a lot of chicken farms and pig farms everywhere. That place was somewhat like Singapore in the 1960s. At that time, Mr Chan Soo Sen told me that there was a saying in Shanghai that, "You would rather have a bed in Puxi, than to have a house in Pudong." That goes to show how backward Pudong was compared to Puxi. Nobody wanted to stay in Pudong, everybody wanted to enjoy the prosperity of Puxi. But now, if you go to Pudong, you will find Pudong a beautifully developed place with very attractive skyscrapers and many five-star international hotels. It is a very prosperous city, even more prosperous and infrastructurally more advanced than our Orchard Road in Singapore.

There were a few engineering students from our local university who wanted to go for vocational attachment as part of their studies overseas. I suggested to them that they should go to Shanghai, China. But they said "No" without a moment of hesitation. I tried again to persuade them to give Shanghai a try, but they were quite adamant against the idea. Subsequently, for some reasons, they changed their mind and went to Shanghai. Upon their return, they told me that their perception of China was entirely wrong. Now that they have seen the development of Shanghai, they suddenly woke up and became aware of the rapid development of Shanghai. The visit there was indeed an eye-opener for them. The image of China in their mind has changed, especially the massive buildings and the clean urban environment left a very deep impression in their minds.

Another example is Hong Kong. Under 99 years of British colonial rule, Hong Kong became a trading centre and regional financial hub. But it took China only 15 years to turn the neighbouring Shenzhen from a swampy slump into a prosperous special economic zone that gives Hong Kong a run for their money. This shows that China has a lot of financial resources and experience that they can draw upon to develop other cities, and to have better economic development. Prime Minister Zhu Rongji has already said that the development of China should not be concentrated in just a handful of big cities, like Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen. This is because by doing so, it will cause a lot of Chinese nationals to go into these cities and cause a lot of social problems. He encouraged all cities and provinces to develop themselves so that there is a balanced development throughout China. There are 36 provinces in China, and each province has a number of major cities which possess the conditions for economic development.

For foreign investors, if you have big capital, then you should go to the big cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen to invest. As it is said, the big ocean-liners should sail in the big ocean. But if they do not have big capital to invest, you should go to the smaller cities to try your luck. Because if you are a small little sampan, you would better ply it in the streams and rivers, but not the big seas or oceans.

Recently, I represented EM Services Pte Ltd Company and two other local public-listed companies, we took a trip to the Gangzhou City, Jiangxi Province, to do an on-location survey and to explore the possibilities of investments there. Gangzhou may be a small city with only eight million people, but it is rich in resources. With the view of taking their development to a higher level, they built a highway linking Guangzhou, the capital city of Guangdong Province. This highway will certainly expedite its development plan. Now, if you travel by car from Guangzhou to Gangzhou, it will take you some eight hours. By 2004, with the completion of the super highway, the same journey would take just over two hours to complete. With this kind of construction, you will be able to expedite the development of the industrial parks. At the moment, Japanese investors have already moved in to capture the opportunities offered by Gangzhou.

In order to attract more foreign investments into the new investment areas, a lot of incentives are being offered. Take the land price, for example, one mu (= 0.0667 hectares) of land, with electricity, water, gas, telecommunications and access. The government charges RMB$20,000, i.e. only S$5,000 per mu (668 sqm2) and is tax free for five years. The monthly wage for a worker is between RMB$800-1000, that is, between S$200 and S$250. The government gives them five years of tax holidays. In terms of public relations, senior government officials from the mayors down to the heads of the various departments would personally come down to explain the various development projects to the potential investors.

During our visit there, we were warmly received and well treated. All these officials are very young, very capable and full of energy. After the meeting, we were invited to join them for dinner. In ancient times, you drank wine and recited poetry at the banquets. But now, the new way of doing business is to drink and talk business. The idea is to close their business deals as fast as possible. When we go to China for business, we should not rush back to our hotel rooms to write reports immediately after the meetings. The idea is to go and have dinner together with your host. At the meeting room, they will inevitably quote you the official prices. But, after a few rounds of drinks, you will be offered the preferential prices. I can see Mr Chan Soo Sen nodding his head. I think he agrees with what I am saying. When doing business in China, it is very important that you build up good inter-personal relationship with the relevant people in China.

I believe that in the next few years, China will be able to achieve very high economic growth. They forecast a growth rate of between 7% and 8% and this is a very realistic objective based on the factors that they have a big market, low cost and an attractive incentive pack- age. Our Government should thoroughly explore the terms and conditions and encourage our investors to go there. Our costs are high, our incentives are not good enough and hence we are losing out to China in the attraction of foreign investments.

I would suggest that the Economic Review Committee be bold enough to thoroughly review and recommend effective measures to deal with the high cost of business, like high rentals, high utilities charges, high cost of transport, etc., which are contributing to the high cost of doing business here. We know that in the next few years, the growth prospect in China is like the rising sun. We must think of ways and means to set up a partnership with China to make use of their favourable conditions and advantages in line with our advantages. We hope that MTI will introduce potential investors to go and set up joint ventures in China. At the same time, we must also encourage our SMEs in Singapore to pool their resources together to build consortiums with enough capital and financial resources to compete with other countries.

To invest in China, from my personal experience, the following points must be observed: firstly, we must find a reliable and sincere trading partner. You must explore the investment atmosphere and then seize the opportunity to do what you should do. Secondly, you must build up good inter-personal relationship with the Chinese partners. Learn from Mr Chan Soo Sen. When deciding on the size of your investment there, you must cut your dress according to your cloth. Start from small, and gradually build up your scale at the appropriate time, and then you have a better chance of success.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the business world is like a battle field. You may win, you may lose. But, as it is said, "Failure is the mother of success." We should not be too depressed and distraught when your venture fails. Buck up your courage to learn from your mistakes and then start all over again. One day, success will come your way. In order to help our entrepreneurs invest overseas and be successful, I suggest that the Ministry of Trade and Industry join up with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce to set up an Overseas Investment Consultative Committee, and invite all members and potential entrepreneurs to join this committee. They can then share their success stories and lessons in failure so that we can prepare our potential investors overseas psychologically to take on the challenges. They must have the entrepreneurship spirit in them so that they can invest in overseas countries with success.

When investing overseas, some succeed, some fail. Let me give you some examples. Mr Chua Kim Hua is the Chairman of King Wan Corporation Ltd, a listed company which has invested in a number of projects in many provinces and municipalities in China. Recently, the Chinese government passed a regulation that all buildings six-storeys and above must be white-washed regularly. With his sharp business acumen, Mr Chua immediately decided to seize the opportunity to set up a paint factory in China to produce the materials necessary for all these white-washing works.

Mr Chua went to the province of Hubei to make a feasibility study and decided to set up his plant there. Right from the beginning of the negotiation, the officials of the industrial park, like the Jurong Town Corporation in Singapore, took the proposal seriously and personally accompanied us to visit the proposed site. Upon visiting the site and speaking to the officials, Mr Chua decided to take the piece of land offered to him and to build his plant there. On the same day, he went to the officials' office to negotiate the price and eventually signed the contract. Mr Chua told them that he was returning to Singapore in two days' time as he had some urgent matters to attend to. The officials told him to go back the following day, and that they would prepare all the documentation for him to sign, and construction work could commence straightaway. Mr Chua went back to office the following day, sceptical that the documentation could be completed by then. To his surprise, he found officials from all the relevant authorities, such as the officers in charge of utilities, land use, sewerage, etc. A truly "one-stop" service. Mr Chua was very impressed with the kind of services provided. He asked the officials, "How did you manage to organise all these in so short a time?" They told Mr Chua, "We learnt this from Singapore."

We do have "one-stop" service, but it simply means "one department one stop". If we have three permits to apply, we have to go to three departments. But in China, they learnt from us and improved on it. They call it the "one dragon" system (a coordinated process). All the services of the various ministries and departments are coordinated and linked up and aligned - like one dragon. You just go to the dragon and all the necessary procedures are dealt with at one go. So, because of this "one dragon" system, Mr Chua, was able to get things done expeditiously, and start work on the paint plant almost immediately. The way things are being done with such efficiency and speed is indeed frightening. They are even prepared to work late into the night. Before long, the plant was ready for production, and the market was captured. Of course, Mr Chua and his company have profited through this project and even the shareholders back in Singapore also made a lot of money when the share prices go up.

This shows that in times of difficulties in our economy, changes should be made to the way we do business. Venture overseas and search for opportunities. Make a profit, even the people back home will benefit. There is this famous saying, "Poverty gives rise to a desire for change. Changes will lead to a breakthrough." This is one way of doing business. We have a lot of good entrepreneurs in Singapore and we could learn from them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, primarily, I believe that Singapore has done well over the past few decades. If we continue to work hard, and with a strong spirit of entrepreneurship, I am sure that Singapore will do well in the future and enjoy good economic growth. Our prosperity will be sustained.

Sir, on this note, I support the motion.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): Sir, between the Opening of the Ninth Parliament and this one, so much has changed in the world. Five years ago, we were brimming with confidence. The then President spoke of prospects for Singapore that seldom looked better and of seizing opportunities that were coming our way. Nobody then foresaw that within a few months, the Asian financial crisis would engulf us, Suharto would fall from power in Indonesia and Singapore would go through two major economic crises. The dream of more good years for Singaporeans would be put on hold, as they would find themselves losing their jobs. Asset enhancement would become asset disenchantment, as Singaporeans saw the value of their properties and other investments fall. With falling incomes, many would find themselves faced with the difficulties of paying the mortgage on their homes. Certainly, nobody at that time would have imagined an economic downturn and the sight of Singaporeans now queuing up to collect money from their MPs to give them relief. And most certainly, none of us ever thought it possible that we will ever see the sight of two airplanes plunging into the World Trade Centre in New York. It was something that could have come out of a movie, but when we saw it happen on TV, it was for real, and it was an event that would eventually lead to the possibility of terrorism rearing itself on our very doorsteps.

Amidst these dramatic events, the Government called an election before it was due in order that it could clearly get down to tackling the problems that suddenly seem to be raining like a thunderstorm on us. We wanted to be able to quickly provide hope for our people. It was, in my opinion, a right move. And these are the pressing issues that we have now before us, the deepest recession since independence, unemployment, finding jobs for our people, high business cost, our economic competitiveness, the tudung issue, relations with our neighbours and terrorism.

Sir, it somewhat baffled me that while we went out to seek a new mandate from the people very quickly, it took almost five months for Parliament to be convened in order that the representatives of the people could meet to discuss the issues that are so crucial to Singaporeans and to our future. While Singaporeans know well that they have a Government that is efficient and dependable and can deal with the problems, they too want to see their elected representatives in action, airing their grievances, probing the Government and offering suggestions that can improve their lives, especially at a time like this when so many critical events are unfolding before them and are affecting their lives.

Sir, I am in no way suggesting that the Government is not seeking to engage Parliament, far from it. Having been a Member of this House for a long time, I can attest that the Government has not shirked in its accountability to Parliament, and it can handle convincingly most of the criticisms levelled against it. But this time, now, more than ever, there are so many urgent issues that should have been discussed, and sooner, rather than later.

I can therefore well understand the scepticism of many Singaporeans of our political process. Some Singaporeans tell me that the Government makes all the decisions. It is all done behind closed doors. They ask for feedback. We know they hear us, but do they listen enough? Sir, questions like these are perplexing to me. Yet, I was heartened yesterday to hear Mr Khaw Boon Wan tell the House that there was no lack of young Singaporeans, particularly those abroad, responding positively with feedback to the Economic Review Committee. And when I heard the President telling us last week that we need to open up more space for them to participate in the national debate, I know we have made some progress in the right direction. But I still ask myself why do most Singaporeans still feel this way about us, the Government and Parliament. Why do they feel left out of the political and decision making process? So I ask myself, are we missing something here? Maybe it is their failure to understand how we arrive at our decisions, whether in Parliament or in the Executive branch. Perhaps part of this failure to understand us lies in the way we do things.

I also find myself grappling further with questions like these: why are Singaporeans, particularly younger ones, cynical of our political process? How can we be more open with the way we arrive at our decisions, so that they can understand that policies are not made and rammed down their throats, but that every conceivable alternative and option would have been weighed and pondered over before the final decision is taken? Perhaps we are sometimes too efficient, or some may say, too business-like in the way we do things. After all, we dispose of our parliamentary work very expediently. We pass Bills very efficiently, sometimes hardly without any debate. There is nothing wrong with that, but maybe we should pause at times and fine-tune some of the things by incorporating many of the good suggestions made by MPs during debates. It is indeed a rare occasion in this House where a Minister accepts changes to be made to his Bill, except as one Minister once put it, "I guess I can live with the changes if they are just commas and full-stops." Or we may want to consider sending more Bills to Select Committees so that we can engage participation from the public. I think we may have overlooked this point in the last Parliament.

Sir, in the Seventh Parliament, we committed seven Bills, and in the Eighth Parliament, we committed nine Bills to Select Committees. But in the Ninth Parliament, only three Bills were sent to Select Committees. And I find myself asking further, having seen how GPCs have worked in this House: Has the GPC system proven so effective for the Government in that it allows the Backbenchers to thrash out issues with Ministers behind closed-doors? Has it been so effective to the extent that by the time the issues reach the floor of the House, much has been conveniently resolved, or as they say, the sting has been taken out, so much that the public perceives our Backbenchers to be either too understanding or amenable of the Government's position? After all, Sir, no matter how much we disagree, we always start off or end off our speeches by saying, "We support the Bill", even if we do not mean it.

Is this just a case of misperception on the part of the public? Is it the way the Government handles MPs' criticisms and proposals that leads the public to think that MPs are less effective than they would want them to be? Sir, there are MPs and MPs. Likewise, there are also Ministers and Ministers. Like MPs, Ministers too come in all shades. Some are more receptive than others. But I have seen on occasions how sometimes a Minister can, if I may put it in a gentle way, bristle at some of the criticisms levied against his policies. But parliamentary debate is all about cutting and thrusting at one another. Our Backbenchers have often been reminded to be responsible for what they say, and they must be prepared to face the rebuttals because Ministers will defend their policies robustly. That is correct. But Ministers too must accept that where criticisms are valid and where suggestions are good, they must be receptive enough to accept them and to give credit where credit is due.

Let me just give two examples. Sir, for many years, MPs have been arguing for compulsory education. In recent years, Mr Chiam See Tong, Mdm Claire Chiang, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, among others, made the plea. I have always found that their arguments were sound. But it was always difficult to convince the Minister and even his predecessors. Finally, we had a Committee on Compulsory Education to study the matter and we got the Act passed two years ago. In my mind, it was an issue, based on the merits that were expounded in the House, that should have been settled sooner rather than later.

Sir, last year, the Member for Kreta Ayer-Tanglin GRC (Kim Seng) asked for subsidised breast cancer screening for women. The now famous, or is it infamous, reply from the Minister was, "What's all the big fuss about? After all, the test costs less than the price of a hairdo." Well, some months passed and now his Ministry has announced that such subsidised tests will now be given.

Sir, there is nothing wrong with a turn-around of policy. MPs are merely reflecting the ground sentiment and the merits of their arguments may have belatedly dawned on the Ministers. But my grouse is that in such instances, and there are also other instances in the past, not a squeak of acknowledgement was given to the MPs who first raised the matter. And I think if we acknowledge that the suggestions did originate from the Backbenchers, it will go a long way to enhance their credibility as elected representatives.

This leads me to the subject of how we can encourage more active debate in the House. The People's Alternative Forum or so-called "Shadow Cabinet" was, in my opinion, a non-starter. Nobody really gave any credibility to the notion that the Government would want to structure its own Opposition. Anyway, what is a "Shadow Cabinet"? A shadow is something that does what I do. If I stand, it stands; if I sit, it sits; if I run, it runs. So now much buzz is given to the lifting of the Whip. MPs of the ruling party may ask for permission to vote freely on a case-by-case basis, except for some crucial areas. And the Whip will be lifted for all matters of conscience and selected issues. So what is new, Sir? I still have to get permission to disagree. Matters of conscience? It is a term which has never been clearly defined.

As if to show how generous we have been in lifting the Whip, we always take a kind of skewed pride in parading as an example, our lifting of the Whip during the debate on the Abortion Bill. But, Sir, that was 33 years ago! Since then, we have lifted the Whip only on two other occasions: in 1979 when we debated the revised structure of education; and in 1992 when there was a motion whether to accept NMPs or not. Even then, when Parliament debated whether to have NMPs again in 1997, the Whip was not lifted. So it is three times in 37 years!

Sir, this is not the first time we have asked MPs to speak up. When I first came to this House in 1976, it was already a one-party Parliament. So Backbenchers were told that we had to play the role of the Opposition and to reflect the coffee-shop talk. One MP told me that the call was similar to the words of Mao Zedong: "Let a thousand flowers bloom". But the MP also advised me that when flowers bloom, they get chopped.

Sir, towards the end of the 80s and the early 90s when we moved towards a more open and consultative Government, OB markers, as they are called, were then put in place, undefined as they were, to limit the discussion space. So I ask now, if we really mean it this time, if we want to ease up, why do we need to impose the Whip at all? After all, we have such an overwhelming majority in this House that it is inconceivable that the Government would ever be defeated in a vote. There is another reason why this suggestion, radical as it may sound to some, is "safe" for the Government. By and large, Sir, I have found that its arguments have been sound. It will take a lot for an MP to take a decision to vote against his own party very lightly. An MP who chalks up a record of consistently voting against his own party cannot in all conscience bring himself to face the electorate on his party platform, of which he has been so critical, the next time round. And if the Government should ever smell that there are just too many MPs disagreeing with whatever it intends to do, then there has to be something fundamentally wrong with the policy and it should go back to the drawing-board. We need only impose the Whip on crucial matters - money matters, motion of no-confidence, constitutional changes - and not lift it only when the Government Whip decides to do so.

Sir, I have now one last suggestion and how to curb the cynicism of Singaporeans about our decision-making process. On important issues, I feel that we should let Ministers state their individual views. I have often heard the remark, again from cynical Singaporeans, that on practically all issues, all Ministers share the same view. It was as if one person had singled-handedly orchestrated their response to anything. Now we all know that great minds do not necessarily think alike, at least not on everything and not all the time. Can we not allow Ministers to state their own views freely before the final decision is taken? And I think, Sir, we must find a workable formula for this, without compromising on the principle of collective responsibility and confidentiality in Cabinet because if we have good men in Cabinet, like Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Mr Raymond Lim, both of whom have up till now been respected by the public for their individualistic sound arguments, sometimes views which are against the establishment, they are men who, as the latest cliche goes, can think out of the box - but may I add that I hope the box will not be crushed - if we allow them to freely expound their views before decisions are taken, Singaporeans can only stand to benefit greatly by the diversity of views that they can bring and can then better understand how decisions are finally arrived at. [Applause.]

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President. I intend to take the former Speaker, Mr Tan Soo Khoon's suggestion to heart and state my individual views, crushed or not.

In his Address, the President saw the road ahead as one in which there must be greater civic and political engagement. I fully support that. I am convinced that the only way for us to succeed as a society is that we recognise that we are a community and not just a place with 3.2 million individuals. Our future is bound to one another.

However, all too often these days, we have Singaporeans who make demands on the Government as though they were impatient customers waiting for service in a crowded restaurant or rowdy spectators at a soccer game. Yet, I believe that for democratic government to be effective, people need to take their civic duties seriously. This means that we are more than just spectators or customers of the Government but we, as citizens of this country, have responsibilities not just to ourselves but to each other in the public sphere.

Sir, this was why I was heartened to hear the President declare that the Government is committed towards a stronger civic society. He said that this was necessary if we want to foster a spirit of enterprise and risk taking among Singaporeans. He is right. But equally as important, if not more, is that a vibrant civic society helps to deepen the emotional attachment that Singaporeans feel towards our country.

Some years ago, George Yeo argued that to develop the Singapore soul, we need to have a lively civic society. He quoted Edmund Burke who said that, ". to love that little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind."

I share this view. I believe that we should encourage self-organised communities. The active participation of Singaporeans in these communities can help our citizens develop a stronger sense of belonging to the larger Singapore community by forming strong bonds with their fellow citizens and participating in community life.

One way to facilitate this is for the Government to revamp the Societies Act. It has served us well. But the issue today is whether it is relevant for the sort of society we want in the future. We want to foster a greater spirit of community initiative and responsibility. My suggestion is that we empower our citizens to form societies, clubs and associations by changing the Act to one of self-registration. Somewhat akin to the airport customs regime, which is self-declaratory, there will be a green zone and a red zone. Those societies, which are not religious, race or foreign-linked, will be automatically registered upon declaration. That is the green zone. Those that are religious, race or foreign-linked, need to go through the red zone. This does not necessarily mean that they will be prohibited but that certain checks may be needed to be carried out.

If there is a false declaration, then those who are responsible for it will have to answer for it. This must be so. The greater the freedom, the greater the responsibility. Minimum regulation must entail maximum accountability. As George Bernard Shaw said, "Liberty means responsibility. That is why so many men dread it."

If these changes were effected in the Act, it would mark a significant step towards greater citizen engagement and empowerment.

In February this year, the Government launched the Remaking Singapore Committee. Its task was to relook the political, social and cultural aspect of Singapore. There has been a fair amount of cynicism since its launch. Its critics say that it is nothing more than a 2002 version of the 1990s Singapore 21 consultative process and the 1980s Agenda for Action advisory panels. They argue that the various "Beyond Cs" committees should go beyond talk to action.

I agree that some actionable outcomes are desirable. But I feel that civic participation should not be measured by its immediate results. Its value is not just whether there has been useful feedback to the Government or whether suggestions have been acted upon by the Government. These are important. But what is critical is that we recognise that it is only through active citizen involvement that our people learn about the realities and constraints of living in a modern, complex and plural society. Resources are finite, priorities will shift and trade-offs are inevitable. These political skills of negotiation and compromise that are necessary to ensure a healthy democracy can only be learned if we give not just politicians but all Singaporeans the opportunity to be involved in matters that affect our lives and our country.

I like to put my money where my mouth is. To my knowledge, Mr Steve Chia has not offered to serve in my subcommittee in the Remaking Singapore Committee. But now that I know he is keen, I am happy to invite him to serve in the focus group headed by Dr Warren Lee. I am doing this not because he is a politician, but because he is a fellow Singaporean.

If we do not do this, then two characteristics of civil life in Singapore will continue. One is that whenever there is a problem, Singaporeans have a tendency to turn to the Government to solve it or arbitrate. The other is that whenever there is a national issue, the debate often polarises itself into the Government versus the people. Instead of the public being "anti" a particular law or policy, it becomes "anti" the Government or the State. Yet, there are other parties interested in the outcome of the debate, but they are slow to speak up. Even if they do not agree with the others, a good number do not speak up as they expect the Government to resolve or manage the problem. We need a more textured, layered civic society rather than a flat sheet with occasional wrinkles that get reflexively straightened out.

Sir, the right to speak up is fundamental to an open society. However, this needs practice, or it will get rusty through neglect. Some have argued that this reluctance stems from fear of retribution. But if you look at the Forum pages of the newspapers each day and the columns written by local journalists, some are openly and fearlessly critical of Government policies. Obviously, the fear that there is a chance that they may be hit by a big stick has not stopped them from speaking their minds. I applaud these Singaporeans. Others should learn from them. As Franklin Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The Government has said that it is serious in wanting Singaporeans to speak up and be counted. We should take them at their word and hold them to it. The Government is ultimately ourselves and not an alien power over us. The choice thus really lies with us and no one else.

To seek assurances from the Government that we will only be treated with kid gloves is to be asked to be treated like political adolescents. If we say we are grown up and should have a say in matters that affect our future, then I think we should look things in the eye, exercise our rights and take things as they come. Public debate is seldom like a tea party where we politely discuss the cakes and drinks. The responses sometimes not just from the Government but others that disagree from us will be robust.

Let me give an example. In the PAP Convention in November last year, I argued that, to effectively govern the country, the PAP must widen the circle of political participation. A day after that, an irate Singaporean sent me an e-mail, attacking me personally and attributed what he sees as the contentiousness of the young to people like me who support the Prime Minister's policy of greater openness and consultation. I took this as par for the course in public life. It is far better to have a response even when it is unpleasant than to have no reaction at all. At least you know then that not everyone was asleep while you were speaking.

It should not be important to us whether we get a purr or roar from those who engage us. What is vital is that the Government and us - the citizens of this country - work together to nurture a political culture that not just tolerates but respects differing points of views. In such a culture, people will learn to appreciate that just as they have a right to their views, others do too and the eventual outcome may thus be different from what they desire.

A reporter asked me recently, that given this view of mine, how do I reconcile this with the Government's attacks on former Fateha chief, Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff. I told him there is nothing to reconcile. The problem with Zulfikar is not so much his opinions as his extremism. What is wrong with extremists is their intolerance. The danger is not what they say about their cause but what they say about their opponents.

Take the case of Zulkifli Baharudin, a former Nominated Member of this House. He told me that after he had spoken up against Zulfikar, he had to endure vicious personal attacks, not just on himself but members of his family, on the Fateha website. Zulkifli had the courage to speak up even though he knew he would be vilified. Many more I felt should have spoken up. For those who think that it is safer not to take sides, they will do well to note this - people who stay in the middle of the road, simply get run over.

We should never allow the extremists to set the agenda of our society. This is especially so when the extremists come garbed in religious or ethnic clothings. Ours is a young nation where the primordial pull of race, religion and culture remains potent. Potent enough to shatter the internal social cohesion that we currently enjoy. This is the reality.

Sir, what we need to balance the pull of religion, race and culture is a strong sense of who we are as a people. When we speak of a lively civic society as being vital towards developing a strong emotional attachment to Singapore, we need to ask what are we attached to. Exactly, who are we and what do we stand for?

As a young society, we have no deep roots or traditions. To maintain our cohesiveness as a society, we need to develop a national identity which all communities can relate to and which will guide our national life. This will serve to anchor Singaporeans to the country and ensure that our society is more resilient to the natural rifts that run in it. Singapore 21 and the 1988 Five Shared Values are attempts in this direction.

Perhaps we need to start at the basics and begin at the beginning, which is how Singapore, as we know it today, was born. Every nation has its point of origin and enshrines its birth pangs in a "myth of creation". This basic identity founded on consensus is critical to every society's sense of origin and pride in itself.

Why not make the Pledge do this? Yesterday, it was not surprising that when three naturalised citizens spoke in this House - Ms Irene Ng, Dr Amy Khor, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, and they were talking about core values that underpin Singapore - they used the language of the Pledge. I firmly believe that who we are and what we stand for as a people are well encapsulated by the Pledge. The Pledge was written at the time of our nation's birth. This gives it a special, haloed significance. It was the founding compact which our leaders and people made with destiny. A destiny which at that time was fraught with huge uncertainties. It was not clear then that the founding values of multi-racialism and meritocracy as enshrined in the Pledge would survive this fledging nation. We had to leave Malaysia because we rejected race-based politics. It brought out the best in us, in the worst of times.

Singapore 21 and the 1988 Five Shared Values do not quite have the same weight as the Pledge. They can help instead to inform the Pledge as guiding principles to realise these founding ideals of our nation at birth. Ours is a small house and we have a tendency at times to rearrange the furniture somewhat. But some things, such as the essence of what we are as a people, we should be very slow to change. The Pledge is our anthem in prose. We should not just get our young to recite it in mind numbing fashion. We should teach them its genesis, its significance and its meaning to us as a people. We should strongly encourage our children to give life to it, to live their lives by these founding ideals so that generations to come would understand when they put fist to heart what it means to be a Singaporean.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just as the Pledge was conceived at a time of immense turbulence, the challenges of the future, as the President said, are equally as formidable. That founding generation which led us from Third World to First was truly a gutsy, extraordinary and exceptional generation. My generation has the privilege and good fortune to stand on the shoulders of these giants. Our covenant to them and to the people of Singapore is that we will ensure that this improbable nation created by the indomitable will of these men and women, will continue not just to be a robust reality but a scintillating success. That is our mission. We intend to fulfil it.

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to join in the debate. I too would like to reiterate my support for the Motion of Thanks to the President at the Opening of the Tenth Parliament.

Sir, many hon. Members have spoken on the importance of a strong tripartite relationship and how tripartism can help us to ride out this period of economic difficulties. Others have spoken on the plight of the unemployed, especially older workers, and how difficult it is for them to find a job in this new environment of higher unemployment rate. Even those who are today employed are feeling an increasing sense of insecurity as competition chips away at their company's businesses.

Sir, this is a totally new situation, one which many Singaporeans may not have experienced in the past. If we look back, except for the brief periods between 1985 and 1987 and, again, in 1998 and 1999, when our economy went into recession, we have been able to enjoy steady economic growth for the past three decades or more. This translates into almost 30 years of very low unemployment, three decades during which jobs were plentiful for our school leavers, our polytechnic and our university graduates. It was one long period of tight labour market when the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Manpower had to entertain and had to try to satisfy the unending demand of employers for more and more workers. Today, it is different. And in fact, perhaps the long period of tight labour market had caused many Singaporeans to feel secure in the sense that a well-paying job can be had with minimum effort. It is almost a matter of right for graduates that well-paying jobs await them upon graduation, and that life is just one long beautiful spring.

Sir, as the President stated in his Address, the Asian financial crisis in 1997 followed by the economic tailspin of all the regional economies had altered the situation. That this took place during a period of globalisation with major changes and adjustments in the flow of trade and investments had added to the pressures on Singapore and the other regional players. China had entered the WTO last November and is already exerting an extraordinary pull on investments and shifting the balance of competition with its enormous market, manpower and other production resources. Singapore, with our very limited manpower resources, cannot hope to compete head on with such an economic juggernaut. We must prepare our workers for the inevitable restructuring if we are to recover and prosper again.

Sir, last September, I had the privilege of accompanying the President on his visit to China. Everywhere we went, we saw signs of change. In Xian, which I first visited in 1985, the old ramshackle building which housed the display of one of China's national treasures, the terracotta warriors, had been replaced by a modern museum, which would be the pride and joy of any city. Coastal cities, such as Xiamen, had become hives of economic activities, with world-class hotels and high-rise commercial buildings and industrial complexes. Shanghai's Pudong had risen out of the farmlands which I first saw in 1986. Shanghai itself had an almost palpable beat and dynamism. It is certainly going places.

Sir, the President visited one of their latest projects in Shanghai, an ultra-modern high-tech wafer fabrication plant. It was fully automated, with state-of-the-art production equipment. The manager told me that they had no difficulty recruiting engineers. Of course, wages are at a fraction of what engineers would be paid in Singapore. But what was more telling than the fact that they had an ample supply of ready and well-trained workers was that, within this wafer fabrication plant, there was in effect a lifelong learning institution. As we were shown around, we saw classrooms and lecture theatres, and there were workers and engineers who were off-duty, not working, but learning. Their employees within the wafer fabrication plant were able to sign up for a variety of skills upgrading and even professional courses. Employees were not just satisfied with landing a good job, but they were all aiming higher.

Sir, can we afford to be different? Can we afford to be complacent? As we set out to remake the Singapore economy, it is instructive for us to look around the region. Our workers must not feel complacent with the job skills that they have today. The rapid pace of technological changes will make these skills outdated very quickly. Those who are unemployed, face the challenge of acquiring new skills. They have to compete with younger and better-educated Singaporeans who are entering the job market by the thousands each year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is dedicated to upgrading the skills of our workers and enhancing their employability in the new economic environment. The going is tough. It will get tougher in the years ahead of us. Jobs and low unemployment cannot be taken for granted. We must learn to tackle the growing structural unemployment. Older workers must acquire new skills, so as not to end up in the ranks of the long-term unemployed. We already have programmes such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme, National Skills Recognition System, National IT Literacy Programme and others which are running at full speed. These programmes are focused on bringing the most vulnerable group of workers, ie, the older and the lower-skilled workers, up to the basic levels required for the new jobs. We will develop new programmes to reinforce those in place and also to reach out to more workers facing the threat of displacement as the economy changes gear.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to respond to the hon. Member Ms Irene Ng who yesterday spoke on the need for an Equal Opportunity Commission, and here I would like to say that I take to heart what the hon. Member Mr Tan Soo Khoon mentioned earlier about Ministers bristling at suggestions from the Backbench. I am certainly not bristling at the suggestion. I just want to take this opportunity to point out some pros and cons as we consider an Equal Opportunity Commission or such like.

First of all, I have to state that I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member that each Singaporean should have equal opportunities and be subjected to the same meritocratic process to recognise and to reward contributions to the economy. Sir, as the hon. Member noted, the principle of equality before the law is enshrined in our Constitution. The specific prohibitions of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth are stipulated in Article 12(2) of the Constitution.

While our employment laws do not have specific provisions against gender or other form of discrimination, equal opportunity and the principle of meritocracy are extensively practised. So do we need an Equal Opportunity Commission or Council? Sir, let me recount a previous experience on this issue. In 1999, we had a spate of complaints from members of the Singaporean public against discriminatory job advertisements. There were some advertisements specifying that the employers only wanted Chinese, or some race was specified, in these job advertisements. There were calls for a body similar to an Equal Opportunity Commission to ensure equality in recruitment.

My Ministry took the initiative to form a tripartite committee comprising representatives from the Singapore National Employers Federation, the NTUC and, of course, from my Ministry, to address the issue of discriminatory job advertisements. The committee was also asked to consider the desirability of introducing legislation to outlaw such practices. The committee had a careful study, many meetings were held, and they recommended that instead of resorting to anti-discriminatory laws, a promotional and educational approach be adopted. And, in line with this approach, the tripartite committee formulated a set of guidelines on non-discriminatory job advertisements to advise employers on how job advertisements should be presented using objective factors such as skills, qualifications, attributes and individual capabilities that are required for the job. With the support of the tripartite partners and the major newspaper publishers, the incidence of discriminatory job advertisements has been drastically reduced from more than 30% of the job advertisements carried in the newspapers in 1999 to less than 1% today. The recalcitrant minority is being tackled individually as and when the advertisements appear.

Sir, experience in other countries has shown that legislation on equal opportunities may not have achieved the objective of eliminating discrimination in employment. What had happened was that such legislation gave rise to labour market rigidities and undermined efforts on employment creation. It is true that in the United States, legislation had brought about a large number of discrimination claims. But a great majority could not be substantiated, and many ended up without a solution. Sir, based on the report of the US' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the year 2000, a total of 96,000 allegations or claims of discriminations of all sorts in employment was received, of which, 16,008 or 20% were related to discrimination on the ground of age. Of the 16,008 age-discrimination claims, 8.2% were deemed to have reasonable cause, some of which resulted in successful conciliation. Only 34 cases or 0.2% justified the Commission pursuing direct suits or jointly filing law suits with complainants.

Sir, this would suggest that legislation only deals with a very, very small proportion of the total claims, whereas conciliation or mediation was far more effective and could result in mutually satisfactory solutions in many more cases. Sir, this is in fact the strategy that we have adopted. We have and will continue to offer a conciliation service for workers who feel that their grievances have not been fairly dealt with, or that they have, in some way or other, been discriminated at their workplace.

Sir, the major disadvantage of a legislative approach is a change in the workplace culture. It creates a mood for employment disputes to be tackled through litigation, instead of being resolved between the parties concerned. Such a situation would be harmful to our harmonious labour relations climate, which is built on the basis that employment disputes should be amicably resolved through consultation and conciliation, with the intervention of the trade unions and the Ministry of Manpower, if necessary.

Sir, the hon. Member felt that we are unnecessarily worried by labour market rigidities, if an Equal Opportunity Commission is created. In the UK, it has been shown that providing special protection to older workers through legislation could, in fact, reinforce societal and employers' perception that older workers are less receptive to training and upgrading, less productive and more inflexible to changes and, hence, needed legal protection. So, instead of helping older workers, such legislation may well have given older workers an unfair branding. Likewise, having laws to compel employers to employ on the basis of gender distribution could create even more difficulties for us. Here, I am reminded that many production operators in our electronic factories are women. Is this an instance of discrimination against men, or is it because employers find more women willing and suited for the particular jobs available? Should we be insisting that these employers employ more men for such jobs?

Sir, the negative effects of protective employment legislation were highlighted in a comprehensive OECD study in 1994 and validated in a subsequent study in 1999. These studies revealed that rigid and over-protective labour legislation undermined the efficient functioning of the labour market, stifled entrepreneurship and hindered job creation. Hence, we must learn from the experience of these countries and avoid these pitfalls. As more and more investments are drawn to China and elsewhere, should we be introducing more legislation to disadvantage ourselves?

Sir, the hon. Member has also made the observation that more women are facing unemployment. This was based on the Census 2000 survey. We should look at this in proper perspective. In fact, the latest labour force survey in December 2001 showed that female unemployment rate, non-seasonally adjusted, was 5.3%, while that for men was 5.8%. I understand that over the past few years the trend actually has been that the unemployment rate is slightly higher for men than for women.

Sir, I am not suggesting that there is no concern or that there is no need for us to be concerned about more women being unemployed. In fact, I am concerned, because most of the retrenchments in the last two years or so came from the manufacturing industries, and the worst hit was, of course, the electronics industry. And here, in the electronics industry, you find many more women workers. Hence, it is also not surprising to see many more women being retrenched during this downturn. But this has nothing to do with gender or with discrimination. It is a reflection of the labour market development and the change in economic circumstances.

Sir, with regard to wages, the hon. Member mentioned that women, on the average, earn only 78% of men's wages. It is true that, in aggregate terms, women's wages are generally lower than men's. But this is because more women, especially in the older age group, are holding lower paid jobs due to their lower qualifications and skills as compared to their male counterparts. Another reason is that, in fact, many women leave the labour force after marriage and birth of children. Hence, in aggregate terms, women in the workforce have a shorter working experience. With our seniority-based wage system, it is not surprising that, in aggregate terms, women also earn lower wages.

If we look at the younger age group of 25-29, the wage difference between women and men is almost insignificant. Hence, young female professionals and managers have comparable gross wages to their male counterparts. The difference here is only an insignificant 2%. In the case of sales and service workers, young females earn 8% more than their male counterparts. So we cannot conclude, on the basis of the figures shown in Census 2000, that women had been discriminated somehow and ended up earning lower wages than men.

Sir, more and more women are receiving better and higher education, and more and more are also opting to remain in the workforce after marriage. Women are also moving up the occupational ladder and increasingly holding higher level jobs. So we can expect this gap at the aggregate level to narrow in the future. I would not rule out the possibility of an Equal Opportunity Commission sometime in the future. Nothing remains static. The environment will change. The circumstances may change. But I am just asking for us to consider whether we should be introducing such a mechanism at this moment. Is this best suited for us as we reinvent our economy? Is it the mechanism which will help us to regain our competitiveness and that it will help us to enter new areas or carve out new niches for ourselves in this much more competitive globalised economy?

I would suggest that we should be careful about introducing such an institution or concept at this juncture. Let us use our existing dispute settlement mechanism. We have them in my Ministry - dispute settlement mechanism to deal with unionised workers and mechanism to deal with individual workers who are not unionised. We should also take advantage of our strong tripartite relationship to continue to address any instances of discriminatory practices and if there are, in fact, cases of discrimination, we are able to use mediation and conciliation to help the workers to overcome the difficulties. This is what we should continue to do. What is more important, at this juncture, as we set out to reinvent our economy, is to get economic growth going, bring in more investments, create more good and secure jobs for our people. If we succeed to do that, then we have employment opportunities for all Singaporeans, men or women.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.45 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, may I make a point of clarification. I feel that some of my points were not interpreted correctly earlier. When I advocated equal opportunity laws, I made it clear that I was actually advocating mediation and not a legalistic approach. In fact, I stated that I was not advocating that the legal whip be brandished at every point. I would think that the fact that only 0.2% of the cases in the US resulted ---

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng, can you please make your clarification short and not make another speech?

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Another clarification I wish to make is that I did not also advocate laws where employers are compelled to employ on the basis of gender distribution. That would be against the ethos of meritocracy, and I did not advocate that. But what I did advocate was a level playing field for women.

I am also heartened by the assurances of the Manpower Minister ---

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng, could you please make your clarification short?

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: These are my two clarifications,

Sir.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues in this House in rising to thank the President for his Address at the Opening of this Parliament.

Sir, having been in Parliament since 1984, I feel privileged to have been intimately involved in the transformation of Singapore for the last 18 years, both economically as well as culturally and socially. Over the years, many committees were formed to remake Singapore in varying degrees. And over the years, we have shown that we were able to plan ahead and change to better our economic prospects and improve the lives of our citizens despite being just a "tiny red dot" in an ocean of much political and economic uncertainty.

Sir, we are once again at the crossroads to remake Singapore - in all respects so that we can ensure that the success that is Singapore today will continue for our children and many generations to come. It is inevitable that if we are to continue to succeed and prosper, we will have to make changes to our policies and even to our way of governing Singapore. Change is necessary and desirable in so far as it allows for progress and improvement in this increasingly complex global economic environment. I am therefore in full support of this national exercise involving many communities and many younger Singaporeans to redefine our goals and priorities and remake Singapore.

Sir, I am of the view that this exercise is of paramount importance, and that we should not rush to complete it. By all means, take time to debate and build up consensus among Singaporeans on what we want Singapore to be and how to get there.

However, I would like to add a word of caution to my younger colleagues and fellow citizens involved in this project to remake Singapore. Whilst we should indeed revisit some "sacred cows", which may no longer be relevant in this day and age, we should not throw out the "baby with the bath water". There is a need to recognise certain core values and tenets of our success, and ensure that in our attempts to redefine our goals and priorities, we do not abandon and lose our heartbeat for what is good and fundamental to our society as Singaporeans.

Of immediate relevance in the post September 11 world would be the precarious hallmark of racial integration and harmony that we have built up over the years. Whilst there is a need to liberalise and enable greater diversity in ideas and culture to flourish here and to stimulate creativity, this should never be at the expense of damaging the bonds built up over the years between our different ethnic and religious groups.

Sir, one need not look very far to be inundated with media reports on the daily human tragedy in the Middle East, in India, in the Balkans and amongst some regions in our neighbouring countries on the cost of racial and religious intolerance and conflicts. We have to continue to ensure that in remaking Singapore, avenues to foster better relations and build closer bonds remain a basic building block of our society.

Likewise, we have to ensure that Singaporeans as a whole continue to progress, so that no one group is left behind. Our traditional building blocks of family and community should continue to have a relevant role to play in the future. For example, in order to avoid the hardship and problems that large disparities in income have caused in many other countries, we must remember that our success will continue only if the successful continue to contribute back to society and the community. The more successful must continue to help the less fortunate in our society.

Sir, going forward, although different Singaporeans may follow the beat to different drums, the general direction for all Singaporeans must be one of improvement in the quality of life for everyone, such that no one group is left behind. Indeed, in facilitating the next stage of promoting economic opportunity and growth, our core Singaporean values of diligence, meritocracy, honesty and integrity, have to be blended with more risk taking and creativity, so that the Singapore brand is preserved and enhanced, and not abandoned. I hope our Economic Review Committee and the Committee looking into Remaking Singapore will bear this in mind.

Sir, to me, remaking Singapore is not just about economic growth and material success. To be successful as a country, we have to develop a heart and a soul. Our cultural attitudes and mindsets ought to be less focussed on material success measured by the number of 'As' we get in school, or the number of 'Cs' one owns. There is a need to be more flexible, less structured in our expectations of ourselves and of our children, in terms of where they should be at what age. Different individuals of different talents and capabilities will progress down different paths. We should enable them to be the best that they can be, without the social stigma associated with banding, streaming in schools, jobs, etc, putting a lid on budding talent.

I am sure many of my colleagues in this House will agree with me that "ITE" cannot be "It's the End". Those of you who have seen the popular local movies "I Not Stupid" and "Money Not Enough" will agree with me that they clearly show that the average Singaporeans struggling to earn a living or raising a family can themselves be capable and creative. They can achieve far beyond what our society judges them by the number of 'As' they have or have not, or the number of 'Cs' that they have or have not collected along the way in life. To get there, our society has to be warm, forgiving and nurturing, rather than judgmental, cold and just plain competitive. We need to imbue passion and compassion into our way of living. This reminds me of another local movie production, "Chicken Rice Wars", where it shows that passion and compassion unites the community, the family and even couples.

Sir, in this exercise to remake Singapore, I suggest we seriously look into collectively changing our attitude towards a group of Singaporeans, often called the underdog, and they are not small in number. They are the slow developers, the under-performers and the less fortunate in our society. We need to help them. We have to show greater sympathy and compassion in helping to solve their problems.

Sir, our experience as Members of Parliament tells us that it is very difficult for Singaporeans who are ex-prisoners, ex-drug abusers or any person convicted of an offence and having to spend some time in jail, to seek re-employment or be integrated back into society. All the efforts to rehabilitate these individuals will fall flat if our society cannot accept them back. We need to be more forgiving to these people. Perhaps Government departments should take the lead on some of these efforts of reintegration by consciously giving them employment as well as relaxing the rules and regulations governing the issue of permits or licences to these people.

Similarly, for bankrupts, it is a real social stigma in Singapore today to be a bankrupt. It is associated with failure. Genuine attempts by individuals resulting in failure have to be recognised and accepted by society, if we are to progress to be a more entrepreneurial and enterprising nation. I therefore propose that the Government reviews all relevant policies, rules and procedures with a view to make it easier for this group of Singaporeans to be accepted back in society.

Similarly, Sir, there is another group of Singaporeans who require help and I am referring to those who want to marry foreigners or work permit holders. Many have no choice. They have neither proper education nor 'As' or 'Cs' in their lives. They cannot find Singaporean wives. They have a genuine desire to love someone, play their role as filial sons or daughters, set up a family and do their part for the community. We should encourage them, instead of denying them to get married. I propose that the Government reviews its policy on contract marriages, and suggest that civil servants show more compassion and make it easier for this group of Singaporeans to marry foreigners.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the measure of our success as a nation hence is not just about being able to navigate the rough seas and unpredictable tides that we will face with the new skills and technology acquired, or new attitudes and perspectives. It will also be determined by how well we stand together as one nation, with full confidence and trust in each other, so that we can respond with unity and quickly to any crisis that may befall us, just like before. The more successful must help the less successful. We should give the slow developers and the underdog a chance to catch up. We must provide them the opportunities to try and encourage them to succeed. We need to imbue greater passion and compassion in our way of life. A less materialistic outlook and a more forgiving culture would contribute to mutual trust and building bonds. These values, to me, are pre-requisites for any attempt to remake Singapore successfully. I am confident that Singaporeans have the will, and will find the way to succeed again!

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lim Boon Heng): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is my sixth term in Parliament. So I am hardly one who is expected to contribute to the remaking of Parliament, nor one to tell our civil servants how they should change. After all, civil servants merely carry out Government policies that we approve in this House.

Sir, today, I rise to raise some questions I hope that new Members of this House will help to answer during this debate or in the Budget session to come. I fully agree with Mr Zainudin Nordin, Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh, when he said yesterday that the top issue on the minds of people today is jobs. Retrenchment hangs like a heavy dark cloud although there is a silver lining. But what is in the nature of retrenchments that we have seen? There are companies that retrench because they are doing poorly in the depths of the business cycle. They lose money and cannot afford to bleed further. When these employers retrench, their employees understand.

Next, there are companies that relocate because the cost of doing business here is higher than in other locations. These companies may still be profitable but see declining profits. They act to stay competitive before it is too late. Again, most of their employees understand. Their leaders have seen the competition elsewhere, such as in China.

Thirdly, there are companies that consolidate after mergers or acquisitions, and they have to let off redundant workers. Yet, again, union leaders understand. Those who hold their jobs are relieved, but those who lost theirs leave with great apprehension, as the job market is very poor. The retrenched hope that the severance benefits that they get would be fair, and enough to tide them over during the period of unemployment, possibly a long one.

Fourthly, there are companies that retrench, even as they are profitable. In the current situation, most have seen profits decline. They ask employees to take pay cuts, otherwise the numbers they will retrench will be higher. Are they doing so just because profits have declined? Sadly, observing what is being done elsewhere, particularly in the United States, we will see more and more companies laying off large numbers of workers, even if profits have not declined.

Why? This is the age of "shareholder value". Shareholders expect not only good dividends, but also high share prices. This puts management under great pressure to deliver. Increasingly, the managers are also paid in stock options, and so their interests are more closely aligned with the shareholders. My colleagues in the unions called this "unbridled greed". The management work hard, restructure, make use of technology to produce more, with less people, at lower costs.

In the 1980s, we held up employers who did not retrench as model employers. They were Japanese companies (in Japan) and the best of American employers, like IBM or Hewlett Packard. IBM and Hewlett Packard proudly said that they would never retrench, as they value their employees as their greatest asset.

But the pace of change quickens, product life cycles become shorter. So, companies found that keeping excess workers on the payroll eat up the financial resources of companies. Some succumbed. Others were brought to the brink of failure, for example, IBM or Nissan. They had to give up their principle of not retrenching.

Today, companies retrench as they strive to stay profitable, or meet return on equity benchmarks, or EVA standards. If they do not, they could be dragged down, and sink. Managers with stock options see the value of their options fall.

Can we fight this trend? Look at Europe. Western Europeans have a different philosophy. They are more egalitarian, feel that the community should carry the less fortunate. So their laws make it difficult for companies to retrench. They pay high taxes and social security contributions. But when Western European companies have to compete in the world market against companies operating in a free market environment, they have to react. So companies stop hiring full time workers. There are more part-timers. But the greater problem is: they shift operations overseas. So there is high unemployment. What survive are high value-added activities and domestic services. For example, Germany has 4 million unemployed but are short of skilled workers for high value-added work. A paradox - shortage of skilled workers when 4 million are unemployed. And they are trying to amend their laws to allow more foreign skilled workers to enter Germany. Germany's example is a warning to us.

In global competition, no country can fight this trend when there are other countries willing to be more flexible, or are hungrier. Companies in Singapore are reacting to this new competitive environment. For example, our banks may be profitable, but if they are to be competitive, they have to lower expense ratios, use technology, and eliminate many jobs.

The Asian financial crisis and the global downturn hit our workers hard. More were retrenched because of restructuring. Many of those who were retrenched still think the jobs will come back when the recovery comes. They won't. This time round it is not just the rank-and-file workers who are affected, but also the professionals and executives. Almost 40% of the retrenched were professionals and executives. It has been a painful adjustment for those who found new jobs. They took big pay cuts. Part of the problem is our seniority-based wage system. So my question is: Should we move to rate for the job? That does not guarantee there will be no retrenchments. But it gives older workers an even chance with younger workers in competition for jobs. If our new Members of Parliament were working for the unions, what would they do? And what about now, since restructuring the wage system cannot be done overnight. What should we do? Lower the cost of employing older workers? Should we cut the employers' contribution to CPF for older workers? If you are advocating this course of action, how would you explain it to the rank-and-file workers and also to the professionals and executives who have to find re-employment?

About 100,000 workers are unemployed. The CDCs all have job-matching services. So I believe most MPs now have an idea of the problem of matching people with jobs. There are jobs that go a-begging. The shipyards are enjoying a mini-boom just now. They have been taking in workers and recently wanted 5,000 more. I am told they managed to recruit 300, but I am not sure how many of these will stay on the job. Jobs in our shipyards are not unskilled jobs. They are skilled jobs. Yet, many foreign workers come here unskilled. They leave well-trained, and much sought after. When they leave, they join shipyards elsewhere competing with ours. How can we convince more Singaporeans to take up those jobs?

Our shipyards have done well over the years. Why? Because our shipyards were set up in the 60s and 70s, and we placed some of our top local talents in those jobs, learning the ropes from foreign expatriates. And because of these top local talents, the shipyard industry, which is a very competitive one, has survived and still earns good money. So will there be younger and able Singaporeans, and some of our best, entering this industry? Or are we going to see the old breed die out, and the shipyards closed, and the foreign workers leave when they do?

Then there are other jobs, paying $800 to $1,200 per month. But there are few takers. Why? The job applicants say that the wages are too low. So the employers appeal for more foreign workers. To many workers from surrounding countries, such wages mean comfortable middle-class living for their families. For Singaporeans, it is a tough low-income life. What should we do? Compete on wages? How can we do that when many workers in countries near us would be quite happy to get a job paying about S$100?

The solution lies in attracting higher value-added industries here - knowledge-based industries. To start, we need a critical mass of skilled manpower. We do not have enough from our population pool. So we recruit foreigners. But then, some Members say that it makes Singaporeans feel second-class in their own homes. So, the question to new Members is: How do we build up a knowledge-based industry if we cannot persuade Singaporeans to welcome foreign skilled workers for the start-up phase, at least? With respect to Mr Inderjit Singh's comment about investments in biopolis, he advocated that instead of spending that kind of money, we should invest elsewhere. My point to him is: If we do that, where are the jobs for Singaporeans? We are doing so not because we do not want a good return on our money. We want to do so against the odds, because we want to create higher value-added jobs that pay well for Singaporeans, and we have succeeded in specific areas, and well known in the world as leading best in the field.

And we must remember that with all these new industries that we try to bring in, there will be low-skilled jobs that are created. For example, in precision engineering, about one-third of the jobs will be low-skilled ones and suitable alternative jobs for the workers that are now retrenched.

Sir, unless we can persuade Singaporeans of the need to absorb foreign skilled workers, the solution to employment for our low-skilled workers is to return to developing country status.

Next, I turn to an often discussed topic. We have one of the highest saving rates in the world, and yet many do not have enough cash for retirement. Why? Is there too much invested in property? Today, every young person expects to get a new HDB flat after he or she starts working. It is not just young couples who are getting married, but increasingly the singles too, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar, Indranee Rajah, so eloquently argued on Monday. I believe this is unique in this world. Are we not already over-housed?

I, too, conduct meet-the-people sessions like all other MPs. I get my share of heart-tugging cases. One woman came to see me because her electricity supply was disconnected. Why? She owed Power Supply more than $3,300. Her husband died more than two years ago. With no income, she had not been paying her utility bills. Furthermore, she is staying with a retarded son. I asked another of her sons who accompanied her, who supports her household. He said the siblings do, but because each one has his or her own family to look after, they can only contribute a little each. What is the solution? An MP's letter may bring respite. Power Supply may agree to reconnect. But after a few months, when the bills continue to be unpaid, they will disconnect again. Do I write another letter?

Is this not a problem of over-housing? Should this woman not be staying with one of her other sons, so that household expenses can be kept down? There is a life-cycle - what happens to old flats when their parents go to the next world? Can all young Singaporeans, married or single, expect to buy a new HDB flat indefinitely? Are we prepared to face up to this truth and have our expectations move in line with those of the young people in other countries where the purchase of a property, not necessarily a new one, is the norm? So what should we do? Apportion more of the CPF into the Special Account so that there is less spending on housing and more savings for retirement? So I would like some views from the new Members of Parliament on this important issue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am an old Member of this House. I am no revolutionary. The problems before us are big ones. My purpose is merely to highlight some unpalatable truths.

On this note, Sir, I support the motion which I must, because we have proved it in Cabinet.