PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS (Debate on the Address)

Debate resumed.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the cases are not properly handled and in Members' view an exception should be made or the rule should be changed, raise it with the Parliamentary Secretary, raise it with the Minister and it will be seen to. We all take meet-the-people session (MPS) cases, we have seen hundreds and thousands of them. Not all the MPS cases can succeed. If somebody has a traffic offence, he will come to you and say, "Please, can you waive the demerit points?" If we waive all the demerit points, we would be in a state of anarchy, "bo cheng hu". So not all the cases can succeed but, if you are a conscientious MP, you will know that some cases deserve special effort. And if there is a special case, it is your duty to take it up. If you cannot get joy from the Parliamentary Secretary, you raise with the Minister. If the Minister cannot solve it, then the MPs can raise with me or the PM. Everybody knows that PM is a very gentle man, and I try my best not to bristle. So I think the matter can be resolved.

The civil servants have to listen with their hearts but, actually, it is the duty of the political leaders to listen with their hearts and also to think with their heads and then, when you set policies, set the right policies which will achieve the best results for Singapore. That is how the system is supposed to work.

We have done well for many years because we have always looked beyond our immediate problems to anticipate problems and events which are over the horizon. I just give you a few stray examples.

Water tariffs. We started revising them up in 1997. We did it over three or four years. Now they are at a level where it is viable for us to develop NEWater as an alternative additional source of water. That is critical.

Financial services. We liberalised it in 1997, just before the Asian financial crisis. There we should have foreseen things a little earlier, but we were in time, and just in time to get ourselves repositioned. So there is still a basis for Singapore to be a financial centre now, despite the difficulties of the countries around us. Had we not moved in 1997, I think we would be in deep difficulties today.

GST, in 1994, which enabled us to reduce direct taxes over the years and kept us competitive, enabled us to reach here and to think of the next step of the restructuring of our tax system.

And political self-renewal, done over many years, which has brought us this new Parliament, not just the latest batch of MPs but the successive batches of MPs - fresh voices, fresh ideas, representatives of the population in tune with the mood ready to bring Singapore ahead.

What can we expect if we look ahead? Slower growth, less equal distribution of income, more structural unemployment. Mr Low Thia Khiang highlighted these words of the President and they are on the cards. Our policies cannot prevent these trends from happening because these are global trends which will carry us along. But our policies can mitigate these trends. If we do the right things, we can be competitive, we will attract investments, we will create jobs, we will enable people to earn their own living, far more than any Government hongbaos or generosity. That is why we have got to make the strategic choices now. The changes are uncomfortable and unsettling, yes, but if we make the changes now, if we accept the discomfort and the pain, if we find ways to minimise the difficulties and implement what we need to do, then we will give ourselves the best chance of succeeding as a nation in the uncertain times ahead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. 4.02 pm

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address, the President has outlined the challenges for Singapore and the steps we need going forward in this era of a globalised economy. I would like to echo his call and to specially mention three areas that are worth our further deliberations. They are:

(1) The inevitable outcome of globalisation in widening the income gap, thereby increasing the societal divide;

(2) The redesigning of the education system in Singapore; and

(3) The revamping of the healthcare scene in the globalised economy.

On my first topic, Sir, Singapore families are earning more than a decade ago but the 2000 Census data shows that the divide between the richest and the very poor has widened. During the last year, the top 20% of households had an average income 21 times that for the lowest 20%. This trend is going to stay and the divide is going to broaden further in the next 10 to 20 years. This is inevitable with the change when we are striving towards an entrepreneurial and innovative society in the face of a globalised world.

That this is a concern was reflected in what the President said, and I quote, "our income distribution will stretch", and "as we upgrade our economy, we must maintain and strengthen our social cohesion". The fear from this divide is the disruption of the stability and very fabric of our society. The social and political implications will be great. Sir, my concerns are especially for those low income earners who will be further marginalised due to their low education and significant structural unemployment.

There is an urgent need for efforts to maintain social cohesion as globalisation pulls the wages of top earners up while pressing those of the least well-off down. What can be done? The assistance for the lowest strata of the society that are existing from our Government must be re-looked to see if they are adequate to keep up with this present widening income strength.

There is a need to review our various schemes on a more regular basis. Especially as Mr Lee just said earlier that there may be a rise in indirect taxes that will have impact on lower income groups. Sir, the PAP won a strong mandate from Singaporeans because the PAP has a tremendous record for being able to deliver on its promises to the people. Today, I would like to ask on behalf of Singaporeans that the PAP Government not only make good the promises it has made in the last GE, but also make it at a speedier pace. This is especially so where there is much sufferance incurred on the needy, the retrenched and on the children of families with difficulties.

As DPM Tony Tan has said, "The job of MPs is to attend not just the big picture, but also these personal concerns of their constituents". Sir, whilst all MPs should contribute towards remaking our future, they must also have a hand on forging a new social impact. Therefore, more schemes involving MPs should be put in place in the delivery of help and care to the residents.

My second topic, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. In the past few years, education in Singapore had undergone changes to provide for flexibility and innovations to enhance national economic competitiveness in the global economy. The President has said, and I quote, "We should inculcate in the young a more inquiring and adventurous spirit, and encourage them to think up new ideas and create new opportunities". Sir, I agree with the President and I would like to add that such inculcation in our young must be started early, when they are still in school, to have greatest impact. Whilst I applaud the Government for redesigning our education system to one where, among other things, creativity is highly encouraged, one cannot help but wonder how this can be achieved if our students are under constant stress. Surely this will have a negative impact on and can potentially stifle the development of creativity and innovation in our students. Although we have an internationally recognised education system, we have unfortunately developed a reputation for having a stressful education system. Children complain that they have little time for play because they are burdened with plenty of homework and studying for assessments and examinations, besides having to participate in extra-curricular activities and going for tuition or enrichment programmes.

A study by Dr Stella Quah of the National University of Singapore on the Singapore Family revealed that the greatest worry for about 45% of them came from the problems associated with their children's education. In 1998, 2,358 new cases of children aged below 18 were registered at Government's psychiatric clinics. In almost 95% of the cases, the children were not mad. Sir, they were just stressed out. Half of these cases were children from primary schools, 35% from secondary schools and 15% were pre-schoolers. Parents have been blamed for the stress in children. If this is so, then it is time to also look into the causal factors in parents and address them accordingly. We need to re-look at heavy syllabus with too much homework and stress, ranking of schools, streaming and varsity-entry criteria and so on.

Sir, the stress of education is real for students. The Government has recognised that innovative skills and creativity are important. But its push to promote innovative skills and creativity in children may be jeopardised by the amount of maximum curricula in the name of maximising each child's potential. Sir, how do we transit into the new way? Are there existing policies that in fact impede this transition?

Concerning my last topic, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the development of Singapore into the Medical Hub of the region and turning Singapore into the Mayo Clinic of Southeast Asia.

I am glad that recently, Government leaders have said that Singapore's economy can be revamped by promoting it as a regional hub for services like healthcare, education and tourism. Sir, it is possible to develop Singapore into the Mayo Clinic of Southeast Asia if we put our minds to it. The Mayo Clinic in the United States is one of the top medical centres in the world, giving comprehensive treatment for virtually any disease. I would like to discuss the ways towards this path.

Shortage of doctors and medical personnel is a limiting factor and I feel the way to overcome it now is to maximise the pool we have at the moment. Training new ones will take time, but this is not to say we need not start training more new ones right now. Maximisation of our present pool of doctors has to come from the integration of the public and private sectors. We need to treat both sectors as one entity and tap their potential fully so as to become the regional medical hub we aspire. We can call upon the many private specialists to contribute more. They can return to work in the public hospitals and many of them can even go into research work. We must train more medical personnel to cater for the increased demands. We need to enhance development of clinical education and research. These are but a few aspects that have to be seen to quickly or we may lose the cutting edge we have against our neighbouring countries that have started going in this area.

In the past, the case against our becoming a medical hub was the fear that the healthcare costs will rise further for the locals and that the country could see another exodus of top specialists into the private sector. Sir, a mindset change is required here. As a medical hub, we may not face a rise in healthcare costs for local patients. This is because full-paying foreign patients may even be a source of subsidy, apart from giving spin-off effects for our other services by having more visitors to Singapore. Moreover, we can always have mechanisms put in place so as to limit the amount of public sector resources that can be used for foreign patients and to cause all doctors who want part of the foreign pie to contribute some of their time in treating our local subsidised patients.

Sir, as long as quality and priority healthcare services are provided for in our public hospitals to Singaporeans, as Mr Lee said earlier, good basic medical care for all, provision of healthcare services to foreigners should be seen as a new strategy for us to move to the next level in the new economy. A visiting Harvard don said that Singapore has a clear edge in the consulting, engineering and healthcare industries in Asia. Sir, he said that there are tremendous needs in the region for healthcare services and the industry can be much bigger than IT.

There is a need for increased collaboration between private hospitals and private entities to promote Singapore as a medical hub. Under present circumstances, such schemes should not be undertaken by the public hospitals as this will further tax their resources and may also cause misunderstanding in perceived differential treatment to patients. Promoting its services overseas can be done through and with the Singapore Tourism Board and tour agencies with innovations that combine healthcare services as part of tourism promotion. Having packages in insurance products that can be sold in the region resulting in people coming to Singapore for medical check-ups every year and having their travel, hotel and even shopping needs being looked after as well. The spin-off effect of being a regional medical hub will be big for other services, such as hotel, retail, convention industries and so on.

Sir, in this new economy, Singapore must reinvent itself to achieve greater success in the future and the above considerations should be part of this process. 4.30 pm

Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua's motion of thanks.

Coincidentally, there are four medical doctors, including myself, speaking today. Allow me to present my diagnosis of what ails the ground. It is however by no means a contradictory second opinion from my previously spoken medical colleagues. It will be difficult to speak after DPM Lee, as he has addressed many of my concerns that I would be listing. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me deliver my concerns.

The President, in his Speech at the Opening of the Tenth Parliament, has charged this House with the responsibility of seeing Singapore through severe challenges. The President's Speech struck in me a disturbing thought. I realise that Singaporeans of my generation have grown up with the world view that if we work hard and gain good qualifications, we will be guaranteed a secure future. We took for granted that Singapore will continue to enjoy rapid growth, while issues of racial and religious harmony were never in our conscience. But things have changed.

Two recessions in the last five years have shown us that good qualifications, extensive experience and hard work do not guarantee continued employment. The new reality is that Singapore is plugged into the global economy. A ripple elsewhere can turn into a tidal wave for us. In the past, we could ride out these waves because our ship of state was better equipped, our people better trained and, while others floundered, we sailed through. But now everyone has a comparable ship of state. Everyone is investing in and upgrading their human capital. Everyone is vying for the same talents which today, more than ever, is globally mobile. I shall now stop this maritime simile in case the House may think that I am all at sea.

There are indeed very severe challenges facing Singapore. We are in the midst of an unprecedented storm. Unemployment has reached a high of 5%, and this situation is likely to get worse before it does get any better. Hence, the resounding victory of the last General Election is by no means an absolute support for all the PAP Government policies. In fact, there is some disquiet that is reverberating across Singapore over some issues, causing Singaporeans to think whether they are second class citizens.

Allow me to just highlight briefly some of these issues. At the meet-the-people sessions, the number of financial assistance cases, as a result of job losses, has increased manifold. It is heart wrenching to see a grown up man of 50 years old asking for help to pay his son's school fees of about $300, amidst the fact that he has mounting rental and utilities arrears. Here is a hale and hearty man asking for help because he is jobless. What more the numerous elderly citizens out there in the society? Here is a man who is antithesis to our perennial fear of Singapore lapsing into a welfare state if we give handouts. He wants to work, yet cannot find one, maybe through no fault of his, and he and his family suffer for it. This is a common sight at the meet-the-people sessions, and I am sure it is also a common sight with many of my parliamentary colleagues in their meet-the-people sessions as well.

Sir, we might therefore need to review our many-helping-hands policy towards the needy. The current economic crisis affects almost every layer of Singapore. It is not discriminative. Presently, the State intervenes only after exhausting the needy person's immediate next-of-kin, ie, his siblings and the extended family. Many themselves are facing critical difficulties in times like this. I urge the Government to consider how we may increase our assistance to the needy, which need not lapse into welfarism.

Next, there is no denying that foreign talents have contributed to Singapore. However, what we have gained from the new foreign talents, we have lost many of our own local talents who have migrated overseas in search of greener pastures. I am however apprehensive to the long-term effects to Singapore of the loss of Singapore's sons overseas.

Sir, I am not saying chase out the foreigners. Rather, while we have the added contributions of foreign talents, are we doing enough to prevent a local brain drain? Are we doing enough to boost the morale of local talent and prevent them from slipping into thinking that they are not wanted and they are second class talents? Are we doing enough to increase the competitiveness of Singaporeans in the global employment market now that we are very much plugged into the world's system? Singapore's youths suffer in the competition for employment opportunities, since they spend two and a half years of the prime of their life serving the country.

To the thousands who are unemployed, schemes to reduce taxes and to upgrade the infrastructure merely add insult to their injury. Of what benefit are lower taxes if one does not even earn an income? Of what use is a spanking new airport if going on holiday is but a distant dream? Arrears in utilities charges, rental payments, traffic fines and unable to service the financial obligations are definitely increasing in numbers. I wonder what is happening to our Singapore dream.

I note that the Government's response to the critical structural unemployment has been for retrenched workers to go for training and further retraining. There are also a number and variety of training schemes in place offering job matching, services to the unemployed and financial grants to those who are especially needy. But to the majority of the 108,000 unemployed and, to me, these are efforts to build our hardware and not our "heartware".

To build heartware, we must tackle the issues at the fundamental level. We must ask ourselves what we can do to serve those who are particularly vulnerable to economic downturns. For instance, it is an often-heard comment of the unemployed middle age, "what is the use of retraining when we know that after going through it, I am still unable to find a job?"

The unemployment problem has become more complex. The jobless bug has bitten not only the older workers but also the younger tertiary educated as well. Our young and tertiary educated are now facing greater challenges from all over the world. They are however handicapped by national service as well as financial obligations upon graduation. It is tantamount to our S-League footballers in their late 20s facing younger and faster players, such as David Beckham, Ronaldo and so on.

We must also address the needs of those who are disadvantaged. For example, a recurrent theme among the unemployed has been that the older workers face greater hurdles in re-entering the job market. Companies tend to discriminate against such workers for a variety of reasons, and if age can be a handicap, what more a physical disability. We have to ask ourselves if what we are building is a Singapore that is home only to the hale and hearty, that our hospitals offering world-class medical treatment cater only to rich foreigners. Obviously not. The point I want to make is that our competitive advantages can no longer come from mere hardware. World-class infrastructure, competitive tax structures, well-trained workers can and will, over time, be replicated by others. Where Singapore must distinguish itself is in its heartware. By this, I mean a spirit among Singaporeans to pull together to overcome adversity, to feel an unshakable sense of belonging to Singapore. I admit that this is definitely easier said than done. Some may argue that such a process, which we could call nation building, cannot be engineered. But such argument goes against the very grain of what Singapore stands for. It is through the sheer will of our founding leaders and their colleagues that we are on our way to nationhood.

I now move on and turn to the theme of providing support to our elderly and our infirm. Developing heartware also involves recognising the contributions of our elderly. We must also embrace those who are disadvantaged through physical or mental disabilities, and we must not develop into a society that nurtures its people only when they are productive, and to cast them aside when they can no longer do so. We must show Singaporeans that they are not like curry leaves, discarded after the curry is made. What we must remember is that Singapore is built on the sweat and toils of our elders, and this is an obvious point but one that merits reiterating.

Another obvious point is that the proportion of the elderly in Singapore will continue to increase, and hence the need for step-down care services. Sir, let me declare my interest at this point of time, as I am the Medical Director of a local VWO that offers step-down care services. Step-down care refers to services that are offered to patients after they are discharged from hospitals, and such services are important because they serve two major functions. Firstly, they allow patients to be discharged from hospitals faster, thereby relieving the pressure on hospitals that constantly face shortages of hospital beds, and also thereby reducing the cost to the patients.

Secondly, a patient who is discharged from hospital cannot be considered to have fully recovered. A good example would be a stroke patient. He or she might not be able to feed himself, bathe or walk independently. Thus, step-down care services are needed to nurse these patients back to the best possible condition. This is a step in the right direction for our healthcare industry, and the net result would be a healthcare cost that is at a manageable level, while the level of service post-hospitalisation would increase.

Currently, we have a good range of nursing homes and rehabilitative day care centres. However, what is lacking are home care services, especially home medical and home physiotherapy. Through Government's healthcare policies, the majority of these services are offered by voluntary welfare organisations. By and large, the VWOs are doing exemplary work, but there is still room for improvement. We have to find a way to raise the standard and level of professionalism among the VWOs and, at the same time, seek to identify those that can serve as role models for others. The Government must develop and support more organisations offering such services to our elderly, and also constantly audit the standard of their services. It is no doubt a step in the right direction for the Government to devolve the step-down services to professional VWOs. However, the Government's role in providing overall healthcare cannot be diminished as a result.

Many professional VWOs are left to the vagaries of the free market system, thereby having to compete against market forces in maintaining their cost. They struggle to balance their books and, consequently, sometimes have to sacrifice services for cost.

Sir, in the not too distant future, the demand for step-down care services would proliferate in leaps and bounds, including many of us in the House. Surely, there is a role for the Government to ensure the adequacy of such services and the quality expected of does not diminish. Again, failing to do so would send the wrong signals to the general citizenry. I am happy to note that Mayor Teo Ho Pin's CDC has launched a scheme to ensure that step-down services are available to the non-ambulant patients in his CDC.

In conclusion, Sir, the tasks that face us are no less monumental. Though monumental, the challenge is not insurmountable. We must use this opportunity to put into place initiatives which will instead root Singaporeans more firmly in our nation, and establish a society which is able to withstand adversity, because we have world-class heartware. Even as the Economic Review Committee and the Committee on Remaking Singapore proceed with their work, it is incumbent on Members of this House to drive home the point that all our work must centre around the average Singaporean. More importantly, while we proceed to remake Singapore and review the measures needed, we need to continuously strive to win the hearts and minds of the people. This is an old theme. Lest I be accused of a young person sounding like an old record, this is the theme that has universal importance, and it cannot be over emphasised.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua to thank the President for his Address to this Parliament.

Change

`Change', Mr Speaker, Sir, is the buzzword today. In fact, throughout history, change is the only constant. It is the only way by which our body renews and rejuvenates itself, our mind keeps pace with the dynamo of the world. Change changes life and change will not change.

If that is confusing, that is indeed how many people react to change. Confusion, uncertainties, pain and a new world order, which not all can understand or keep pace with, are the products of change. As a sociology student, I used to sit by Orchard Road and watched the world go by. I used to observe how people react towards unanticipated events. When something happened, some shrugged their shoulders and walked away, some screamed and got angry, and some launched an investigation to see if there was an opportunity to reap. I realise that for every action, and that includes non-action, there is a reaction, there is a consequence. Therefore, how we react to the changes around us today will determine our social, economic and political destiny.

Hence, my question, Sir, is how are we responding to the changes today? Do we respond as a victim of change, thereby feeling helpless, willy-nilly? Or do we respond as a critic of change, thereby generating negative energy? Do we respond as a bystander, awaiting for all to move before hopping onto the bandwagon? Or do we respond to change as a navigator, seeking to lead and reap, and write our own story? Every generation has a story. What is the story for our current and future generation?

On a national level, I am thankful that we have a navigator' Government that chooses to grab the bull by its horns and ride on the waves of change. Our Government realises that we need to constantly check on ourselves and stay relevant to the dynamos of the world. We are at this milestone check now, and we have promised to leave no stone unturned'.

Personal response and choices

On an individual level, however, the picture is less clear. My question here is: Are we aware, as individuals, that we do have a choice? Earlier on, the hon. Member, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, stated that his junior asked him why he should be fighting for Singapore and dying for Singapore. And the hon. Member, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, asked him whether it was a result of our education or social system or family upbringing. I suppose my question is: Is it because we have been so caught up with our own work, at our individual, adult or parent level, that we have not spent enough time to inculcate some of these values, such as emotional rootedness, that Dr Vivian spoke about, in our children? It appears that more than 40 years of prosperity have bred a new cohort of Singaporeans who have not made a habit of making up their own minds and whipping up enough courage to pursue their passions. There is no denial that many of us would prefer to hit the well-beaten path.

Could it be that some of us still live in the shadows of the 1960s' state of emergency? Or could it be that we have been running so relentlessly up the economic ladder, sparing little time to pause, reflect and dwell deeper into what we really want or what we are really about? Or is it that we have a Government that cares, and cares so much, that we often look to our Government for all directions and answers to our life - from economic means to business ideas to personal life choices? Obviously, I have not heeded that call yet.

Sir, it was once said that when the US sneezes, Singapore catches pneumonia. Similarly, when our Government opens a door, many people rush in there without questioning why. Obviously, when something goes wrong, the Government gets the blame. Sometimes, the Government also gets away with it, because there simply does not seem to be another way out. Many of us are in our comfort zones, and some perhaps do not see or even want a way out. I cannot agree more with the hon. Member Koo Tsai Kee who said that as we become richer, we become more kiasu, or scared to lose. I myself was in that trap before. Years ago, I sold my car and was in the midst of shopping for a bigger and better car. When a friend asked me out, I told her that I could not because I had no car. She screamed and said: "You have no car but you have `kahs', meaning my legs. So what is your problem?" Sir, I was awakened. I realised that years ago when all I had was a backpack on my back, I was mobile and dexterous. I could go anywhere I wanted, to pursue my dreams. Not kiasu, not kiasi. As I accumulate some wealth, I became hesitant and cautious, thereby suffering from paralysis via analysis. What an irony!

Sir, but I realise I am not alone in my predicament. I have come across many people at the meet-the-people session who are handicapped by their material trappings, and they could not harness new horizons as a result. We know of many retrenched workers who place more importance on job types and job distances, even in the face of mounting debts. Many will rather wait for the right job and apply for financial assistance meanwhile. Sir, the Government can only do so much.

People and Government

In Jack Neo's recent production `I Not Stupid', which has been mentioned many times in this Parliament, there was this mother who had so over-provided for the well-being of her child, that the child did not even know how to butter his own bread. What will happen when mummy is no longer around or as able?

We need to put our citizens in the driver seat. Not one person, not a small group of people, but all Singaporeans at large. We must get our people to say what I can do?', rather than what can the Government do?' In our quest to remake Singapore, let us focus on encouraging and facilitating our people to think and work for what they believe in, rather than provide all the answers. Let each one take ownership of his destiny, and switch gear from a reactive to a proactive mode. We must switch gear, from a government-centric approach to a people-centric approach.

I am not advocating the abdication of the Government's role or responsibility. That just cannot be the case. I am advocating shared responsibility for a common destiny. The Government should be after all, by the people, from the people and for the people. For what is a government without popular support? In Karl Marx's theory about the bourgeois and proletariat, polarisation will lead to a revolution. We are far from that but we must be mindful of any divide or gap. Needed space

Bridging will certainly mean more risks and take more space. However, this is the necessary space needed to germinate a self-conscious society, the space needed to encourage an enterprising population, the space to experiment, fall and rejuvenate. Rome was not built in a day, we must be patient and tolerant. However, we do need to accelerate our learning curve in Internet time, in real time, and for the sceptical ones, for real this time.

Core value system as anchor

So where do we start? I suggest we start with the basics, with the fundamentals. There was a time where quick fixes and get-rich-quick dot-com companies ruled the market. That did not last very long. When the Internet bubble burst and the dot-coms became dot cons' and dot gones', value stocks and fundamentally strong companies prevailed. Similarly, let us invest in our own value system. It is only when we know what we are about, then can we battle external pressures. Sun Tze once said: Zhi bi zhi ji, bai zhan bai sheng ( , ). Translated literally, it means "Know thy enemy, know thyself, hundred battles fought, hundred battles won." To a certain extent, we are only what we think, so let us jointly identify and strengthen our shared core values, let it permeate the different strata of our society, not just via talk, but via conscious efforts to externalise these values in our daily activities. In other words, let us walk our talk.

Adjust responses to harness opportunities

Once we know what we stand for, then let us adjust our reactions to change. We are in a challenging time and we have crisis to surmount. The Chinese term for crisis is weiji ( ). Weiji means weixian de shi hou, bi you jihui ( , ). It implies that there are always opportunities amidst adversity. After all, good value cheap sales surface only in hard times. Hence, if we can change our collective dominant thought from that of facing adversity to finding opportunities, then the net result must be better.

We have to break through glass ceilings and expand our mental box. As water has no fixed form, survival has no fixed rules. In the industrial age, a hardworking, experienced and highly-educated person is almost made for life. In the information age, experience and age can become liabilities, not assets, if we choose not to respond positive to changes. Many people will become contract workers or freelance consultants in this era. This change will not only affect jobs and careers; it affects the entire lifestyle. We need to take stock of where we are now, and where we want to go, in order to harness the regional and global opportunities.

Stock take: Government ok, people?

When it comes to taking stock, I think the Government has been prudent in its spending and some say, aggressive in its investments and earnings, and therefore we have built up enough resources to tackle the challenges and to harness opportunities. However, the same cannot be said at the individual level. Many residents came to me with numerous bills unpaid and little resources to last. Many of these bills relate to lifestyle expenses. I am very, very concerned. Here, again, I refer to the value system of our people. Does more mean better? "Money no enough!" - that is the common outcry of many Singaporeans. The truth is, money is never going to be enough as long as we are buying the latest hi-fi, upgrading, having posh furniture, and keep paying them in instalments. Are we heading towards becoming a society of consumerism and debt? The latest report in 2001 showed a 28% increase in credit card debts and 19% increase in personal, not business, bankruptcy. This could be conveniently attributed to the recession, but the underlying cause is largely spending on credit. With anticipated slowdown in wage increment, we must not develop a new generation of big spenders with huge debts and be trapped in the obsessive pursuit of the 5 Cs'. Do we want to hold our future generation hostage to debts created today? The answer must be no'. Spending of what one earns is not wrong, but spending beyond one's means runs contrary to the basic economic formula of save, invest and accumulate.

I realise that for some people, poverty is a stark reality. For others, it could just be a state of mind. I would like to ask, is it the high cost of living, or the cost of high living, that leaves us breathless? I believe the answer lies somewhere between the two ends. Perhaps instead of working non-stop to acquire more and more, we could re-evaluate our financial objectives, lest we end up chasing our own tail. While we work hard to make money, we could also learn to make money work harder for us. A particular credit card company urges us not to `leave home without it'. I say, if you cannot resist temptations, you better leave home without it.

Good financial discipline and the attitude towards money can be nurtured from young. Young children should learn about the importance of savings. Older students can be encouraged to operate school cooperatives, thereby incubate entrepreneurs who will learn about the value of money and financial management. With social and domestic sciences in our academic curriculum, perhaps it is time for us to consider including financial science as well. We can increase FQ, or financial quotient, this way.

Adults, parents and retirees too can benefit from such knowledge and proper understanding of money attitude and tools. Yesterday, the hon. Member Mr Lim Boon Heng wondered aloud if there is a way to reconcile the lack of retirement funds with perhaps too much housing. May I offer my observation. Our CPF savings for the ordinary folks is a powerful retirement tool, but only if it is properly understood and utilised. To illustrate using the Census 2001 report of an average household income of $4,943 per month, and assuming an average household works for 30 years of their life, they would potentially be able to accumulate a combined CPF savings of $1.037 million, based on an average compound interest rate of 3% per annum. In other words, the average Singaporean household is potentially a millionaire household. If only people realise this and moderate their demand for a nice roof with their need for a nice retirement nest-egg, retirement funding would become more achievable. The problem here is, Sir, that many Singaporeans do not perceive their CPF savings as their retirement nest-egg. What they perceive their CPF savings is money stuck in the Government's coffer. As such, they will seek all ways to withdraw it. Housing withdrawals have no cap, and is perceived as a status symbol, and a means to release their funds from CPF. I agree with Mr Lim that taking a huge mortgage loan in one's 50s when one cannot afford it is disastrous.

Sir, we have designed a world-class retirement system, the CPF system. It is now time for us to go one step further to ensure that our people fully understand its prowess and utilise it accordingly. While the CPF liberalisation is much welcomed, systematic education is needed to prevent unsystematic leakages. May I suggest that the CPF Board and HDB look into the possibility of playing a much bigger role in advising Singaporeans in their finances? It may sound out of this world, but I know and I understand that these are not traditional roles, but perhaps we can think out of the box and either build or outsource some of these services to start a financial counselling process for very major purchases - much like that of marriage counselling. The emphasis should be on the attitudes and habits around money, rather than on technical calculations, as is being done today. Certainly, a financially savvy population will save us from the need for more financial hand-outs and more taxes.

Sir, I am under no illusion that financial literacy would eliminate all financial hardships. I believe the Government has a social obligation to help the less able and less fortunate. I join the calls of my colleagues in this House to seek ways to lower the cost of basic necessities, like public transport, healthcare and utilities. In the Sengkang part of Punggol North division, where void deck coffeeshops are replaced by airconditioned food courts and neighbourhood centres come in the form of an airconditioned mall, my residents not only miss the hawker centres there with a heavy heart, but also with a very affected pocket. The cost of living has indeed shot up. This problem is compounded where there are job loss and wage cuts.

There is another group that has caught my attention lately. This is the `asset so-so, but cash poor' group of people that is sandwiched between the haves and the have-nots. These are citizens who are faced with financial difficulties, despite owning a roof. They have paid so much for their property that little is left to see them through their silver days. In 20 to 30 years' time, some of these properties would have only 60 years or less of lease. The current legislation makes it difficult to borrow on such property, especially if it is HDB property. Can they downgrade? It is easier said than done.

Could we then look into the needs of this group of people by revisiting the legislation, and perhaps under very stringent conditions, based on compassionate grounds, consider acting as a lender of last resort? I know DPM has just said that the Government cannot be a last resort of any kind. While I concede that that is true and we have to be very careful, if it is undesirable, then can we explore other options? For example, relook at the mortgage policy for this group of people so that they may use their last available assets to ease their retirement years. The problem is there and more will be affected as time passes. We need to tackle these issues.

Sir, we have a Government that has continuously shown its wits and tenacity - ensuring Singapore remains a premier business hub. We do not ask "Who moved my cheese?", but proactively look for new cheese and create new cheese. We have a Government with great financial wisdom, one that adopts a policy of building up and protecting our reserves so that we can seize the opportunities to become bigger and stronger. Our Government has made a conscious choice to do so. What about our people? We now need to foster this culture in our people so that they too can one day lead the dance with our Government, at the world stage, to the same tune. Let us provide the space so that our youths, our people, can grow. To quote an old adage, Give a child a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a child to fish, you feed him for life.' It is therefore my hope that we - the people, the public and the private sectors - can establish mutual trust and cooperation, not just to ease the possible pains of change, but to also embrace the winds of change. Not just as you', not just as I', but as we'. United we stand, divided we fall.

On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the motion to thank the President.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I rise on a point of clarification since my son's conversation has been a subject of much interest. We ended our conversation with my son saying, "Yes, he would defend Singapore because this is his home, his family and his friends are here." One additional statement which was a bit odd when I first heard him, he said, "And if Mr Nathan treats me well." I think what he actually means is that if the Government treats him fairly. But really the more important point behind all this that I wanted to make was that it is important for each generation to ask themselves the fundamental questions of nationhood and transmit that to their children.

Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Member for Marine Parade GRC, in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of this Parliament.

After hearing speeches after speeches for the last three days on how we can tinker with our economy and how costs can be reduced in the remaking of Singapore, let me try and attempt to look at these areas from a different angle by referring to some examples and to learn from them important values that can be found in these events. The general tone of the President's Address is that we must be ready to face hard times and be vigilant in the face of tougher competition and to protect our people from the unexpected.

All of us must strive to achieve this and few could dispute the underlying tone of the Government in its continuing goal of creating jobs and a safer life for the people of Singapore. This is going to be a great challenge for the Government and the people as the present uncertain economic environment has led many industries to experience varying fortunes. Only 1,600 new jobs were created in the year 2001, compared to 108,500 in the year 2000.

The Government has been encouraging businesses to expand beyond our shores and has seen new technology, especially e-business and the dot.com bubble and trading partner economies, such as Japan, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and even the US, going from high to low in unpredictable ways. We have seen some spectacular local bankruptcies and with the likelihood of more to come. There have been major mergers and acquisitions and the demise of well-known companies, such as the energy company, Enron, in the United States, Ansett Airlines in Australia and the falling-out of favour of telcos and almost anything to do with e-business.

Interest rates have never been so low among major economies. Yet, many businesses are so uncertain about the future that they do not really want to borrow more or take any more chances. Businesses in Singapore however are going about their usual way of meeting the challenges to maximise the chance of survival and prosperity in times of uncertainty. They will formulate and implement risk management and strategy plans that focus on economic fundamentals, competitiveness, cash flow, profitability and the factors that drive these forward. But it is not as easy as it sounds. As it requires robust planning and execution of integrated plans, we borrowed lessons learned from past events. There are no short cuts, no magic wands. It must surely require the support and will of the power and the resourcefulness of our Government to work together in close consultation to improve our economy so that businesses can thrive.

When developing our country's economic blueprint for survival, I would support the Government's stand in building strongly on our cultural diversity and self-esteem of the people and promote an awareness to organisations, both Government and private, to prepare plans for contingencies. The Government must continue to adopt a humane management of its citizens and put its primary concern on the well-being of those people. Their physical safety must be protected from the expectable and their recovery from the unexpected should be facilitated. How we reinvent ourselves will determine our destiny as a strong and compassionate nation. Do it right and we will emerge stronger. As my hon. colleague Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee said yesterday, we must have confidence in overcoming our difficulties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point, please allow me to use some lessons from the business world to demonstrate the resourcefulness of people in adapting to changes and without losing their dignity and pride in the process. Firstly, in transforming Singapore from the present economy to one that will be economically stronger, we must be careful in not destroying its identity, such as its cultural diversity. We can look at the case of a business entity, such as Nissan, which was a struggling Japanese motor giant, and learn from its blueprint for survival. Nissan became a huge conglomerate when the economic climate was conducive to Japan. But as high costs and the inability to recognise its force, faults seeped in. It struggled to turn a profit for eight years in the 1990s. Its operation generated notoriously low margins and it was estimated that Nissan gave away US$1,000 for every car it sold in the United States due to competition from better-known brands. At the same time, Japanese factories alone could produce almost a million more cars a year than the company sold.

If nothing was done to turn the company around, Nissan would cease to exist. Nissan had to make changes and, while doing so, they have to protect the company's identity and the self-esteem of its people. These two goals, making changes and safeguarding identity, can easily come into conflict. Pursuing them both entails a difficult and sometimes precarious balancing act. Nissan managed them by mobilising its own executives in teams and, through a set of cross-functional teams, identified and spearheaded the radical changes that had to be made. These changes that were implemented went against the grain of not only Nissan's long-standing operating practices but also of some of the behavioral norms of Japanese society.

Next, its major shareholder, Renault, which is a major French motor maker, remained sensitive to Nissan's culture at all times, allowing the company room to develop a new corporate that built on the best elements of Japan's national culture. Less than three years later, Nissan, at the turn of the century, is profitable again. The robust turnaround at Nissan shows that we have to respect the dignity of the people, even as you challenge them to overturn deep-seated traditions.

The Economic Review Committee, set up early this year to review our country's performance, is somewhat like the cross-functional teams set up in Nissan, and will be Singapore's attempt in the right direction in reviving its economy. And we were told that no stones would be left unturned in the process. But when deciding on the course of action to take, the Government must remain sensitive to the varied cultures of Singaporeans and their dignity.

Secondly, before Singapore could recover from the slowing-down effects of the Asian crisis that drastically reduced the economic activities of regional countries, the United States of America, Singapore's main business partner in terms of trade, suffered an overnight economic breakdown after the September 11th terrorist attack.

In addition, we have discovered that disaster has now been redefined after 11th September 2001, and Singapore has to take another look at its economic and social continuity plans. The importance of a continuity plan for the country can be learnt from the examples of two business organisations caught in circumstances beyond their imagination. The accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche, already knew the value of a plan when it was forced to evacuate its office at the World Trade Centre in 1993 after a car bomb blew up the bottom of the building. It took immediate steps to move into a smaller target after that. Unfortunately, it was not far away enough, just across the street at Two World Financial Centre. The plan did not specifically direct 3,500 employees to drop their briefcases and dash through a shower of debris, smoke and dust as two huge buildings thundered down behind them. But, as the managing partners regrouped at a safe distance, they knew the plan called for them to head across the Hudson River to a branch office in New Jersey. There, they took out a big, nice red book, the firm's business continuity plan. With that, they proceeded through an excruciating 3-stage process of contacting all employees, reconnecting them to the firm and its clientele, and recovering the firm's position in the marketplace.

Like Deloitte & Touche, the securities firm, Morgan Stanley, was in the WTC in 1993. Morgan Stanley, however, stayed in the building. Some 2,700 worked between the 43rd and 74th floor of the South Tower. All but six survived the attack. The company survived too. Under its business continuity plan, it has already determined its fundamental activities and how to support them. On the Monday after the attack, when the stock markets opened, Morgan Stanley was offering business as usual.

I am glad to learn that the Government Ministries have a contingency plan called NESTS, short for the National Emergency System, formed under the auspices of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and that the Government is working closely with the private sector to ensure that the nation's infrastructure will still function, should a disaster strike.

Sir, allow me next to turn to medical care. It is heartening to note that in the Ministry of Health's Addendum to the President's Address that healthcare facilities will be made closer to Singaporeans with the development of two new regional hospitals: Jurong General Hospital and the Northern General Hospital. While this move may be good for the nation in its overall contingency plans, it is causing some concerns to the private sector, as it increases greater competition among healthcare providers in an already crowded market. I would suggest that a deeper study on the complementary role of the Government and the private sector in the provision of quality healthcare, which is ever increasing in demand among Singaporeans, needs to be looked into so that duplication of services leading to wastages can be minimised.

Furthermore, does it mean that by adding more hospitals, the quality of healthcare will increase? Modern technology may aid in the diagnosis of sicknesses and, in some cases, prolong the life of patients. But can we say that the quality of healthcare has improved?

Sir, there was a reasonably-sized hospital sitting on top of a hill along Upper Serangoon Road known as Youngberg Memorial Hospital. It was situated opposite the well-known Bidadari Cemetery next to Sennett Estate at Potong Pasir. Unfortunately, our hon. Member for Potong Pasir is not here to listen to this. It was then a modern hospital run by missionaries. Some healthy adults among families staying at Sennett Estate were born there. And the doctor who treated the sick was well liked by the people. With a name such as Dr Coffin, many could not have forgotten him. Compared to today's hospital and medical facilities, that hospital was outclassed. But the medical care and love offered by Dr Coffin and other learned doctors there would not have been any less than those shown by today's medical practitioners. Today, the Northeast MRT line has caused that hospital to be pulled down for redevelopment. With many happy memories built on compassion linked to good knowledge of medicine, had that hospital been given a chance to continue in another location in that constituency, with upgraded facilities and assistance from the community groups, I am sure that people in that part of Singapore would have benefited much. Medical care, in the eyes of the people there, I am sure, was excellent and reasonably priced as well.

In our mission to provide the best medical care to Singaporeans, let us not forget the medical assistants, the support staff and nurses, who collectively, with the doctors, make up the human touch which all too often also helps in the healing process. As such, their training should include, if not already, behavioral sciences, among other medical subjects.

In conclusion, Sir, the best laid-out plans can even break down in times of tragic circumstances when we are suddenly faced with a drastic challenge. Such events can cause unspeakable pain not only for the people directly involved but also for those who see misfortune befall others, even total strangers. That pain spills into the workplace and the country. Indeed, the Government's ability in reaching out compassionately to those affected economically by the current downturn directly affects the nation's ability to maintain high performance in difficult times. It fosters a nation's capacity to heal, to learn, to adapt and to excel. Those in leadership positions cannot eliminate suffering. Nor can you ask people to check their emotions at the door. But the Government can use its leadership to begin the healing process and, through our action, we can empower people to find their own ways to support one another during uncertain times. This is the kind of leadership we wish we would never have to use. Yet, it is vital, if we are to nourish the very humanity that can make people and a country great.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. Thank you also for allowing me to participate in this debate, albeit the arduous task being one of the last few speakers. I do not envy those who are speaking after me.

From brisk walking to running, from rowing boats down the river to exploring the larger seas, the eloquent speakers before me have articulated not just challenges facing Singapore but recommended solutions to overcome these challenges. I hope the House is not speech-fatigued just yet. I shall try to entice your attention buds with keywords like "explosion", "tension" and even "honeymoon".

Sir, much has been said about remaking Singapore and the new vision of what Singapore can be. One key theme that has received much attention is about rooting Singaporeans here and calling Singapore our home. I would like to speak about the nurturing of the Singapore Home.

Sir, the current economic crisis is a rude shock to many Singaporeans. As the labour MPs in the House have repeatedly said, no one is spared. From the uneducated cleaner to the factory operator, from the clerical officer to the HR manager, many have been victims. Many also probably feel abused psychologically, emotionally and, of course, financially. Abused by whom? By the uncompromising, emotion-free global economic market.

Sir, the current situation we are facing can be akin to domestic violence. Like the victims of domestic violence, the victims of the current abusive economic conditions manifest emotional reactions of fear, anxiety, helplessness, hopelessness, denial, anger, the list goes on. Sir, domestic violence is a vicious cycle.

Sir, I have been involved with domestic violence for some time now, but let me assure the House that my involvement is as a counsellor, not as an abuser. I do not think I look like an abuser. Tensions will build up before an abusive incident takes place. After the incident, commonly known as an explosion, the storm will subside and the honeymoon period will emerge again. But the nature of violence is that it will happen again.

In domestic violence work, we help to empower the victims to protect themselves and to raise their self-esteem. The reality is that many of them will endure many years of abuse before they decide to say no and leave the relationships. As social workers, we continue to work with them to minimise the impact of the potential abuse. We also work with the perpetrators in overcoming their problems psychologically and behaviorally. Unmet expectations are common precursors to tension build-up and further violence. We help the couple to negotiate each other's expectations.

Sir, unlike domestic violence where we can work with the victims and where the victim may decide to leave the relationship should the violence continue, Singaporeans cannot leave the relationship with the global economic market. Worse still, we cannot counsel the perpetrators. We are at their mercy. What we can do then is to continue to work with the victims and the potential victims. We need to empower them to be prepared for the next explosion, such that the impact is minimised. Sir, in incidents of domestic violence, we always have the police to protect and doctors to cure. At least we hope that they are there all the time. But, often times, these are remedial actions. As much as the perpetrators are responsible for the actions, the victims have also to protect themselves and minimise the impact. Sir, Singaporeans must realise by now that we are not immune to the potentially abusive global economic realities. We cannot leave the relationship. In the Singapore Home, this marriage is for life. Divorce is not an option. We need to make the relationship work. We can empower ourselves, lengthen the honeymoon period, recognise tensions building up, minimise the impact should the explosion or abuse happen again. Like victims of domestic violence, we must come out of each abusive incident stronger and more strong-willed.

Sir, the sooner Singaporeans accept the reality and work towards protecting themselves, the sooner they will be prepared for the next onslaught of abuse. Singaporeans need to increase their resilience, be nimble and make adjustments quickly but, above all, increase their repertoire of coping skills. They also need to know their partners and adjust accordingly to meet the latter's expectations. While a marriage requires both parties to make adjustments and negotiate expectations, the marriage between Singaporeans and the global economic market, unfortunately, seems unfairly one-sided. We have to make the adjustments to meet the expectations of the new global economy. We need to find the fit or else we will feel victimised again. The sooner we know what our partner expects, and the sooner we fulfill his expectation, the longer will be the honeymoon period. As we know, honeymoon periods are the best times in any marriage.

Sir, the Government must continue to provide the infrastructure for Singaporeans to improve their repertoire of skills to fit into the new global realities. This infrastructure, however, should not only focus on providing an array of training programmes, but to include the complex realities that individuals and families face as they embrace the value of life-long learning amidst functioning and managing a household in a fast-paced society like Singapore.

Sir, this reality has serious implication on the Malay community, as they are hardest hit in this recent economic crisis. The community must focus and concentrate its efforts at reducing future psychological and emotional abuse brought about by the merciless economic realities. Unless the members of the community are able to equip themselves with the required skills and the technical know-how of the new economy, they will feel abused again when the cycle returns. This requires the coordinated effort of everyone in the community. We need to focus our resources and energies in such efforts which are critical to the survival of the community, as well as the Singapore society in general.

Let me return to the Singapore Home. The constituents of the Singapore Home are the different ethnic communities. Family systems theory noted that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The strength of the Singapore Home is not merely the existence of the different ethnic communities, but rather the dynamic interaction between them. These interactions are key ingredients to the development of social support networks and systems in the Singapore Home.

Sir, social support systems are critical in the home as they often buffer the impact of domestic violence. While the global economic market may be a potentially abusive partner, the abuse may not come from the economic sphere alone. The threat of global terrorism calls for Singaporeans to look within ourselves and assess the support system that we have. The analogy of domestic violence that I have used is not unintentional. Indeed, the threat of terrorism is no more a foreign and external issue. It has become a domestic issue on the threats of violence.

Sir, prior to September 11 and the JI arrests, we seem to take our social support network for granted. Not only are social support systems critical during times of crisis, they are indeed our first line of defence. Our social support network is not a static phenomenon. It is dynamic and fluid. It requires constant effort at building and sustaining.

Sir, in 1994, I conducted a study on social support network of low income families. One aspect of the study was to assess the role of social support network as buffers to economic hardship. What surprises me is that families are less likely to have individuals from different ethnic groups as part of their social network, even when they are neighbours. This spurred me to include cross-cultural understanding in my classes at NUS. In the class, one of the exercises that I usually task my students to do is to interview five persons who are different from them ethnically, to understand their values and belief systems. Many of the students have difficulty doing so, even when the exercise did not limit them to talking to strangers only, ie, they can actually interview friends that they had known even before they entered university. Many have difficulty completing that exercise. Each time I give them a quiz on what they know about each other's community, they fail miserably. When September 11 took place, one senior Chinese grassroots leader came up to me and asked why do Muslim women need to wear the tudung. I am sure many of us have many questions about each other's values and practices.

What do these findings and anecdotes indicate? I am not too sure. Our integration policies are in place. Yet, we are still seeing such outcomes. Perhaps the outcome could have been worse if the policies had not been in place. Sir, it is not surprising that people gravitate to their own kind and remain in their comfort zones. I am not advocating for more Government intervention, but for Singaporeans to realise that they need to be committed to the process of inter-ethnic integration.

When the threat of terrorism came knocking on our doors recently, the issue of inter-ethnic relation was pushed to the forefront. It is a timely reminder that we cannot be complacent. We need to recognise that building and sustaining relationships and networks require effort and commitment. It is not enough for us to merely smile at our neighbours or get our children to dress in each other's ethnic costumes during Racial Harmony Day. These are good starting points but we cannot remain at the starting block. Each community must make the effort to reach out to the other communities. The best way is, of course, to open the common spaces. Yes, we do recognise and respect the private spaces. But to build relationships, we need to step out of our private spaces and enter the public spaces more readily.

The process of cross-cultural understanding and interaction requires a high level of self-awareness and openness. While we are presently "gung-ho" about wanting to improve interaction and getting to know each other better, we must be mindful of the potential threat of ethnocentrism. Each community must respect the values and cultures of others and avoid the perception that one's values are better than the others'. This is ethnocentrism. The issue of religion and value systems is so intrinsically rooted in each individual and community that it is often all too sensitive to discuss it in the open. Self-awareness is crucial. Mutual respect is imminent. The work of the IRCC must take into account these key factors for it to succeed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we continue to nurture the Singapore Home with strong inter-ethnic bonds, another significant pillar of the home that needs attention is the family. There has been talk that many Singaporean families are highly stressed. Indicators that our families are stressed include incidences of juvenile delinquency, marital dissolution, domestic violence, drug abuse, etc, in these families. While statistics show that these problems are either on a decline or are stabilised, we cannot pretend that they are not important. Often times, these problems do not happen in isolation - they actually co-exist and we typically have what social workers call multi-problem families.

The systemic effects of any of these problems are tremendous. A family who has a juvenile delinquent not only deals with the behavioral problems presented by the teenager, but also the effects on the other family members. Marital relationships are often strained with couples placing blame on one another. The compensatory efforts at dealing with the delinquent child often result in unintentional neglect of the other children. The potential effects go on. The juvenile delinquent, if not well rehabilitated, may graduate to be adult offenders.

Sir, families need to be strengthened to prevent the onset of such incidences. The family today is different from the family of yesterday. Yes, in its form and function, one may argue that there is no difference. However, the dynamics of role performances must change to keep up with the changing environments. I read with great interest the issues raised in the last Parliament as it debated on family-friendly practices. I should not belabour the point nor repeat the points raised. However, I would like to reiterate the need for us to recognise some of the changes that families are subjected to, and respond with a clear message that we support these changes through relevant policies and legislation.

Sir, to strengthen our families, we need to ensure that emotional bonds between each family member are strong, such that support would be available when called upon. The emotional bond between mother and child is a given and, often times, assumed to be a natural order of things. However, the emotional bonds between fathers and children are considered rather alien, especially in the context of Asian cultures. Fathers are seen more as disciplinarians in families. They are not supposed to be emotional. Our boys are still raised not to show their emotions. Sociological and psychological research has begun to show the importance of father-child bonds in the development of children and families. Bonds do not appear overnight. They need to be cultivated and nurtured. In my work with fathers, I have heard many lament that they do not know how to relate to their adolescent children, as much as they realise the importance of doing so.

Sir, bonds of fathering must be developed when children are young and most dependent. I am pleased to note that the Government has made provisions for paternity leave for fathers to be involved in the lives of their new born. The current three days of paternity leave is a good start, though I would encourage the Government to consider extending it. And I think we have the next five years to discuss that. An infant child is at his most dependent state, and this is the most excellent time for a father to establish the bond with the child.

Another opportunity for bonding is when the child is ill. Today, we have child sick leave only for female civil servants. Sir, this seems to send the message that when a child is sick, it is the responsibility of the mother to care for the child. I would recommend that the child sick leave benefit be extended to male civil servants to send a consistent and clear message that fathers are equally responsible and capable of looking after a sick child.

There are other opportunities like facilitating father's presence in parent-teacher meetings in schools. I have often given parenting talks in schools, and one clear observation which is supported by many school principals, is that, often times, only mothers attend these talks and meetings. Where are the fathers? Working? Many mothers who attend these meetings are working mothers too. Children often read the absence of fathers as their disinterest in their education and the lives of their children. These are opportunities lost for fathers. The result is a distancing of the children from their fathers.

As a society, we need to send a clear message that fathers must be involved in the total development of their children, as do mothers. In this regard, may I be so trivial to suggest that the Ministry of the Environment ensure that every public men's room be equipped with diaper changing facilities. Once, I had a hard time finding a place to change my son's diaper after I took him for swimming, as I could not find a place in the men's room to do so. But, rest assured, I did not go to the ladies' room. There are ways of doing it though. We need to normalise such behaviours and encourage fathers to feel comfortable about doing such fathering practices in public.

Sir, gone are the days where fathers can be contented with merely bringing home the bacon, or the halal meat, or the vegetables. He is expected to share in the parenting and household responsibilities, just as his wife is sharing in his traditional role of income provider. The family bonds can be strengthened with mutually supporting partners who share the same vision and responsibilities. Sir, the measures above may seem small and insignificant in themselves but, put together, I am confident, as shown by many researchers, that they would go a long way in ensuring that children are raised as successful and confident adults in a safe, secure and supportive environment, with the presence of both fathers and mothers. Sir, as the saying goes, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one single footstep.

Sir, the sharing of parenting roles and responsibilities in families is even more critical as we study the impact of restructuring the economy on Singaporean families. As women are a force to be reckoned with in the economic sphere, they too need to constantly upgrade themselves to remain employable and relevant. Such demands have direct implications on how families negotiate their times in relation to parenting responsibilities and individual needs for training and upgrading. It is thus most critical now that we begin to sow the seeds of positive fathering practices as we prepare Singaporeans moving into the new economic structures. As we remake Singapore, we need to also remake our perception of the family - a key pillar of the Singapore Home.

As I talk about the new age father, the way the Singapore Government has been described comes to mind. Paternalistic, patronizing, patriarchal are adjectives that have been used to describe the Government. Yes, the children of Singapore have been raised well with a father figure who knows what is best for them. I have a similar father too - dogmatic, disciplinarian and no buts.

But the children of tomorrow are different. The fathering practices that my father used on me no longer work with my children. I have to be present in their lives. I have to listen to them - listen not just with my ears, but with my eyes and, more importantly, with my heart. Recognising this, I try to reach out to my father. The initial hesitancy is slowly changing. He is more able to express his emotions. He can change.

There have been calls to remake the Government. I think the Government should continue being the father of Singaporeans. But the new age father also nurtures his child and provides the emotional support when needed. He is more than a disciplinarian, more than the decision maker. He is a friend who has built strong bonds when the child is an infant. It is timely for the Government to invest in these bonds today. The children are reaching out to the father. Like my father, I am confident that the Government is capable of responding to this call. Take time to listen, take time to nurture, take time to provide the emotional support. I am confident it will go a long way in building up a Singapore Home that is united, strong, resilient and supportive.

Sir, I am as old as independent Singapore is. I have seen how my parents built a strong home for my eight siblings and I - from the kampong house at Coronation Road to the 1-room rental flat in Toa Payoh and, subsequently, to a 3-room purchase flat in Toa Payoh where they still live today. Like many other first generation Singaporeans, they overcame insurmountable challenges. It is a process that is on-going. Today, like many other young couples, my wife and I strive to build a strong home for our children. I have spoken of nurturing the Singapore Home - preparing ourselves for the expectation of Singapore's marriage partner, ie, the global economic market, strengthening the bonds between communities, strengthening families through enhancing the role of fathers, and developing new age fathering practices in the relationship between the Government and the people.

Sir, this is my vision as a Singaporean, as a young father of another generation of Singaporeans. For Singapore to survive, we need to accept and move towards a common destiny. Singaporeans must share the same vision. My vision for the remade Singapore is one in which the people are economically successful, yet rooted and bonded to the family, individually confident, yet socially networked, global in outlook, yet Singaporean in identity. These are ingredients that will continue to nurture the Singapore H ome.

Sir, I support the motion.