PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (Fifth 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. 1.25 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Mr Speaker Sir, I join my colleagues in support of the motion thanking the President for his Address.

Sir, I am reminded by what you said about being the last few to speak. Indeed, in the last few days, Members have dealt with daunting issues that Singapore faces. I have also been advised by well-meaning MPs and Ministers included. But as the debate goes on, I should strike off issues raised accordingly. I realise that as at end of yesterday that indeed, I am left with very little to say. In fact, every evening for the last four evenings, I have been revising and updating my script. Yet, I still come to the same thing. I have decided that there is nothing wrong to have more of the same, so long as the more reflects diversity of perspectives. Therefore, Sir, I will be coming from the perspectives of challenges and opportunities in these trying times.

This is a time of great change and challenge for Singapore. Singapore today is faced with the greatest threat to its competitiveness than any other time in its history as an independent nation. After September 11th, we must be more security conscious. The threads of our multi-racial society must be strengthened. As we strive to remake Singapore, we must embrace dramatic transformations that will ripple across many sectors of our society.

A seemingly endless wind of change ahead, but behind it all, lie abundant opportunities. So how can the workforce stay relevant? And how can Singapore remain competitive?

To combat the challenges and build on the opportunities, I would like to propose four key points. The first deals with stakeholders, namely, the workforce, the business community and the Government. The second looks at boosting entrepreneurial culture and spirit. The third calls for building a tradition of charity. The fourth hails for solidarity in change efforts.

Economic gypsies

Now, workers have to be prepared to embrace the role of economic gypsies. I term it that way because market volatility and shortened business cycles will mean workers have to change their jobs and work environments ever so often, to stay employed.

Singapore now faces increased international competition for foreign capital, investments, and export markets. This is a result of the liberalisation of the former communist bloc countries such as China, Russia and Eastern Europe - who also have a lower cost base.

We are also beginning to lose our traditional competitive advantage. Knowledge and technology have become cheaply available and portable in the KBE. Our growth rate can be expected to be halved from the heady days of near double-digit growth. Workers' earnings will consequently be affected.

Frog in heating water

Merely adapting to change is dangerous and misleading. It is like a frog in water that is slowly heating up. The frog will keep changing its body temperature to suit its surrounding. Contented, the frog goes off to sleep. But bliss turns to disaster, eventually it gets boiled alive. So people must do more than just adapt to change. They must jump out of their changing world, take charge and dare to venture into new territories.

Ensuring viability of our businesses in the new economy

From the workforce, let us now turn our attention to businesses. To survive and remain competitive, businesses cannot afford to carry surplus capacity on a long-term basis, without matching growth periods. They must be allowed to shed excess capacity, be it manpower or otherwise, in a timely manner. Businesses today face pressures of competition to reduce costs and will invest only in cost effective locations. Singapore is severely lacking in land and other natural resources which tend to push up our costs.

Our workforce, traditionally hardworking and disciplined, must be flexible and realistic to retain what is left of our competitive edge. Workers must realize that unemployment is here to stay.

As Singapore transits into a KBE, we face the challenge of structural unemployment. I understand that for a country to achieve KBE status, at least 65% of its workforce has to be in the skilled category. In Singapore, our skilled workforce only constitutes 59%.

In our race to reach full KBE status, we may have to fill this gap with foreign talent. This will only worsen the problem of the structurally unemployed issue, as it takes time to retrain people for new jobs that require new skills. Those affected must therefore be prepared to turn to less pleasant or lower skill jobs, traditionally shunned by Singaporeans. Others, including professionals, may have to learn to be innovative and become self-employed, and offer competitively priced services.

Bearing the full brunt of this vicious cycle are the executives. In 1997, I was approached by several, whom I call the PEMs - they are, basically, the professionals, executives and managers - who had lost their jobs during the financial crisis. Many of them are casualties of the dotcom bust and ongoing restructuring of our finance sector, highly skilled and trained. But they are a vulnerable group, with no avenue to seek redress. PEMs comprise a sizable 40% of the total retrenched workforce.

I decided to put my support behind this group and initiated SPEC, a co-operative of PEMs. My friends questioned my move to champion the cause of executives, reminding me that my father, a retired Labour MP and a founding member of the NTUC, had battled the plight of workers. But, Sir, this cohort of our workforce is fast increasing, and they do not enjoy the slew of financial assistance and rebates handed out by the Government to the workers, which I fully support. Sir, I shall be calling upon the Government to appropriately do more in some areas and less in others, as befitting the role of Government in both good and bad times. The Government has allocated a $178,000-grant to SPEC to conduct job placement and other training schemes for this group of people, but I think more can be done for retrenched executives.

Sir, I would like to suggest another way to help this group of people, especially those who are above 40 years old. It is difficult for them to find re-employment, because of employers' preference for younger workers. One alternative to re-employment would be for the Government to help them become self-employed. PEMs have a wealth of knowledge and expertise, and many years of valuable working experience to offer. The Government can facilitate the PEMs to offer their services to SMEs or other businesses that the Government would like to support. The Government can encourage companies to employ the services of PEMs by granting a subsidy, but for only a limited period of time.

DPM Lee had given his view on subsidies yesterday. My take on his comment is that giving subsidies is tantamount to robbing Peter to give Paul. In this instance, I would like to persuade DPM Lee that in certain situations, it is necessary to jia-you, to get the car going. For my Malay colleagues, it means tambah minyak kereta. Otherwise, we will keep running on the same spot and we will be non-starters.

Another way is to organise these PEMs to take up overseas postings under a subsidised funding scheme. We can prepare and encourage this group of PEMs to venture overseas. From my understanding, many companies in China require expertise and experienced operations managers to help them run their businesses. In these companies, they actually employ a lot of young MBAs, but these companies still feel that they lack experienced operations managers. So, this is one area where we can actually help our PEMs.

This group of PEMs can actually become the nucleus for the eventual emergence of portfolio managers. They could form an "outsource industry" to meet the needs of businesses. Such an industry could thrive and flourish in the New Economy, and help to make Singapore more cost competitive.

Sir, I would also like to propose that some form of minimum legislation be put in place to protect PEMs. They are not covered by the Employment Act. So they have no recourse to the Ministry of Manpower if they are treated unfairly by their employers.

The Conciliation Service Unit, set up by MOM after the 1997 downturn, offers some consolation, but is not sufficient to help settle a retrenchment or termination dispute. Perhaps it is timely to consider a review of the Industrial Relations Act, to make provision for the aggrieved executive to be represented in an Arbitration Court, for termination and dismissal issues.

To be sure, Sir, I am not seeking redress for executive union representation. To do that will be to hamper the flexibility of doing business in Singapore. Our desired outcome is to have minimum legislation to protect the rights of every stakeholder in Singapore.

Sir, the President, in his Address to this House, emphasised the need for us to strengthen the spirit of entrepreneurship and risk taking, as a platform for Singapore's future competitiveness. May I also add that we will require as many of our best and brightest to take up this challenge, if we are to succeed in building this platform. And to this end, our Government must once again take the lead.

The Government must correct the current imbalance in the distribution of local talent between the public and private sectors, to boost the spirit of entrepreneurship and risk taking in Singapore. Ironically, it has not been seen to take the risk of doing this, while exhorting the virtues of risk taking. The best and brightest among our young are still being educated and nurtured, at great public expense, for safe jobs in the comfort zones of Government service and GLCs. Worse still, many of able body and mind, who eventually retire from service on mandatory grounds, are re-absorbed into the service.

The Government must practise more of what it is preaching on this issue. Notwithstanding the problem of a limited local talent pool, the Government must be bold enough to allow the private sector a larger share of this pool. For example, retiring officers, who are still fit for re-employment, can be encouraged and facilitated to start new businesses or become active equity investors in businesses. A good many of these talents can be drawn from the top brass of our Armed Forces. Instead of giving them the security of a second career in the cocoon of the Government and GLCs, why not encourage them to become risk takers and wealth creators, in line with our objective of strengthening the spirit of entrepreneurship?

To further enlarge the entrepreneurial talent pool, the Government can also award scholarships for higher studies to top students, based on their aspirations to become entrepreneurs. Returned scholars could be asked to work in Government or GLCs for up to five years, after which they could be released to the private sector to pursue their dreams, perhaps with some help from industry and Government.

Indeed, in our midst in this Chamber, we have a reverse trend in Minister of State Ng Eng Hen, who started a successful medical practice in the private sector and is now drawn into the Government to contribute. But this is a good thing to happen for Singapore, because it demonstrates that if we can nurture the private sector, with the creame de la creame, we will always be assured of a minefield to roost our golden goose. MOS Ng, please do not think that I am showering you with flattery, but I only wish to emphasise a point to all.

Some may argue that good entrepreneurs need not be from the brightest and the best. I would argue that if Singapore wants to produce a few winners and another Sim Wong Hoo, then it must cultivate the brightest and the best. By and large, the majority of our entrepreneurs can be the mums and the pas of our heartlanders, but in uplifting the entrepreneurial culture and quality, there is no denying that we also need the best.

We tend to have a pre-qualified definition for success - all the 5 Cs. But let me relate an incident my entrepreneur friend told me about. One morning, she drove her daughter to school, something she had not been doing for a while. The principal, who knows her as a successful entrepreneur, was surprised to see her and asked her why she was not at work. Amused by the query, my friend replied "Well I have made enough money for the year and have decided to quit my job." In fact, she had just quit her dotcom company that went bust.

The pre-conceived notion here is that she had time to ferry her daughter because she may have lost her job. But the principal may or may not be having this notion that my friend thinks the principal has. The point really is that the meaning of success is relative and a matter of choice. Singaporeans must look at the entrepreneurial world through experimental eyes. Give room for trials and courage. Courage does not mean having no fear. Courage is taking action despite fear, and this, to me, is success.

Sir, the President has also spoken of the need to maintain and strengthen our social cohesion, as we upgrade our economy, and the income divide widens between those at the top end and the lower end. The world's wealthiest country, the United States, is also a country of great income divide. But the social cohesion of American society is strong, partly because of their great charitable institutions and the generosity of America's rich, in reaching out to help their less fortunate compatriots.

The spirit of the American charity is best illustrated by Bill Gates, the world's wealthiest person with a reported net worth of US$56 billion, but who has also given away US$20 billion to charity. I am no fan of Bill Gates, but here is an example of a businessman supporting the community in which his business thrives.

Our Asian values of philanthropy are not lacking in the least. The first generation of Overseas Chinese in Singapore like Lee Kong Chian, Tan Kah Kee, Tan Tock Seng and Run Run Shaw were all charitable towkays who had given back much to society, especially to help the less privileged. These philanthropists have set up foundations and built institutions that have benefited many Singaporeans. Witness the former Nanyang University and The Chinese High.

Sir, while we should celebrate Singaporeans who do well, let us also urge those who are well-off, to take a leaf from the great American tradition of charity and generosity and from our Asian philanthropy values, in reaching out to the less fortunate in our society. In so doing, social cohesion will be strengthened.

In closing, Sir, we are all aware that Singapore is at the crossroads. The challenges we are facing are daunting, but by no means insurmountable. As a nation and a people, we have been at the crossroads and turning points many times in our history. Yet, each time we have overcome the odds and emerged stronger. I am confident that we will rise to the occasion and emerge victorious again. Strong leadership, transparency, meritocracy, hard work and flexibility will continue to give us the extra edge, not only to survive but will keep us ahead of many of our competitors.

As a nation, we must soldier on with a positive mindset. As the Government, we must provide bold initiatives that will facilitate the PEMs and budding entrepreneurs. And as good corporate citizens, we must always remember to give back what we have reaped. In a nutshell, the President's vision must become a shared dream of all Singaporeans. I urge that there will be fuller discussions and public debates on this vision, so that all of us will own this vision and be inspired to always be hopeful. For in hope, we find the way to remake Singapore into a fine nation, not just in form but in spirit and soul as well.

On this note, I support the motion.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the motion moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Member for Marine Parade GRC, to thank the President for his Speech.

I agree with the view of the President and some other Members of the House that Singapore is now at a crucial crossroad. I also agree with the President's view that the choices we will make will determine our future, our success or failure, our progress or decline, in fact Singapore's very survival as a nation in a turbulent world.

We have our meeting here as the world is still trapped in economic slowdown. This is exacerbated by the black September 11 incident. The contemptible terrorist attacks on the New York Twin Towers, the United States' reaction on the Al Qaeda terrorist group in Afghanistan, the unending bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East, the threats from the Kashmiri dispute, all create a really horrifying global political climate.

In this region, the political atmosphere is no less worrying. Threats from the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group have not abated in the Philippines. In Indonesia, political developments have yet to move towards improved prospects. Malaysia is facing challenges from the Umno-PAS power struggle.

As a global city state which is open and exposed, we are not spared the sparks of the conflicts and the winds of uncertainty.

Is Singapore able to overcome the difficulties? This is the question playing in the minds of every one of us.

We can feel confident because we have the capacity. We have the people rallying firmly behind the Government. We have among the world's best infrastructure for which we spent decades to build. We have an educated and capable population. We have national reserves which can be used in difficult times. We have leaders of calibre. We have an excellent defence. What matters is that we have a brand name. The Singapore brand is a very valuable capital. All these are the capital we have.

However, we are still handicapped by several factors. We are small. We have only 682.3 square kilometres of land bereft of natural resources, and a tiny population of 3.26 million.

Mr Speaker, I do not in the least doubt that we can and certainly will overcome the difficulties facing us now. When Singapore was born as a nation 36 years ago, these limitations were already there. In fact, a large part of the capital that I mentioned earlier were absent then. We have succeeded in creating the Singapore that it is today despite some quarters predicting that we would fail. In fact, some even hoped that we would collapse.

However, a historical abnormality happened. We have survived. And what is more, we have prospered. We can be thankful and proud because Singapore is an oasis in a troubled region.

Why and how did this happen? Singapore's survival depends on two factors - external and internal factors. As is the case with other small nations, Singapore's rise or fall is determined to a large extent, about 60%, by external factors and 40% by factors within the country.

We are not the United States of America, or China which are sufficiently large to depend on the people's sources of wealth and dynamism of efforts. America's economy forms 27% of the world's GNP. China, with its population of 1.29 billion and vast land rich with natural resources, can depend on the efforts and wealth within the country to support itself in hard times. Singapore cannot.

The situation three decades ago is different from the present. The bipolar world and the Cold War of the 1960s were to our advantage when we were viewed as supporters in the Western powers' struggle against communism. Hence, we enjoyed the inflow of capital which developed our industries, and this region saw support for anti-communist governments.

Such strategic considerations have helped the economies of Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Brunei to grow. ASEAN has been hailed as the unmatched shield of stability in the region. The basis of development which began from these strategic considerations has produced a circle of dynamism which benefited the region. Singapore, which has more obvious internal advantages and adopts correct policies and approach, has been able to move far ahead.

The world is now a unipolar one. The struggle against communism has ended. The concern of the West has shifted to tackling their biggest political and economic rivals.

Who is considered as a side which is able to pierce the unipolar comfort of the United States? Although Europe is seen as an economic rival, it is still counted as its political ally. So is Japan. This puts China and militant Islam as the biggest challenge to US world supremacy.

Based on the way the US conducts its international relations, many are of the view that the challenge from China is a long-term concern while the challenge by militant Islam is more pressing.

Mr Speaker, let me explain. In its effort to counter the threat of the Soviet Union, the US rallied its allies among Muslim nations. It helped Iran under Shah Phalavi and strengthened groups opposed to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan apart from cooperating with several Arab countries.

The political challenge of militant Islam to the US began when Iran fell into the hands of the mullahs. Its attempt to make Iraq a buffer against Iranian influence ended with the emergence of Iraq under expansionist Saddam Hussein. Now Iraq has still not been completely crippled after Operation Desert Storm.

In Afghanistan, the government power fell into the hands of the Talibans who opposed Soviet occupation of the country. The new Afghan leadership later provided safe haven to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, the person responsible for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is actually political in nature. George Habash of the People's Liberation Front of Palestine is a Christian. So are several other Palestinian senior leaders. However, the existence and violent profile of Hamas, Hizbollah and Al-Aqsa groups have placed militant Islam as a challenge to the US. The western media is also responsible for such portrayal.

The flow of migrants from Muslim countries in North Africa, Middle East and Pakistan to France, Britain, Germany, Denmark, and the social conflicts which have arisen from it have also increased the concern of European countries on the phenomenon called Islam. These countries, though well-known as protectors and advocates of human rights, have taken measures to protect their respective interests. Turkey, since Mustapha Kamal Attaturk's era, has been practising secular policy and identifies itself as part of Europe. Until now, its attempt to become a member of the European Union has still not become a reality.

A line seems to have been drawn by the western world against Islam.

In our country, the events sparked by the Jemaah Islamiyah incident, the emergence of KMM in Malaysia and Laskar Jihad in Indonesia as well as Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines show that the threat of global terrorism affects us and our neighbours.

Mr Speaker, what is the link between the geopolitical development in the world and Singapore? If a major part of Singapore's future is determined by external factors, it means that we have to think about it seriously and rationally.

Singapore is a secular country. Muslims form 15% of its population. It is surrounded by Indonesia where Muslims form 88% of its 228 million population and Malaysia where Muslims form 53% of its 22 million population. Events that take place in the world and our neighbouring countries will have effects on Singapore. Does this mean that Singapore should be suspicious of Islam? Statements made by our leaders are clear. Singapore is not suspicious of Islam. But it is worried about militant Islam.

Mr Speaker, this is not only the concern of Singapore, but also other countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. Likewise with Muslim majority countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Algeria. They are also fighting to contain the influence of militant Islam.

We should expand our network and cooperation with mainstream and moderate Muslim countries. They can become our friends. At the same time, we must stop the inflow of militant Islam and prevent elements of militant Islam from spreading in our country. It is the seed of division which can threaten our racial harmony.

Economically, we are facing China with its formidable economic challenge. Many Members of the House have touched on this matter. In this region, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia can offer an alternative with much lower costs. All these and many more that I am unable to mention form 60% of the factors that contribute to Singapore's survival.

Mr Speaker, we may not be able to change the external factor. It is beyond our control. But this does not mean that we should not do anything and let it grip us. We should make efforts to make them work in our favour.

I studied geography. Those who are familiar with the topography of a desert know that an oasis does not exist on its own. Its existence and greenery are due to the underground water that flows hundreds of kilometres to it. The water flows slowly and though we cannot see it, the water flows non-stop.

Singapore is like an oasis. To remain as an oasis, it needs to create a network which channels sources of production and expertise from all over the world. Through the external wing, regionalisation, the carving of niches in external markets, the setting up of strategic branch offices overseas, the entry of talent and our networking with post-industrial countries, we create a network which becomes the lifeline of our country.

We also need to concentrate on the other 40% - the internal factor. We need to rediscover our strength, explore new areas, change our way of analysing and solving problems.

We have to strengthen our unity, increase our sense of belonging and stakes of our people. We need to have confidence in ourselves and our capability. It is a factor that can prompt us towards progress.

The Singapore brand enjoys an international standard. We should fully use it. The success of SIA and PSA in airline and port industries can serve as a model for other industries. We should have more models of this kind.

Mr Speaker, two years ago I was in Belgium, a European country which has a high cost of living. It has been able to maintain its economic development by carving certain niches in the European and world economies. Its small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) produce special and world-class goods. You may have heard the term 'boutique chocolate'. It is a special chocolate, delicious, unique but the price is ten times that of ordinary chocolate. Many people love it.

So is the case with its restaurants. It has one-star to three-star restaurants. The three-star restaurants are not big restaurants. Some are run by couples with an assistant. But I have been told that the cooking is delicious and the ambience is fantastic. Diners pay premium amount to enjoy the service.

In Sydney, there are also similar restaurants which are extraordinary. Those who want to go to the restaurants have to book three months in advance. There is only one menu and it does not change but the restaurants are crowded with customers every night.

What I want to stress here is that we should not blame costs only. Generally, to compete with our rivals, we need to lower our costs. But for special high-cost industries, we can still increase demand by being creative.

Mr Speaker, the oasis which is called Singapore has to get a formula and model from the experience overseas. The formula and model are like underground water that gives life to the oasis. If this can be done, I am confident that the ship which is called Singapore will continue to sail in the sea of success.

Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Dr Warren Lee (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion to thank the President.

My being here is about maintaining hope in our younger generation. Three other Members of this House who were naturalised Singaporeans have spoken of how they cast their lot with Singapore. I, on the other hand, am a Singaporean born overseas to expatriate Singaporean parents in Sarawak. I spent my early years in Kuching and Kota Kinabalu, and later in KL. In the political aftermath of Singapore's independence, circumstances forced my parents to move us from Sabah to KL, while the racial riots there in 1969 sent them back to Singapore. Despite having to take a paycut each time and to start all over again in their career each and every time, Singapore was still home and that is where they went, because they knew that here, in Singapore, success would not depend on one's race and religion, but on hard work and equal opportunities for all.

I remember how funny it felt having to renounce my rights to a foreign passport and to take the oath of citizenship again despite having being registered as a citizen since birth. After nine years in our schools, I gladly served NS, not only because I now possess the pink IC, but because I felt that this was a place I was prepared to defend because it had given me the opportunity to make something of my life.

After BMT, I was assigned to do social work among soldiers convicted of consuming controlled drugs. Many of these so-called Hokkien ping were basically what I felt were very good people, who had just strayed onto the wrong path. They taught me to appreciate all my blessings, and made me to reflect on the need for opportunities to get it right first time, and also how difficult it was to come back on course if you did not get it right first time. For these soldiers, NS was not about learning to defend Singapore, but a struggle to get back on track in their lives and a struggle to be accepted back into a society which had already branded them as failures.

Later, while studying to be a paediatrician, I suffered many reverses in specialist examinations. But I have colleagues who believed that I deserved a second chance, and who believed and supported me, and eventually, I became a paediatrician. These experiences taught me valuable lessons: Firstly, you must believe in yourself and you must believe in your dreams to succeed. The second was that, to succeed, you needed people who believed in you and who are prepared to give you a second chance. The third was that when you fail, you must be prepared to be disappointed, but you have the resilience to fight on, and perhaps be laughed at for a while. The fourth was that when you fail, you must confront your faults and weaknesses, and be prepared to try something new or to risk repeating your mistakes again.

Later, as a doctor treating chronic illnesses, such as diabetes in children, I come to know that my patients will only get serious about looking after themselves when they have accepted the diagnosis and understand that they have a lifelong condition that will not go away, but which they can battle and overcome. Such patients respond to treatment better and faster once they have embraced the challenge of tackling the disease for themselves and get serious about taking control of their own lives.

I feel that this situation is analogous to the process of reinventing Singapore, in that we need to undergo a painful restructuring of our economy and reinvent ourselves as a global city. Our young people must buy into their own version of the Singapore dream. They will need to help remake Singapore many times within their own lifetime. We need to support them in their efforts, even if they do not get it right first time round. We need to imbue in them the optimism born not of cocky arrogance in their own abilities, but in a deep and binding belief that they will triumph whatever the odds because their forebears did so. We must teach them not to underestimate the competition, but also not to give up.

I believe that, in remaking Singapore, we need to create a national psyche that emphasises three aspects: Firstly, a spirit of optimism and inquiry that seeks new challenges and new opportunities and a culture that recognises that sometimes failure is a necessary stopover on the road to success. Perhaps, in Singapore, we are too hard on those who fail the first time round. Secondly, we need to have a sense of humility about our present successes, one that recognises the need to continually improve and commit oneself to excellence. And, thirdly, in echoing many of my colleagues in this House, I believe that we must create a national ethos that emphasises the individual's obligation to active civic mindedness and civic service.

To instill this spirit of inquiry and a thirst for challenges, we need to imbue in younger Singaporeans the idea that they too can be the authors of their own success stories. They do not need to follow the generally recognised Government model. We need to communicate the stories of role models for economic success that will resonate with our young. Some of these models may not be the ones that we would recognise. We need to train our young to think business right from the start, to think leadership, to think a "can do" spirit, right from the schooldays. I know many of our budding entrepreneurs actually started doing business even in the NS days using handphones and pagers.

We can encourage this simply by allowing our young people to plan and run their own fun fairs and magazines in schools, sell souvenir T-shirts in college, run service projects and incubate businesses even while they are schooling. I know there are one or two of my CDC colleagues who actually have already done so. At the tender age of 21, they have already become CDC counsellors because they were prepared to throw in their two cents worth. We should get them to develop gadgets as part of their school projects, and help them patent inventions and bring them to market. Never mind it is not a commercial success. I too have a patent. It is not a commercial success but it saves my hospital money. There is a thrill in learning the skills needed to get a group of people to work together to raise money or to complete a project for the good of society. This sense of achievement and confidence gained will spur our young people on as social and commercial entrepreneurs later. Learning how to run service projects, whether locally or overseas volunteers, will also ignite a spark of social conscience that will often blossom into a lifetime of volunteerism. Learning how to run these things, inter-school, inter-college or inter-community also teaches our young people skills and promotes social cohesion, attributes sorely needed in Singapore's future.

For those who have left school prematurely, schemes to bring them back to school, or at least to bring them to formal learning, such as YMCA Project Bridge, should be encouraged. Perhaps, we also need to consider more educational support for those who would succeed if they only have a little bit more help in our school system.

We need to inspire our youths by showing them heroes they can understand and identify with, heroes not only from Singapore, but from this globalised world that they can apply to Singapore.

History buffs may know the lessons of Venice and Hong Kong vis-a-vis Shanghai, and they may also realise that London is still a financial centre despite the decline of the British Empire. But when it comes to our younger generation, they may be more inspired by the men and ideas behind household names, such as Nokia, McDonald's, IBM, Sony and Samsung. They need to hear how Steve Jobs and Bill Gates made their way, and their fortunes, and how the inventors of velcro, post it pads and the humble zipper seem to have come upon the great discoveries they made their fortunes. They also need to know the nature of the competition, and that China now produces modern washing machines that can also churn butter.

The need to hear also about our own Singapore role models. Not only do they need to know the stories of Senior Minister, CK Tang and Lee Kong Chian, but also about Creative Technologies, our own poets and painters, our own innovative mushroom growers, internationalised prata and popiah skin makers, orchid exporters, aeroponic vegetable growers, fishball makers and, yes, even our entertainers.

Not all the possible role models for our young people are well known to the media. One of my own grassroots leaders, a Mr Tay, started out as an apprentice in one of our local shipyards, then struck out on his own to become a successful subcontractor to shipyards. Although he is mainly conversant only in Mandarin, he now has business interests in Myanmar, Batam, and even in Australia. His is an example of a local SME made good, despite his own limited formal education. I believe many can learn much from his example.

For these examples to be effective, they need to be widely known. They need to become part of the myth of Singapore. Our young people need to hear the stories of our local role models, not just to be aired on occasional news specials, but to be propagated in our magazines, serialised into TV dramas, made into comics and perhaps even made into computer games, and made into part of our local folklore. We would also do well to have a young businessman's council, or a young inventor's chat show.

We should consider the road less travelled to be no less valid, especially when they lead to success. We should celebrate those who clawed their way back to success from the ranks of the scholastically challenged, either via entrepreneurial ladder or via an alternative scholastic ladder. The knowledge that your own countrymen have tried and made it, even though they may have tasted failure along the way, this is powerful stuff. This is about winning hearts right from an early age. We must tell our young people that they should not be like the proverbial frog in a well thinking themselves superior to others around them. 25 years ago, my mother, then a teacher, told me she had students who had never been to Orchard Road. Just before she retired, she told me of how her current students in the very same school were now comparing travel notes about China, Australia and the USA. However, we should make sure that our children do not just become ugly Singaporeans, known for passing loud comments about the relative backwardness of places that we visit, because pride comes before fall.

In my travels as an advocate for diabetes knowledge, I have realised that whatever lead we Singaporeans think we have in technology or language or ability to understand the local culture obviously is fast disappearing. Our biggest stumbling block may well be a misplaced confidence in our own advantages. Our regional neighbours are at varying stages of economic development. Some may seem backward, but some are already better than us in certain areas. We need to teach our children to be humble when we visit these countries and to learn from them, to appreciate the cultural diversity, and to be inspired to see these as new lands of opportunity, new lands where they might want to do business.

We should continue to send our young people abroad for school trips, even in these troubled times because we need to open their eyes to poverty, to opportunities for service, opportunities for commerce and to understand the people of the region better. We should encourage the work of the Singapore International Foundation to send more people as volunteers representing Singapore. Surveys by the SIF showed that young people who had done overseas volunteer stints were more likely to be volunteers in Singapore upon their return. These people will not only develop a greater civil consciousness towards our own citizens, but they will also be better able to function as global Singaporeans, rooted to Singapore and yet able to take on jobs and do business globally.

But how about ourselves, this current generation, as change agents for a better Singapore? As the current generation of adult Singaporeans, we can do a lot more to show our young that they can have confidence in our generation yet. Let me just offer three suggestions before I close: Firstly, if you are a boss, consider hiring an older worker. He or she may have been retrenched, but may still have an agile mind and an able body. Sure, you could be wrong. You may have to sack him soon. But if you take the trouble to consider the individual and not just the age, and put yourself in his shoes, you may realise that one day, you too might want someone else to give you a chance to prove yourself. Young or old, degree or no degree, I find that it is actually the job attitude that makes the difference.

Secondly, let us not price ourselves out of the market whatever our field is. We must consider that we cost more to hire than most other people in the region, so whatever we are doing, let us aim for excellence, let us aim to deliver value for money. Quality always commands a premium, but working smart enables you to charge less and yet earn more. Once you have tried a new chicken rice stall that is as good as the old one but gives you more chicken for the same dollar, you may not want to eat at the old store anymore. In Europe, Easyjet is flying rings round established airlines because it offers good value at low cost. SIA and PSA are companies which, to my simple doctor's mind, need to consider what their consumers are saying about their perceived value, even though they may currently be at the top of the pile.

Thirdly, when in a position to decide or administer a policy, consider if there is something you could do to make another Singaporean's life easier, his business less of a struggle. The provision of more temporary heavy vehicle parks in the light of our slowdown in public housing development comes to mind. Our civil servants and statutory boards do need to consider that together with our business community, we, together, represent Singapore Inc, and our aim is to make it happen, not tell each other why it cannot be done. I am sure that preservation of policy aims and transparency can co-exist with compassion and flexibility in application of policy. It may take a little effort, but that can and should be the Singapore cachet.

Singaporeans love food, so permit me to use one last analogy. Singapore is like an established up-market restaurant in a neighbourhood that is seeing a lot of new eateries spring up. Our items on the menu are good, but a little bit pricey. We need to ask ourselves whether we can really keep attracting the business by just giving good value, or whether we will need to lower prices to survive, and whether we need to put completely new items on the menu. I think we need all three, and fast. Maersk and Evergreen evidently feel that good price outweighs good service. How many more out there feel the same?

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

2.18 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry and Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President.

We will prevail and emerge flying

Sir, coming in at the tail end of the debate, I have had the privilege of listening to my colleagues' thoughtful and impassioned views on what Singapore needs to do to go forward and thrive in a very different world. I would like to comment on two priorities which stand out in the debate. The first, on what we need as individuals and, the second, on what we need as a society.

Twin priorities

First, Singaporeans have to be more self-reliant, more robust as individuals, less dependent on Government. Many Members have expressed this need for greater resilience. Mr Seng Han Thong called for a camel spirit, not an ostrich spirit, among third-generation Singaporeans, and Dr Ong Seh Hong called for flying dragons, not earthworms - all these, no doubt, adding to the diversity of the new Singapore eco-system.

Second, we have to redouble our efforts to stay together as a people. Government has to engage Singaporeans and, particularly, young Singaporeans, more actively and demonstrate that it is sincere in doing so. But Singaporeans have to themselves take ownership of efforts to build a strong Singapore society to enhance our multi-racial compact and carry forward the Singapore Cause that Mr Khaw Boon Wan spoke about.

A new culture

Sir, I agree with the views expressed by many of my colleagues on these two priorities. At the core, we need a new culture, a new spirit, to take Singapore and Singaporeans forward in a new and very different world. We need a culture of rugged economic individualism. But it has to be a culture that sees value in every citizen, celebrates alternative paths to success, and preserves a deep and abiding sense among all Singaporeans that we share a future together.

We have no choice but to go the way of economic individualism. We have to encourage individuals to do well in the marketplace and earn great rewards. We need many more Singaporeans willing to stand out, do things differently, take a risk and occasionally go against the tide.

Sir, we need this new culture not only to succeed in throwing up a stronger core of entrepreneurs, but to develop a more innovative people. It will be what gives us advantage against the competition and enables us to achieve good growth. This new culture will take time to evolve and it will have many implications for Singapore society. How do we ensure that those who do well in the market and earn higher incomes will not feel they stand apart from and above the rest? How far should we intervene in the market or seek to moderate the consequences of the market, whether through our fiscal policies, HDB subsidies or a social safety net? These are not trivial questions.

Not many societies have succeeded in preserving a true spirit of togetherness and cohesion while holding to a spirit of enterprise and economic individualism. In most societies, economic individualism has worked against social cohesion. And policies and attitudes aimed at preserving social cohesion have often worked against a culture of enterprise and economic individualism.

The Americans have the most enterprising culture among the advanced countries. In strictly economic terms, they have outperformed the rest. They have been able to do so because, more than other societies, Americans accept the free play of market forces. Individuals are more willing to adapt to changes, develop the next product, find the next market, look for the next opportunity. Americans accept as fair that individuals be rewarded in the market for their energies and their enterprise. They also welcome the best and brightest foreigners into their society, give them a place and make them feel at home.

The US has a wider inequality of incomes and wealth than most societies. But Americans tolerate inequality and even regard much of it as fair because of the reality and perception of social mobility in the US. It is a powerful and popular ethos - that anyone can get ahead if he puts in the effort. Contrast with Europe. Because there is less social mobility in European societies, there is greater popular demand in Europe for government to fight inequality than there is in the States.

The Americans' non-egalitarian attitude to capitalism, and their greater acceptance of creative destruction in the corporate world, has produced superior economic outcomes. For every NTT DoCoMo or Vivendi, there are many more Wal-Marts, Intels and Microsofts. More important, jobs in the US have grown more rapidly than in any other advanced society over the last two decades. And they have had a faster increase in average productivity and standards of living. It has produced better results for the majority, not just the wealthy.

But American society is not cohesive. They rally around magnificently in crisis, as September 11th showed, and have a fervent belief in certain American ideals - but the US is otherwise not a tightly bound society. Wealthy Americans make large contributions to charity, as Madam Ho Geok Choo has mentioned, but it does not change the basic reality of a somewhat disparate society. The affluent and the upwardly-mobile live their lives quite separate from the less-skilled if they wish, moving out to the suburbs and even out of the cities altogether.

The Japanese are most unlike the US in social culture. They shun individualism and place a premium on modesty, group decision-making, and on sharing the credit. They succeeded as a people for 40 years, caught up with the West economically and surpassed the West in some areas. But Japan's system of consensual decision-making and its highly egalitarian culture are now holding it back. The system is geared to avoiding pain, which means avoiding reform. Farmers, construction companies and corporate dinosaurs have greater influence on government policies than the needs of the overall economy. There is a profound loss of confidence.

The Europeans have a more congenial and cohesive culture than the US. They are also absorbing lessons from the US on how to create an environment for growth, although of course the Europeans would not say they are learning from the US. They are cutting taxes, trying to roll back the welfare state and putting in place US-style capital market discipline. But the differences between Europe and the US lie deeper, in the culture and outlook of individuals on either side of the Atlantic. Unlike the US, the Europeans view the world as a zero-sum game - one person's gain is another's loss. And so they seek to preserve the status quo. It is a culture that blocks out newcomers, start-ups and up-starts, those with ideas and innovations that can unseat the incumbent players and generate growth.

So although there is great egalitarianism in European culture, and a genuine concern on the part of the successful for those lower down the economic ladder, the system produces less growth, fewer jobs and higher unemployment. It is an egalitarian culture that does not produce egalitarian outcomes, especially for those without jobs.

Embracing the Market

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to embrace the market and accept the inequalities thrown up by the marketplace if we are to succeed in generating growth and creating jobs in our next phase of development. We cannot shrink from this challenge.

We are a city-state, competing with cities within countries. They are not just cities, but cities that draw the best talent and the most energetic people from across their countries and regions. Cities like London and Zurich within Europe, Shanghai and Guangzhou drawing from China, New York and San Francisco drawing from the world. Over half of New York's residents are either foreign-born or children of parents who are both foreign-born. Native New Yorkers do not begrudge the presence of foreigners who have settled in the city. They know that New York throbs because it attracts talent from around the world in business, the professions and the creative arts.

We have to be the hub in Asia for business, small and large, and a Mecca for talent. We have to develop Singaporeans of all talents and spur on Singaporeans to succeed. But we also have to move further ahead in attracting foreigners with the ideas, skills and connections that can contribute to Singapore's growth and vibrance.

We should continue to shift the emphasis of our tax policies from redistribution to growth. We have to move away from the egalitarian approach. We should give greater incentive for anyone with the ability, guts and energy to succeed to go as far as he can. That way, we can succeed as a country, generate more growth and more jobs. It is not a zero-sum game. It is not a matter of favouring the rich or the clever, but of favouring a future of better jobs and better incomes for all. If a Singaporean entrepreneur becomes a billionaire, our "Gini coefficient", as the economists put it, will "worsen" - we will have greater inequality - but we should be happy as his success will create more jobs and better incomes for others.

Strengthening Our Social Compact

But the market philosophy that we need for future growth will not be viable in Singapore if we do not work hard on our social compact. We have to overcome the problem that many other societies have faced, where economic freedom has not coexisted well with social cohesion. We can do so, by building on our past strengths, preserving the trust between people and Government, and exercising strong leadership wisely. For the market-based philosophy to work and be accepted, Singaporeans who do very well must engage with and show concern for the rest of Singaporeans.

We cannot recreate the environment that threw up the sense of commitment to community that our early pioneers had, or the extraordinary spirit that Singapore's founding generation had in building a new nation. But we will find ways to strengthen civic attachments and a sense of shared purpose among all our citizens. We have to do so through our educational institutions, our community organisations and, as Raymond Lim emphasised, through a more vibrant civil society. And we have to strengthen the heartware of multiracial relations, as Mr Iswaran and Mr Ahmad Khalis spoke on yesterday.

Social Mobility

Sir, we have to work hard to preserve a sense of mobility in Singapore society, especially through education. Every citizen must know he is getting an equal chance to improve himself and develop his talents. We have to intervene earlier to help children from lower-income groups. We have to raise standards of pre-school education so as to narrow the gaps, as best we can, at the starting line where children begin their school education. My colleagues, Sir, have spoken also of the importance of providing a "second chance" to those who do not do well in school. We have to expand the paths to tertiary education, and provide the full menu of opportunities for life-long learning. We may even have to provide classes for Members of Parliament seeking an upgrade in Cantonese karaoke.

We need more varied heroes in education, who make good regardless of how they started. Like the ITE graduates who make it through polytechnic, some even through university. Or people like Mohamad Saberi Bakar who, not daunted by his indifferent 'O' level grades, decided to catch up in his mid-20s by working hard for a diploma, then an advanced diploma in IT - his study room was the Changi Airport waving gallery - and eventually went on to get his computer science degree. He now works as an engineer. Mr Saberi told The New Paper that he was tired of the "underclass" tag and people suggesting that, as a Malay, he would have no opportunities. In his own words, "Everyone has a chance in Singapore. No matter who you are or what your background or race is. It is just a matter of grabbing that chance."

Redefining success

But, ultimately, Sir, we have to measure success not by whether you get a university degree. Everyone who puts full effort into going as far as he can, and developing the talent he has, is a success. Every ITE graduate who holds down a job and looks for ways of upgrading his skills every few years is an unqualified success.

We inherit an East Asian tradition that reveres scholastic success. We also inherited an education system that was geared to producing the intellectual elite in Britain. The combination of East Asian values and the academic bias of the British system was a potent combination, and has shaped attitudes among generations of parents. All that mattered to the British were your "O"s and "A"s and which university you went to. It is very different from the tradition in several European countries, where students who go through the technical route suffer no stigma. We have changed our system over the years, built world-class institutions in our polytechnics and ITE. ITE graduates got jobs faster than university and polytechnic graduates last year, and with good starting salaries. But some old social attitudes remain and we have to change them.

We have to remove the sense of failure among those who do not make it all the way up the academic ladder. But we have to avoid going the way the British have since done, of converting polytechnics into universities and creating new degrees - in sports, tourism studies and so on - so that more people can make it through university. We should be honest and pragmatic in our education agenda. We should recognise different abilities and give them each the best chance of flowering. We should avoid lowering standards and giving students a false sense of academic achievement.

Sir, we must continue to show compassion to families and individuals who end up in distress through no fault of their own or no lack of effort. But we should continue to focus this effort at the local level, through the CDCs and CCCs and through voluntary actions by private organisations and citizens. That way, we develop strong local community bonds and ensure that assistance goes to those who are willing to put in the effort to help themselves. That way we guard against a culture of dependence on the state.

Our young must have opportunity to contribute to the community. They have to develop the instinct of wanting to contribute something much larger than themselves. Our schools are providing a range of activities to make this possible, whether through local projects or regional ventures that bring students face-to-face with the realities of life outside Singapore's prosperous, comfortable conditions. The enthusiasm of many of the students is remarkable. One school girl, Liu Xiaojun, 17, borrowed from friends to fund her trip to East Timor recently on a humanitarian mission. Her father, a technician, had been retrenched before her trip. Xiaojun has now found a part-time job as a piano teacher to repay her loan.

Taking the Road Less Travelled

Sir, we need a breed of young Singaporeans with a spirit of inventiveness and an ability to take failure in stride. More of our young have to be willing to be unorthodox and take the road less travelled. They must learn to take knocks, be prepared to run into a rut from time to time, know how to get out of it and look for another way to get ahead in life.

It will take time to develop a more enterprising spirit in Singapore, a willingness to be different, and think differently. But it is not totally absent among our young. The eight national sailors in junior college, university or early in their careers, who recently put a hold on their education or careers in order to train full-time for the Asian games are an example of this new spirit. One of them, Stanley Tan, a 27 year-old who had completed his Bar examinations has decided to postpone his legal career until after the Athens Olympics. As he put it, "I want to see how far I can go. Frankly, I am looking at 30 or 40 years of a legal career. Taking some time off is a drop in the ocean." They are taking time-off to do something they can do well in, and do something which they take passion in doing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should not try too hard to develop entrepreneurs, or to build an entrepreneurial culture. Entrepreneurs are self-made. But we have to provide more space for our young to develop a free-spiritedness that is lacking in Singapore today, and that is essential for entrepreneurial society. We should avoid being, as Mr Gan Kim Yong says, a perfectionist society. The Chinese have a saying, clear water has no fish (qing shui wu yu).

I agree in spirit with Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay, Mr Chew Heng Ching and other MPs who felt that the excessive amount of time that our students spend in examination preparation is not ideal. It is especially not ideal for our more academically able, to prepare for both their "O" and "A" levels in a space of three years before proceeding to university. It will not prepare them well for the future. It is one of the reasons why the Ministry of Education has embarked on a review of the structure and curriculum for the upper secondary and junior college levels.

But there are no easy solutions to the problem of examination pressures in a society whose very strength lies in being meritocratic and achievement-oriented. We do not want to water down our standards, or lose the transparency of the assessment system which allows all students to compete on a fair basis for entry into schools or the tertiary institutions. I am sure many of my colleagues in Parliament would join us in thinking through the changes which can be realistically achieved, and which represent real improvement over our current system.

Building on Strong Foundations

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come this far over 40 years because of extraordinary feats of leadership. We are building a new Singapore on a strong foundation - an aspiring people, a system of multiracialism and meritocracy that still makes us special, a labour movement that favours growth and good governance, fair and transparent. It has given Singapore a strong brand name in every capital across the world. No one seriously thinks of us as a little red dot.

We cannot erode these assets, the core of our social capital. But we need new capabilities to succeed against the competition, and to keep our sense of well-being as a people. These new capabilities will require us to evolve a new, tougher social culture. We can do so. We are a young society, still mobile, without encrusted values and habits, still engaging our future with vigour. We will prevail, and emerge flying dragons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the motion which I rise in support of.

Sir, the President's Address is a timely and sobering reminder of the most serious challenge that confronts Singapore since independence. Rarely have we been faced with an uncertain future that requires the complete resolve and single-minded determination of the nation to overcome. Why are we so despondent about the future? It does not take much to see why.

At the moment, unemployment is hovering around 5% and rising. Many of those who are unemployed are the middle aged and not very highly educated. Neither are they in tune with the demands of the knowledge economy. Even as I am speaking now, I know for a fact that there are many, including those in the GLCs, who are now being retrenched or about to be retrenched because of the present state of the economy. We are speaking here of workers who are robbed of their dignity and pride to earn a decent living, not by circumstances of their own choosing, but by forces beyond their control. Sir, we are speaking here of the ineluctable sweep of the forces of globalisation that have taken many countries by storm. The breaking down of trade barriers would mean that for many, the goods and services that are now being produced, can be produced cheaper elsewhere. For many of the emerging economies with their teeming masses to feed, this would be a welcome opportunity indeed to provide cheap labour and to offer lower cost centres of production.

On the other hand, for others, the availability of alternative venues of operation would mean that they no longer appear as attractive to foreign investors or as competitive as the foreign rivals. What results then is a steady flight of capital or a continuing relocation of operations to other venues which are cheaper to operate. When this happens, it is often the workers of closed down offices or factories who suffer. We see this when the labour-intensive industries here started to relocate to cheaper production centres in Indonesia, Malaysia and, in recent years, in China.

Those of us who have had the good fortune of visiting China recently will attest to the rising and growing Chinese industrial might. This newfound confidence among the Chinese that comes with the rising level of wealth and the opening of the country is something which is self-evident. And greater still will be the confidence of the Chinese as China integrates itself further into the international trade through the WTO in the hope of becoming a first-world economy. The China that we know of today is a very different China that we knew of when our pioneers first stepped foot into that country 20 years ago or perhaps earlier. Then they were eager to learn from us and looked upon us for guidance and investment capital. We know that they have since moved on to become like a giant vacuum that sucks up new investment capital in Asia. With a critical mass of more than one billion people and offering cheap labour in a huge market, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify why investors should choose Singapore as a preferred choice of investment. China has now become our most awesome competitor in the marketplace for investments.

Sir, how should we deal with global competition and its effects? For many, the natural instinct is to fight it by shutting out foreign import. We have, in Singapore, chosen the path of riding the wave of globalisation. Rather than to resist it, we open up our market to outside competition. From finance to manufacturing and services, there is nothing here that is protected from competition. Foreign parties who feel that they can produce cheaper and perform better can expect to do business here. For many, the process has been painful. The consolidation of financial services to brace itself for competition from foreign banks will see more than 2,000 jobs being lost in the process. Sir, we are not talking of some statistics here. We are talking here of fathers and mothers without a job and an income to bring home so that there will be food on the table and the bills will be paid. Not only that, with the hollowing out of our industries, more jobs will be lost. Indeed, even if we are able to hunker down and wait through the present storm of economic recession, there is no assurance that life, as we know it, will be the same again.

Sir, in his Address, the President did reiterate that in order for us to stay competitive, our business environment must be highly conducive. In keeping with this objective, we have stated that our infrastructure must continue to be world-class at competitive cost and our spirit of enterprise must be strong. I have no problems with the broadly stated intention of our Government. However, I do have some reservations about how far a focus on continuing to improve our business environment is going to take us. In the present climate, I see that there are three major considerations in this approach.

Firstly, I believe we are at the present level of development of our infrastructure where any further improvements would only bring about a diminishing return on our investments. The fact remains that economic outlook for the region will continue to remain weak in the next few years. We are, as they say, a good house in a bad neighbourhood. As long as there is no obvious upside in the outlook for the region, any further improvement to the infrastructure is going to only provide us with limited gains.

Secondly, to foster a strong spirit of enterprise amongst Singaporeans requires a milieu that supports it. I am not that optimistic, Sir, in this regard. Over the years, we have not actively nurtured the growth of a strong body of small and medium enterprises. Instead, we have chosen to focus strongly on the GLCs as providing the engine of growth of our industry. For many of these GLCs, it is said that they have an unfair advantage on our local turf. It was not too long ago only that we learn of a GLC going into roast meat business here as well. It is arguable that for the GLCs, the yearning for contracts and business to stay alive is not of the same extent as the small and medium enterprises. The relative weakness of these desires should also arguably mean that our instinct, at least for the GLCs, for enterprise and business will not be as well-honed as it should have been.

Additionally, when you have the best of brightest brought up in an environment that looks down at failures, whose primary pursuit of university education is to get well-paying secure jobs, and to avoid taking risk, one is not too hopeful that you can raise from this rank of Singaporeans many more successful entrepreneurs. Besides, even if we try to nurture in our young the spirit of enterprise, our ability to raise them in sufficient numbers is largely constrained by our lack of critical mass. Both China and India have population sizes that exceed a billion each. We have four million. Sir, how can we effectively compete in number with human talent?

Thirdly, looking primarily internally, as our Government's approach seems to suggest, for new initiatives to re-orientate our economy may inadvertently cause us to lose our broad focus. Let me illustrate. We have identified the life sciences as the next wave for our economy. In this regard, we are committing much of our resources towards preparing our people for this undertaking. We are also spending much time and effort building up infrastructure for research and development in life sciences in Singapore. Yet, we know that the centres for cutting edge research in life sciences are to be found in the west. Brave as our attempts may be, it will be many more years, Sir, before Singapore's research and development centres in the life sciences can come up to the standards of the west, if at all we get there. Sir, there are many who have asked the question of whether or not, we are better off if we had just leveraged on the more developed science industry of the west, either by more intensive collaboration or direct investment overseas, than try to establish a separate physical base in Singapore. My fear is identifying new growth areas for our country may well embark us on a physical expansion of resources that will give us a very limited outcome, when we may be better off building up our R&D industries overseas.

Sir, some years ago in this Chamber, I had suggested that for us to survive in this country into the next millennium, we must increasingly look overseas for opportunities. Here, I am not just referring to industrial park developments or investment into areas that we are comfortable with. I am referring to, as I have alluded to earlier, investments into the new areas such as the life sciences and info-communications technologies. We have, over the years, built up a substantial amount of reserves. Our budget surplus between FY96 and FY2000 was in the region of $17.535 billion. Like a prudent farmer, we intend that these reserves be stored for use in difficult times when the harvest is not so plentiful. Again, like the prudent farmer, we should also consider using these reserves and husbanding our resources to look to new sources of revenue if what we bring in from the field is not enough to provide for the family. With an accumulated surplus of approximately $17.535 billion, that is, in the last term of Parliament, we could use some of that money to buy a substantial stake, if not, a controlling stake in some of these carefully chosen world-class companies or companies with world-class potential. We could then leverage on our ownership of these companies by tapping on their management and technology know-how and in particular, their ability in brand management and promotion to give us a headstart in the new growth areas that we have identified. In other words, Sir, besides developing our bio-medical expertise, we should perhaps acquire leading bio-medical companies and be plugged in immediately into the world bio-medical grid. We could use this opportunity to send our best and brightest to learn from them, and hopefully, from this experience, we could build on a new generation of young Singaporeans who are savvy about the ways of international marketing and investments.

Sir, at the present time, where the flow of information and mode of doing business is substantially different from the pre-Internet era, we must learn to think out of the box. Increasingly, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a continuing need to ensure that companies be rooted here to serve the economic interests of Singapore. In looking at the model that I have proposed earlier, we could perhaps own or control a Fortune 500 company, headquartered in the US or Europe, but allow it to be an outpost for Singaporeans to gain the relevant experience needed to keep Singapore in tune with the demands of the international market place. In this regard, we should perhaps take a leaf from the NUS, where we learned recently that they have, presumably to stay relevant, taken to setting up outposts outside of Singapore.

Sir, if we are able to externalise our economy substantially and draw our revenue from this second wing, there will be less pressure on us if the Singapore economy is not doing as well. In fact, a thriving second wing derived through prudent investments and acquisitions could well allow us to have some inefficiency within our own economic sector. We do not, for instance, have to be so ruthless in making that segment of our workforce, the uneducated and middle-aged workers, redundant because they are not able to compete with their counterparts in India, China or Indochina. That way, we can keep a healthy balance between the need to stay competitive to make a living, which our investments and our stakeholdings outside of Singapore can provide, and the need to provide employment and to carry those Singaporeans who may not be able to look after themselves, without having to worry about cost efficiency.

Sir, if we are serious about pushing our people to consider the world as our workplace, wherein to live and to work, I think we must be prepared to make some adjustments. I shall dwell on one, ie, education.

It is widely known that amongst companies and businesses, there is one stumbling block in sending staff members overseas, and that has to be with the education of their children. Every parent in Singapore knows how important the second language is, and how important it is that they must do well in the second language if they are to do well overall in school. No serious parent will disagree that taking a child out of Singapore and placing him in an environment where the second language is hardly spoken or written, will have a major impact on his second language ability. Hence, for parents with school going children, it would almost be impossible to send them overseas, unless the centres of posting have Singapore style schools, or unless they can be assured that their children will not be severely disavantaged when they return.

Sir, I know that the Ministry of Education has a policy of providing dispensation with the second language for the child for a year, if he went overseas and did some time there. However, for many parents, that may not be enough. The time has now come when the Ministry should perhaps review to see if they should be more flexible on the second language in order to ease at least one worry amongst Singaporeans who may choose to answer the call of the Government to work overseas.

Sir, in overcoming the challenges ahead, we will have to rely on the larger home grown corporations since it is these corporations that will have the wherewithal to meet the demands that these challenges bring. Here, the GLCs, with their resources and close proximity to the Government, could well be suited for the work. Much has been said in this House about the role and performance of the GLCs. Long after the rumblings and grumblings in Parliament are over, there is still this rather common perception that GLCs could have been better run and should preferably not be staffed by senior managers who had spent the better of their careers in the public service. There is a common perception that part of our problem has to do with the policy of keeping our civil service young. What do we do with bright young senior army officers who we retire at 45 or, for that matter, young Permanent Secretaries who have served their time in service? It has been said that for many, they find their second careers in the GLCs.

Sir, I have no doubt as to the mental ability and the integrity of civil servants who are seconded or chosen to spend their second career, or some say retirement years, in the GLCs. However, one wonders whether the skill sets involved in running a public organisation are the same as that of running an organisation that is oriented towards making money. Can we effectively move from the role of being a guardian to being an entrepreneur whose sole objective is to go out and earn more money for the company? It would be to our good fortune if they are able to make the mental switch. But then again, what if they are not able to and are just content to coast along? Typically, in the West, if a large public listed company goes through a bad patch, the CEO and the senior management run the risk of losing their jobs. They are assessed by their current performance. It does not matter whether they had been good in the past. What should matter is how they are currently fairing compared to CEOs elsewhere of similar companies. Our difficulty here is the assumption that the talent pool is limited in Singapore and, therefore, if the civil servant has proven himself to be good at running a Ministry, he should, at the same time, be good at running a large corporation. There is a common perception that in Singapore, it is the same group of men circulating amongst the various corporations. And unlike the civil service, they could well be there for the long haul. Many have commented to me that the GLCs may turn in bad results, but for the senior management, life goes on. If the perception is true, is this how we want to run these corporations and expect them to be world-class companies?

Sir, if part of the problem lies in our policy of keeping the civil service young and, of course, the uniformed services young, we should perhaps now begin to review this problem to see if we should extend the retirement age of senior officers, whether they be in the uniformed services or the civil service. Not all of the developed countries subscribe to this policy. Embarrassingly enough, at international conferences, we often find our civil servants amongst the youngest in the crowd, and sometimes by a margin of more than 10 years. Something must be said of experience and age. No amount of brilliance can be an adequate substitute for experience. By pushing back the retirement age for these very capable officers, I think we would have taken away the pressure to provide for their retirement in the private sector.

Sir, there is no denying that we are at the most important crossroads of our nation's history. It is not an exaggeration to say that our future destiny will depend very much on how we are able to resolve the present crisis. Over the past few days of debate in this Chamber, I have heard remarks and pleas that our Government and indeed our civil servants listen and not just hear the comments and suggestions on how we can better position Singapore for a better future. I sincerely hope that this time round, we will come out of this crisis stronger and better, with our bearings and policies enjoying the full confidence of the people, because our Government has taken serious account of the concerns of the silent majority.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office and Ministry of Community Development and Sports (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua.

Two days ago, I discussed with my grassroots leaders the President's Address and the debates in Parliament so far on the motion of thanks to the President. These grassroots leaders told me that having heard the President's Speech, they were a bit worried. And having heard the views expressed by the various MPs, they felt somewhat disappointed. Because the President's Speech sketched a scenario of a sea of roaring waves beset with crises. Subsequently, when they read the reports in the press, it appeared as though all the MPs were suggesting that everyone should be self-reliant. They felt that the Government seemed to have flinched. They asked me whether the Government had forgotten the strong mandate given to them by the voters some five months ago, with the understanding that the Government would bring them through the crisis.

These grassroots leaders were very close to me, and that was why they were so candid in telling me their real feelings. This might well be the voice from the heart of many fellow Singaporeans. Of course, we must reassure them that the Government has been thinking of ways and means, all the time, to solve the problems of its people. If they do not believe, then they should listen to what Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said yesterday about the measures to be taken to restructure and reform. They would know that the Government had put in a lot of thought. The Government has also set up a few high-level committees to look for solutions, in consultation with private and people sectors. However, the challenges we are facing are really very tough ones. These are very arduous and formidable challenges that cannot be solved by the Government alone. Therefore, my parliamentary colleagues here have suggested that all of us, from the top to the bottom, must be united and strive for self reliance, so that we will be able to cross this sea of roaring waves. If we are not willing to help ourselves, then no matter what the Government provides, in the end it will be of no avail.

I remember a story about a man who was so lazy that the only thing he was willing to do was to open his mouth to be fed and to hold out his hands to be dressed. One day, his wife had to go back to her own village to visit her parents. Before she left home, she made a big biscuit and tied it with a string around the neck of her husband. She told the lazy man, "If you are hungry, just open your mouth and bite on the biscuit." A week later, she returned home to find her husband dead. He had only managed to eat the part of the biscuit nearer to his mouth. He was too lazy even to use his hands to reach for the part of the biscuit farther away from his mouth. As a result, he died of starvation. So, if we do not help ourselves, whatever the Government does, it will be quite useless in the end.

In order to continue with our success, we must change this mentality of relying and depending on the Government to solve all problems. The President's address devoted much of its volume on the people factor. We are reminded that if we want to succeed, we must struggle and fight. In Singapore, opportunities are still abundant and everywhere. So long as we are prepared to work hard, there will be achievements.

I feel that, in order to tackle these new challenges in a new economic and political situation, all of us in Singapore, from the top to the bottom, should make some adjustments to our mindset and mentality.

My colleagues here have already made some suggestions. Allow me to summarise these adjustments as three kinds of "a bit more", namely, a bit more courage, a bit more magnanimity and a bit more care and concern.

Let me start with `a bit more courage'. This means that we must dare to innovate, dare to lead. We must decisively seize opportunities that come along, and be courageous and resolute in whatever we do. Otherwise, you will lose your opportunity. This is a big problem for Singapore, because we are blessed with a good natural environment. For example, our temperature here is quite constant. The weather will be the same as today, and so will the day after. There are no natural disasters to worry about. As a result, there may be a sense that if we do not work today, we can always work tomorrow, and if not, we can always wait until the day after tomorrow.

This is not so elsewhere. In China, if you go to Huang Shan (the Yellow Mountain), today, you see the peak and you might see sunrise. But just a while later you may not see them because they are covered by the fog and clouds. So, the moment the fog is dispersed, you must immediately seize the opportunity to take in the magnificent view, otherwise you may just miss the most fantastic scenery you could see in your life. But, in Singapore, there is no thick fog. We see the same scenery day in and day out. Seizing an opportunity to view certain scenic spot does not seem to be that important.

We must also dare to venture, dare to adjust, dare to advance and dare to retreat. We must never be too swayed by considerations of minor gain and loss, and hesitate over what move to make or shilly-shally. We must remember that paths are made by men walking over them. If we want to go somewhere and there is no access road, create your own way. So, if we want to start a business, use the road that we have created for it. There is of course a cost to it, but then this is what entrepreneurship is all about. You can recover the cost by charging others who use the road started by you.

Next, we must dare to express ourselves. We must also dare to take responsibility for what we say. Whenever we tell our young professionals that the Government is asking people to make suggestions and contribute ideas, their first response is inevitably, "Where are the OB markers?" Are there any out-of-bound areas? When we keep thinking about the out-of-bound areas, then we might just as well shut up and do not talk. So in that way, we would not be able to have a good exchange of ideas. In my view and experience, so long as we speak according to our conscience, in the interest of the nation and our fellow citizens, it should not be deemed to be out-of-bound even if we hold views different from the government. That is my experience as a civil servant for more than 20 years.

Next, we must dare to face failure. We must remember that failure is the mother of success. So when we start a business, we may make some mistakes and lose some money. So long as we learn from these we can treat the losses as though you are paying the tuition fees to learn. So, when we fall down, pick yourself up, lift up your head and try again. Hongkongers are full of such adventurous spirit. So they have a proverb: `A great gentleman can bend and can be straight'. To them, there are only temporary set-backs but no permanent failures. Take one step backwards, and you get more space in front of you. So, taking a step backward today may mean few steps forward in the days to come. You can start all over again.

We must also dare to learn new skills, to go into new industries, new ventures. We must be able to turn quickly. You must remember that heaven never seals off all the exits. Every cloud has a silver lining. There is always a way out. Opportunities and success are out there waiting for you. .

Next is not to be too agitated by noises or the comments from our neighbours. We must not be unduly troubled by what they say. We must put the truth in perspective. We must remember that important issues must be solved with reason and enlightenment. So if we all have a little more courage and can do all these things that I have suggested, then I think we will have more confidence in ourselves.

Of course, we must have `a little bit more magnanimity'. With a little bit more magnanimity, we shall be able to accept divergent views from other people. This may be difficult. As it is often said that too many people generate too much noise, it becomes chaotic. But, remember, there is also this saying that "among three people walking together, there will be one who is good enough to be my teacher". In other words, there is always someone from whom we can learn something. So we can talk, we can debate, we can discuss, and from all these we will all learn something from one another. So long as we are magnanimous, listen to and willing to accept the views of others, then we will be able to find order in chaos. Even in a chaotic state, we can learn a lot of things.

We must not judge a person by his success or failure alone. We should not reckon the person by the clothes he puts on. Today, we are successful, we wear branded clothes and drive a luxury car. But, you cannot guarantee to have all these luxuries forever. Many of our fellow citizens argue in forum page that we must have broader yardsticks to measure success or failure, and not by money alone. And success or failure is not permanent. Many of us like to sing. There are two lines in a very popular song by the name of Gujue zhao Jin Chen (Ancient Moon Shining on Today's Dust) which says, "Victory and defeat cannot last very long; rise or fall happens in a flash." So we are successful today, but tomorrow we may fail. So this is the turn of tide. When you see somebody fails, do not say that he is finished, because tomorrow he may rise up again. So we must be more magnanimous in this sense.

At the same time, we must dare to accept talents from other places who can contribute different styles and ideas, and who can supplement our shortcomings with their strong points. We must be able to leverage on their greater abilities to our benefit. But we normally look only for their shortcomings, and say, "Look, we are better than they are." But, few would recognise others' strength and learn from them. If we can learn from other people's good points to strengthen ourselves so that we will have a good team and a strong community. If there are 10 people with the same ability, their combined strength is one multiplied by 10. But, if they have different capabilities, then their combined strength is 10 multiplied by 10, and you have 100 - this is what we call "synergy".

When we are magnanimous, we will be able to understand and hence tolerate the different cultures and different religions. We must realise that "all roads lead to Rome", we could reach the same goal by different means. We must mutually respect one another. We must strengthen our mutual trust, and fortify the foundation of racial and religious harmony.

We must also esteem the wisdom and strength of the masses and the community. Although not everyone in a community has high education, he or she knows the needs of his or her own community better. We must encourage each community to resolve its own problems using its own ways and means. We must not crave for a new Government ministry to be set up just whenever we are faced with a new problem, and then complain that there is too much bureaucracy. Once we have a new ministry, we must have new procedures. Once we have procedures, we cannot escape having bureaucracy. So if we have too many Government ministries, we are encouraging more bureaucracy. Since we all dislike bureaucracy, we might as well go and solve our problems ourselves rather than asking the Government to set up more ministries and then complain: "Why is there so much bureaucracy?".

Next, is to have `a little more care and concern'. We must remember that the new economy is full of roaring waves, and people, including ourselves, will get tired or injured. When this happens, where do we go back to? We should go back to our family. But many of us feel that our family structure has been weakened. When the young people are urged to set up their families, they say, "Where do we have time?" These are matters that we must consider seriously. We must strengthen the family fabric. We must not forget that the family is the basic building block of the society's foundation. It is our emotional support and our focus of care. The family is a haven for us in the towering waves of the oceans. So, however strong the ship may be, in the face of the towering waves in a storm, we must find a haven.

Next, more care means we must take care of the man-in-the-street, our little men, the ordinary citizens. The inspiration from our popular local song Xiao Ren Wu De Xin Sheng (Voices from the Hearts of the Little People) and the hot-selling local films, Money No Enough and I Not Stupid is that we should not forget the ordinary and less successful compatriots among us. We must remember that the prosperity of our nation and the opportunities that bring up the successful ones among us are actually created through the joint efforts of everyone, including the not so successful.

In our society, about 90% of our people are ordinary men-in-the-street, and they contribute very greatly to our society. We must not forget them. We must not forget our roots. We must also propound the fine traditions of self-help - that is, the more successful ones should help the less successful ones to catch up, and cope with the development of the society and the nation. In the traditional societies, this is very important. The places that our ancestors came from, like Indonesia, China, India, have this kind of tradition. During the colonial days, the colonial masters did not care much about the life or death of the people under their rule. Yet, this spirit of self-help and self-reliance, enabled our society and the various communities to carry on, to survive and prosper. However, when the Government becomes too successful and too efficient, the people begin to look to the Government for help, and then this spirit of self-help and self-reliance in the community becomes weakened. So I feel that we must rediscover the communal self-help spirit and tradition, so that we could have more care and concern among our people. What we want to see more is problems solved through the care and concern coming from within the community, and not some ad hoc measures dished out by the Government through the civil servants. We must also care for the retrenched, the unemployed and the less fortunate people among us, because they are also part of our community.

I remember when I was in Shanghai two weeks ago, I exchanged views with a Chinese unionist on helping the unemployed and retrenched. He told me, "In China, we try to educate the community that a worker has been retrenched not because he is not good enough, but because changes in the labour market has caused his job to be lost. So this can happen to anyone, including you and I. Hence we should not look down on the retrenched and the unemployed. Tomorrow, it may well be us. So, we should help each other. Show some care and concern for them, they will feel they have not been forgotten by society, and they will have the courage to start all over again."

I think we can learn from this attitude, and show a little more care and concern for others. We must also not forget our elders. As it is said in Chinese, "Honour your own elders and extend it to other people's elders. Love your young and extend the love to other people's young as well." While it is good to look after my own family, we should look beyond that. We should transcend our family to look after and care for other people, beyond our family.

We want to promote volunteerism in our society. We must encourage more people to volunteer in social works. We must strengthen our social heartware. A little more courage, a little more magnanimity and a little more care and concern can go a long way in strengthening our social fabric. Start from a little here, a little there and build up our social cohesion. Then, we will be moving in the right direction.

We can find inspiration in the Presidential Address. Move forward courageously, and get rid of our kiasu (afraid to lose) and kiasi (afraid to die) mentality. We will be able to be bold and courageous, but with caution and prudence. Then we can reach the state of baijia zhengming (letting a hundred schools of thought contend). We can then lay the strong foundation for our future development in the new century. Some 100 years ago, the founders of Singapore came from various parts of Asia. On the basis of three "little bit more": more courage, more magnanimity and more care and concern for the people, they have built up this miracle in the form of a prosperous Singapore. Let us adopt the same kind of spirit to develop a better Singapore in the new century.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.13 pm until 3.35 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a labour MP, I thought I would just touch on issues that are close to the hearts of our workers and heartlanders.

Our workers at the shop floor know very well that more retrenchment will be coming despite signs of economic recovery. They also understand the reasons, such as merger and acquisition, company relocation or restructuring, cost cuttings or poor business. There are many reasons why a person can or cannot get a job in the market. Obviously there is no one solution that will solve all the problems through getting jobs for the workers.

It is encouraging to note that we have tried to help to alleviate the unemployment problem by setting up a Job Task Force and a Career Centre providing job placement and job counselling service under MOM. NTUC also spearheaded the Skills Redevelopment Programme and set up a JobLink centre to help fellow workers to find jobs and to provide the relevant training.

We must encourage our workers to continue to learn and upgrade their skills. However, we must also realise that, besides skills, there are other factors that determine the employability of our workers. We may not be able to find a job even though you are highly skilled during the recession. It is true that there are workers who have managed to get a job after they have gone through some skills training. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are also many of them who still cannot find jobs even though they have obtained their new skills certificate. We need to find a better and more efficient way to match skills training that would bring more workers to the new jobs. The most common question that the workers ask is "What are the skills training courses that will most likely land me with a job?" That is not an easy question to answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many people have said that there are 500,000 to 600,000 foreign workers in Singapore and there are about 100,000 workers who are unemployed because our workers are choosy about their jobs and are unwilling to take up those jobs done by the foreign workers. Therefore, many workers have urged our workers to lower their expectations. Theoretically, this may be correct and there is some truth in this observation. But according to what I know, a typical foreign worker from Thailand, India or China earns about $600 to $800 a month. If the worker is from China and he remits $500 back to his hometown, this would convert to about RMB2,500. In many parts of China, such a sum of money can really make a difference to the living standards of its people. This is the same for workers from India or Thailand.

But such a salary, Mr Speaker, Sir, is far from enough for a Singapore family who lives in a 3-room HDB flat with two children. Some people have said that the minimum is $1,200 to cover the HDB loans, conservancy charges, utility bills, school fees and food. How low can the expectations of our workers go? It is easier said than done when we ask other people to lower their expectations. If you were in the shoes of these workers, can you maintain your family with $600?

I think the crux of the issue is that our workers need to get a job that will pay them reasonably to support their family. There is an urgent need for MOM, NTUC and employers to work closely to redesign certain low-end jobs through automation and skills training. This in turn will help the less educated workers to increase their productivity. A good example would be the use of high-tech cleaning machine and the relevant skills training provided in the cleaning industry. These are the real help that many of our Singapore workers need.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to remake Singapore, I think we must also focus on how we can develop new industries and create jobs for all levels of the workforce. It is not practical to expect to uplift our whole workforce to become highly skilled. This is crucial to the heartlanders because they need to make a living in Singapore.

The Singapore Dream cannot be a global dream where the talented citizens seek their fortune in other countries. We will pay a heavy social, economic and political price for that. In fact, we need as many talented people as possible, be it foreign or local, to seek their Singapore Dream in Singapore and to compete in Singapore against the best in the world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many people have expressed their concern over the well-being of the small and medium enterprise, especially those in the retail sector. Many have also requested the Government to further reduce rentals, taxes and levies to alleviate their situation. On the other hand, we notice that many Singaporeans still do their shopping at the mega shopping malls and petrol stations in Johor Baru. This is fine during good times. Besides the fact that goods in JB appear to be cheaper due to the lower exchange rate for the Malaysian ringgit, it also helps to strengthen close bilateral ties.

However, Malaysia has intensified its effort to compete in all ways and means commercially with Singapore recently. We have also noticed the media and the politicians there have threatened our water supply. I feel that, as Singaporeans, it is time that we should ask ourselves, if they continue to criticise us unreasonably and threaten us, is it time that we should refrain from shopping in Johor Baru. Why do we have to contribute to the well-being of the Johor Baru economy as Malaysia continues with its Singapore bashing? I, therefore, urge Singaporeans to shop in Singapore with immediate effect. If we do not support our own neighbourhood shops, it would not help them much even if HDB provides free rental to these shops.

It is time for Singaporeans to make a stand to support Singapore. It is our nation we are talking about and if we are not vigilant, we may not be able to afford to shop in JB anymore.

Our first-generation leaders have fulfilled the dream of our forefathers. They have built a stable and prosperous environment with a proper shelter over the head, abundant food and good education for the children.

In 1990, when Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong took over the torch from the first-generation leaders, he said, "Singapore can only do well if her good sons and daughters are prepared to dedicate themselves to help others. I shall rally them to serve the country. For if they do not come forward, what future will we have? I therefore call on my fellow citizens to join me to run the next lap together."

I am proud to say that Prime Minister Goh has not disappointed Singaporeans and neither have the people of Singapore disappointed him. The result of the last general election is a show of recognition and trust that our people have given to our Prime Minister.

The President, in his Address to Parliament, has said, "During the term of this Parliament, we expect to make another political transition. The nucleus of the next generation of political leadership is already in place."

Mr Speaker, Sir, to sail in the open sea depends very much on the steersman. Our new steersman has demonstrated his astute political judgement and foresight with tested capabilities. His leadership charisma lies in his commitment to Singapore and his resoluteness to overcome challenges ahead.

The world is changing fast but the basics stay the same. We must have the confidence in the new steersman and his many young and capable sailors to bring Singapore to greater heights. Mr Speaker, Sir, no matter how rough the sea is or how strong the undercurrents, even if we have to sail in the dark, we will see the dawn.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to join in the debate. I support this motion to thank the President for his Speech.

It is difficult to speak after more than 60 of my fellow hon. Members of the House, including some Members from the Frontbench, have had their say. You had yours. So many issues, ideas and suggestions were covered that one could literally say that no stone was left unturned. Let me quickly add that I agree with and support most of what were said. Hence, whatever I now say will evoke a sense of deja vu. I receive friendly hints that my chance of being appreciated increases the less I speak. With Professor Chin's words "somnolent" and "soporific" ringing loudly in my ears, I reckon that I would be tempting fate to perform a rendition of issues, ideas and suggestions already repeated many times over to an audience who had sat stoically here listening to them for the last five days. I intend to heed their advice but will stretch the edges. Let me therefore reduce the odds by confining my remarks to just one topic: quality.

First, let me quickly add a few words on our civil service. Although DPM Lee had spoken on the matter yesterday, I decided earlier to say this. I would like to add my support to the call to our civil servants to implement policies humanely, giving sympathetic consideration to those who deserve them. However, I must add that in my dealings with the civil servants the last few years, I have found them to be humane and caring, but also cautious. They must be careful. We expect them to be so. But this should not stop them from being humane and caring. I know they can, they have, and should be more so in the future.

I return now to the topic of quality. Here, I wish to declare my interest in the topic. I am the current Chairman of the Singapore Quality Institute, which is an association for quality professionals and promotes the quality discipline in Singapore. Notwithstanding this responsibility, I want to state that I am plumbing for quality as I personally believe in its importance.

Practically everyone has touched on the topic of competition in the last few days. Two men, chased by a hungry tiger on an open plain, quickly understand the meaning of competitive edge. Just outrun the other chap. A competitive edge is, thus, simply being able to do something better than your competitors. And the longer you can maintain this, the better the competitive edge. Quality can be the basis of a competitive edge for Singapore. Why does a person pay so much for a Mercedes Benz when he can buy the same capacity car of another make for much less? The answer is quality, perceived or otherwise. Dr Ng Eng Hen also referred to Starbucks' order-to-froth-time quality target a few days ago.

Quality is even more critical when it comes to service and, in our economy of the future, the service component is slated to become even more important. Mr Ong Kian Min eloquently elaborated on the service component yesterday.

Years ago, Hong Kong had a very poor reputation for service. Today, this image has changed. What about Singapore? We have a good reputation for product quality. Singapore-made products are respected around the world. We must thank SISIR, then PSB and now known as SPRING Singapore, for this happy state of affairs. On the other hand, I think we have room, lots of room, for improvement in quality in our services sector.

Let me share with you an example. I think Singaporeans deserve better taxi services. While many taxi drivers provide good service, many do not. Sometime ago, travellers arriving at Changi Airport had wished that our taxi drivers could be more helpful, such as helping them with their bags and luggage. I do not know if the situation there has improved, but I recently saw a lady stopping a taxi along Holland Road. She was struggling to load her luggage bags into the boot of the taxi. Meanwhile, the taxi driver merely sat in his taxi, waiting for the work to be done.

Another example. A few days ago, I observed a passenger paying the taxi driver for the journey. The driver received the payment and returned the change, all the while with a sullen expression tainted with annoyance and anger. I asked myself, "Why so? Why was he not happy? Did he not just get paid? Should he not show some degree of happiness, if not gratitude for the customer, then for himself, especially when we are trying to survive the current difficult economic times."

And what about the taxi driver who drove away with the belongings of his passengers? The misdeeds of this one black sheep brought Singapore world-wide infamy. In one stroke, as

a result of his greed and misdeed, he tainted the good name

of Singapore, Singaporeans and his fellow taxi drivers. And

if we remember that for many tourists and overseas visitors, the taxi drivers are some of the first and last Singaporeans that they meet, their attitude and services provided by our taxi drivers are, thus, not unimportant to the image of Singapore around the world and our tourist income.

Another experience of poor quality service that we can share is the treatment that we receive in some of the restaurants, shops and stores. I am sure each of us has encountered instances when there were many attendants and serving personnel but could not get one to help us. They might be looking in our direction but, miraculously, they did not see us, even when we stuck up our hands and waved. When this happened, we often swore to ourselves that we would not go back to the shop again, ever. And many customers do just that. You can put up lots of money into advertising, to decorate up the place and to spruce up the ambience, but the poor quality of service provided by the workers will kill the business, sooner or later.

I have merely used the above examples to highlight the need for Singaporeans to adopt a more positive attitude towards their work. The taxi drivers and service personnel in restaurants and shops are not the only people who need to spruce their services, as each of us has encountered or heard of experiences of poor quality service in many other places and trades. Yesterday, Mr Ong Kian Min also described his experiences with some electrical contractors.

If every worker in Singapore, citizens or otherwise, takes pride in his or her work to produce the highest quality product or service, to perform his or her work with care and attention to the best of his or her ability, this will result in happy, appreciative and satisfied customers who will buy the product and service, even if the prices may be a little higher, return for more and will probably sing praises of the establishment to others.

By now I do not blame you if you were beginning to ask why is it that if quality is that great, that not every country is pursuing it. The truth is that though the idea is simple, it is very hard to do. Quality concerns mindset and attitude. A quality nation is one in which quality is endemic, systemic and permeates completely throughout the country. Converting a person is already difficult, what more a nation? But precisely because quality is difficult to achieve, it also means that, once you have got it, you get to keep it for a longer time.

But does this mean that we have the luxury of time to develop a quality culture among Singaporeans? Let me answer this question by describing for you a recent experience. Last month, a friend bought me a gift from a trip to China. It was a nice box of biscuits. The box was fairly large, but there were only 12 biscuits in it. Each of the biscuits was separately packed with a small packet of drying agent to keep the biscuits crisp. It was a quality product. I asked my friend about the biscuits. The answers both impressed and perturbed me. It was made in China. So, Chinese manufacturers have obviously climbed the quality ladder in a few short years. What was even more disturbing was the fact that the biscuits were not produced for export but consumed by the local population. This suggests that the Chinese people have also changed and acquired a quality attitude. My perception fits in with the Chinese experiences of Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad, Mr Matthias Yao, Mr Inderjit Singh and others, as they had described in their speeches during the last few days.

If in such a short timeframe the Chinese are able not only to acquire the capital, talent and technology but are also able to get their people to change their mindset and attitude to compete effectively, China is really the formidable and fearsome competitor that it is made out to be.

Sir, as a nation, we started out with the emphasis on quality in the earlier years. During the 1980s, we refocused on productivity. But in the last few years, we refocused yet again and, this time, on innovation and creativity.

I would like now to borrow Assoc. Prof. Chin's advocacy of the importance of culture and arts itself to quality. Quality, productivity, creativity and innovation are all important, but each is important in its own right. We have been exploring the issue of cost-cutting. Quality cuts cost in so many ways. Workers, doing the right things and doing things right, reduce repairs and reworks. Reliability of the products and services passes the savings to the parties down the line as their repairs and reworks are also reduced. Satisfied customers return and are retained, reducing further promotion costs, adding certainty to operation. We can go on enumerating its virtues.

We should, thus, not take quality for granted. We should not merely subsume quality under productivity or creativity and innovation. Not everyone can or needs to be innovative or creative all the time. But everyone can and should deliver quality all the time. We should see quality as important, to be developed and promoted in its own right. By developing a quality culture among Singaporeans, we will add to the competitiveness of Singapore to whatever other competitive edges that we may develop. 4.02 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the new MPs to this House. I feel a deep sense of responsibility towards them, because I had a hand in getting them here. Some, like Khaw Boon Wan and Vivian Balakrishnan, I had personally persuaded to leave the security and comfort of their job to take on this onerous task of governing Singapore.

The new MPs have crossed a major milestone in their lives. An 'MPship' is not a career move or a feather in the cap. It is a commitment to serve the people and the country. This you can do well, only if you feel for the people and the country, and are prepared to think beyond yourself, your family and your friends.

The demands on your time and energy will be great, and the expectations of your performance high, both in Parliament and in the constituency. And you will probably receive more criticisms than bouquets. It is therefore not a job for the thin-skinned.

You should seek to make a difference to Singapore. You can do this by looking after your constituents, helping them when they need help, and forging social cohesion. In Parliament, speak thoughtfully and honestly, after you have reflected on the issues and done some research and analysis. Do not just offer feedback, useful though it is, or echo criticisms without thought. Offer also suggestions for improving the lives of Singaporeans, and help to solve both big and small problems.

Expression of views by Party MPs

Tan Soo Khoon argued for the Whip to be lifted for all backbenchers, and for the Ministers to be allowed to speak freely.

I do not really need to explain the meaning of the Whip and the Cabinet system of collective leadership to the former Speaker. But as there are many new MPs here, let me take some time to explain.

Lifting of Whip

The party Whip is an appointment that can be found in many political parties represented in all legislatures all over the world, particularly in countries that follow a Westminster or British style of Parliamentary democracy, like Singapore.

The duties of the party Whip vary from party to party, but primarily they involve maintaining the party's voting strength, by ensuring that members attend important Parliamentary debates and support their party when a division is called. Simply put, the party Whip builds and maintains party discipline.

It is in the interest of the people for political parties to be disciplined. In Parliamentary elections, the parties come first. Candidates stand for election under a party logo, unless they are independent candidates. The people want to be assured that the MPs they have voted for remain faithful to the party platform they were elected on. A party whose members are unable to maintain reasonable consensus on its policy positions will find it difficult to instill confidence in it, and get the support of, the voters.

Furthermore, lifting the Whip for most motions, as Tan Soo Khoon suggests, implies that we should completely let go of party discipline. This goes against the grain of party-based Parliamentary democracy. We will be lifting the Whip on the motion on Nominated Members of Parliament. Already, we can see some MPs marshalling others for their cause. Do we want to see this for every issue?

But how much leeway is given to MPs, and how to do it, are the prerogatives of the individual political party. Different political parties have different comfort levels when it comes to party discipline. Some are less tolerant of public dissent amongst their members, others more so. But none will agree that they can do away with party discipline completely.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of experimentation, we are willing to provide more opportunities for the Whip to be lifted. Apart from lifting the Whip for matters of conscience and selected issues, PAP MPs may request, on a case-by-case basis, for the Whip to be lifted.

At the same time, we are introducing other measures to enhance Parliamentary debates. For example, a more flexible timeframe will be adopted to allow sufficient time for MPs' views and inputs to be debated in Parliament, considered by the relevant Ministries, and incorporated into the draft legislation. Also, to help MPs prepare better for Parliamentary debates, we will give them more research resources and staff support.

Our MPs today assume that the unity and cohesion of the PAP will stay forever, when they ask for the Whip to be lifted. They are too sanguine about the future. No one can tell what the state of the Party will be like in the future, or how some MPs will behave once they think that the Ministers are beholden to them because they can vote against the Ministers freely.

Collective ministerial responsibility

Soo Khoon also suggested that we should let Ministers state their individual views freely before the final decision is taken on a subject.

This is being done. Ministers are expected to contribute to the debate on a subject before a decision is taken on the matter. Their inputs are given in Cabinet, before the matter comes to Parliament.

We do not let Ministers speak discordantly outside Cabinet because of the principle of collective ministerial responsibility. This principle is another cornerstone of Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy. It is, in fact, enshrined in Article 24(2) of our Constitution. There are two reasons for this principle.

First, collective ministerial responsibility enhances the accountability of the Government.

In our Parliamentary democracy, whichever party has a majority in Parliament will form the Government. But the Government, led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers, is not at liberty to do whatever it wishes. It is accountable to Parliament.

The principle of collective responsibility means that there is an agreement between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that they will stand together as a team when accounting for their actions before Parliament.

Discussions within Cabinet are therefore secret. Once a decision on an issue or a policy has been reached, Cabinet Ministers will take the same public position. It cannot be otherwise. Imagine for a moment that the principle of collective responsibility did not exist. If a problem occurs, it is only too tempting for a Cabinet Minister to claim, "I did not really agree with this policy, so I cannot be held responsible." This principle of collective responsibility is therefore to ensure that all Cabinet Ministers are held accountable to Parliament for the actions of the Government.

Secondly, collective ministerial responsibility enhances inter-ministry co-ordination. Most of the important problems we face as a nation are complex and cut across the portfolios of individual Ministers and Ministries. The Government's policies and initiatives must be evaluated in the light of their effects upon various aspects of our society. They must be carefully coordinated to avoid unnecessary duplication or, worse, mutual contradiction. It therefore makes good sense for Cabinet Ministers, and indeed, the entire Government, to share the same broad policy positions.

So, if the views of Cabinet Ministers sound alike at times, we should be comforted that they are united. We should, in fact, worry if they begin to sound very different from each other on the same subject, for this would suggest a divided Cabinet.

Severe challenges ahead

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last few days, MPs and the new MOSs have dwelt on many serious challenges that Singapore would have to confront in the coming years. Listening to them, I am not sure that they realise the full gravity and enormity of these challenges. The challenges they face will certainly be much tougher than those I faced when I first became an MP in 1976. The issues today are much more complex, and also more threatening. They will put our young MPs and Ministers severely to the test.

In the eighties through the early nineties, we had the benefit of a benign regional environment. ASEAN was cohesive. Its economies were booming. There was political and social stability in our region. Indonesia was growing, and under Suharto, well-disposed towards us. The global economy also expanded rapidly.

Yes, there were several crises - Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1979, and the downturn in the global economy that contributed to our 1985 recession. But on the whole, the external environment was favourable. This allowed us to concentrate on economic development. We attracted MNCs to invest here. We upgraded the economy from labour-intensive industries to higher value-added activities. Later, we built an external wing to our economy. We rode on the region's rapid growth. We went to China, India and many other places.

The 1997 Asian financial crisis brought that happy state of affairs to an end. The crisis did not pull down only the economy of the regional countries. It also changed the political environment of some countries. Even today, four years later, the political situation in our largest neighbour, Indonesia, has not fully settled into a new state of equilibrium.

So, in addition to having to restructure our economy, we now have to deal with a more volatile and less accommodating political environment in the region.

Even more serious is the security problem we now face - the threat from terrorism and Islamic militancy in the region. September 11 and the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests exposed this grave and immediate threat to Singapore. Singapore was very nearly blown up. Four tonnes of ammonium nitrate, 1.2 tonnes of TNT, and fuses for the explosives, had already been acquired. The terrorists were looking for another 17 more tonnes of ammonium nitrate and seven trucks and they are going to pack the 21 tonnes of ammonium nitrate into the seven trucks and about the same time, drive all these seven trucks at seven different targets to blow them up. Can you imagine the devastation this would have cost to Singapore and the aftermath?

MPs, understandably, concentrated on bread-and-butter issues, because these are what your constituents are concerned with. But you will also have to inform them of the larger picture against which the bread-and butter issues will have to be solved. So let me now elaborate on some of the more intractable larger-picture problems which we will be faced with.

Wang Kai Yuen commented that the Government tended to understate good news and overstate bleak scenarios. It is in the nature of this Government to plan on the worst-case scenario. Then, if things do not turn out as bad as we had provided for, we can all sigh with relief. But if they do turn real bad, then we would have been prepared with possible responses. This characteristic of the Government has enabled Singapore to survive many crises.

Islamic militancy

Halimah Yacob said that Malay-Muslims in Singapore had turned to religion to counter the threat that their culture and values might be eroded in the face of the global cultural onslaught. She added that becoming more religious did not mean that Malay Singaporeans were choosing to disengage themselves from society.

I understand her position. But if this was the only reason for Malay-Muslims in Singapore to turn to religion, and Halimah is right about Muslims not disengaging from the other communities, then I would not worry about the trend. There is really nothing wrong with Singaporeans wanting to be more religious, so long as they regard their religion as something personal between themselves and their God, and they interact freely with people of other races and religions.

The increased religiosity of our Muslims is part of the global Islamic wave that emanated from the Middle East after the 1973 oil crisis, when the countries there were flushed with cash, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

I met the Prime Minister of Mauritius last month when he stopped over in Singapore on his way to Australia for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. He told me that the Muslims in his country had become more conservative, and that many Muslim women had taken to wearing headscarves. Mauritius is far away from the Middle East and some distance from Africa, and yet in that island country, they too have been affected by this wave of Islamic resurgence. He lamented that their Muslims were not mixing as freely with the non-Muslims as they did in the seventies. In Mauritius, 52% of the population are Hindus, and 17% Muslims.

At the same Commonwealth meeting, the Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone told me that the same thing was happening to his country's Muslims. They have also become more conservative. 60% of Sierra Leone's population are Muslims.

There are, however, other Muslim societies which have not gone down the path of conservatism. I met a Moroccan Minister on Wednesday. He was surprised that so many Muslim women in Malaysia and Singapore wear the tudung. He told me that the women in his country did not wear the religious headscarf. He invited me to visit his country to see how Moroccan Muslims practise their faith. He added that Tunisia, another Muslim country, is even more liberal, but, no, not Algeria.

If Singaporeans who are more religious remain engaged with mainstream secular society, there is no problem. But if they opt out, this could fracture our social cohesion.

What I am even more concerned about, however, is religious activism and extremism, or people using religion to advance their own agenda. Take Ibrahim Maidin, the local Jemaah Islamiyah leader, as an example. He taught Halimah's children religious studies. He wrote to Halimah when he heard that she was standing for election. He urged her that as a Muslim, she should not do so. He argued that as an MP in a secular political party, she might be associated with laws and policies which were not in accordance with the Syariah.

It spoke well of Halimah that she did not listen to him. Otherwise, she would not be here today, and would not be able to contribute to her community as well as to Singapore. This would have been a loss both to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

Another Malay leader told me a similar story of extremism. A religious teacher had advised his students not to mix with non-Muslims as they were non-believers. When one of the students told her parents of this, they pulled her out of the class immediately. But what about the other students remaining in the class? Should it not be the religious teacher who should be pulled out of the class instead? At the very least, he should be advised to refrain from such teachings. Such extremism is a cause for concern.

Extremism comes at the expense of inter-racial and inter-religious interaction. It excludes rather than includes. It results in the withdrawal of the practitioner into his own communal cocoon, and in the rejection of others who do not share his beliefs. When that happens, the other communities will not only keep their distance, but will also press for more space of their own. This can break up our social structure and social cohesion.

Extremism is even more dangerous when the extremists campaign and compel others to follow their view in the name of religion. Zainul Abidin Rasheed should be supported when he asked moderate Muslims to stand up against extremists. Moderate Muslims should not allow the extremists to set the agenda for them.

It is not only us who are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism. Earlier this year, leaders of the two largest Muslim organisations in Indonesia met in Jakarta to discuss the problems facing the country. After the meeting, the Nahdlatul Ulama chairman, Hasyim Muzadi, told a press conference that the image of Islam had been politicised by certain groups for their vested interests. He stressed that such radicalism was not the Islamic way of thinking. His counterpart in Muhammadiyah, Syafii Maarif, said that if the authorities were afraid to take stern measures against the radicals, that would pave the way for the birth of another Taliban nation.

In Malaysia too, moderate Muslims - "the silent majority" - are being urged to speak up, to balance extremist views on Islam. The Executive Director of Sisters-in-Islam recently called on middle-class Malaysian Muslims, especially those who had been quiet so far, to voice out their moderate views, instead of allowing the radicals and extremists to dominate.

My worry is that some extremist groups will exploit the growing Islamic consciousness in Singapore and in the region, to advance their religious or political objectives through radical means, some of which can be violent.

The Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia is a radical group. It envisages the creation of a Daulah Islamiyah Nusantara, a pan-regional Islamic state, comprising Malaysia, Indonesia and southern Philippines.

The Indonesian-led Jemaah Islamiyah group has added another country or part of it, Thailand, to Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia's pan-regional Islamic state. It has talked about forming an Islamic state comprising southern Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and southern Philippines.

Ibrahim Maidin, the Singapore leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, went one step further. He told an ISD officer that he was convinced that sooner or later, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Mindanao in the Philippines, would come under Syariah law and become a Daulah Islamiyah, or Islamic state. He continued that when that happened, Singapore would inevitably also become Islamic.

Other militant groups in the region have objectives which are more national in nature, but they are no less worrisome. Malaysia's Al-Ma'unah wants to set up an Islamic state in Malaysia. Laskar Jihad and the Islamic Defenders Front want an Islamic state in Indonesia. Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front want to form an independent Muslim state in the Muslim enclave of Mindanao in southern Philippines, while Barisan Revolusi Nasional and Gerakan Mujahiddin Islam Pattani want to do so in southern Thailand.

Although these militant groups have objectives that are domestically driven, some of them already have operational links with one another as well as with Al-Qaeda. For example, both Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia and the Indonesian Mujahidin Council subscribe to the goal of uniting the global Islamic community, which is what Al-Qaeda advocates.

These are not bogeyman tales to frighten children. Nor have we exaggerated the extent of the problem. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the militant groups in our region have extensive and well-developed networks.

The Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah is part of a much larger regional terrorist network spanning Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah members have identified Abu Bakar Baasyir and Abu Jibril as among those responsible for the establishment and operation of the Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah. Abu Jibril has been implicated in crimes committed by the Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia, while Abu Bakar Baasyir and another Indonesian Mujahidin Council leader, Hambali, are said to be behind the movement to establish an Islamic state comprising Indonesia, Malaysia and southern Philippines.

Six of the 13 Jemaah Islamiyah members being held in Singapore had links with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, while the two who were arrested and then released had visited Moro Islamic Liberation Front camps in the past.

Jemaah Islamiyah may also have Thai connections. In January this year, a Singaporean Jemaah Islamiyah fugitive, who is still on the run, Mas Selamat Kastari, and four others were believed to have fled to Thailand. Kastari was suspected to be planning to hijack an aircraft from Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand, and crash it into Changi Airport.

So you see, it is not just Al-Qaeda we are concerned with. It is Islamic radicalism and militancy in our region. The Al-Qaeda terrorists are primarily against the Americans. Their targets are Americans. The radical groups in our region have a different regional agenda. The two have combined forces.

Relations with Malaysia

Several MPs have spoken on our relations with Malaysia. Yeo Guat Kwang said that one union leader could not understand why the Malaysians were so angry with Singapore.

In recent months, hardly a week went by without the Malaysian media playing up one bilateral issue or another: water, `tudung', land reclamation, and even Vivian's playful remark about "wild animals". Now it is Ravindran's turn to fall victim. Tomorrow will be Ong Ah Heng's.

I asked some young Singaporeans what they thought of all these attacks on Singapore. They said that they were immune to them. In other words, there is no effect on them whatsoever.

But unfortunately, when the Malaysian media carries factually incorrect or one-sided reports, or inflammatory comments, they also stoke the flames of the Malaysian people. They sour relations at the people level. Guat Kwang said that his union leader friend was worried about travelling to Malaysia. I know of others who had cancelled their plans to spend the recent school holidays in Malaysia.

Land Reclamation

Take land reclamation as an example of flame-stoking. There have been so many allegations on so many fronts, and also many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in their media reports.

I do not wish to delve into detail on this issue, as Mah Bow Tan has already done so. But I do wish to point out that our land reclamation policy is not new or secret. Singapore is a small country. We reclaim land because we need land and for no other reason. We have been doing so since the 1960s. In 1991, a set of comprehensive land-use plans, including those pertaining to long-term reclamation, was approved by the Government and put on public record. This was the Concept Plan of 1991, which was recently reviewed, updated and re-issued as Concept Plan 2001. This is a publicly available document.

We do take Malaysia's concerns seriously. This is why DPM Lee Hsien Loong told the Malaysian leaders during his visit to KL, that if Malaysia had concerns about our reclamation works, it could put them down in a note and Singapore would study them.

Water

Water is another complicated issue between our two countries. In fact, it has been a constant source of tension since our independence.

The picture that has been recently painted in the Malaysian media is one of an arrogant, selfish Singapore profiteering from our purchase of raw water from Johor. As in the land reclamation issue, this picture is skewed to arouse feelings and resentment against Singapore.

Let me give you an example. We have been accused by a Malaysian newspaper of raking in huge profits of RM600 million annually, by selling the water we get from Johor at 3 sen per thousand gallons, to ships which call at Singapore.

Water sold to ships calling at our ports does attract high tariffs, but this is only because we do not want to encourage this kind of demand. We sell only a small quantity of water to ships, about 1 million gallons per day, which is less than 1% of Singapore's total water demand. The revenue Singapore gets from this sale, I wish, was near the RM600 million figure, but it is not. Last year, Singapore's gross revenue from our sale of water to ships totalled about RM40 million.

The key unhappiness, however, is in the current price of 3 sen that we are paying for raw water.

As part of the deal on the bilateral package, which we are still negotiating, we had offered to increase this 3 sen for raw water that was agreed between Singapore and Malaysia in the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. In addition, we had been prepared to vary the Points of Agreement (POA) on Malayan Railway Land, and offer Malaysia additional plots of land for joint development.

All these concessions that Singapore had offered under the bilateral package must be taken into account when considering the price Singapore is willing to pay for water under a new agreement.

But for Singapore, this issue goes beyond money. The 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements are international treaties, legally binding on Singapore and Malaysia. They are guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement and cannot be varied except as provided for within the Agreements, or by mutual consent. But we were prepared to consider an increase in the price of existing water within the bilateral package and as a gesture of goodwill to help conclude a deal.

I bring up this point because at the height of the furore over water, certain comments by the Malaysian media troubled us. They seemed to suggest that Malaysia should unilaterally amend the terms of the existing Water Agreements, if resolution could not be reached on a new price for existing water. For example, a New Straits Times editorial of 30th January commented:

"By (Singapore) suggesting that these (water) agreements continue to apply by default because the Johor state government failed to re-negotiate the price structure after 25 years in 1986 and 1987, it is simply playing hard to get."

The same editorial suggested that the issue of water be viewed as a business transaction - agree to a price, seal the deal, or part with no hard feelings and look elsewhere for water. In other words, if Singapore does not agree to Malaysia's price for water, we would have to look elsewhere for water because Malaysia would stop its supply to us.

But it is not so simple. Both sides can walk away from the negotiations on a new water agreement if we cannot reach an agreement. However, both sides have to honour the existing 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. As I mentioned earlier, these two agreements were confirmed and guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement, also known as the Independence of Singapore Agreement. Any breach of the Water Agreements would also call into question the Separation Agreement, and undermine our very existence. This is totally unacceptable.

I think it is high time we explored a different approach to water supply from Malaysia. I do not want our relations with Malaysia to be always strained by this issue. It is not healthy for our two countries to be always locked in dispute. It is unwise to allow this one issue to sour bilateral relations at all levels and on all fronts. It prevents us from co-operating in strategic areas of mutual benefit. The long-term interests of our two countries might be better served if we can remove this constant thorn in our bilateral relations.

The sensitivity of this water issue goes back to the Separation. On 9th August 1965, the very day of our independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman told the British High Commissioner in Malaya:

"If Singapore's foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia's interests, we could always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johor."

Time has not changed this perception that water is to be used as a leverage against Singapore. In an article entitled "Water as a Factor in International Relations" published in the November 2000 issue of Strategi, a journal of the Malaysia Armed Forces College, a Lt-Col Azmy Yahya wrote:

"Malaysia should take full advantage of water as a strategic weapon to counter Singapore's military advantage over Malaysia."

Noting that "without water, Singapore may not survive", Azmy said that apart from the ability to disrupt the water supply to Singapore, Malaysia also had the capability to pollute the supply with either chemical or biological weapons. He argued that Malaysia had the right to defend itself through all means.

Fortunately, though, there are others with a more realistic sense of the situation. Lt-Gen Zaini Mohd Said, the former Malaysian Army Field Commander, wrote a commentary in Mingguan Malaysia just two months ago when media criticisms against us on water were at their zenith. He pointed out that water was a security issue that could lead to armed conflict. He reminded Malaysians that the Singapore military was stronger and more sophisticated. And although Malaysia had its own means of responding, Zaini concluded that both sides would be losers if it came to armed conflict.

It is not healthy to always have a Damocles' sword hanging over our heads. It breeds mistrust and suspicion, and does not make for a productive relationship. It may be better for bilateral relations if we start to move a little away from our reliance on Malaysia for water.

This is doable if we have to do it. We have already called a tender for a 30mgd desalination plant. We have been operating a plant to produce NEWater (reclaimed water) using membrane technology for two years now. And we intend to build more such NEWater plants. The cost of these alternative sources of water is not all that prohibitive either.

We want to have good, stable relations with Malaysia for the long term and for mutual benefit. We shall play our part to achieve this.

Malaysia has written to us with their latest proposal on the bilateral package. We shall send them our reply, stating our position, some time next week.

But I do not want to leave Singaporeans with the impression that if we remove this issue of water from bilateral relations, or if we manage to wrap up the bilateral package, then there will be no more disputes between Singapore and Malaysia forever. There will always be the occasional squabble, because we are geographically close. Even more so, given our shared and broken history together, and the different ways in which our societies are organised.

Co-operation

Singaporeans must therefore view the inevitable ups and downs in our relationship with Malaysia with a certain calm and balance. We should not be complacent when things go well. Neither should we get excited when things turn sour. We need patience, stamina and a long-term view. We will stand firm on fundamentals, but must be broad-minded enough to accommodate Malaysia's interests where our own national interests are not diminished.

We must not give up the prospect of achieving a win-win relationship with Malaysia. We can and we must co-operate with each other.

Our two economies are strongly inter-dependent. Malaysia was Singapore's top trading partner last year. We were Malaysia's second largest export destination and third largest import source. Singapore was also Malaysia's fourth largest foreign investor in terms of total value of approved projects. So, co-operation would bring us greater benefit, certainly more than being at each other's throat.

This is not to say that there would be no competition between us. Rivalry between our two countries will always be strong. In some instances, we will be fighting for the same piece of cake.

But generally, I believe that the economic pie is growing and is big enough for the two of us. Neither country would do well without the other. It is a symbiotic relationship which we have not fully exploited.

The late President Yusof Ishak told the inaugural session of our Parliament on 8th December 1965:

"Our survival as a people, distinct and separate from our neighbours in Southeast Asia, depends upon our patience and resolution in dealing with physically bigger and hence difficult neighbours, and upon our perseverance in seeking long-term solutions of finding a new balance of forces in this part of the world."

This is still good advice.

Declining Fertility

Indranee Rajah said that the Government needed to look into the problem of housing for singles. I would say that the more pressing challenge that we have to look into is the rising number of singles. Since we first highlighted the problem some years back, it has become more acute.

The singlehood rate for resident males aged 40-44 rose from 11.6 per hundred in 1995, to 15.0 per hundred in 2001. That is for males. The singlehood rate for resident females in the same age group increased from 12.5 per hundred, to 14.0 per hundred. For males, most of the singles were those with secondary and below education, whereas graduate females continued to be the biggest "single" group across all ages.

This inability or unwillingness on the part of Singaporeans to get hitched, is seriously contributing to our falling fertility problem. So two years ago, the Government put in place a package of marriage and procreation measures. We introduced the Baby Bonus, Third Child Maternity Leave, more and better childcare centres, family-friendly work practices, easier home ownership, public education and more opportunities for singles to socialise.

But more than nine months after we started giving out the Baby Bonus in April last year, I have not received any bonus myself! I do not mean the Baby Bonus. I mean that the response to the package of measures has not been encouraging, and the fertility rates have continued to fall. I hope that this was because the economy took a downturn just as the measures were being introduced. I am told that couples are likely to delay or even abandon plans for children in times of economic uncertainty. We saw that phenomenon in the previous two recessions in 1986 and 1998. So, maybe, the response will be better as the economy improves.

But I am not too hopeful. It will pick up somewhat, but the reason for declining marriages and births is more fundamental. We are experiencing a change in attitude towards marriage and family among the young. Surveys continue to show that our young place financial and career goals ahead of family formation.

The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2001 hit a historic low, the lowest on record, of 1.42 children per woman, way below the replacement rate of 2.1. The number of resident births in 2001 was about 40,000, a decline of 12.5% over 2000.

This decline in our marriage and procreation rates is clearly a national problem. The implications are grave. We cannot let nature take its course, even though low fertility is common among developed countries. We need to act, as the implications of a continued sub-replacement TFR are severe for a small country like ours. We might not survive as a nation because of it.

The Government is committed to creating a total social environment conducive to marriage and family formation. The Working Committee on Marriage and Procreation will be considering new measures. However, there is only so much that the Government can do. Ultimately, marrying and having children are personal decisions. It is up to Singaporeans to take advantage of the support provided by the Government.

I am heartened by the fact that numerous studies over the years show that most among our young desire to get married and have children. The majority say that the ideal number of children is three. But the figures show that many are only having two or less. Our focus should, therefore, be on them. Besides the Government, parents, friends, relatives, colleagues, employers, and community and religious organisations can and must do more to bring about the total social environment conducive to marriage and having children.

Going back to Indranee's request to look into the housing needs of singles, yes, singles are an integral part of a family. The needs of young couples, however, are comparatively more immediate and necessary as they need new flats to start their family. Singles will be helped in their housing, but the priority will be for couples and family. And to the pragmatic Singaporeans who have postponed their marriage plans, I advise them to act fast. The timing is good now to get a choice flat to start a family.

The Government has tried many ways and means to make it easier for couples to have a family. Any MP who comes up with an ingenious and a better solution to help our singles get married and our TFR increased, will get a bonus from me. Not the Baby Bonus, but a real bonus.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to and read carefully the speeches of the MPs. I have instructed the Ministers to follow up on their concerns and ideas. I myself have addressed this House on three critical challenges for Singapore. These are challenges for which there is no obvious solution. I wanted to inject a sense of reality into this week's debate. The world is a complex place, and often, there are no black or white answers. This then requires a hard choice to be made among a range of solutions, most of which are neither painless nor cost-free. This is where leadership comes in.

Wang Kai Yuen is right. The people want the Government to lead. They want the Government to listen to feedback and to consult them too. But at the end of the day, they want a strong Government that will find solutions to their problems and give them hope for the future.

However, several other MPs, including Tan Soo Khoon, feel that Singaporeans are cynical and sceptical about the Government. I do not agree. Cynicism and scepticism arise when the Government does not do what it says. But this is a Government that does exactly what it says. We have a reputation for being legalistic, clinical and precise, meaning also that we take very seriously our every word and commitment. We invest a great deal of effort into policy announcements, to make sure that they are correct, because we will abide by our every undertaking. Singaporeans know that when we state a policy, we will carry it through. When we consult the people for their feedback, we take their views seriously. It is practically not possible, of course, to acknowledge individually every contribution. Nor is it possible to accept every suggestion. But that does not mean that we are merely going through the motions. The views that are expressed influence our thinking and attitude, even if some do not get translated into specific actions.

Politicians in Singapore have high standing with the people, unlike politicians in many other countries. We do not shoot off our mouths, making wild promises and baseless accusations. Every line we take is a carefully considered and deliberated policy. For this reason, we do not like to be referred to ourselves as "politicians" because this word "politicians" has acquired a negative connotation in many countries. We prefer the term "political leaders".

Yes, a handful of Singaporeans are cynical and sceptical. But we should not generalise the attitudes of these few Singaporeans to the rest of the 3 million Singaporeans! Indeed, if the large majority of Singaporeans were cynical and sceptical of the Government, they would not have returned the PAP to power again and again in 10 General Elections after 1959.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Prime Minister, could I ask the Leader to move a suspension motion, please?