STAYERS AND QUITTERS

Debate resumed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion.

This is a Motion that touches me personally. I may be regarded as a "quitter" from my country of birth, which is Malaysia. I worked in Singapore for more than 12 years before I became a citizen. During that time, I had many occasions to reflect on whether I should quit my country of birth for good. It was a difficult decision when the time came. The catalyst surprisingly was a fellow academic from abroad. On my way to see him off at the Airport, he made a remark that has stayed with me to this day. While passing buildings and parks along East Coast Parkway, on returning from a trip abroad, he asked me, "Don't you just feel wonderful and happy setting foot again in your own country?" At that time, he did not know that I was still not Singaporean. I remember being influenced by this remark and to assess what it is that would make me take Singapore as a country where I would stay.

At that time, the major reasons were more or less the same as they are now. One, clean and efficient Government. Two, good job opportunities. Three, meritocracy. Four, fair treatment to all, no matter whether you come from abroad or is local. Five, a good place to bring up a family. And, six, a future that is promised by an efficient Government and farsighted Government. I think priorities may have changed a bit since that time, which was about 20-odd years ago. But having said that, it pains me when there are those who are born here and have had all the benefits, such as a first-class economy can give them, have very little feelings for Singapore, are not proud of the nation, take the view that if anything happens, they would leave. I believe that, as the Prime Minister has mentioned, this is a very small group.

But, like the speaker before me, Ms Indranee Rajah, I like to think that the group of Singaporeans that wants to forge new lives elsewhere, in another country, deserves some recognition, not as quitters, but very much like the forefathers before them - self-reliant, adventurous, brave Singaporeans. They are not quitters, except in the very basic sense of going abroad to earn a living. Why would they do that? Many young Singaporeans, third generation Singaporeans, have told me that they feel the best years have gone past them, that it was the generation before that benefited from the growth in Singapore. Many find it difficult to compete for the limited resources and opportunities available in Singapore now. To them, the mountain of success is too high to climb. It has become an Everest. They feel that they should venture out, climb lower hills, get some expertise, get something that will stand them in good stead when they come back to Singapore to compete. I think these people are strong Singaporeans. They are not relying on the Government. They are brave enough to strike out on their own and they face up to the practicalities of life. They are not quitters.

Sir, it is paradoxical that while we are successful in wooing talent from abroad, we have this deep concern about keeping our home-grown talent. Surely, we can build, in the Prime Minister's words, "a culturally vibrant city, capable of attracting the highly mobile creative people from abroad." Should that not also keep Singaporeans in Singapore? Why is it that while we have managed to attract so much foreign talent, including talent from the First World, to put down roots in Singapore, we are now worried that our home-grown talent may uproot and go elsewhere?

Sir, when I talk to young Singaporeans and ask them what is it they want to have this sense of belonging, the answers are surprisingly simple and have been mentioned many times before but perhaps bear mentioning again. First of all, instead of looking at the subject, like I did when I first came, which is clean Government and efficient and meritocracy, many of them said they want a political system that allows for more alternative representation and views. There seems to be some inexplicable, and this I cannot explain it, disapproval of the dominance of one party politics, despite all the good that the governing party has done for the country and for them.

Second, they want a freer society, more tolerant of alternative lifestyles and attitudes. Though we recognise that in a small country where it is multi-racial and multi-religious, there must be constraints to preserve public order, they want less interference, as far as their own actions are concerned, in what they do, what they read and what they watch - in other words, less regulation, less censorship, more privacy.

Third, they mention the cost of living, particularly for those with young families. The increasing medical and other costs have weighed heavily on them.

Tied to this is the fourth element, ie, a good job. To them, getting the right job is very important. They have this feeling that they have been ignored because of the Government's message that we must attract more foreign talent to Singapore. They see their promotional chances as adversely affected by this importation of foreign talent. I am sure that many of my fellow MPs would give all sorts of suggestions on what the Government should do in order to raise national identity and so on. But, to me, I would like to just make one proposal, ie, that the Government look at the way in which they can lay off certain matters, leave it to the individual choices of people to do, particularly in the social field, and try to cater for alternative lifestyles. One group in particular has mentioned that the reason why they want to leave is because they do not seem to be given the same chances. And these are the singles. They have found it very difficult to benefit from the family-oriented policies in Singapore.

This is a new world. We have to realise that Singapore, as a global city competing with other global cities for the same talent, must cope with different lifestyles, different peoples and different expectations. It is a tall order. But I hope that we can be as successful as we were in the past, attracting people from abroad as well as providing for the people at home. At the end of it, it may just be a question of dollars and cents, getting the right job and making sure that the family is well provided for. But more than that. When I first came, I said a clean Government, good opportunities, fair treatment are key. Now, they seem to think, no, not enough. We must have a political system that reflects widespread views, alternative views. This is a sign of the changing times. Are we mature enough to accept that?

Sir, I support the Motion.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in this debate. I rise in support of the motion standing before the House.

Much has been said about the labels "stayers" and "quitters" over the last month or so since Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's National Day Rally. This is not the first time that Singaporeans have reacted to such labels. A couple of years ago, we hear Singaporeans reacted to the labels "cosmopolitans" and "heartlanders".

Whatever labels are used, there are fundamental issues that Singapore and Singaporeans must address. One key issue is survival, and related to it is the issue that Singaporeans are needed for Singapore to survive. This issue of survival has been at the core of Singapore society since we gained independence. However, the definition and meanings given to the word differ as we look at the stages of development and who is defining the term.

Sir, to the first-generation Singaporeans, survival was critical during the early Singapore years - the post-war and pre-independence years. The struggle to create an independent Singapore amidst severe political and economic uncertainties made them stick behind the Government and accept its policies.

The second generation continued this sense of commitment to the nation, understanding the need to continue to survive and to build wealth. The pursuit of economic development was the sole objective, and everyone embraced such a philosophy. Policies were accepted and economic progress was the visible outcome. Intermittent economic crisis set in, but the previous experience showed that the Government knows best and the generation followed what was prescribed by the Government.

The third-generation Singaporeans, however, seem to define and give meaning to the term "survival" differently. It is naturally difficult for a generation born in times of economic boom and raised in relative wealth and comfort to be told that they need to think of their survival. This is the IRC (Internet Relay Chat), ICQ generation who spend most of their time in cyberspace, networking and finding their own space, identity and sense of individuality. The self is emerging as the central focus for this generation compared to the "other". This seems to be a change from what sociologists and psychologists know of Asian societies - where the "other" is more important than the "self".

Sir, as a lecturer in the university, I meet the third-generation Singaporeans every day. It was not surprising when I asked them for comments on the motion and how the third-generation Singaporeans see it. The response was "What is the point? The Government is not going to do anything anyway." They seem to say that their voices will not be heard. Of course, with much persuasion, some spoke. In the course of this speech, I would like to share with you the voices of the third generation.

Sir, what is clear to them is that they are the product of the policies that the Government has implemented. They do not blame the system nor are they avoiding to take the responsibility. The highly competitive educational system has been highlighted as being responsible for their sense of self-centredness. Time and again, children are reminded by parents about the importance of education in securing well-paying jobs. One of my students shared and I quote:

"Our life scope seems to be narrow and mainly centres around school and achievement. The pressure is at times - and "at times" would actually be an understatement - unmanageable, and often the fun is missing from the learning equation. Learning is seen more as a means to an end - study hard to get a good high-paying job. There is no real opportunity to exercise creativity and broaden our horizons as the teaching schedule is often very tight.

Exposed to such a harsh, unrelenting, cut-throat competitive environment for the most part of our lives, some of us shudder when we think of the future working environment. Surely, it cannot get any better! What with the Government's emphasis on economic competitiveness and being the first in everything, most of us cannot envision a more relaxed or even sympathetic environment. There seems to be no end to our hard work and we may never be able to run away from the pressures; not even after slogging 20 years of our lives to finally relax and reap the benefits of our education."

When asked about their future in Singapore, another student shared that:

"The future seems to be stressed to our generation as one based on personal merit, capability and hard work, where work and economic competitiveness is primary, and being burnt-out at some point is a necessary outcome of our country's pace. Perhaps, many people 'quit' because they are disillusioned by the pace of this society, and are unable or frustrated to keep up with it. To them, to 'quit' from this society would help in 'staying' on track with life, as they are able to better manage their lives and stress levels and self-actualise perhaps elsewhere."

Sir, what I am hearing from these young Singaporeans is that they need a different environment. These are students who are currently in the university. They are the cream of the crop. They are those who have succeeded academically. Yet, they are the ones who are voicing their displeasure at the system that they have experienced. I cannot imagine the voices of those who do not make it to the university, those who have dropped off half way.

These youngsters do not seem to identify with the earlier emphasis on success defined by academic and economic achievements. They seem to want to move beyond that. While they do recognise that these are the principles that were critical for our nation's survival, they want a different societal ethic. They understand that Singapore needs the human capital and drive in order to survive in the world's economy. Yet, they argue that in this new age, where life is a lot more complex, and youths are presented with a lot more choices and information, this same rule of enterprise cannot be presented to them like a doctrine, ie, work hard and study hard because it is good for you and good for the country's economy. Many of today's youths know that there are certain things that cannot be measured economically in dollars and cents, and that they are more than simply the sum of their education. But they are often not heard, especially those youths who choose paths alternative to the mainstream, due to personal preferences or limitation. Very often, they are only expected to believe in what the authority says. How can they feel any sense of belonging to the country when they are so detached from the very issues that address them?

Another student shared his thoughts on such alternative paths like the arts:

"What is saddening is that all this talk about the arts and cultural vibrancy is not seen by the Government as an end in itself, but rather as a means to the ends of economic growth. Thus, the arts is not valued for its contribution to the 'human condition' but rather is used to generate creativity for economic purposes."

Sir, I think what the third-generation Singaporeans are clearly saying is that their survival is beyond economics and education. It is more on their sense of self and well-being. They are calling out for a more relaxed environment. They want to do well in other things - not necessarily excel in these activities - just do well and be happy. Maybe, what they are saying is to stop judging success narrowly, perhaps not even to define success and leave success to the individuals to define. This will also allow us to move away from the tendency to classify people into neat categories like quitters and stayers.

Sir, I was away from Singapore in the mid-90s for several years. When I returned, I saw a new Singapore - a Singapore that was going through a process of self-reflection. It was indicative of the realisation on the part of the Government that third-generation Singaporeans are not identifying with values and principles of the earlier generation, that they may need a different set of values, expanding the economic and academic definition of success. The S21 initiative was well conceived and received by Singaporeans. It prides itself with gathering feedback from more than 6,000 Singaporeans. As a result, five tenets were conceptualised. We now attempt to encourage Singaporeans to embrace these tenets. But I am not sure how many Singaporeans still remember them. It was supposed to be the social blueprint for the Singapore society. It addressed the issues raised by third-generation Singaporeans also. Yet, we are still hearing the rumblings from this generation that we want to reach out to.

Recently, the Government formed the Remaking Singapore Committee, which promised to leave no stone unturned. Every policy will be scrutinised and analysed. My only hope is for the committee to ensure that any change in policy be done with a systemic orientation, noting how one policy may affect the other. I do not want to pre-empt the recommendations of the committee as I am sure this House will have the opportunity to debate them.

Sir, while the Remaking Singapore Committee is an encouraging process of self-reflection on the Government's part, I think we also need to reflect on the relationship that the third-generation Singaporeans have with the Government. The first and the second-generation Singaporeans established a relationship by choice when they decided to migrate here. It is like a marriage by choice. But, Sir, unlike the first and second-generation Singaporeans, the third-generation Singaporeans are born into the relationship with the country and the Government. For the third generation, it is like an arranged marriage or a marriage of convenience.

Sir, it takes two to tango. It takes two to make a marriage work. Couples quit marriages after they realise that they cannot tango together anymore. They are not able to synchronise their steps any longer. They step on each other's toes ever so often. They were not able to meet each other's expectations. Common problems they face include: they cannot communicate to each other, they do not listen to one another, they do not share a common vision, they do not see eye-to-eye.

Sir, before our third-generation Singaporeans quit on the country, perhaps we need to understand their needs and expectations and facilitate their understanding of the country's needs and expectations. Let us make this marriage work. Do we communicate with each other? Some say yes, some say no. This is common in relationships that are turning sour. Communication theorists argue that "we cannot not communicate". The Government needs to recognise the non-verbal communication of Singaporeans. There have been suggestions that the lack of enthusiasm in putting out the state flag outside their flats was indication of Singaporeans' sense of unhappiness in the recent National Day. While we can continue to read non-verbal messages, we need to ensure that Singaporeans are made to feel that they are being listened to.

We have different mechanisms for feedback but the common grouse is that this feedback is seldom taken into consideration. Many Singaporeans, however, hold on to the view that feedback is listened to and taken into consideration only when it is acted upon, ie, if there is no action from Government, it means that they are not listening. The transport fare hike is a good example, though I am sure that there are many other examples prior to this. Whatever the explanation, Singaporeans need to be assured that the decisions made have taken their concerns into consideration.

The third generation Singaporeans are more discerning. They need to be convinced with rational arguments supported by relevant facts and information. In this regard, Sir, I think more can be done to get third generation Singaporeans to understand the workings of this Government sector, how policies are formulated and implemented, how they respond to public queries and how they react to new trends.

I would like to recommend that the Government include, as part of the school curriculum, at least at post-secondary level, since the bulk of our cohort would have reached that level, an industrial attachment programme with Government agencies and Ministries. I think such a programme is limited only to scholars at this time. Such a programme would go a long way in giving young Singaporeans a glimpse into the world of civil service and governance. We have an extensive programme of industrial attachments in the private sector to expose students to the real working world. It may be timely to expose Singaporeans to the world of the Government. This would facilitate understanding and appreciation of policy formulation and implementation. It will strengthen the foundation of the relationship between Government and the third generation Singaporeans. Perhaps it will make them stay in the marriage longer.

Sir, this House is the highest policy-making body in the country. It is sad, however, that not many Singaporeans are aware of what happens in this House. The media reports what it deems as important and that shapes what Singaporeans think of the House and its processes. Apart from a few pages in the print media, we get 15 minutes of airtime over television (maximum 30 minutes). Of course, we do see the reason - its commercial viability or a lack of it.

I was also guilty of it. Prior to being a Member of the House, my perception is solely guided by what I read in the papers and watch on television. I do now realise that there is much more that happens in this House. To appreciate the works of the Government, Singaporeans need to be exposed to such important processes as much as possible. I am glad to notice many school students coming to the House to hear what is happening. It is a good start. However, we need to explore other ways of providing Singaporeans with the opportunity to appreciate what goes on in the House. Perhaps a television channel akin to CSPAN in the US where the proceedings of the House of Representatives and the Senate are televised live may be considered. Yes, cost is an issue, economic viability is the essence, but if we hear the third generation's voice, let us think out of the box and see if we can indeed make this work. Let us look at the benefit that we can reap - more informed Singaporeans appreciating the works of the Government. Singaporeans need to feel they belong, they need to own the processes that take place in the country, and I do believe it is critical for them to own the processes that take place in this House too.

I urge MITA to seriously study this possibility. Yes, the argument is that: will Singaporeans tune in to it even when it is provided for? We certainly cannot force them to do so, but we can facilitate and start with the schools tuning on to it. We can explore delayed telecast over designated channels. The point is, Singaporeans need to own the processes - they need to be partners of the Government for them to belong and want to stay in the partnership.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we are now going through the process of self-reflection, let us seriously reflect on our relationship with the people. We have to start taking dance lessons seriously so that we can tango to the heartbeat of the third generation and synchronise our footsteps to their tempo. Let us make the marriage work - till death do us part.

I support the Motion.

Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the main points in my speech today will be: (1) to provide a stage for the non-elite in our society; (2) to inject into the spiritual thinking of all our people a sense of belonging; and (3) to cultivate a third generation of Singaporeans whose hearts are attached to their motherland.

There is this famous poem in Chinese that goes as follows:

"The river flows 3,000 miles away,

The family letter comprises 15 lines,

Nothing expressed in each of the lines,

But the message, Please come home early!"

Recently, I accompanied the Speaker of Parliament on a visit to Mexico. During the visit, I enjoyed the feel of the Mexican culture and the richness of its history. Yet, at the same time, I missed my family, my parents, my wife, my siblings, my children, my friends and my colleagues.

I think the important factors that make the people feel for the place where they were born and grown are the land and the people. However, under the present trend of globalisation, many countries are developing rapidly, and working towards building up the most advanced and attractive urban outlook by imitating one another. Very often, we find that many countries are looking alike, except perhaps the weather and the climate. Sometimes, you go to a foreign country and it looks so much like home that you doubt whether you have left home!

Furthermore, in the past, it was difficult for people to go out of the country. Most of the time, a person would venture abroad alone to earn a living - leaving his family, his loved ones behind. Whenever possible, he would work very hard, save every cent and send all his earnings home. Now, it is different. Given a chance, those who have the talents and the means would not hesitate to take along all their loved ones and their belongings to the greener pastures overseas, and leaving nothing behind. It is therefore more difficult nowadays for these people to retain their feelings for their motherland, at least their feeling would not be as profound as the people in the good old days.

How do we retain these elites in our country who are blessed with an abundance of opportunities all over the world and, at the same time, let the non-elite understand that although we are constantly striving for excellence, with the hope of becoming the global or regional centre of this and that, we need to attract elites from all over the world to help us accomplish these goals, we still need the strength of all these non-elites among us? We must give the non-elites the assurance that it is our policy to attract and retain the best talents. To this end, I have two main suggestions.

First, let us talk about how to provide a stage for the non-elites. Recently, there was an award known as the "Phoenix Award", aimed at encouraging entrepreneurs to get out of the shadow of failure. I read through the records of the nominees. One of them, a corporate manager, encountered many failures, two of which were particularly serious. On one occasion, he met with a serious flood and, on the other he bred a species of fish from Sichuan and suffered heavy losses. He deserves the award. How many Singaporeans have the opportunity of encountering so many rounds of failures, yet stand firm enough to be nominated for this Phoenix Award?

There are many non-elites in Singapore. They diligently and faithfully serve our community and country in various capacities, and contribute silently in their own ways to the nation. Should we not give them a stage or a platform to show our appreciation to them?

For example, there are various grassroots publications. However, more often than not, what are featured in these publications are photographs of the community's activities and the community leaders and active participants. Can we not designate a column to feature Uncle Wang who has been selling breakfast for the residents in this area for many decades, or Auntie Liu who has been sweeping the floor in the community for the past 10 years? I am sure the children and grandchildren of Uncle Wang and Auntie Liu can pass them down from generation to generation as a family heirloom. At the same time, such special features in the publication could serve as an encouragement and inspiration to other non-elites, and let everybody know that we need not only the elites, but we need non-elites too.

In May this year, a survey conducted on Singapore's workforce revealed that out of 10 workers, 8 were not committed to their work, and one was not happy with his job. Has such unhappiness arisen because they felt that they were "nobody" in their company, and their presence or absence would make very little difference to the company?

Next, I feel that the Government has given much thought to the future of our country. However, while implementing the various policies and programmes, it was overly technocratic, and too little humanities and flexibility. This has often resulted in the people not feeling appreciative of what the Government has done for them, and a lot of good intentions were not appreciated.

Let me give you an example. Recently, the Lianhe Zaobao published the complaint of one Mdm Cheong Peck Wan. Her husband worked for 25 years in a statutory board and was diagnosed to be suffering from senile dementia at a rather young age. This had an aggravating effect on the family's finances. Eventually, she went and made a claim under the Dependants' Protection Scheme (DPS). The application was processed very smoothly. But when she went to collect the money, she was told that she had to engage a lawyer, at her own expenses, to obtain a court order. Already cash-strapped, how could Mdm Cheong afford the money to engage a lawyer! This is like requiring a person to have 5 katis of rice in your rice bin before you can be entitled to your provision of 100 katis. This is not too reasonable. As such, when we are going to implement a good policy, do we not have to be more humane and more flexible?

Recently, the NTUC Club has plans to invest $25 million to build a "Big Splash", and we aim to double our tourist arrivals and tourism revenue by the year 2012. At the same time, we also plan to become a medical hub in Asia. All these plans can definitely help Singapore find a way out in the globalised economy and be successful. However, as we are building a place here for the global elites to live comfortably in, are we causing our own people who live here to feel that they are getting less and less acquainted with their own country, and even not knowing how to position themselves in their own country?

Let me talk about building up the people's sense of belonging. Singapore recently lost a grandmaster in the theatre world, Mr Kuo Pao Kun. An intellectual like him knows very well that living in a spiritually impoverished country, his chances of further development abroad are no smaller than those of a technocrat.

The strength of Singapore lies in the fact that we are always able to find a way to survive in a rapidly changing economic market. But when we encounter the problem of humanities and thinking, that is, the so-called metaphysical planning, we often lack the patience to wait, and appear to lack the skill to tackle the problem.

In fact, I would suggest we weave the stories of such patriotic intellectuals into our school curriculum and passing them on from generation to generation. Currently, there are few essays on a Singaporean 'ideology' or 'sense of belonging' in language textbooks. This is the right thing for us to do.

Another example is that the Government has recently declared 36 big trees as 'heritage trees' to be preserved. These trees have not only contributed substantively to our 'garden city' image, but are also constant reminders of our past. This is very good. It is an effort to translate the inner thinking into action. In a fast-changing world, while we seek to be innovative and to change, we have not forgotten the preservation of the `direct scene', so that the people living on this land will have the opportunity to get in touch with historical sites.

Look at what we have in our textbooks now. Is there anything to tell us why Orchard Road is called Orchard Road? How many storeys were there in the earliest 'tall' buildings in Singapore? How many times has the Merlion been retrofitted? How many times has the musical fountain in Sentosa been restructured?

We have not only to be warm and friendly to the tourists but, more importantly, every citizen should be able to tell some little stories about every little alley and every old tree to the tourists. Is that not a way of establishing a sense of belonging?

Many people have said that Singapore is a paradise for the elites. Look at our Master Plan for the future. It may appear that there is some truth in this saying. But to inculcate a sense of belonging in our third generation Singaporeans, and to have their hearts attached to our country, the most important thing to promote education in the sense of belonging to the whole nation, we must also provide a stage for the non-elites among us. Because, if anything is to happen to our country, it is always the people whose assets and life are inseparable from this piece of land who would be the first to bear the responsibility.

Finally, let me end my speech with these few lines of a poem:

"Qin's bright moon hanging over the fortress of Han,

Soldiers on the long match have yet to return,

Let the flying generals of Longcheng survive,

Let not the Tartan horses pass our mountain crossing."

I sincerely hope that every Singaporean will be a flying general of Longcheng who loves this piece of land and love our country.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is said that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong will be retiring soon. If PM Goh is really retiring, I think the deepest impression he has left with the people is that he likes to label our people.

A few years ago, PM Goh classified Singaporeans as "cosmopolitans" and "heartlanders". Now, again, he is classifying Singaporeans as "quitters" and "stayers". This is quite consistent with the PAP's stereotyped thinking, ie, to label the people right from the beginning and then classify them, thereby causing unnecessary confusion, argument and even splitting of among the people.

Who are "quitters" and who are "stayers"? Are those who have quit really "quitters"? As for those who have not quit or are unable to quit, are they really "stayers"? Then, of course, there are also the "psychological" immigrantsNot to forget also those who emigrated "psychologically" . That is another story.

Such labelling is a very superficial comparison between the two types of people. If the Government is doubtful about whether people would stay to defend their country when it is facing trouble, then I think the most important thing we should do is that we should to read and interpret the signs behind all these movements of the people and look at the problem squarely. If the Government feels that this is not a problem, then they should not be free to label the people and classify them the people at liberty. I think PM Goh should remember be reminded that saying pa si bo jao in piping times of peace is indeed unrealistic.

Senior Minister Lee has said disclosed many years ago that one of the purposes of letting the people own their flats is that one day when we are attacked by others, Singaporeans will feel that they have something here in Singapore to worth defending for. Yet, some decades later, PM Goh is pointing out that Singaporeans are using the profits they made from the sale of their HDB flats to buy cheap and big houses in Australia, to prepare for emigration. I think this is indeedWhat a mockery to the PAP Government. ! Such contrast aptly shows how the people's values have been influenced and changed byAfter being ruled by the PAP Government under materialisticand,so-called "pragmatic" and humanely indifferent approachPAP Government , the people's values are changing within the past four decades of their rule. It is said that as a man sows, so he shall reap. Such changes are not surprising at all. This is indeed karma. Now that the problem is affecting our future development, a worried PM Goh has launched a debate among the people to look into this matter. This is like mending the fold after a sheep is lost, But but then it also gives the people a chance to see the so-called farsighted Government is indeed very shortsighted.

Today's motion seeks to ask the Government to review its various policies so that it will as to strengthen the people's sense of belonging. I feel thatTo me, there is something more fundamental than the sense of belonging. Mencius has once said that: "everyone has a heart for others. So, ifIf the Government has a feeling for the people, then its policies should be formulated with the interest of the people at heart. When people see a child falling into a well, the first thing they think of is to feel sorry for the child and his parents. They do so not just to show favour to his parents, or to make a name for themselves. It is just a natural reflection of their inner feelings."

Extending from what Mencius has said, I think everyone should have this inner feeling for his ethnic group, his own language, his own culture, his homeland, his country and his fellow citizens, and this is what Mencius has said. It is a All these feelings are very natural feelingand free from materialistic consideration. It is not because of any other benefits involved. Those who are courageous to devote or sacrifice themselves for their country, their belief or their idea are absolutely not driven by materialistic consideration. It is a kind of spiritual conditionSo I think this is something that is in the human nature and we have to enhance such a feeling through education and daily accumulation.

Let us look at the late Mr Tan Lark Sye who founded the Nanyang University, the late Professor Pan Shou who helped to set up the Nanyang University and the famous playwright, Mr Kuo Pao Kun, who recently just passed away recently. During their lifetime, they suffered the inhumanity of having their citizenship revoked. Would they not be disappointed with the country? They had the talents, they had the wealth, and they were well qualified to migrate to other countries. Yet, they stayed. Why? I think it is because they have the love for their people around them, for their own language and culture, and for their homeland and nation. And without doubt, All all these forefathers of ours were well educated immersed in the humanities education, through which the spiritual condition was enhanced as what Mencius had pointed out.

I think we could educate our people. We should cultivate our people so that they know how to think not only for themselves, but also for others around them. Otherwise, we even have to go to court to compel the children to maintain their parents. This is indeed regrettable and shameful.

Look at Singapore today. There are some people who are quite willing and happy to discard their own language and culture, and they do not without feeling ashamed at all. Quite a handful of people are migrating simply because their children dislike learning their mother tongue and could not even manage to pass the relevant examinations to qualify for the university. There are also those who openly declared that they will pack and go once the nation faces difficulties. Well, We we can criticise these people, but then we should also think deeper into why these people are behaving the way they dowhere we have gone wrong.

Every person has his own individual character. The people have their collective character. The nation has its national character. I think the cultivation of character is important.

What is character? Character is fundamental to the people's loyalty, faith, sincerity and righteousness. At times of national disaster, will the people simply quit or stand up for the nation, it all depends on the character. Taking refuge is second nature to the animals, but it is not necessarily human nature. When we have dedication to our nation, to our society and a sense of righteousness, it is something that is inborn in the human heart. Yet, we have to constantly augment it with education. The Government should educate and lead the people, so that they know how to cultivate their own character. For this, the Government itself should possess some kind of character, otherwise it cannot be expected that the people will have its character and the nation the national character.

But look at the PAP Government. What is the governing principle for of the PAP Government's ruling, and what have they used as an examplewhat kind of example have they set for the people? Regrettably, the pragmatic line of the The PAP Government which it claims has been saying that it has helped to created create an economic miracle for Singapore and it has run Singapore in a very pragmatic political line. In fact, it is too materialistic and it is interested only in material gains. It has neglected humanities and has tremendous repercussion on the spiritual condition of Singapore. So when PM Goh mentioned the "quitters" mentality, it is exactly a reflection of what went wrong with this materialistic approach by the PAP Government. Should the PAP Government do a self-reflection itself or just accuse the people sternly?

First, let us look at the PAP's example of political coercion and material inducement. The PAP Government has been using all sorts of material benefits, such as HDB upgrading programme, distribution of `ang pow', etc, to induce the people to vote for them. The people are being conditioned in such a way that they become very materialistic. They will react only if there are goodies in the bag for them. If there is no benefit attached, they would not even lift a finger. So, why are we blaming them?

I think tThe feeling for the nation is evolved and extended from the feeling for others, for the family and for the community, through daily accumulation. is a virtue which can be augmented through education and experience in life. However, for their own benefit, the PAP Government has done a lot of things for their own benefit. Take the has re-delineated ion of the constituency boundaries freely. Braddell Heights can suddenly become part of Marine Parade and, overnight, Cheng San Constituency can become a name in history. These illogical things are done just to suit their interest.In this way, how can you expect the people to build the community spirit , which is a necessary intermediate step in extending one's feeling to the nation. What kind of leading by example are we talking about?

On another aspect, the PAP Government has been using the fear tactics on the people. At its first anniversary, the Speakers' Corner was so deserted. Are the people so happy with life in Singapore that they have no complaints and have nothing to say? No. They are just afraid that by speaking there, the Government will take action against them later, and they just want to play safe by keeping quiet, and not doing something anything that will jeopardise their stay in Singapore. Even this can be a false perception, the PAP Government is happy to let thing be as it helps to keep their power. But how do we expect our people to fight fearlessly for the country if they are living under such fear and developed into a timid mentality against strong power?

SoFurthermore, because of all thisPAP's dominance, no one is willing to come forward to participate in the governing of Singapore. They just want to remain in the comfort zone, stay cosy and be happy in their own private lives as long as the Government continues to provide means for such an end. So, this GovernmentThis has evolved into what we may call a "moderate autocracy", and shed away the past image of a tyranny. The Government now takes a moderate and fatherly approach. It make-believes that it is democratic, and it conducts regular general elections. But, the fact is, it is actually ruling Singapore with a great supervisory power over the people. Simultaneously, the self-interest mentality leads to weaker public sphere. And Eventually, the people feel so helpless against such bureaucrats, become alienated, and this has caused run into a vicious cycle, and many are quitting.

In a nutshell, the PAP Government has always been considering their own benefits first. The result is that the people will also fend for themselves. They want to look after their own interest. Mencius said, "If the Emperor says what is good for me to retain my power, and the officials say what can I do to benefit my feudal state, and the people say what can I do to benefit myself, then everyone looks after their own interest, they become egoistic. The nation cannot prosperwill be at risk." This is exactly what the PAP is doing!

Now, look at how the PAP Government has been treating the people. When the economy is bad and the people are having a hard time making ends meet, the Government says that we must sacrifice, take a CPF cut, suffer a wage freeze, in order that the economy can recover. On the other hand, the Government is not grateful to all these sacrifices made by the people. During these bad times, they increase public transport fares, increase healthcare charges, etc. The Government says, "Well, the increase is only marginal. Everyone can afford it. Do not be emotional about it." By the same logic, if we are being attacked by our enemy, can our NSmen ask the Government to pump in more funds to buy more sophisticated weaponspay them a small sum in return for fighting for the nation, just because the Government can well afford it? Will the Government do it, as this is logically sound based on the above PAP argument? Won't the people be alienated by such a "rational" but indeed calculative mentality? Sure, they will.

The worst thing is that In in our present situation where there is a one-party rule dominance by the PAP, when the people are having so muchhave bad feelings against the Government, so much so that they transfer this bad feeling to Singapore as a nation. there There were comments that the significantly reduced number of flags displayed by the residents throughout Singapore during the recent National Day month was a reflection of their dissatisfaction with the PAP Government.

I think this "quitting" mentality is not something that is generated overnight. It is a result of a accumulation of discontentcontinuous erosion of natural feeling towards others, ignorance of humanity education and alienation caused by various policies over the years. The biggest danger is that Because because of the inconsiderate measures adopted by the Government, many people are "quitters" subconsciously and once the opportunity for emigration emerges, they will pack and go without second thought. leaving because they could not take it any more.

Today's motion seeks to urge the Government to review its policy and to enhance the third-generation Singaporeans' sense of belonging for Singapore. But these third-generation Singaporeans are brought upmoulded by under anthe same education system which is led mastered by the PAP Government. Many of them felt that they are global citizens, they do not owe Singapore anything. They have no moral obligation to stay and serve Singapore. So, if the grass is greener in the other courtyard, why should I stay here, and sacrifice my opportunity to enjoy the greener pastures elsewhere. That is why there are more people leaving Singapore. If the Government is to modify those policies that are beneficial to the nation such as the mother tongue policy to suit these quitters in order to retain them, it is going to open the Pandora's box and more quitters will emerge.

When our best students, the scholarship holders break their bonds, the PAP Government accused them of being irresponsible. Apart from the penalty, the Government publicised their names to shame them. By the same logic, will the Government also consider publishing the names of the quitters and shame them?

I think advise the PAP Government should not to be harsh in reprimanding the people but lenient to itself. When we want to remake Singapore, the Government should also have the courage to admit their mistakes and to give up all this materialistic approach in governing, establish its character, reform the education system, strengthen the humanity education, enhance the people's natural feeling towards their homeland, and share the feeling of the people.

No matter how prosperous and wealthy a country is, if the people have no sense of belonging for their country, lack the will and determination to defend their country and lack the spirit the Government fails to foster the national spirit during of nation-building, then this country is fundamentally weak and fragile.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether hon. Members have heard of a country called Eritrea. Eritrea is located on the eastern part of Africa. It used to be a province of Ethiopia.

In the 1970s, when I was studying in Oxford, I met a fellow-student who told me that he was from Eritrea. I was a little struck since Eritrea was at that time not an independent country. It was fighting a fierce war to gain independence from Ethiopia. Why did he say he was from Eritrea rather than Ethiopia? Subsequently, I learnt that he was a medical student. One day, I asked him, "What are your plans after your graduation?" He said, "After I have qualified as a medical doctor, I would like to go back to my country. Every day, every night, I think of my motherland. My people need me. My soldiers in the frontline need me. I feel guilty living such a comfortable life in England when my motherland and my people are at war." His heart was with his native land. So he went back to Eritrea. What happened to him subsequently, I do not know. But he is a real "stayer". He is an elite in his country. After his medical studies, he could have stayed back in England and live a comfortable life. Yet, he chose to return to his native land to serve his people at war.

If we ask our Singaporeans, I believe more than 95% will say that they are staying. I asked our grassroots leaders and all of them said, "We are staying. Where else can we go? Singapore is our country." I do not know why Mr Low Thia Khiang is so pessimistic about our people. He has certainly misunderstood Prime Minister's intention when the terms "stayers" and "quitters" were introduced. The Prime Minister is not putting labels on people. He is provoking Singaporeans to think hard about the issue of rootedness as Singapore continued to develop and globalise. Treat rootedness as a test. We have attained 95 marks, and we all know the PAP Government will not be satisfied until it attains 100 marks - full marks. We are not satisfied with 95 marks, but know the need for the extra effort and commitment to get the last 5 marks. There is a Chinese proverb: "It is better to provoke a general than to give him an order." Hence the provocation and the debate of this Motion to facilitate full deliberation on the issue of stayers and quitters in the House.

Just now I mentioned Eritrea. Eritrea is an agricultural country, and by nature, people in agricultural countries have a deep-rooted love for their land because they worked on their land which fed them. In ancient China, however senior or rich you are, the common aspiration was to go back to your hometown upon retirement and be buried in your native village. This is called "The falling leaf returning to the root". However in a globalised world, will there be this same sentiment as in the agricultural countries? That is the question.

Certainly we are not contented with 95 marks. We must achieve 100 marks. We have to work hard to score 100 marks. We want to make everyone in Singapore to be like the people in the agricultural countries, having a deep-rooted love for his motherland.

Certainly we have to achieve 100 marks for our nation. Because of the need for economic development, we have to be globalised. Singapore cannot achieve economic growth as an agricultural country to solve our problems. Globalised Singaporeans are elites of the country. There will be more amongst the 3G Singaporeans who globalise, because of their higher education and their cosmopolitan outlook. Singapore cannot afford to lose them. Hence this debate is to stimulate our people to reflect on this issue of stayers and quitters.

Mr Low Thia Khiang said that we do not have character as a people, a nation, and a political system. I disagree. When we Singaporeans are abroad, we feel very close to each other when we meet fellow countrymen. Unlike others, we Singaporeans queue up at counters even when they are overseas. We are proud to have done national service. National service is a crucial programme that moulds our nation. So we are rich in character that identifies us as Singaporeans. How can Mr Low say we are lacking in character as a people, a nation, and a political system?

Talking about the third-generation Singaporeans, how are we going to improve from 95 marks to 100 marks? Of course, we have to create conditions conducive to the development of our economy, so that they feel there are opportunities to optimise the use of their talents and do well here. We have to do better in three areas which we are already doing.

Firstly, we must help all discover the spirit of giving to society. Giving produces a sense of pride and pleasure. Such good feelings can be addictive: The more we give, the better the feeling. This can lead to a greater desire to give, which in turn generate more good feeling. There is a maxim, "To give is more blessed than to take." This will lead to a benign circle. In this way, we will achieve 100 marks in fostering a sense of belonging.

Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS) will facilitate more volunteerism. We need to increase further volunteer participation rate and the number of people who do volunteer work. The Community Development Councils (CDCs) have introduced many programmes on the ground, and have provided more channels and varieties to volunteerism. We should also have more opportunities for the volunteers to use both their brains and their hands, since actually dirtying one's hand to get things done increases commitment and a feeling of giving. MCDS and CDCs are continuing to improve on this.

Secondly, to have a sense of belonging, we need to strengthen the family ties of the 3G Singaporeans. The Government has been urging the young people in Singapore to set up happy families. They should not only spend all their time and energy on their work alone. They should consider setting up families as an important goal in life. Because family is the place where their hearts are anchored. So the feeling for their family, the love for their family will be broadened into the love for the nation, and hence become another reason to stay. A friend of mine told her friend's family story. This is a rather typical family with a father, a mother, a brother and a sister. The sister went overseas for studies, married to a foreigner and settled down in that country. She told her brother, "There are plenty of opportunities here. Why don't you come here?" After some persuasion, the brother left Singapore and went to join his sister in that country. He persuaded his girlfriend to go along. They got married, and settled down there. Then, after some time, they invited the father and mother to join them. The parents were initially not willing to go but since two of their children were there, they went. Sounds like a sad story for the stayers? Not really. A few years later, the mother passed away. The father felt lonely and bored in a foreign land because his friends and relatives were in Singapore. So father came back to Singapore. As the brother missed his father, and his wife missed her parents and friends too, they decided to move back to Singapore too. Their feelings for Singapore are even stronger than before. So it does not matter where your physical presence is, so long as your heart is with Singapore, one day you will return. Family and friendship are major pull factors for the stayers.

Hence MCDS has set up a 'Family Matters Singapore' Committee to continue to work towards encouraging people to set up families and strengthen their families. This is an arduous task, but it is a task that must be undertaken.

Lastly, we have to consider or give emphasis to patriotism in our Moral Education Programme. Of course, we hope our nation will never be plunged into serious national crisis, but there are a lot of stories and legends in history that show that one's true commitment will be reflected only in dire adversity. This can help inculcate patriotism in our people.

I remember that when I was in secondary school, there was this chapter called "The Young Patriot" in our Chinese textbook. It was about a poor Italian boy who was a beggar on board a ship. One day, he came across a group of tourists from England, France and some European countries who gave him some money. These people gossiped about the places they visited. They started to criticise all the bad things about Italy: that it was dirty, full of pickpockets, etc. Suddenly a few coins rained on them. They turned and saw the Italian boy staring hard at them and shouted, "You insulted my country. I do not want your stinking money!" This story has touched me, even today. There are many other stories that I read when I was studying, like "The Drummer Boy" and "The Last Lesson" aimed at inculcating patriotism and national pride in our young hearts. I hope our students today continue to read these stories which would do them a lot of good.

The problem we are addressing is not third generation Singaporeans being labelled "quitters" or "stayers". It is how to improve from 95 marks to 100 marks. Our challenge is how to retain the stay instinct of an agricultural society like Eritrea, yet be aggressive and successful in globalisation. If we can always remember falling leaves returning to the roots, and always have our hearts in Singapore while we globalise, I believe Singapore will thrive and flourish for many generations to come.

I support this Motion.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it would seem that Singaporeans from all walks of life have been up in arms at various points over the last nine months about many issues. These range from bread and butter ones, such as the transport fare hikes to the pay of a CEO and, most recently, to increase in public hospital charges.

As Straits Times' journalist Ong Soh Chin puts it "while stayers and quitters were making their arguments heard, the real revolution was not the issue at hand, but the fact that such debate was being aired publicly" and, I would add, so robustly. Hence, contrary to what the hon. Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has noted earlier, the people are able and do air their views. Indeed, does this not in itself indicate that there are many emotionally connected, committed and actively engaged Singaporeans amongst us?

Much displeasure has been expressed, particularly by the educated young and professionals - the so-called cosmopolitans - regarding the PM's "stayers" and "quitters" label even though the PM took pains to explain that, by quitters, he meant those who throw in the towel and take flight just as the going gets tough and not simply all those who leave the country.

Sir, I would venture to say that the "stayers" and "quitters" issue is an age-old problem and exists not just in Singapore but everywhere. For instance, in Britain, a recent study showed that half of those polled wanted to move to another country. In Singapore, a survey in September 2002 by the Singapore Institute of International Affairs of 150 junior college students found that 67% plan to stay abroad or work overseas, whilst 69% said they saw a future here. The main reasons for coming back are family ties, friendship and a sense of belonging. One could say that not all is lost for our 3G Singaporeans. Nonetheless, efforts must be made by the Government to find out why increasingly more Singaporeans appear to be disenfranchised with Singapore, and do not feel a sense of belonging. For those who can and do quit, or wish to quit, what are the roots of their rootlessness?

Sir, I submit that there are two causes for this sense of rootlessness - one to be embraced and the other to be engaged. Firstly, globalisation. Globalisation is an inexorable force that can at one time enrich and impoverish nations. One byproduct is the creation of a class of mobile world citizens, who are equally at home in Oslo as they might in Osaka. They are the able and the talented ones who are sought after by nations and peoples for the value creating power they wield - in industry, in entertainment, in technology and in the arts. Think of child prodigy musicians, like Siow Lee Chin, entertainer Kit Chan, or top business brains, like McKinsey's Asia Chief Hsieh Tsun Yan. Interestingly, many of these are now returning home, if not physically, then at least in connectedness, and making a contribution from New York, London, Taiwan or elsewhere.

As the world, including Singapore, embraces globalisation and geographical and economic boundaries blur, more global citizens would emerge and the distinction between stayers and quitters would get even fuzzier. Besides, as many have already alluded to, one could feel and behave like a stayer or quitter at different points in time, depending on the circumstances. Take myself, for instance. I had studied and worked in the US for two years. At the end of two years, I had thought seriously of continuing my stay in the US, at least for some time, in view of the opportunities available as well as the different lifestyle offered. One might say that I was then contemplating to quit on Singapore. In the end, family ties, my husband's desire to return and the fact that, in the US, one could, as Jack Neo puts it, only be the second wife, brought me back to Singapore.

Many globally mobile Singaporeans (GMS), as DPM Lee calls them, will still feel a sense of belonging to their country of origin, but their inner unction is to a larger calling. This is inevitable. We need to come to terms with the aspirations of such people in a global village. For them, we should give our blessing, because so long as they carry a bit of Singapore in their heart, they will remain our ambassadors and bring Singapore to the world, even as we consciously bring the world to Singapore in our quest for global talent to our shores.

As noted by SM Lee, in this age of mass travel and migration, Singapore, like other countries, would inevitably lose some of its own talent. However, we must retain a hard core of dedicated Singaporeans sufficient to form the cornerstone of our society. Then we can afford some attrition. Ultimately, enough must stay at any point in time to look after the place, to create prosperity.

Sir, I think therein lies the heart of PM Goh's remarks addressed particularly to a younger generation of globally mobile Singaporeans, challenging them to make Singaporeans tick as their forefathers before them have done, rather than as an issue of labelling which the hon. Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, seems to have simplistically assumed.

The second cause of rootlessness is of greater importance and concern. Dissonance between the Government and its citizens, arising from disenchantment on a host of issues that touches them. Sir, I believe that few people actually quit Singapore for ideological reasons, bar political dissidents, conscientious objectors, and those who are up to mischief, but they form a small minority. From what I observe, people quit because of frustration and/or a sense of betrayal on specific issues that touch them and often touch them deeply, such as education, or a Singaporean society being too regulated and rigid. There is therefore a great need to reduce this dissonance and create goodwill among citizens in general, not just quitters or would-be quitters.

Sir, in all fairness, the Government has, by the very act of initiating the Remaking Singapore Committee, acknowledged that there is a need to review all policies and programmes and leave no stone unturned in view of the generational change taking place. It has started in the right direction and what is needed now is for the Government to take heed of all that has been said and written with an open mind and a certain resolve and boldness to implement the necessary changes.

The recommendations of the ERC and the Remaking Singapore Committee must be taken seriously and acted upon, where feasible, to ensure that the young stay emotionally connected with the Government and with Singapore.

Sir, I would now like to highlight two major areas where change has been called for or proposed and appears to be imperative if quitters are to be converted and stayers are to be further cultivated. Neither are new, and I suspect there could be robust defence from the Ministers concerned, but as there have been much angst and ill-feelings about them, I feel, Sir, that they deserve yet another airing.

Firstly, injecting more flexibility into the education system. By most standards, we have undeniably one of the best education systems in the world. Ironically, education also appears to be one of the main stress points that trigger quitting.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many Singaporeans have migrated to other countries due to their children's education. A successful pediatrician friend of mine migrated to Australia a few years ago mainly because his four children were all unable to cope with Chinese lessons. Another friend, who was a teacher, migrated to New Zealand, as she wanted her eldest son, who was mildly autistic, to be enrolled in a mainstream school rather than a school for children with special needs.

Yet another friend, who was already a senior civil servant in Singapore, decided to settle for good in New Zealand after the expiry of her one-year no-pay leave to accompany her husband who was there on a one-year job attachment. She said that her two primary school going children had enjoyed studying in New Zealand so much they did not want to come back to school in Singapore. In fact, she claims that her son's myopia had improved tremendously during the one-year stay in New Zealand!

There have been proposals for a through-train secondary school/JC programme as well as more subject choices at the secondary and JC levels. There have also been calls, particularly by the polytechnic students, for local universities to admit more diploma holders. A fourth university, or at least an off-campus extension university to, among others, allow these polytechnic graduates who meet the grades to enter university, has also been called for and is being studied by the Ministry of Education. Otherwise, many polytechnic graduates leave for overseas universities each year. A few have been known to eventually quit the country as they felt that they were treated as second-class citizens.

There have also been calls for an arts school, in addition to a sports school, to accommodate the young with different talents and abilities besides academic ability. Pleas have also been made for the education policy of children with special needs to be more aligned to those of mainstream schools, such as having these schools come under the ambit of the Ministry of Education, special education teachers to be on the same salary scale as those in the mainstream schools, and allowing more special needs children to be integrated into mainstream schools.

These proposals have been largely suggested to give Singaporeans more options, inject more flexibility and compassion into the education system, and nurture creativity and an entrepreneurial spirit among our young.

Most recently, the ERC's education workgroup's recommendation to lift the restriction on Singaporean students attending international schools here would also help minimise the leakage of local students to overseas schools as well as migration due to children's education. As noted by the committee, lifting the restriction on local students would give a second chance to local students who do not do well in the public schools, as they may be able to do better under the international schools' curriculum. This idea appears to have found strong support by parents. As one letter writer to Today puts it, "International schools are a good alternative for the minority of parents who think the national school system is inappropriate for their children. As a progressive society, we should allow and respect such diversity of opinion and personal values."

Sir, I would like to urge the Ministry of Education to seriously consider these proposals, if it is not already studying them, and to be bold in adopting many of these proposals. I believe that in this way many would-be quitters could be converted, and the fidelity of stayers strengthened.

Secondly, engaging more Singaporeans. With regard to this point, I would first like to revisit what seems to be the perennial favourite topic - feedback.

Sir, I had, during the Budget debate in April, noted that a friend of mine had asked, "Where is the feedback to my feedback?" Some months have passed, but it appears that this is still a common refrain amongst many Singaporeans. At a recent feedback session for young Singaporeans, it was reported that the youths had asked, "How much of what they said and felt would be channelled to the Government? To what extent did policy makers take their views into consideration when making decisions? And how could they feel a sense of belonging here if their views did not count?"

There seems to be a yawning gap between the Government's and the public's perception of the feedback mechanism. This is despite the fact that the Prime Minister had, in his National Day Rally speech, pulled out the example of Chek Jawa, amongst others, to show that the Government does listen to and act on feedback. The Prime Minister had also noted that the Government cannot run a country based on feedback alone nor should it bend to every whim and fancy. But, on the flip side, there is a real danger that this perception gap could widen as Singaporeans become more educated and informed, and increasingly demand greater public consultation and voice in policy formulation.

To close the perception gap and ensure that the feedback mechanism is not viewed as a black hole, the Government could, as far as possible, allow for more pre-policy rather than post-policy feedback. It is noted that the Government is already heading in this direction, as there have been more feedback sought, eg, on the ERC's recommendations, Remaking Singapore, and the review of the JC and secondary school education.

The Government should also make a conscious effort to identify changes which have been made due largely to feedback received. As Dr Ow Chin Hock recently noted: "Whenever possible, acknowledge the contributions of the feedback providers." This would give people a sense of ownership, that they have made a constructive contribution to policy making. Perhaps, the inclusion of my female, single MPs in Parliament today, as well as the change in policy to allow male civil servants to take child medical sick leave, could be attributed in part to some feedback received in the past.

However, ultimately, to break the perception deadlock and reduce the dissonance between the Government and its citizens, there will have to be a mindset change by both parties. Otherwise, the perception gap would be a vicious cycle.

The people say that the Government does not listen, whilst the Government says that it does. We do not like the Government to tell us what to do. Yet, each time we have a crisis, we run to it for solutions. We know that our Government will do its best and, thus, are quite happy to leave it to do the thinking for us. However, if what it does is not to our satisfaction, we have a scapegoat. We grow up relying on the Government to think ahead for us, and the Government grew up doing just that, appearing to be more used to giving directives than listening to feedback and, thus, the "Father knows best" perception. It took us 37 years to grow into this mould. Hence, time is needed for both parties to change and adapt to their new roles.

As noted by Mr Tan Tarn How of the Straits Times, the Government must accept that whilst it may know more, it does not mean that it knows better - if I may add, at least not all the time. The people must also understand that if they want more flexibility, greater freedom, more say and more choices, then they cannot run to the Government for help at the slightest hint of trouble. Will this change of style and tone create more risks for both the Government and the governed? Most certainly it will, but taking risks and getting hurt in the process is the essence of the new economy. Sir, I would venture to say that in this new Internet era, governments do not have a choice but to accept greater messiness in the social and political spheres.

The second area for engaging the people relates to National Education and bonding. Besides policy changes that could strengthen our 3G Singaporeans' sense of belonging, many of which have already been identified by the ERC and the Remaking Singapore Committee, National Education, where our young are given lessons about Singapore, would help to give them a sense of identity. As the Minister for Education succinctly puts it: "We want them to know the Singapore Story - how Singapore succeeded against the odds".

Sir, I believe that our schools are the incubators for our future stayers - the citizens who are proud of Singapore. Hence our National Education programme should continue and should be further built upon. The achievements and successes of Singapore and Singaporeans, such as local literature, locally-produced films, successful businessmen and businesses, could be compiled for National Education lessons.

We should also continue to encourage family-based activities to build stronger family units, community activities to foster ties among friends and neighbours, as well as organise more national events that seek to bind all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language and religion. This is especially so in the light of the JI arrests, which have put our Malay/Muslim compatriots under an uncomfortable spotlight.

In this regard, a national coordinating body could be formed to organise events at the national level for all Singaporeans. One such idea that arose out of my recent IRCC focus group discussion was organising a huge religious "Expo" at the national level. Talks could be given at the "Expo" by various religious leaders to enlighten members of the public about the basic tenets of all major religions practised in Singapore, to promote better understanding.

At the heart of the whole issue, Sir, is the fundamental question of what it is that connects us to Singapore. It is true that physical location per se does not make a stayer or a quitter. It is more where the heart is that defines the stayer or quitter. But the physical and the tangibles are the symbols that define the boundaries of our heart.

Sir, in the end, I believe it is the combination of the people - our families and loved ones, friends and emotional bonds of kinship; the place - the sights, sounds and smells of the familiar, and the things that loosely define Singaporean-ness, such as chicken rice and the ubiquitous HDB flats; and, finally, the privilege - our birth rights as citizens and, thus, "first wife" status, as per Jack Neo, that determine our rootedness to the country.

In recent times, the last factor - privilege - which translates into the opportunity to forge a partnership with the Government in charting Singapore's path, seems to take on more significance among the young. This is evidenced by the young clamouring at feedback sessions to be heard and to know what role they can play in policy making. A combination of the ability and means to be more footloose as well as Singapore's uncertain economic future may have led to this.

Singapore's existence is in many ways a historical accident. We are a nation constrained by limited land and people. Our survival as a nation is thus not a given, and we would always have to create our niche in a global village in order to survive. Hence, Sir, I believe the Government and the people need to pull and work together in order to make the quitters stayers, and the stayers the shapers of our collective destiny.

In this light, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, this issue was raised by the Hon. Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech. As alluded to before me, it is not about emigration and immigration. It is really about a sense of belonging and ownership. Dig deeper, it is about what it means to be a Singaporean in these uncertain times. Many Singaporeans chose to dismiss this issue by saying that there are many outstanding Singaporeans who were quitters of their previous homeland, including some former and even present Members of this House. They also say that to stop Singaporeans from quitting contradicts the call for Singaporeans to go global. With respect, again as mentioned by my colleagues before me, these responses really miss the point - the debate on the label of "stayers" and "quitters", instead of discussing the actual concerns of the Hon. Prime Minister in his speech. Indeed, I am glad that the Prime Minister raised this issue to a level that deserves urgent national concern.

In this regard, I have come across Singaporeans who really cause me worry. There was this man who was released from prison but felt that he was unjustly sentenced. He blamed the prosecutors, the justice system and even his defence lawyers for the alleged injustice. He found it difficult to get a job, and again blamed the legal system for casting a stigma on him. He took up a retraining course in PSA, but failed. He blamed the PSA for having conducted the course improperly and came to see me for a refund. And then he accuses the Government of being biased in favour of the tens of thousands of Malaysian women who get to work in our factories and he could not. Along the way, Sir, he tells me that he feels a neighbouring country would provide him a job and peace of mind. He threatens to migrate there and, for good measure, he accuses the Government of failing to maintain good bilateral relations with that neighbouring country.

Another resident wanted to rent a flat from the HDB. She is married to a foreigner, and so does not qualify. She also earns above the means test figure, but she says she suffers from some medical ailment. She is disappointed that the Government or the HDB does not help, and goes into a tirade that she is unjustly treated. Again, she says she might as well migrate, where she feels she would be better treated. These two citizens used emigration as a threat to obtain certain assistance or services. I believe that there are many such similar examples. It saddens me greatly that some Singaporeans see the value of citizenship as only that - a weapon to be used when demanding for help. To my mind, such Singaporeans have quit before they even leave.

It is not possible to expect everyone to agree with all Government policies. Some people disagree enough to want to leave the country as a result. I do not regard them as having quit Singapore. They do not treat citizenship lightly. They considered carefully the reasons for leaving and made a conscious decision. There are also those who are more pulled than pushed, a point alluded to by my colleague, Ms Indranee earlier. These are usually the more adventurous among us. They take risks and usually bear no grudges against Singapore. The first group has to be handled differently from the second and third. For the second and third groups, the challenge is how to ensure that the links are maintained even while they are away. For the first, the challenge is how to prevent them from reaching that point to issue threat to leave in the first place. In crafting policies in this regard, we have to recognise that there are different categories of people who have to be approached differently.

Nonetheless, Sir, the common thread that runs through these issues is the cultivation of a sense of belonging and ownership. How do we do this? One way of many, as suggested in one of the sessions in the remaking of Singapore, is to involve more Singaporeans in the decision-making process, to enable Singaporeans to identify themselves with the process of governance even if they disagree with Government. One way of doing this is by devolving more of the governance to the people. We already see this being put in place. We see the establishment of Town Councils. We also note that the Community Development Councils (CDCs) are given more powers and responsibilities to manage more and more aspects of their respective zones.

I would like to cite the example of COMPASS, which stands for Community and Parents in Support of Schools. It is a committee chaired presently by the Hon. Minister of State for Education, previously by the Minister himself. The committee comprises educationists, businessmen, industrialists, community leaders and parents. I declare, Sir, that I have been a Member of COMPASS for almost four years now.

COMPASS seeks to enhance greater school-community partnership. It seeks to establish stronger collaboration among the stakeholders of education, schools, the Ministry, parents, community leaders, community institutions, businesses, industries, alumni groups, school management committees and, of course, students themselves. It allows these stakeholders, not just the Ministry and teachers, to be involved in the governance of schools. Over the last four years, the number of parents support groups or similar groups in schools has more than doubled. Many more schools now have established alumni groups and networking with community institutions.

COMPASS, I believe, is succeeding in its efforts to involve the various stakeholders, which is attributable to three factors. One, clear objectives and focus. Second, dynamic leadership at the policy and operational levels. Three, clear deliverables. I believe, Sir, that the above formula can be replicated elsewhere, of course, with necessary changes. There are indeed other equally effective structures that have allowed many Singaporeans to be involved in the process of governance, such as the S21 Committee mentioned earlier, the Remaking of Singapore Committee, feedback groups, dialogue sessions and so on. Sir, I believe that we should continue to expand and deepen the involvement of the people.

Sir, on the issue of what it means to be Singaporeans, besides suggesting what Government should do, what policies should be crafted, it is also important to ask what Singaporeans could do. In respect of participation in the process of governance, Singaporeans should realise that not every suggestion can be implemented. This point was alluded to before by two of my colleagues. If your suggestion is not accepted, it does not necessarily mean that the Government is not listening. The perception that the Government does not listen has been cited as a reason for people not bothering to participate. The fact is that in every issue, there is always a difference of opinion. The ultimate decision is more often than not an aggregate of all views or suggestions or the best among many. And in both cases, it is not possible to accommodate all individual views. I believe my hon. colleague, Mr Gan Kim Yong, mentioned this earlier. But to participate meaningfully in the process of governance, Singaporeans must be prepared to accept differences of opinions and even be defeated in arguments.

Singaporeans must learn and must be able to accord greater deference to the process that allows his views to be heard over the actual views that he raises himself. This requires a mindset change. We can all ask the Government to craft and implement policies to effect this mindset change but this is somewhat paradoxical. How do we reconcile the desire that we all participate in active governance and yet not participate in the crafting of the very policy itself?

To ensure that the journey towards a more participative society where there is greater ownership of governance and in the future of the country is off to a good start, Singaporeans must first take ownership of this issue. If we, as Singaporeans, are not willing to push for greater participation, take the trouble to air views and face the consequences, then there is really very little for any government to do.

Indeed, Sir, as observed by Dr Amy Khor earlier, more and more issues are being debated by more and more Singaporeans and even more openly. I urge Singaporeans to persist in doing so.

Sir, it is not my intention to say that those who keep quiet are necessarily passive and inactive citizens. Many Singaporeans may not articulate their views in the media or sit in high-powered committees but they are all important Singaporeans nonetheless. They care for their families, they care for their neighbours, they care for their colleagues. People still care. There is much hope. With this hope, I support the motion.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the motion.

Why did we move this motion? Why are there some people who choose to leave Singapore for good? The reasons behind all these have been very well alluded to by a number of hon. Members before me and I shall not dwell on them.

In any case, we must always accept the fact that there will always be people looking for greener pasture elsewhere. But, on the other hand, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have to realise that many Singaporeans who are capable of emigrating, have chosen to stay put. Even many of them working overseas are still maintaining their bonds with Singapore. Why do they stay? Maybe by focusing on what makes these Singaporeans stay on, we can continue to build on the emotional linkages with all the Singaporeans and deal with the problem that way.

Let me tell you the story of an unhappy young man. There is this young doctor who, after his basic medical training, applied for traineeship and a posting in a specialty that he is interested in. As a medical doctor, if you want to become a specialist, you have to go into the area of your interest and get a posting there, and then you can do the specialist examinations and become a specialist. But he was turned down because he did not have any posting in that specialty before and he did not pass Part I of that specialty examination. However, he could not have sat for the Part I examination if he did not have any posting in that area. He became very frustrated. He got caught in this catch-22 position. Eventually, he got the traineeship overseas and off he went. He spent a few years in UK. After he passed his specialist training, his consultant there had wanted him to stay on and offered him a job. One would have expected him, from what he has experienced previously in Singapore, to accept the job, but he chose to come back to Singapore. The story did not end there.

When he came back, the almighty MOH officials told him that he had to start working as a Temporary Medical Officer, although he was already qualified as a Registrar. Worse still, he was offered the salary of a second year Medical Officer, the point he left the services several years ago.

At this point, a friend of this young man in Hong Kong actually got him a job as a lecturer in the University hospital there. The pay package, with housing allowance, was about four times higher than what he got in Singapore. However, he chose to stay on again.

Many people might have taken the opportunity and moved on for the pay was higher and the prospect seemed brighter overseas. Was this young man mad or not? Yes, he might have been, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. This young man is a psychiatrist and this young man is myself. You see, sometimes, psychiatrists do things quite unusually.

Why did I choose to remain in Singapore? I believe, for the same reasons, many Singaporeans have chosen to stay on. I grew up here. My parents who worked so hard to bring me up and to send me to school were here. My brothers and sisters were here. My friends were here. The community and the people whom I grew up with were here. I wanted my kids to receive education here despite what has been said about the education system. And deep inside my heart, I know, as a Singaporean, there is this sense of indebtedness I have to this place and the attachment to this country. For these reasons, I stayed.

Of course, many people also stay on for the economic prosperity, for the jobs that are available here, for a better life, for the safe and secure environment here. But something might not have gone right that nowadays, though our country is doing so well, there are still younger Singaporeans who want to emigrate, more often than not, for economic reasons. Why? I ask myself that question.

As I look at it, as a nation, we have a relatively short history. In the past three to four decades, our emphasis has been placed on economic progress and quite often, we emphasise on materialistic success. I am not criticising our Government for having done that. Indeed, with a population of two million mouths to feed, that should be the top priority of any sensible Government. But the education system, in response to the economic need, has correspondingly focused on producing people for the job market. The teaching of values, national history, humanity and culture has therefore been relegated maybe to a lesser priority.

As a result, we may have inadvertently produced a generation of Singaporeans whose value system is primarily materialistic and economic. Their relationship with the country may also be measured on economic terms. They will see what this country can offer vis-a-vis what they can get from another country, like doing shopping.

Sir, if we want to bond Singaporeans to this country with purely dollars and cents, we are doomed to fail. Because, in bad times, when there is no money to be made, they will pack and go. So, we have to bond them with their hearts.

For our call to resonate in our fellow Singaporeans' hearts, they must have the same frequency. The frequency of the heart is the value system. We must inculcate in Singaporeans, young and old, to have the pride of being Singaporeans. There is no other reason. Just because you are a Singaporean, you should be proud of being Singaporean. And this pride can stem from the love of the country.

To develop the love for our homeplace and our country, many have spoken on having a sense of belonging. I would like to call on the Government and our fellow Singaporeans to develop two more senses. One is the sense of indebtedness; the second is the sense of responsibility.

What is sense of indebtedness? We have always been taught about our rights and opportunities. Government should give me this, Government should give me that, as if the world owes us a living. We have not been taught to define our lives by our debts and the legacies that we have, but by our rights and opportunities. So, it is high time that we must inculcate this.

Sir, I see that maybe there are at least three types of indebtedness everyone has. First is to mother nature, God, universe or whatever you call it, for giving us life. Second is to our parents for bringing us to this world, educate us and bring us up. Third is to the country for protecting us, for providing us with the opportunities that we may grow and get to where we are.

Our people have to, first, develop this sense of indebtedness, and then will the feeling of gratitude evolve. With this sense of indebtedness, we will be grateful of what our parents have done for us and what the country has provided for us. With that, we will be spontaneous to have our sense of responsibility, like the dutiful children repaying their parents.

As regards sense of responsibility, too often, we are Singaporeans who, whenever anything happens, will say, "Government should do this, Government should do that .". I think it is also time that we must start to inculcate this sense of responsibility among Singaporeans, so that everyone is accountable to what happens to this country. Only with that sense of responsibility will there be active participation as a citizen.

The next thing we need to do, I think, is to promote patriotism, the love for our country. It was actually very disheartening to hear that a number of Singaporeans did not display the national flag on National Day, because they were unhappy with the state of the economy, and maybe because of bus fare hikes, etc. But, on the other hand, it was also heartwarming to read a Singaporean who emigrated to Holland still displays the national flag every August.

Patriotism is the love of one's homeplace, its people, and to the familiar things and scenes associated with the homeplace. The love should be unconditional. Singapore is my home, good times or bad times. It is no wonder that home-making and homeland make the central themes of many very moving poems, songs and stories. In fact, I attended a choir performance last Saturday. Out of the 48 songs on the list I went through, 14 of them actually were on either gu xiang (homeplace/homeland) or zhu guo (motherland). So, I think we need to have this sense of patriotism among our Singaporeans.

But what type of patriotism? I think we must differentiate that from nationalism. Someone - I cannot remember who - said that patriotism arises from the love of your own people whereas nationalism arises from the hatred of other people. But, in Singapore, we are a country that consists of different races and cultures. We must have a patriotism that could be applicable to us. Abraham Lincoln's definition of "patriotism" could be aptly applied to our case. He said that, "Patriotism is not associated with any particular race or religion but the loyalty to a set of principles that the country stands for."

In Singapore, I think we should promote that and uphold our belief in meritocracy, equal opportunities for all, multi-racialism, multi-culturalism and the able helping the disabled.

The next question, Sir, is how should we go about promoting this. I think we should do it in the schools and in the community.

Why schools? I think we have to start promoting this sense of indebtedness, responsibility and patriotism when Singaporeans are still young. Of course, it has to start at home also. As the Chinese saying goes, san sui ding zhong sheng (your future is decided when you are three years old). And every Singaporean spends, on average, maybe 10-15 years in the educational system. And this is also the period when their characters are formed and developed, and their value systems are developing. We must not ask our students just to study and study. Like the comment of a young Singaporean during a dialogue session, he said, "If the memory of Singapore youths are limited to studying, they would not have much bonding with Singapore."

Then, what should be taught? Our students recite the National Pledge and sing the National Anthem every day. We must ensure that what our system stands for is actually enshrined in the Pledge and the Anthem. So, we should make an effort to make sure that our children, our students, really understand the meaning and buy in the values that are ingrained in them.

The hon. Member, Gan Kim Yong, has also proposed the revamping of the National Education programme, and I support his call for that. We should teach our National Education on a more emotional level, and not just at the level of maybe recounting of historical facts. We may even want to structure the NEP to be more interactive and with more involvement. And some of the assignments may be done with the parents and grandparents, so that the memories of the early generations can be passed on to the younger generations through this programme.

In schools, I think we should also start teaching the idea of responsible citizenship since young. We must, as I said, inculcate the two senses I mentioned since young. And our youths must be taught what the system stands for, what are the rights and obligations of a citizen, and let them know more about the Constitution and the needs of active citizen participation.

What is a participatory citizenry? It should be one that involves the citizens in the decision-making process. And it must come with a mature attitude towards consensus building. More often than not, Singaporeans like to complain and say that their feedback is not being heard or not listened to because Government does not take the popular stand and follow what they have asked for. So, I think it is also important to nurture this type of mature attitude to know that for Singapore to survive, sometimes we cannot rule by popular policies, and sometimes we have to make tough and difficult policies.

Lastly, what is more important is that we must also not over-emphasise the importance of materialistic success at the expense of other basic human values. We have to place more emphasis on the teaching of the humanities, science, literature and arts. These are the softer sciences that will help to inculcate the values of loyalty, honesty, responsibility and so on and so forth.

Having said that, I anticipate that the MOE may respond by saying that our curriculum is already so packed, how do we add in all this. I think if we have to forgo some teaching of the hard subjects, we may have to do it. As the Chinese saying goes, shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren, (it takes 10 years to grow a tree, it takes 100 years to build up a people.) Building the character of our students is investing in the future of our nation, and is building the foundation of our nation for tomorrow. And this should take precedence.

Another aspect of bonding is to create a common memory. Culture, in its broader sense, makes up the bulk of our memories. We have to therefore promote culture and arts, both in school and community. For this, we can do it in the community also, not just in schools.

In the past, Singapore had been criticised as a place where the development of culture and arts had been sidelined. But we have been doing catching-up in the past few years, and much more can be done. Arts and culture must appeal to everyone. We should not promote arts and culture that appeal only to a certain group of people, but we must have one that has mass appeal. Moreover, as we aspire to become a truly cosmopolitan city, we also have to accept the introduction and the impact of more varied forms of arts and culture that come along with all the international talents and migrants that pass through Singapore. The end result, I think, would definitely make us a more vibrant place to stay, and this will actually help to build the memories for this place.

But we should not forget that every Singaporean will still have a race of his own. While we place national interest above one's interest, we must also help Singaporeans to have a deep sense of his own culture. Only with a culture can a person have certain roots, and with this root, it will help them to get rooted to Singapore. And, of course, we should, besides encourage them to have a deep sense of their own culture, also encourage them to understand others' culture.

At the community level, I feel that Singaporeans also must help to promote active participation in the community. Many things have been said by other hon. Members before. But what is important is whatever we do, it must always be done with this objective in mind. This must be done to forge community bonding and to build a national identity.

Clan associations, self-help groups, etc, could be roped in to help to promote the righteous traditional values. For example, Confucian teachings stress a lot on loyalty to friends, family and the country, and these should be promoted.

Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch briefly on dual citizenship. There are pros and cons of allowing dual citizenship. The advantages include the following: maintaining ties with the citizens, promoting their economic contributions to this country, encouraging their remittances back to Singapore, and maybe we can help to develop a sympathetic lobby in the countries that they have emigrated to. However, I see that there are also many disadvantages of doing so.

Dual citizenship is like having two sets of parents or, someone may like to say, two wives. It is polygamy. With one set of parents or one wife is already difficult. How do you manage with two sets of parents with different beliefs, psychology, values, and so on? This will result in divided loyalties. Moreover, having dual citizenship also means that we will permit immigrants to come to Singapore to also hold dual citizenship and they may just be doing likewise, lobbying for their home, their originating country, and influence our politics in Singapore, which may not be a wise thing to do. Last but not least, it really devalues the meaning of citizenship.

However, as the Chinese say, we must always give people a hou-lu. So we must be like a forgiving mother, welcome and embrace our children who sometimes have wandered off and decided to come home. We may want to be more flexible and more forgiving in granting citizenship back to those Singaporeans who choose to come back with good reasons.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, sad will be the day when Singaporeans forget their history and values, and no longer remember the country that nurtures them, the land that our forefathers had fought and worked so hard to build. However, I am more optimistic. Most Singaporeans are all-weather citizens. They are ready to sail the Singapore ship together, in good times and bad times!

Sir, with that, I support the Motion.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Based on the wordings of the Motion, I am sure the House will support the Motion. But, what will happen after the Motion is passed is the key consideration in today's debate. I hope the Government will come out with concrete plans to review its policies and programmes so as to develop a sense of belonging among Singaporeans.

In addition, I would urge the Government to form an inter-agency committee comprising only civil servants to look into ways of bonding Singaporeans to our country. The recommendations of this committee can complement the Remaking Singapore Committee's effort in going beyond the 5Cs for Singaporeans.

Sir, the fact that the Prime Minister has to raise such concerns clearly reflects that some Singaporeans are disillusioned with Singapore. There is a need to re-look into the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans. As human resource is the most valuable resource Singapore has, we must make very effort to root all Singaporeans to the country. Any Singaporean who emigrates out of the country is a loss to Singapore.

In a fast paced society like Singapore, economic pursuits may sometimes make us lose our human touch. Individuals and families are subject to high stress, resulting in people losing hope about their future. Under such circumstances, the search for greener pastures will surface, thus causing a brain drain to the country. While Singapore cannot relent on its pursuit to be a competitive player in the global economy, we must at the same time inject hope in our people to lead a meaningful life in Singapore.

We must develop a conducive environment for Singaporeans to live, work and play in Singapore. Singapore must be a place where there are opportunities for all. There must be opportunities for all individuals, families, community, and businesses to flourish. It must be a place for Singaporeans to live a meaningful and happy life. It must also be a place where there is hope for their future and future generations.

Sir, I wish to propose the following measures to develop a sense of belonging among Singaporeans:

(1) Housing Policies

Over the last 30 years, our housing policies and asset enhancement programmes have resulted in the nuclearisation and high mobility of families. The HDB flat allocation system is too rigid and does not provide much option for Singaporeans to stay near their family members. The resale flat policies also do not facilitate families to live near one another.

In fact, the turnover of the sale of flats hampers community bonding among residents. Today, many Singaporeans are living away from their family members. This physical divide, coupled with our busy lifestyles, has eroded the bonds of family members as they spend less time together. Sir, we need a thorough review of our housing policies to facilitate families to be together. HDB must be more flexible and pro-family in their policies.

(2) Education Policies

Children are the future and hopes of all parents. Parents are always concerned about the education and development of their children. Lots of feedback have been received on the stressful education system in Singapore. Some parents have decided to emigrate for the sake of their children's future.

Many feel that our education policies do not provide many opportunities for their children to maximise their potential. Our mainstream education system is too inflexible and lacks choices for students to choose subjects that are of interest to them. The heavy emphasis on examination has also put too much pressure on our children unnecessarily.

Parents also face much difficulty in coping with their children's schoolwork. Many have resorted to tuitions, which have added much financial burden to the families. At the same time, children are not able to find enough time to play and interact with their friends. This has made our children to be more individualistic and less street smart. Some do not have any social skills at all, and can sometimes be rude and arrogant.

Sir, we need to provide a more conducive learning environment for our children. Our education system must be more compassionate and flexible in nurturing our young. Although we need to instill values such as diligence, creativity and moral conduct in our young, we must help them to balance their childhood lives and learning experiences. Otherwise, more children and parents will lose heart and fall out of the system.

(3) Community Development Policies

To develop a sense of belonging, we need to focus on the hearts of our people. The Government must take the lead to show care and concern for its people. We need to help Singaporeans to find meaning in life. Singaporeans must feel that they are useful to the society and must have a sense of self-esteem to lead a meaningful life in Singapore.

Sir, we have done well in providing an excellent living environment for Singaporeans. What we need is to look into the "software" of helping Singaporeans to live happily together. Living close to family members and friends in a cohesive community will provide a strong sense of belonging to our people. Furthermore, if there is a comprehensive network of grassroots and voluntary welfare organisations to support the community, we can build a more caring community.

The Government should provide more resources to support meaningful programmes run by GROs and VWOs, including the Community Development Councils. More Singaporeans should be encouraged to help one another in the community. It is through these activities that we can build strong bonds among our people and develop a true sense of belonging to the country.

(4) Opportunities for All

Sir, in order to make all Singaporeans "stayers", we must inject hope in our people, their families and their children. We must make every Singaporean have the "feel good" factor of being in Singapore. We must formulate Government policies which will provide opportunities for all. Of course, we shall still abide by our equal opportunity and meritocracy principles.

Those Singaporeans who have done well must be able to see more opportunities in the country. While those who have not been too successful must see opportunities for themselves or their children in the future. As long as there is hope for every Singaporean, we will not face the problem of quitters.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion dubbed as "Stayers and Quitters" raised by my fellow PAP parliamentarians.

I am going to tell you not the tale of two cities, but the tale of two Singaporean families. There are many stories and anecdotes about this topic of migration out there, but I feel that it is important for me to illustrate how complex this matter is. Sometimes the situation that may be clear-cut and obvious to us may not be so. These are stories of Singaporean families who have flirted with immigration in some degree of variations and with different outcomes.

Family A is a middle-aged professional couple with four children. Sometime in mid-1990s, the family decided to go to New Zealand, and they brought with them their two youngest children. They made their living there and even managed to upgrade themselves and obtained their post-graduate degrees. The two youngest children grew up and studied in the New Zealand education system, while the other two elder children stayed back in Singapore, did very well in their studies and were pursuing their tertiary education (one in Singapore and the other in an overseas university). After four years, the family decided to come back to Singapore. But their stay was short-lived, and they decided to uproot the family again and migrate to New Zealand and maybe this time, it is for good. Why did this happen? According to them, they did it for their children. It is because their two younger children are having problems to cope with our academic system.

Family B is a young professional couple with two young children. For many years, the wife and the two children stayed in Australia. The kids were there since the age of one and two. The husband is gainfully employed in Singapore and shuttles between the two countries as much as he can. Recently, the family decided to come back and they are able to overcome some of the issues of the kids' education because the MOE had given them the approval to put their children in an international school.

Sir, we cannot under-estimate or emphasise enough the importance of the children's education in their decision-making process of these families. In his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong alerted us on his concern of the sense of belonging of our fellow citizens. This concern is even more pertinent with regard to the third-generation Singaporeans. We are hearing more who consider migration and hope to find a less stressful place in the sun for themselves and their family. These are generally those who are talented, mobile and can afford to uproot and move. Can we, as a country, afford this loss? Some say, "Good riddance." But I am saying that, for a small country, like Singapore, one talent loss is one too many. As it is, we are struggling to attract talent to our country. Similarly, are we taking care of the underdogs and the underprivileged of our society to face new challenges of this new economy? How then, Sir, can we allay all these worries that people are facing?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe that we have arrived at the juncture of our country's development and growth where we are expected to deliver something different, do things differently and do not always stick to the old formula that has served us well. In moving forward to revive the economy, thus creating more jobs and businesses, we must not lose track of the very reason we are doing all these efforts, that is, the people. Let us give them back the self-confidence, the morale and the self-esteem. We know that, in the present scenario of stiff competition and rapid globalisation, we certainly have to put our priorities right, that is, to implement measures to ensure Singapore remains competitive. But can we also emphasise on the soft aspects of our development, ie, our hearts and souls that will make the society and country even stronger in the face of more daunting challenges in the future?

The expert advices and proposals from the Economic Review Committee on Restructuring our Economy are important. But equally important and probably more important in this present climate, Sir, are the inputs and proposals from the Remaking Singapore Committee. Ever so often, our efficient Government prescribes the medicine that they believe would solve the economic malaise. These are often bitter pills and expect the people to swallow. I would also strongly encourage the Government to take heed of the Remaking Singapore Committee's proposals and recommendations that will be coming up soon.

It is almost a year since the last election and we are slowly recovering from the recession. During this period, we have gone through many difficult challenges and they range from the economy and security of our beloved country, and I am sure we will continue to face more such challenges in the new economy and the ever changing political and security landscape of the world.

Sir, one of the most important challenges for the Government is to ensure that the masses are with them. They must understand that these changes are necessary and that we have to do it no matter how painful it is going to be. Without proper communication and understanding of what the Government is trying to achieve, I am afraid we may be creating many disgruntled citizens who will be bitter, cynical and anti-establishment. This is not to mention the minimum sense of belonging towards Singapore. We need to further improve what Mr Gan Kim Yong termed as "connections". These links must provide for a two-way channel of communication. The Government and its agencies must, in my opinion, take the lead in changing and adapting a different style of governance for the new Singapore. It must not be seen as always giving directions and taking a paternalistic role, but rather it must be a partner of the people, that is, for the Government to abandon its "Only Government knows best" mindset. We can tell the people to change their mindset. But is the Government willing to do the same in the way it does things?

Thus, in this Motion, the call for Government to review its policies and programmes thoroughly and to take meaningful measures that will help strengthen the sense of belonging to Singapore is timely and laudable. There must be clear indicators and not just lip service in the way our key institutions run their businesses. They are well known for their efficiency and high standards. It is time that they showed the same high level of compassion and humanity, if not cynical remarks and reviews about the Government not being sincere will continue to persist, and the able will not come forward to take part in this process of change. Let us work together to change this negative thinking and get as many able and willing citizens to participate in the process.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government's willingness to change its mindset will be a bold effort but, nevertheless, a necessary one. We cannot afford to have our strong and able simply leave to places or countries which they think can provide better for them and their families. Sir, this effort in our long journey of nation building is essential and all concerned members of our homeland should be part of it.

On the other hand, in the long term, Singaporeans must also accept the fact that there must be a constructive effort to lessen the reliance or dependence on the Government in all areas. In the same vein, I would also say that Singapore needs to readjust its perception and perspective on law and punishment. Singapore should not be solely operated on laws and rules alone, but must instead encourage its people to be responsible and thinking citizens.

I would like to highlight the importance of education in this process of change. From the feedback from my residents and grassroots, I have concluded that many parents are very concerned about their children's future. You can see from the two stories that I have told you earlier. The parents worry about whether their children can cope with the extremely competitive environment in Singapore. Yes, we parents are very concerned about our children's education. We are so afraid that our children will not get enough. Some cynics may say otherwise. But the majority does agree that we do have a good education system in Singapore. I believe we can still fine-tune it to make it even better.

I would like to propose to MOE to put more resources and emphasis on early childhood education, that is, the foundation years. Our education system should prepare the future generations for the rapid changes and produce nimble, creative and innovative minds. We know the importance that the Government puts in education by the sheer size of resources they have imported into education. This cannot be denied. We cannot afford not to invest in our young. Furthermore, we should have a more holistic approach towards education. Academic excellence should not only be the thrust of education. A child should be nurtured on values, such as community spirit, social service, voluntarism and sports and arts. This would nurture a well-rounded individual with strong community ties. Ultimately, our education system should aim to develop citizens who are able to put Singapore and community before self.

Sir, the new generation of Singaporeans is different. I think it is as expected. This is due to the success of our past leaders, the rapid development of our country and - surprise - our education system itself. I know it is paradoxical that most of our younger generation and young parents are complaining and criticising our stressful education system that has, in no small means, contributed to their own success.

Singapore has a sound meritocratic system which has produced a society of achievers and success-only products, with little room for failures and errors. Singaporeans have also been moulded to be conformists and uniformists. We are now faced with difficulties to allow and, let alone, encourage creativity and bohemian lifestyle.

Sir, Singapore needs to accept other avenues of success, meaning non-academic success, different lifestyles, being non-conformists, and entrepreneurship with tolerance for failures. We should allow, promote and encourage pluralism and diversity of opinions and views. I believe it is the basic tenet of our existence in a multi-racial and multi-religious society. We should be as inclusive as possible and avoid being exclusive and elitist in our approach. Every Singaporean matters, and we should re-emphasise this notion.

In conclusion, Sir, Singaporeans and the Government alike need to acknowledge there are other avenues of meritocracy and talents whilst maintaining the fundamentals of these two policies. There should be no fixation of either foreign or local talent and failures in academic or business.

With that, I support the Motion.