Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add a note to the chorus of praise for the President's speech to this House. In his speech, the President warned us against working up heat on the gut issues over language, culture and religion. In our multi-racial society we have more than our share of differences but we should never allow ourselves to be engulfed. We need to build bridges of understanding and pillars of tolerance so that all Singaporeans, no matter the race, can strive for a better future together in peace. Over the last 12 years, Government has sought to instil the necessary values and attitudes for the building of a cohesive society. One of the key features of Government policy is bilingual education, where each child achieves proficiency in his own mother tongue and English. This is a vast and vita' improvement over the colonial-type of education which all of us in this House underwent where, if you went to an English-medium school, unless you could afford private tuition, you had no opportunity to study your mother tongue. In fact, I recall that even the use of one's own dialect was severely discouraged in school. Our Asian languages are rooted in strong cultures, the best features of which are going to be important determinants of the development of Asian countries. Social discipline, respect for the older generation and for authority, the love and respect for learning-all these provide resilience and cohesiveness for a developing society. We need such values as antidotes to the disintegrating forces of western hippie culture. At the same time, we need mastery or English as a tool for rapid economic development since many of the technological innovations stem for English-speaking countries, in our multi-lingual society, English a1so provides a convenient bridge for communication. To have peace and prosperity in our multi-racial society we should therefore curb our prejudices, allay our mutual suspicions, mute the voices of extremism and dam the tides of passion. There must be constant vigilance on the part of Government to prevent extremists from destroying the fabric of our society. We should stand firmly behind the actions taken by Government against those who seek to play up racial, language, cultural or religious differences for their own devious ends. We are a small country but we are no less entitled to our independence -to the right to chart our own destiny. There are insidious external forces, which seek to manipulate public opinion so as to weaken our national will and make our Government more pliable to their wishes. The mass media are particularly susceptible to such manipulation. We should not confuse actions taken by Government to preserve the autonomy of Singapore with the denial of freedom of the press. People, especially intellectuals of western liberal persuasion, should be more positive in their appraisal of social policies. They should bear in mind that in a developing country there is so much building to be done that free criticism that lack perspective and responsibility can be highly detrimental to the best interests of our society. We are also a small country so that individual actions can have far wider and more significant repercussions than similar actions in bigger countries. A riot, for example, at Nanyang University or the University of Singapore would be of grave national concern. In America, a huge country, with hundreds of universities and colleges, a riot at any one of them is a local problem. I would therefore urge our intellectuals to be more realistic and to have greater perspective. They should not be so ready to hurl accusations of dictatorship and label our society a closed society. People who do, remind me forcefully of the fable of the boy who cried "wolf" when there was none, and nobody heeded him when a wolf finally came and devoured him. Our intellectuals should visit countries where democracy does not exist to see the vital differences for themselves. As we develop, our level of literacy and intellectual sophistication will grow. People will ask more searching, more substantive questions of their leaders. We must learn to adjust to one another. Political leaders will need not only to have substance in their programmes but will be expected to have appropriate style as well. Intellectuals outside the political arena must be constructive and realistic if they wish to be taken seriously. They should remember that the problems they perceive, though real and seemingly urgent, may lose priority to bigger ones they do not see within their horizon. To effect a proper and rational dialogue, the press must play its part responsibly. The habit of slanting reports or putting an angle to a story make sensational headlines and presumably interest more readership. By doing so, however, reporters and editors do public figures grave injustice and damage. Politicians are always subject to scrutiny and what they say is always discounted with some scepticism. The least that they deserve is accurate coverage. I, for one, do not mind any amount of criticism, provided my views are recorded accurately. I consider it highly unethical, if not mischievous and cowardly, to distort anybody's views and then to criticize, especially in pseudonymous columns. Let it be known to such people that I am always ready to debate with them publicly and fairly anywhere. What kind of society do we want- a society where everyone, regardless of race or other distinguishing characteristics, can have equality of opportunity, a decent job, a decent home and clean surroundings, or one where people suffer discrimination, talk in hushed whispers and walk the streets in fear? From time to time the under-currents of intolerance emerge in the columns of our newspapers. Not too long ago, for example, there were a spate of letters from readers discussing the appropriate use or non-use of non-Chinese names by Chinese. Do we want a society where we measure the worth of a man by the kind of name he has, or by the way he writes his name? I do not want such a society, and, if it comes to be, I do not want my children and grandchildren to live in it. We are a small country, Sir, but limited though we are by lack of land and other natural resources, there is no limit to the economic heights that we can attain, provided we organize ourselves properly and peacefully to acquire the necessary skills and to apply the ingenuity of our people. With economic affluence we shall have plenty of room for cultural development. There will, in other words, be plenty of room for all of us and our children and grandchildren provided we are willing to be tolerant and understanding. With firm and fair government, we are doing well. Our economy is flourishing and will continue to flourish provided we are able to project enough confidence to the investor, whether local or foreign, so that he will build his factory to provide the jobs we need. Our standard of living will rise in two stages. In the initial stage we earn higher wages by learning more skills as technicians, engineers, managers and marketing personnel. Then, when our economy grows richer, even those with no skills can have a higher standard of living because we shall be able to afford it collectively. The basic organisation of our economy, given the peculiar conditions we have, is necessarily based on a capitalistic, free enterprise system. Government policy, at present and in the immediate future, has to be geared towards providing the infrastructure and the inducements to stimulate economic activity. There is a danger that, in pursuing these necessary objectives, we may produce large numbers of technocrats and bureaucrats with no social compassion or sensitivity. From time to time, therefore, we need to remind ourselves of our socialistic aims of a more equal and more just society. We need to give adequate thought to the problems of the poor, the weak, the disabled and the displaced. Sometimes policy measures, though economically and socially indispensable, bear harshly on certain sectors. In this respect, I greatly welcome the Government's move to increase compensation for the resettlement of farmers and shopkeepers and others affected by urban renewal. Our national welfare can rightly be considered to have improved if, and only if, those who are made better off do so not at the expense of others, or, if they do, there is adequate and fair compensation. The poorer classes should, as a matter of firm principle, never be made to pay for economic or social development unless they themselves are clear beneficiaries in the end. In a society where the great majority of people are poor and oppressed, there is yet hope of redress via a revolution, because intelligent, if not developed, leadership exists among them. However, in a modern, technological society, where much of the brainpower has emerged into the upper and controlling strata of society, the poor have neither political power via the voting booth, nor articulate leadership among their ranks. In a developed society, clearly the political leadership must avoid the hegemony of the middle and upper income classes if the poor people are to get a fair deal. Let us, therefore, work for a society in Singapore where, on the one hand, people are rewarded and promoted on strict merit, and, on the other, ample opportunities are afforded to those who are hampered by poverty. In other words, let us build not merely a society based only on meritocracy, but let us have a meritocracy-plus society. One of the key measures available to a government in a democratic country to promote greater equality is the judicious use of the tax system. I think it is time we had a comprehensive review of our system of taxation to achieve more socialism without hurting efficiency. Certain taxes are inherently regressive, that is, they bear on people who can least afford them. I am concerned about the incidence of such taxes as taxes on P.U.B, bills, for example. Although the tax is graduated with a higher tax on bigger bills, poor people with large families and therefore, using more utilities are adversely affected. I think there should also be taxes to discourage lavish consumption. The reasons for advocating such taxes are both economic and socialistic. A widening income gap between rich and poor is inevitable in a society with rapid development, unless there is government intervention. In the first place, low-income people can be given greater earning power through education and training. We can justify the rich having more, provided most of the accretion goes into further investment to provide more jobs. If, instead, it goes into lavish consumption, then the Government should introduce taxes to take some of it away to be spent on the poor. Moreover, if lavish consumption is not controlled or discouraged, the demonstration effect may be upsetting to poorer people and may affect their motivation to work and to save adversely. The Government, therefore, should seriously consider heavy excise taxes on luxury-type cars, luxury-type flats, houses, and so on. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like next to comment on the programmes for a number of Ministries. My first comment is in reference to the development of higher education which comes within the purview of the Ministry of Science and Technology. I am wondering if the Minister concerned has in mind an optimal size for a university. Sir, administration becomes difficult and impersonal when the student population glows too big. Moreover, there are always dissidents in any group, but in a large congregation the absolute number of such people becomes significant and can lead to the kind of student unrest we see in western countries. It may, therefore, be more desirable to increase the number of universities rather than have fewer large ones. The Addendum to the Ministry of Labour lists a number of important new policies. In addition, perhaps the Minister for Labour may want to consider the status of daily-rated workers in Government departments and statutory bodies, Can anything be done to, perhaps, give them more regularity or permanency in employment? Would the Minister also look into the reorganisation of the Employment Exchange in order to provide a better picture of the unemployment situation so that better placement of people can be effected, and perhaps upgrading of local skills can be facilitated? The Minister may also want to consider opening other `employment exchanges to improve the process of placing people into desired jobs. Sir, I now turn to the Ministry of Health, especially with respect to hawkers. The allocation of $5 million to build new hawker centres is a very welcome move. Hawking provides jobs for unskilled and uneducated people, especially widows, older people and people affected by resettlement. It is an important social welfare supplement, and hence a very important social safety valve. It is important in keeping down the cost of living. Moreover, it is potentially a good tourist attraction. There should be efforts made to help improve health and cooking standards. The Minister may also wish to look into the matter of better collaboration with the Hawkers' Section of the Housing and Development Board. There is one particular anomaly, which adversely affects hawkers under the Housing and Development Board's jurisdiction. This relates to the obligation of the Housing and Development Board to pay property tax of 36 per cent a year, which thereby raises the fees payable by its hawkers. Those hawker centres which are managed by the Ministry of Health are exempt from property tax. I would appeal to the Minister for Health to subsidize the Housing and Development Board on the property tax on hawker centres so as to reduce the licence fees payable by these hawkers and make things more equitable. Sir, I now wish to raise two matters relating to the Ministry of Finance. Sometime in April this year, on my return from a trade mission to Japan, I made a number of recommendations in respect of export promotion and financing. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will inform this House in due course what steps, if any, are being taken. Sir, the major thrust of the Government industrialization programme has been towards the encouragement of foreign investment. While the emphasis is correct, if we are to acquire the technological sophistication, the managerial and marketing know-how in the shortest possible time, I think that with full employment in sight, we can turn part of our attention and effort to the active promotion of local enterprise. Perhaps the Government can help identify and preserve limited areas of economic activity which local enterprise and capital can be encouraged to go into or develop. Sir, in the President's speech he lamented the recent financial coup achieved by a foreign company. May I ask the Minister for Finance whether, and what, measures are being considered to prevent a repetition of the incident? 4.24 p.m.