Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened, with growing depression, to the discourse of the Member for Whampoa upon our bleak future in economic terms. Correct as he may be in his forecast, the point still remains that since the end of the Pacific War, the last ten years -the years of our independence - have been by far the most comfortable and satisfying for the bulk of our citizens. True, there have been one or two anxieties. In 1968 strict labour legislation had to be enacted to enable us to face up to the anticipated British withdrawal. In 1969 we faced for a few days the threat of civil disturbance, and, as has been pointed out already in this House, the immediate future does not seem to be too good. But by and large 1965-75 has been a decade of impressive and assuring performance. The people - citizens and leaders - have worked hard to make for a swift and unprecedented growth. Our GNP nearly tripled in the last decade. Singapore's skyline has been transformed out of all resemblance to the old water-front scene because of the shining new skyscrapers in the Central Business District and the high-rise apartment buildings the Government has constructed everywhere. The general standard of living of the people has obviously improved with greater than ever consumption of goods and services beyond the basic survival needs, and at a fair level of comfort. Money paid Out in wages, at least by employers paying the payroll tax, in the last financial year was about equal to that paid out during the whole of the first five years of our independence. Despite such progress, and partly because of it, there somehow seems to me to be some fundamental quality or qualities lacking in the Singaporean. Basically this shortcoming consists of a lack of concern for others that amounts in some cases almost to an obsession with selfish interests. Too often, a Singaporean is disinclined to look beyond his own immediate circumstances to the realities of the larger world around him. He has also generally not been too successful in striking a proper balance between personal goals and group goals. Now, what has been the cause of this unrelenting devotion to individualistic and (I am afraid) short-sighted goals? It was our own successful development, and the high expectations of the material quality of living it has engendered, that has perhaps resulted in this particular condition. It seems to me that our strategy of emphasis on certain values deemed necessary for development has resulted in a kind of over-kill, inadequately tempered as this strategy has been by non-materialistic considerations, like cultural interest, aesthetic appreciation, and consideration of religious and traditional values. For what generally are the virtues, the qualities of our development-oriented persons that we have only too well succeeded in inculcating? They are chiefly (a) a powerful need for achievement. (b) the urge to act. (c) far-sightedness, in terms of opportunity for material advancement, (d) interest in career, not necessarily in a job -what may `be described as low job primacy, (e) high motivation towards material returns, (f) occupational mobility, and (g) indifference to religious or cultural matters. With this array, it is no wonder that we have had examples of young civil servants leaving, after a while, for greener and richer pastures. At another level, job-hopping was recently a noted phenomenon among our young people. And we have also, as a result of this development-orientation, a preoccupation with a task, with a job, with something to do and perform, and very little concern for the person, for the individual, for other graces. And indifference to religious and cultural matters has not made things any better in this respect. And for this reason I applaud what the Member for Whampoa said in the last few sentences of his speech. Interestingly, a factor contributing to our inordinate sense of well-being and complacency is the kind of praise that we have constantly received from outside. Many of the views representing what others say about us all over the world are expressed by such references as dazzling growth: extraordinary techniques of statecraft; Singapore has broken inexorably with the past and leaped self-assuredly into the future with a roar that is resounding round the world; our life-style has no parallel in Southeast Asia. We stand high in the esteem of the most developed countries of the world. We are the political light of the region. Singapore is the most remarkable city on earth - and so on, with adulation far exceeding criticism. I wonder how these writers and journalists who have echoed such resounding praise of Singapore would treat us if we get into serious difficulty, especially as a result of the possible over-confidence that such adulation can engender. At the same time our own newspapers are not backward in taking up this same cue of pandering to the ego and conceit of the Singaporean. Headlines have said that Singapore is the best base for oil supply; so many million dollars have been spent to do this, that and the other. Singapore is the top regional centre for such and such kind of trade. Singapore is the top tourist spot in Asia. Singapore is a centre for technical expertise. Singapore is the top maker of "jackups", whatever that may mean. Singapore will be the first Asian country possibly to greet the two millionth tourist in 1979. There is a Singapore way to a richer ASEAN. These headline impressions were gathered from about a fortnight's reading of two English language newspapers. Even our road taxes have become the talk of the world! With this kind of ambience. Mr Speaker, Sir, how do you expect a young emerging community to react? I shall tell you. Mr Speaker. Sir. Recently I had occasion to review essays written by students from higher educational institutions in Singapore, who were competing for scholarships to attend summer schools abroad. Too frequently, when these students referred to Singapore, they reflected a sense of complacence and superiority from Singapore's success. It seemed to me they felt that with Singapore the way it was, the whole world was their oyster. Do you think, Sir, that such smugness can help in developing a sense of social responsibility? There are many indications of inability or reluctance to subordinate personal interest to group interest. Look at the way industrial accidents have happened. From another angle, if you look at the conditions in which workers are frequently transported to their place of work, loaded in open lorries, you will feel here another indication of the lack of concern for people. In various spheres of activity, further illustrations may be found. In national service there may be enough instances to show how the eagerness to look forward to the run-Out date (ROD) has resulted in a lowering of concern with continuing responsibility. On another point, I have heard of cases of national servicemen losing items of equipment issued to them and, instead of taking the responsibility for this loss, they expropriate the missing item from somebody else who is left to shoulder this responsibility if he is unable to steal from somebody else again. Inasmuch as it has been found difficult to retain administrative officers in the civil service, I would not be surprised if the same difficulty is faced in the SAF of recruitment into the officer-class and retention of officers. Then there is skiving in the Special Constabulary: a reluctance to do the small national service stint because of the boredom of the activity. Again, here it is not the thought of service, the subordination of individual interest to the group need, but inconvenience to self that is the paramount concern in many instances. In another way, complaints not too long ago about the poor standards of finish in the building industry are also a pointer, Take for example, all that has been said about the quality of finish in HDB flats. We meet with many instances, when we order a service or a good, of eagerness to get a job done and be finished and for the bill to be settled as soon as possible. One fairly persistent example of this is the way contractors do road surfacing work. Because of lack of supervision I am sure that in many instances such contractors are allowed to get away with sub-standard work. On the roads, you see how self-centred the motorist is. Instances of aggressive driving and lack of road courtesy abound. Sometimes this egotism has become obsessive as when misunderstandings arising from motoring incidents have led to ugly scenes. Once a Mercedes-flaunting young executive or businessman was booked by a traffic policeman for a parking offence. The owner of the Mercedes disdainfully told the policeman that he could pay quite easily the traffic fine he expected would be imposed, and promised the Traffic policeman that he would come back to indulge his expensive parking habit again. My reference to the Mercedes has put me in mind of top civil servants. In their case too, preoccupation with their special concerns has sometimes pushed aside more civil considerations, The Head of the Civil Service has mentioned that in a number of instances civil servants have contrived to get laws passed to enable them to do their work more easily. I would go further to say that, if necessary, the civil servant will now and then even ignore legislation in order to suit his own convenience. For example, a few years ago we had a publicised instance of the law relating to advanced accounts not being observed, and this was the subject of some newspaper comment and a reply from the Ministry of Finance. In this case, audit reports pointed out the fact of advanced accounts exceeding the authorised limits for the years 1965 to 1969/70, but no attempt was made to seek Parliament approval to raise the limit until 1971. Since then we have continued to meet with similar instances of the law not being observed. Two recent examples come to my mind: one, in respect of the valuation of our investments in our financial statements, and another the failure to show certain civilian posts under Expenditure on Manpower (as required by law), instead of under Other Operating Expenditure, of the Ministry of Defence Head of Expenditure. Changes to make the law more applicable were not instituted until these irregularities were reported to Parliament. In this connection. I am not saying that we should retain outdated regulations, but if what has been laid down by Parliament is considered not to be applicable under changed circumstances, then action should be taken to change regulations promptly; and not just ignore these regulations (in some cases for several years), thus setting an example of placing expediency before correct behaviour. If such actions reflect indifferent regard for the authority of this House, can we expect the public to receive more consideration? Underlying all this, we have the background of our very recent forbears being migrants who were primarily interested in getting what they could out of Singapore. This is well-accepted and has been referred to more than once even by our political leaders. Now we have to assess to what extent this attitude has percolated down to the younger generation. If our schooling has been successful, then our young people would have different attitudes. But in the very respect of a sense of values directed towards more gracious relations between people, our education has not been so successful. Our education has been successful in emphasising the very developmental traits that I have referred to earlier. Moreover, we must not take for granted that what is learnt in school receives reinforcement at home. In fact, values inculcated in school may be in direct conflict with values at home. One exercise we should try to embark on is to reach Out to the homes to try and engender social support for the values learnt in school. I am sure there will be several Members dwelling and expanding on this point and similar ideas when we come to the debate on Education. The importance of moulding the right attitudes in our young people cannot be overemphasised, considering the wide ramifications of the result of our educational efforts. Let us consider. A young man who is about to cast his vote may well have had all his years of education and further education under our Government's jurisdiction. In a few years' time he will marry and begin to have a family. How will he bring up that family, that second generation of our Singaporeans? Presently our young people are not against the Government; they are not anti-national, they are not even anti-PAP. Despite a few who try to avoid national service more for reasons of wanting to avoid personal discomfort, generally the acceptance of national service shows that the people are not against, indeed they recognise the need for, measures taken in the national interest. But what is important to note is this. I do not think our young people are all fully committed to exactly the same values as the Establishment. This may be simply because many of them are not certain of what it is that is desirable in terms of the kind of Singapore they want. What one can be certain about is that they want to feel that they are participants, not merely people being directed and told what to do, They do not want to be part of a system where they are the ruled and others the rulers. They want to have a say. That is why the People's Association appears to face difficulties because it is organising for young people. Perhaps the young people want to find themselves in a position where they can organise things for themselves! The more thoughtful and socially motivated want to participate in activities aimed at community improvement. It is in this way that we could help arrange opportunities for young people to understand worthwhile, genuine and practical relationships with one another, not the vague, phony rapport and freedom proclaimed in the advertisements directed at the new generation. We should help our young people find a useful role for themselves, but they want to identify this role themselves. Certainly we should not tolerate laziness and skiving, complacence and truculence. But we should not treat our young citizens in the same way as, in the past, the Ministry of Education has treated our teachers, many of whom have not yet got over the trauma of exposure to over-bearing officialdom. Our younger citizens have generally not known the hardships their elders have experienced in their lifetime. These same older folk (perhaps understandably) in the flush of good times want to push out of their minds the trouble they have faced before. Among our younger citizens, those who are reaching their majority years will remember best these last ten years of good going, of more and more consumer goods coming within their means of enjoyment: clothes, entertainment, TV (including colour), perhaps cars, leisure outings. They have been assured of places in primary schools and enjoyed opportunity to proceed for further and higher education. In many instances their parents have bought flats built by Government; these same parents perhaps with the disapproval of the Member for Telok Blangah have spent sizable sums and considerable effort to redecorate and furnish these houses. Serious political and national crises, conflict and wars are quite foreign to the experience of our younger citizens. In the West, in socialist countries, young people are in some way constantly reminded of how their countries have faced serious situations. For example, we ourselves have seen such films on TV as Cities at War, World at War, even comedy programmes such as Dad's Army. Our young people view these detachedly. To a Western youth, they would be subtle insights to a more turbulent past his parents' generation experienced. Other things such as memorials, monuments, ceremonies, and so on are other forms of reminders of grimmer times. Our own youths have remained in more blissful condition. The education and social upbringing of our young people have not conduced to encouraging them to see their world as a larger place than their housing estate and transcending parochial Singapore circumstances. In this they have not been better than their elders. Schools have stressed examinations (at this level, this is the test of meritocracy). I have had some thoughtful young people in my constituency, as I am sure other MPs have in theirs, complaining that newspapers and mass media and Government attention have not focussed the notice of youth on concerns beyond the circle of light which they see from inside their wells. I think we should consider carefully before blaming a member of our younger generation for his limited perspectives, even if such perspectives tend to make him also an egotistic individual. Especially when we think of the sins of the fathers being visited upon their children. Now, what can we do about such a circumstance that has arisen? Our Government has always worked on the basis of attending to first things first. That is why there has been so much emphasis throughout all these years on economic and material development. That is why in respect of our education policy there has been a stress on the preparation for work, development of skills and so on. While we certainly cannot let up on our development thrust, we should make adjustment for development of values important for society, for harmonious living, for development of rounded and mature citizens. Therefore, I think the time has now come for us to think of a policy which will lay stress on the inculcation of healthy values which balance self against the needs of the community, not only in our pupils in school but also more broadly the message has to be carried across to the adult citizens at home. I do not mean by policy that we should determine what kind of people we want to produce in specific terms: we cannot make people in the splitting image of some preconceived mould; we cannot make people in our own image and likeness; but we want to encourage and promote actively the development of a healthy pattern of values. This aspect we have before left to develop incidentally. Now we have to attend to this matter in a more deliberate fashion. I think the time is ripe, I think the problem is urgent. In all this, the two Ministries that appear to have the most important role to play would be the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Education. I would not like to preempt on what may be said when the debate on education and culture gets under way, but I am sure there will be plenty said and I would have one or two things to say myself. Mr Speaker, Sir, in moments of melancholy, in respect of these thoughts I have expressed. I may feel that indeed a grave situation has arisen. But I am never in doubt that the Government, with the help of its Backbenchers, will take successful action to correct the situation - with the help of the Backbenchers. 4.13 p.m.