Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, 'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".'. In clear and lucid terms, the President has outlined the three major tasks ahead of the Government on the evening of 3rd February, 1981. First, the importance of building a modern industrial society, based on sophisticated economic activities and a new relationship between management and labour. Second, Singaporeans must be made to recognise and support the pivotal role that defence and national service plays in underpinning Singapore's continued independence and prosperity. Third, the Government must complete the most crucial phase of the process of self-renewal of Singapore's unique political leadership system. Against a backdrop of a rather bleak and uncertain world economic climate, the President's warning to Singaporeans to be prepared for slower growth and some unemployment in the coming years ahead is indeed most timely. As far as the world economic situation is concerned, there is little we can do about it. But we can do something and the best that we can do is to make the best of what we have so that we can reduce or soften the impact of world recession on our economy. What better way to do this than by forging ahead in restructuring our industrial society and so move on towards the next stage of modernisation. This is the logical step forward in our process of industrialisation which was initiated and nurtured in the mid 1960s when the main thrust of industrial development was the provision of an infrastructure vital to the success of our conversion from an economy dependent upon entrepot trade to one based on industrialisation. The 1970s saw further development, with growth and expansion hinged upon the promotion of both local and foreign investments. Now, in the 1980s, we bring this modernisation process yet a step further with the emphasis on higher technology and higher value-added products. With many developing countries competing in limited markets, countries with natural resources and large labour pools, we have no option but to speed up our modernisation process through industrialisation. Indeed, this will be the binding force of all Singaporeans. The conversion from low-skilled to high-skilled production entails the mobilisation of hitherto labour-intensive industries into capital-intensive ones, based on the use of more sophisticated machinery and backed by extensive efforts. This should also be complemented by an efficient service sector. Rigorous scientific education and practical industrial training will have to be stepped up. Our employers, management and labour cannot afford to sit back to enjoy the fruits of success of the previous decade. Instead, they will have to enter the next decade by coming together even more closely to form a new kind of relationship of co-operation. This, the President has delineated to be of vital importance in the face of poor economic growth in the uncertain future. I quote, "They must never work against each other. Old habits of confrontation between management and labour must cease." The now relationship has to be "one where both management and labour pull, and are seen to be pulling together." Team spirit must see us through the next few years. Now, if you look at the present scene, I suspect that the old, and maybe even the current relationship between management and labour is still largely based on management's assumption that most workers have no interest in work and they are a lazy, spoilt, unco-operative and soft lot of people, interested only in money. Hence, only through increments of money or through threat of loss of money can workers be made to work. This attitude towards workers appears to be similar to that generated by Mr F.W. Taylor, an American mechanical engineer of the late 19th century in the United States, when factories were beginning to convert from "many labourers and few machines" to "many machines and few labourers." Mr Taylor is better known as the Father of scientific management. At that time, Mr Taylor discovered that the foremen and the workmen of the late 19th century had very low educational levels and, indeed, virtually all shop employees were technologically illiterate; some were so illiterate that they were unable to decide how work should be carried out. Hence, he evolved a system where planning of work was passed on to various specialists and the foremen and workers were expected just to carry out what they were told to do, and this remained the norm of American management practice for a long time. However, important changes took place in the American society which made some of his management practices rather obsolete; for instance, the rise in the level of education in America today and the higher standard of living of the Americans. Besides, industrial unionism had progressed to such an extent that management had to bargain collectively on many matters which were previously solved by unilateral action. Americans today are seriously considering modifying their management system. Singapore today is just about converting from "many workers and few machines" to "many machines and few workers". We must avoid having the same attitude Taylor had towards workers in the nineteenth century. A conservative and distrusting relationship between management and labour will only breed suspicion between the two. We must be prepared to change and change fast. We have procrastinated long enough. At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to suggest very strongly that we should have STEP QC Circles as a suitable method of getting management and workers to work together; STEP being the acronym for "Success Through Everybody's Participation." But, allow me first to give you some background to the movement. Honourable Members may recall the PQR Campaign in 1973. For the benefit of those who are not sure what PQR stands for, it is PROSPERITY THROUGH QUALITY AND RELIABILITY. This was an eight-month cam- paign designed to raise productivity by upgrading quality and reliability. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to quote extracts from the Straits Times of 25th October, 1973. 'Some factories here have formed their own quality control groups to promote prosperity through quality and reliability.' These "QC" groups, according to Dr Lee Kum Tatt, Chairman of the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research, comprise workers in the same departments who take upon themselves, I repeat, Sir, take upon themselves, the responsibility of discussing and solving quality and productivity problems. They are backed by managements which give full support and financial rewards to the employees. 'These QC group movements will not only serve to cultivate leadership among the workers, but also foster better management-worker co-operation," Dr Lee said at the closing of the PQR Campaign.' Note the reference to better management-worker relationship. It was a good beginning - promising to carry Singapore's emerging industrial sector towards higher levels of productivity, accompanied by a proportionate rise in quality. However, after this initial impetus, possibly through a lack of an overall national effort, or perhaps due to a general misconception of the terminology, QC Circles remained a misnomer. The main idea of using the acronym, STEP is to connote the involvement of everyone and is necessary in the Singapore context. Besides, this concept can be applied to any number of situations or relationships which involve people working together. For example, a Schools Council is in reality a STEP QC Circle. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to suggest to all Government departments concerned to use standard terminology in all their future efforts in promoting this concept of cooperative management-labour relationship. This imparts a measure of uniformity, a feature which should prove vital later on when promoting the concept in future campaigns or for the purpose of monitoring progress. Since last year, with the growing publicity given to the Singaporean and his work attitude, there seems to be a national awakening to the need for something to be done. With more concerted efforts from relevant organisations, institutions and Government departments, we can get back on to the right path and at a more accelerated pace, try to achieve the ultimate goal of higher productivity with 'zero defect' in our modern manufacturing society. We must totally involve workers at shop-floor level in having a part to play in the production of the products and at the same time opening up a dialogue between management and workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to make a pertinent point - it took a long, long time since the reference made by SISIR to management-worker relationship before much publicity was given to it. If I may recall, more publicity probably started after the Honourable Prime Minister referred to workers' attitudes. It would appear that most Singaporeans need to be pushed out of their state of inertia by big chiefs only. We have no time to change this attitude. Our priority is to publicise and campaign for establishing a better management-worker relationship and to make it work, backed by big chiefs. So it would mean that in the near future, we ought to have a campaign to promote the idea of STEP QC Circles as a means to better management-labour relationship. I must hasten to warn that simply forming STEP QC Circles is not going to be the "be all, end all, of it all". Better management-labour relationship will have to depend to a very great extent on top management providing the optimum work environment. Top management must realise that an workers at whatever level are human beings and they must be treated like human beings. Management that do not give their workers due respect will sooner or later lose their best people and no matter how the CPF tries to discourage job-hopping, there will still be a percentage who will move, not for anything else but to get better job satisfaction and security. There can be no generalised approach for respecting human beings. Everyone is different but there can be a basic approach to it. If one cannot be a natural manager, one can surely learn how to be near to a good one. Workers spend much of their lifetime at work and the workplace must, therefore, be a pleasant place to work in. We cannot, therefore, treat workers like machines. Workers must be recognised for their work. They must be given social recognition, opportunity for personal development and a chance to display their abilities. Now, if these can be created, then the worker's innate ability can be fully tapped for the benefit of the worker and the company. Having said all these, can I again hasten to add that we must not fall overboard with the creation of such an utopian work environment that discipline is forgotten. Perhaps to sum up, all good management-labour relationship can be visualised to be like flying a kite. Whilst allowing the kite to fly freely with the wind naturally sometimes you pull, at times you release to get the best performance from the kite. However, when keeping in mind the contribution of a worker towards his work and to overall productivity, it is useful to remember that a worker's potential is maximised by education and training. Hence, in Singapore, great importance is placed on better education and better training. To this end, allow me, on behalf of my fellow colleagues, to record our admiration for the work done by Dr Goh and his team of systems engineers in coming out with such a pragmatic education system for Singaporeans. While the system takes its shape, Dr Goh and his merry men will have to be prepared for brickbats. We must be able to develop in Singaporeans the ability to read and write with sufficient standard that they can contribute wherever they work and have the correct work attitude. This new education system is for the better and will succeed in helping us achieve a better society as it is common sense, given more time and at a more leisurely pace, the average person should make the grade to better education. The idea is to build up a keen, knowledgeable and loyal team of management and workers working together to make a success of Singapore's fast restructuring economy which will spearhead Singapore's success again in a forbidding international economic environment. Our objective of providing better education to raise the skill-levels of all and to reduce wastage cannot be over-emphasized. Hon. Members can well imagine the tremendous potential from a reservoir of more than one million kilograms of grey matter, well-developed through education, bursting with good ideas and one million pairs of hands ready and willing to work. Assuming that we can gather together a group of wel-trained and dedicated teachers, sufficiently talented to teach, the new education system should be a runaway success. But like the cankering worm in the core of a fruit, a good education system to produce good citizens can eventually be damaged without effective moral education. I am glad to note, therefore, that moral education has been given due emphasis in the new education system. But what has SBC (Singapore Broadcasting Corporation) been doing? Sometimes I suspect that they have been putting up programmes that run counter to what the Government is trying to do. With all of us engaged in developing an advanced technological society, there is little time left for parents and schools to bring up children in a proper manner. With this little time left, only a small amount of moral values can be inculcated in our children, but I feel the TV can act as a silent destroyer of values learnt or inculcated in schools. Therefore, the SBC should make it a point to screen the more adult type films later on in the evening and maybe at times, leave prime time for more educational programmes to serve different levels in society, or programmes which can reinforce moral as well as cultural values. There may be a need for programmes of a more utilitarian nature; for example, simple talks given by food technologists on foods, bacteriologists on the necessity to wash hands before eating. This will serve certain specialised areas in society. Then, in this case, even if the poor hawker gets his licence cancelled, he can accept the decision as, by then, he will have understood the importance of personal hygiene. As things stand now, it would appear that what one Government department tries to build up, another tries to destroy. The President's call to import from the West and Japan technology and knowledge but not lifestyles and ephemeral fancies that can do damage to Singaporeans should be well heeded. But we may have to repeat this call again and again if steps are not taken to ensure that civil servants know the name of the game and play the game properly. There must, therefore, be better liaison and better co-ordination between the various ministries and even within ministries, otherwise one would find little sub-governments in the various ministries working against the interest of government policies. As we build our industries, as we take that long toil up the hill to greater success in our industrialisation programme, the storms will get heavier, the path more treacherous, and impediments will come in the way. Success can never come the easy way. Our ambition and the ambition of the country must be for all to feel that they belong to this country for together we have toiled and sweated to bring it to what it is. There must be no stagnation; we must keep going further ahead. We must be able to keep attracting foreign investors not only by having an efficient infrastructure and a properly educated workforce but also by providing the kind of security to guard our investments as well as the properties of others brought into Singapore to generate wealth. Mr Speaker, Sir, walking into other people's land and taking control of it by force is indeed despicable and cannot be tolerated by any intelligent human being. It is like walking into someone else's home and taking over because he likes the swimming pool. This very immoral, presumptuous and avaricious act cannot, by any decent standard, happen in a country. By the same token, it should not be allowed among countries in the world. International censure and the more powerful countries should act to prevent such from happening in countries such as Kampuchea and Afghanistan. Whilst the international forces sort themselves out, under a new Reagan administration, Singapore must never forget that our defence is extremely important in order to ensure our continued peace and prosperity. Singaporeans must, therefore, be made to realise that this is the only land they can step on and that they have nowhere else to go. We cannot afford to maintain a regular large army, not only because of our financial restriction, but because of the limited manpower available - hence every man, every woman must not only know how to defend our country, but be fit to do so. We will have to guard against producing faint-hearted and weak soldiers, the product of a luxurious lifestyle. The present-day generation of young people appear to be bigger than the previous generation. They look big, but I am not sure of their state of internal energy, their stamina and their strength. The plan of the Ministry of Defence to improve the professional skills and minds of officers and to have better professional instructors and to make keeping physically fit a life-long habit is indeed a praiseworthy one. There is nothing worse than to see units failing over a pin when charging up hills. Should the real battle come, neither minds nor legs should buckle. Having a physically fit, and I should add, mentally fit, army of well-trained and well-disciplined men will certainly go a long way to building up an effective defence system. Yet I feel that such an army may not necessarily be adequate to guarantee the security and stability of our country, if each soldier, each national serviceman and each reservist is not imbued with a sense of commitment, a sense of nationalism, a belief in the necessity of defending what has been built up so assiduously over the last two decades. This collective national consciousness should pervade the whole population as well as the army and, to ensure that it does, it should be instilled early in life - at school perhaps - and reinforced during national service. There has to be a genuine enthusiasm about being loyal to one's country. Loyalty to one's country must be one virtue that needs to be actively cultivated if it is not already present, or evident. The soldier or the national serviceman or the reservist must be prepared to defend his country like he would defend his wife, perhaps his girl friend, against an intruder or external threat. A soldier, imbued with this kind of sentiment towards his country, and who is fully competent physically and mentally is indeed an asset to the nation. We want every member of the army to be such an asset to the nation. Then we can be sure that everyone is helping to shoulder the responsibility of defending our country. However, to achieve this stage is easier said than done. But I think that the President's call to restructure our scheme of rewards and incentives may be a realistic approach to the problem in hand. In creating a direct nexus between the advancement of a citizen as a soldier and his advancement as a civilian, and vice-versa, is a practical way of giving the right kind of recognition, social status and economic incentive to our army and would very likely help to achieve our goal of creating a cohesive national army of citizen-soldiers earlier. This is of vital importance and the sooner our people realise it the better. This is just as important to us as having a reliable and efficient infrastructure to ensure our healthy and ever-growing economy. From the tone of the President's comments regarding Singaporeans' attitudes towards reservist training, I gather there is a concern that there is not enough stamina and loyalty in Singaporeans to want to take military training seriously. But surely the best man is the man who has the greatest stamina no matter what he is doing and at whatever time. The others will simply have to take their place in the queue as stamina diminishes. Of course, like most other things, there are exceptions to the rule. At this juncture, allow me to mention in praise the wisdom of the President in stressing the need to complete the process of self-renewal. It will not be inappropriate on my part to pay tribute to all the old guards in the Government and elsewhere, community leaders, parents and others for helping to steer our country and the people to where they are today. It is indeed difficult for old guards to change their pattern of life, from an active life to a less active one, but in an important activity such as ensuring the continued progress of a nation and for the sake of our children and old guards' grandchildren, we must allow the process of self-renewal to take its unnatural course smoothly. We have seen many old guards stepping aside with big hearts. But I think these people with their wealth of experience should be encouraged to come together to form a resource pool to provide the younger generation with some guidance and advice. But I must hasten to caution that sometimes advice need not necessarily be accepted completely by the younger generation because they see a problem in a different light. This is because the younger generation must also continue to generate new ideas and acquire new vision because it is only with new ideas and the audacity to try them out will a society advance. The old guards with their wealth of experience can assume the role of a radar by helping the younger generation to see the storms ahead of them. Sometimes the signals given may not be heeded by the pilot but it must all be taken in good faith. I can assure the House that a remark like that made by me is not an emotional remark, but a statement of the obvious. Here is where you have an M P not constrained by old age, giving voice to the younger MPs' views and hopes, their doubts and their fears. For surely it is in the interest of the old guards to see that the younger ministers are able to deliver the goods as well as they can, maybe even better. I am certain that the younger generation know that they cannot last long if they hope to depend only on the achievements of the old guards. The younger generation must be seen to achieve as well. Of course, it will be the duty of the younger generation to ensure this process of self-renewal applies to them as well when their time is up. This way, we can perpetuate and perfect the political system, otherwise the Government which has done a marvellous job for the country will end as soon as the old guards disappear. If the old guards desire to enjoy their pensions, they must succeed in passing on their experience effectively to the younger generation. In order that MPs not constrained by ministerial office could give voice to the people's views and hopes, their doubts and fears, the stage must be set right first before the dramatis personae can appear. We on this side of the House, therefore, applaud the President's call to speak up which, by the way, many have done so in the past. For the newly elected MPs, I am confident they will join us to speak up frankly and fearlessly. However, let us not go overboard and become emotional, as we will do no one any good. As PAP MPs, we are part of the political leadership system. Our duty is to hear from as many of our constituents as we possibly can and to be able to hear it correctly by maintaining an even better relationship between MPs and their constituents, explain to them Government policies, listen to their problems and, where it makes sense, to reflect it here in Parliament boldly for the sake of our constituents. On the other side of the House, those who hear us, please accept our contributions in good faith and get the civil service to change where necessary. With our limited land, with our limited human resources, working with all things small and beautiful, we have evolved over 20 years what I would always like to call our unique political leadership system that works because of continued self-renewal. We cannot afford the luxury of emotional and verbal calisthenics with little logic like what big countries, like India and Britain, can afford. We are doing well with our own system and it is our duty to keep improving the political leadership system for the betterment of our people and the nation. However, for MPs to perform better, it may be necessary for MPs to promote team-work and team spirit among themselves, to work together and to carry out the kind of research work that is necessary if every bill is to be debated. It may be a good idea to split MPs up into little groups (now that we have an expanded Parliament), each group over-looking a Ministry and be charged with the responsibility of leading in debates on bills from that particular Ministry. Staff in the Parliament Library may have to be expanded to serve these groups. We should also consider the provision of paid staff to work in each constituency to carry out field work. This will help MPs to reflect the views of their constituents more accurately and debate more effectively. Mr Speaker, Sir, our economy will continue to grow and Singaporeans will continue to do better, but sometimes an economy may fall not because of purely economic matters, or inflation, or the poor utilisation of technology, but the lack of drive, and ingenuity of the people of a country. We must continue to encourage our people to work hard and save for the future. Our people must never lose their will to succeed and begin to take things for granted. If this does happen, all that we have done and built up can come crashing down. We must, therefore, continue to monitor our progress and at the same time ensure that problems of crime, drug addiction, and family break-ups do not act to erode the society. We must strengthen our cultural and moral values to remain a cohesive nation. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.15 p.m.