Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the only reason why I happen to be the first speaker is that the Whip, like the HDB believes in "first-come-first-served." Sir, when I first became a Member of this august House, one of the first things I did was to go to the Parliament Library to look up Hansard. It was a salutary experience, Sir, because reading Hansard helped to take the wind out of my sails because I found that many of the things which I thought would shake this House had already been said and thought out before and that there was really nothing new under the sun, Sir, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose - the more things change, the more they seem to be the same, and it is so now. It is for this reason that I think much of what I wish to say is familiar, but it is still good to make a review, to restate premises, to hopefully push thinking forward, so that step by step some little success is achieved in the area which I wish to speak on. Sir, I would like to deal with only one of the themes the Minister for Trade and Industry touched upon when he delivered the Budget Address. Although this theme appeared towards the end of the Minister's speech, it was by no means the least significant. Indeed, to me, it seemed the most challenging. The Minister concluded (I quote selectively): 'Economic growth, desirable as it is, is not an end in itself. It is the means to forge the kind of society we want... We have succeeded in getting the different races together, to build a team spirit. . . We must build on this strong foundation.' In the course of its office the Government has provided institutionalized opportunities and encouraged many institutional procedures whereby Singaporeans may relate more closely to one another. Examples are the establishment of Citizens' Consultative Committees, the augmenting material support given to Community Centres, and their updating and improvement: the hardworking role of the People's Association in this effort; and more recently we have had the development of Residents' Committees, the necessity for which was triggered by rapid urbanization and, after all said and done, by the burgeoning achievements of the HDB. Campaigns, such as for Courtesy and those aimed at crime prevention and reduction of traffic offences, as well as. Campaigns to spruce up the city, to encourage Mandarin-speaking (in order to simplify communication, and preserve a heritage) - all such efforts may be seen in the final count as really aimed at enhancing a sense of community. Such and similar measures have been taken at the organized and institutional level. Attention is also being directed at the personal level as, for example, efforts at moral education in schools. I would like to sharpen this focus on the person. We have been doing a great deal to imbue in our people a sense of community, even if the motivation has been utilitarian. Our efforts have in their deliberate planning been as great, if not greater than in most non-communist countries. It would be useful, therefore, to take stock, and draw up a kind of balance sheet - an appropriate exercise for this budget occasion. For a background we can remember that about 40 years ago we were being exhorted. as British subjects, to be loyal and even to be ready to fight to defend - what? Singapore? Malaya? Let us say - to defend our homes! And indeed (in parenthesis) the names of some of my friends of different races born in Singapore are engraved on the Kranji memorial. They took it seriously, as perhaps they should have. Then the Japanese came. They made it seem as if their rule would last forever. They exhorted us to respect Tenno Heika, and taught us the words of their national hymn Kimigayo, as well as martial airs, the words of which can, after 40 years, still tumble forth quite easily, at least from my mouth, Sir. After this, the British returned. And nationalist agitation was mounted against them, in which some Members in this House took part. A phase arrived when we became Malaysians. We have only recently become Singaporeans. Singapore prospered, and inevitably the population went through various stages of bourgeoisification [Interruption] - there are many bourgeois in this House, Sir, and the nouveau riche emerged. It would appear that the very rich face outlandish hazards, including the obscene prospect of using 18-carat gold keys to obtain access eventually to their whirlpool baths - if a recent newspaper report and editorial are anything to go by. For the run-of-the-mill Singaporean, the more likely moral hazard is the possession of a car. Driving in Singapore is a good symbol of Singapore life. A spirit of free enterprise - but one gone frequently haywire - prevails on the road. Here, one apparently tries to get ahead of others, seemingly at any cost, certainly at some, or even considerable risk. A driving licence is sometimes taken literally to mean permission to drive licentiously. Highway desperadoes inevitably meet their deserts, but who pays? All Singaporeans, Sir, because all are diminished by tragedy that is senseless and caused only by disregard of one citizen for the rest. On the road, one very basic principle of community relationship is all too often absent - respect for the other person. Yet it is this respect and concern that we are really underlining when we say that care for the aged is essentially a responsibility of the individual, not of institutions. It is also a concern for life that bothers people like the Member for River Valley when he expresses conscientious reservations over our present abortion policy. At the same time, as we are considering the question of mutual concern, we might examine the degree of care we show for the handicapped. And when we - think of our children who are whole and healthy, is there more that could be done towards ensuring their humane development as against rousing their competitive instincts. These are seemingly disparate elements - traffic, the aged, abortion, the handicapped, our healthy school children. But I do not think it takes a metaphysical effort to see that they are all related on the point of human concern. Practical constraints force a treatment of separate problems by separate bureaus. Politicians cannot legislate for total concern. But education can help if it is a continuing, life-long process, and not thought of as a formal school effort merely. Constraints must be viewed practically. One has to agree with the Minister for Culture that we should try to understand the political and social imperatives that have resulted in some of the features we see in Singapore today. I am sure also that the pattern of these imperatives has changed - not so much that there are fewer imperatives, or that they are less urgent, but that their nature has changed. Let us take some considerations that may still affect us today: (a) we were too many, (b) we were too divergent in origins, (c) we were too clannish, (d) we were poor, (e) we were a peculiar mixture of recalcitrance and the unquestioning in attitude. And we can add to all this: but, as one might say, "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." We now seek a higher and more sensitive quality of the individual in terms of talent and promise; we have all the makings of a good team; we have to transcend mere love for the family as much as we have to preserve this love; we have nearly-full employment; we shall always have a measure of disaffection among us, but I hope that the cult of obedience which is allegedly a characteristic of the Ministry of Education will find no ground in our culture. I am not saying we should not obey, but we should not make a cult of obedience. Related to all such imperatives is the proposition, put forward by not a few, Sir - and they are thinking people, loyal Singaporeans - that what has principally held us together are good leadership and common economic goals. I suggest, Sir, that the problem is worth looking at on the basis of this hypothesis. Our sufficiencies and insufficiencies are thereby bared. Where leadership is concerned, the old order is changing, giving place to the new. I respect and admire the new, Sir. But I would like to say a few words about the elder leadership, and this includes such people as the Member for Anson, who has always, in my mind, been a sort of Minister without Portfolio or Minister for Revolutionary Evolution, or something like that. Sir, it would be difficult to find in any part of the world such a collective as our original leadership. How men of such diverse intellects and characters became united in a single dedicated enterprise is a historic fact, but a mystery! And it threatens to remain a mystery. Were not the strands out of which our leaders wove their achievement human strands? Did they not suffer frustrations, did they not face failure, did they not plot, were they not afraid, did they not enjoy success, did they not marry, have a family life? Had they no foibles? Where the latter is concerned, I am sure Members here may be able to make a list. Sir, we do not seek revelations. But the same commitment that made our leaders what they are should urge them to consider relating how they came to be what they are. We no longer need to depend only on Raffles for a founding father image. The imperatives have changed. Raffles and the others were literally non-starters in the story of independent Singapore. They were the ghosts out of the colonial machine. We have human beings to inspire us, who have lived and moved and been with us. There is a debt owed to the coming generation that needs to be paid by showing the flesh and blood example of the elders. They should not hide their light under a bushel. On the other point of the common material goal of well-being, may I point to the ceremonial pledge taken by our children in schools: "We the citizens of Singapore pledge ourselves as one united people regardless of race, language or religion to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation." Treating this script only as a historical document, I wonder if this statement of philosophy is adequate as a bond. Perhaps it was adequate for its time. But the imperatives are changing. If we have to replace one abstraction for another, we could talk of comradeship and working together, mutual support and virtue (virtue meaning manliness for the man and womanliness for the woman), or right conduct. All this may sound old-fashioned and not as jazzy as happiness, prosperity and progress, but may be more useful, and would still embrace prosperity and progress and bear them up more gracefully. It may be true that, for a variety of reasons, Singaporeans do not find it easy to relate to one another. It could be a relic of diverse origins, of a "family-first" cultural tradition, of suspicion that operated in a self-preserving way at one time, which may still be healthy in certain circumstances today. It is a lack of ease which education is over-coming, but it is still there. If I may give an example which I am familiar or even intimate with. For example, during religious service which I am obliged to attend on Sundays, there is a juncture during Mass when there should be a fraternal exchange of greetings. This takes place, if at all, in Singapore, under conditions characterized by an awkwardness I have not noticed in many parts of the world. If, under conditions when one should feel secure, a greeting is so diffidently given, then one can understand why it is difficult for Singaporeans to express views and ask questions - processes necessary for the exer- cise of good citizenship. We may even go further. In several instances I have noticed that people prefer to bear up with a tolerable nuisance than speak to offending neighbours for fear of themselves giving offence. In the extreme, there is reluctance to report to authorities small transgressions, although it would be an act of good citizenship to do so. Good citizenship is just the ability of people to get together and act together for the common good. But this is based on confidence in one another, which seems to be lacking. Singaporeans apparently must learn to relax towards one another, to learn to uphold trust, and indeed in a responsible way to trust one another. It is perhaps for this that the cultural arts may be employed to soften - [Interruption] No, I said in a responsible way, Mr Minister. It is perhaps for this that the cultural arts may be employed to soften the attitude of one Singaporean towards the other, to make people sensitive in their mutual relations. It is the soul of a people that the arts should reflect to a large degree. One outstanding example is the representation of the Singapore river in art. The throb of Singapore's life, even through the passage of time, is symbolized by the River in the ebb and flow of its traffic, indeed of its own life. Could we not try consciously to evoke or synthesize from our environment more of such symbols for the common understanding? It is both gratifying and at the same time off-putting for a thoughtful person to consider that the one outstanding symbol of Singapore which we have plucked out of the advertiser's imagination, and associated it with success is the symbol of SIA. Even Singaporeans accept the package, where in many cases they look for the foreign product. Still on the subject of the arts, I wonder whether we can generate the skills to produce one or two series in drama for our TV, this being such a well-patronized medium. Such series could reflect aspects of basic living in Singapore and feature characters and situations that can strike a responsive chord in Singaporeans. Why not a comedy series, for people get drawn together by laughter - especially if they laugh at themselves. We have seen naive attempts to satirize stock communal stereotypes on our media. Could we try to move from such primitive representations to more thoughtful characterizations? These are just one or two ideas to serve simply as examples. I am sure we can generate, with our ingenuity, a lot more ideas than 1, in the paucity of my imagination, have propounded. We need not wait for a dramatic or a comic genius to emerge. This is the age of the committee, and the team. Many good TV scripts have come not from individuals but from group effort. I observe our TV trying to popularize songs. The community achievement will result when people sing these songs. Watching excerpts of a road-show, I noticed few joining in community singing. When our commuters and those who transport them "Smile every mile - for wherever you roam, it will brighten your road, it will lighten your load, if you sing your way home", then we would have arrived at a blessed juncture of community. Meanwhile, we have to work hard and exercise every bit of goodwill to instil a sense of fraternity in our people. However hard we work to ensure our people imbibe tried and tested values and virtues, we should continue to see religion as a tried and tested vehicle. There is no room for bigotry in our society. But the person who tries to find his spiritual commitment to society through his belief in a religion, however often he may find the going difficult or even unsuccessful at times, is a community asset.