Hansard, 1985-03-01

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated:- Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra) - from 26th to 28th February, 1985. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Tan Soo Khoon be elected Deputy Speaker of this Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the proposal.

There being only one proposal, I declare Mr Tan Soo Khoon to have been duly elected as Deputy Speaker of this Parliament. [Applause]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, with effect from this day's sitting -

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, with effect from this day's sitting -

11.04 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am greatly honoured to be given this rare opportunity to move this Motion of Thanks to the President. 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.". Mr Speaker, Sir, in his opening remarks, the President said: 'The political leadership of Singapore has passed on to a new team of younger leaders.' Our younger leaders are now plotting the new stage of development for Singapore. They have set out certain goals to be achieved within the next five years. However, whatever they plan, whatever they do, they must not forget that it was the common man, the man in the street, who voted the PAP into power. Since 1963, the people have given this Government a blank cheque. They went with us all the way, accepting our policies readily because they believed in us. They had faith in us and, above all, they trusted us. Our Prime Minister and his able men led them through the first stage of our development - the construction phase of our development. The changes they produced were remarkable. They were very visible - from squatter huts, zinc and plank shops to tall skyscrapers of Housing and Development Board flats and offices, from stand-pipes to individual taps at home and from mud tracks to metalled roads. These changes were not only visible but impressive and it was dramatic. The people saw this with admiration and placed more faith in our Government. But today, after 25 years of nation-building, there is an erosion in this faith and trust in the Government and this was translated into a 12.5% swing in the last general election. The reasons for the erosion have been aired many times after the elections. The most frequently whispered comment is that the PAP no longer cares for the common man as many Singaporeans perceived the numerous policies as elitist, in particular, the priority scheme for graduate mothers and the streaming of our children in the schools, the emphasis on special and gifted schools, the publicity given to scholars and their achievements and, of course, the unpublicized but much-talked about special social development programmes for unmarried graduates. All these and many more, including the controversial CPF issue, made the people suspect the intentions of the Government. While these policies have always been defended as not significantly depriving the majority of their rights, the fact remains that they benefited so few alienates the majority. Is this then the ordinary people's government, or is it a government for a special breed of men? The ordinary men in the street are prepared to let the able ones to lead but in turn they expect these able men to have empathy. But, alas, our hard-headed and statistical approach to problems have given the impression that we are beginning to care less for the people and more for those who can achieve. In the eyes of many, we are beginning to shed our image as an ordinary man's party. But have we really stopped caring for the ordinary people? The answer is no. We are still the ordinary man's party. We still build flats for them, we still build roads, hospitals, improve utilities and we provide social and recreational facilities for all. Why are the people then less aware and conscious of these achievements than in. the past? Have they forgotten that these achievements are only possible because this Government has remained honest, efficient and non-corrupt? One possible reason why people do not appreciate these achievements is that the rapid change of policies within the last two to three years have confused our people so much that they have missed the forest for the trees. The ordinary people were not able to follow the rapid changes in our education policy, the controversial proposals on the CPF, the special tax concessions to highly qualified women, the high increases in cost of houses and car taxes, PUB increases and the restructuring of our economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, the angry mood of the people did not go unnoticed. It was picked up by PAP Members of Parliament in this House and they brought up all these issues in this House. The Member for Moulmein, for example, has brought up many issues concerning education and streaming. Then we have the Member for Rochore who has also brought up very controversial Issues in this House. And of course our Backbench economist, the Member for Whampoa, has cautioned and advised the Government on economic policies. We also have the Members for Leng Kee, Punggol, Toa Payoh and our newly elected Deputy Speaker who sRoke very strongly in this House on many issues concerning our policies. In spite of what they have said in this House, somehow our Ministers did not pay much attention to these issues. Maybe they did pay much attention but they did not perceive the feedback correctly, or they took for granted that the people will understand and are with them because of the good past track record. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to relate an incident involving my son. I took him to the Botanic Gardens one day, when he was very young. I was eager to see the Orchids section, and so I walked very very fast. He shouted to me to wait for him. I turned around, only to urge him on. I had presumed he was able to follow me but suddenly he stopped calling. I turned back and found him seated on a stone at the far end of the road. I walked to him. I saw that he was angry and in tears and, with arms folded, he burst out, "Why didn't you wait for me?" He refused to move in spite of my apologies. He was hurt. He interpreted my fast pace as not caring, and this is how the people view the PAP. Many Singaporeans felt left behind because they could not follow the pace of change, and they resented this. We have to be honest with the people that we misread them, but they should not misread our intentions which are always in the interests of Singapore. At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that it is not good enough for the Government to have good intentions when introducing new policies. The Government must also ensure that the people understand these good intentions and thereby enjoy their support. A policy supported by the people would be less traumatic when implemented. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no more blank cheque. Running a country is not like running a company. We cannot "sack" our people if they are less effective. Our responsibilities go beyond that. We must help them. It is therefore good to find that one of the Government's new goals will be to pay particular attention to the 15-20% lower income group and the aged. This works out to approximately half a million Singaporeans. The fact that Government has singled out these two target groups for special mention shows the concern of the new leaders. It is no easy task. For a start, we must identify the impediments that have prevented the lower income group from moving up. One of their basic needs is better housing, and it is gratifying to note that the Cabinet has plans to help this group achieve home ownership. Another need is better education for their children so that they will be able to get better jobs and break out of this poverty cycle. In this context I hope to see the Ministry of Education draw up positive programmes to help these children overcome the linguistic and learning disadvantages that their home background imposes on them. However, we must not give them handouts. Do not entice them with our $10,000 in order to stop them from producing more babies. They have pride. We should not insult them. Educate them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the new leaders have a very difficult task of improving upon what the old leadership has built. Many have commented that it is easier to take off with the infrastructure built for them, but this is not necessarily true. It is easier to please the past generation. Their needs are sim- ple. But times have changed and problems are different today. Expectations are high. Thus the people may not realize that the new leadership will have to put in a great deal more effort to produce very marginal visible change. Let me illustrate. Moving from a rental flat to a purchase flat, upgrading from a 3-room flat to a 4-room flat, improving a one-lane traffic to a dual carriage way, do not create such dramatic impact as moving from an attap house with well water facilities to a HDB flat with all its associated amenities. It is, therefore, right, Mr Speaker, that we should get the people to be more involved in the important decisions of this country. What then is the type of Singapore they want in the coming years? This was the question put to the audience by our First Deputy Prime Minister in the last Dialogue Session. I am surprised that there has not been much response from the press or from the public. If criticism of the Vision for the 1990s had been forthcoming during the last elections, I am disappointed that nothing has been generated in the press to fire the imagination of the Singaporeans on what they want for our future country. Perhaps the vision of the new leaders put up by them is what the people really want Singapore to be. And it is not fair to be silent now, and later, with the benefit of hindsight, to criticize the vision of our young leaders. This involvement of the people in big decision making marked a new style of government. The intention to set up a unit in the Ministry of Community Development to sample public opinion on new ideas, to accept and consider new ideas from the public, to sample public opinion on policy matters before implementation, to review policy particularly where it affects the public, and lastly as a complaints bureau is a big step towards participatory democracy. This unit, however, must not be seen as another arm of the Government to explain or to defend the actions of the civil service or the statutory boards. Nor should civil servants misunderstand the role of the unit to that of witch-hunting or fault finding. Mr Speaker, Sir, behind all these domestic issues, we must not forget that we are living in turbulent times. We are small. Singapore watchers saw how our people voted in the last general elections. They have made conclusions. It would be in our national interest to ensure that people elsewhere do not draw the wrong conclusions about our unity and commitment to this country. Singaporeans must bear in mind that our actions cannot go unnoticed. Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said of the new leadership and the new Members of Parliament. Most are inducted into politics. Many are labelled as "reluctant politicians" and some Singaporeans are sceptical of their political leadership. I would like to compare ourselves as kidney transplants. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a kidney transplant, two things can happen - either the body accepts or the body rejects. To prevent rejection, the doctor pumps into the body certain substances called immuno-suppressants. In spite of this, some are still rejected. Like the transplanted kidneys, the new MPs must have these immuno-suppressants in the form of faith and support from the people. And, like the transplanted - kidneys, those that are accepted will no doubt be able to perform as effectively as the older leaders. Singaporeans must give our new leadership a fair chance to prove themselves. Our new enthusiastic Cabinet leaders have set admirable goals for themselves and for the people. If they are able to win the hearts and minds of our disciplined people, these goals will no doubt be achievable and our country will prosper and progress. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House has asked the new MPs "to speak their minds and let conscience be their guide." We should take his advice. Although we will get walloped by the Ministers for some of our remarks, we should not let these parliamentary wounds deter us from speaking. We must develop what people call"thick-skin"and, like a rubber ball, you must be prepared to bounce back. Finally, I am not sure whether the new MPs are lucky, or unlucky, not to have amongst us the former First Deputy Prime Minister and the former Minister of Education with us. I remember he delivered my first parliamentary wound when I accused his education system of creating class divisions. And I can assure new Members of this House that it was not a pleasant experience. It was ulcer-producing but, at the end of it all, it was worth it because I registered my reservations and my belief and I also reflected the views of many people who strongly believe that there is this weakness in our education policy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause] Question proposed. 11.24 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened to the Member moving this Motion for the Address of Thanks, I find myself much in agreement with the comments that he has made about the Government's record and its actions over the last 25 years. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to the Motion, and I propose to move that at the end of my speech, if I may, but with your permission, may I hand it now to the Clerk. Amendment handed in.

You are going to speak on the main question at the moment, b&ore the amendment comes?

Well, would you rather that I move my amendment, Sir?

No. I would rather you speak on the main Question.

And then move the amendment at the end.

Yes.

If it pleases you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose in the time that is allotted to me here to examine any specific issue of the Government or its programme, but I propose to spend my time examining what the last Member said was involvement of the people in the decision-making processes of the Government, something which has been noticeably lacking over the last 25 years since the present Government took office in June 1959. And it is to that that my amendment will be directed. Mr Speaker, Sir, we this Parliament, the Sixth Parliament of our country, meet in an air of expectancy. The electorate, who we are privileged to represent in this House, expect a great deal from this Parliament. There is a general air of expectancy. I was asked a number of times before today about this sitting of Parliament and sensed the eager expectation of the people to see what would be the Government's programme and what would be said in Parliament on it. Now, this expectancy, Mr Speaker, Sir, arises, I need not remind Members, from the results that came to light on the night of 22nd December 1984 when the last General Elections were hold. For the first time since 1959 when this Government took office, there was a significant swing away from the Government towards the Opposition parties. People were clearly expressing their discontent, their dissatisfaction, with what had gone on for the last 25 years. And this result evoked comments overseas. They were saying that Singapore had come of age, that the Singapore people had matured and were showing that they were politically able to take charge of their country's affairs. And, of course, Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the results were greeted by our Singapore citizens and the electorate, it sent shock waves through the Government. The Government for a moment was stunned by the results displayed over the last elections. It had spent $18 million of the taxpayers' monies to show off what it had achieved for Singapore over the last 25 years. The Prime Minister, it would appear, was so disturbed by the results at his press conference that a foreigner, Mr Speaker, had to tell him that he should relax and that the end of the world hadn't come because his Party had lost 12% of the votes. I am surprised that the Prime Minister was so disturbed. He should know better. He should know that governments come and go but people survive and continue. Now, what was the signal that the voters were sending to the Government through the ballot box, the most democratic method of selecting government? The signal that the Prime Minister acknowledged was that the voters wanted a less austere and open government. Mr Speaker, Sir, that was an acknowledgement by the Prime Minister that the voters were saying that a lot of Government activities, Government decisions, had been made in a hole-and-corner fashion, that Government decisions had not been explained, had not been justified before the electorate, that they had been left without any consultation before important decisions affecting their livelihood were made by the Government. And I shall, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of my speech examine what is involved in being an open government. The other thing that the Prime Minister acknowledged was that the people were complaining about the Government being too austere. I do not think that the electorate mind any government being austere, Mr Speaker, Sir. What the citizen and the electorate will mind is when he or she feels that his rights or her rights as citizens are being deprived, when they are not given their full rights as citizens of the country. Nobody is going to complain about austerity if austerity is necessary provided everyone is given his rights or her rights and all are treated equally. So we come back to the question of the rights of our citizens in this country of ours, whether the Government's actions in the past, for the last 25 years, had been one of a violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens, a neglect, a criminal neglect of their rights as human beings. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, the voters were saying much more than what the Prime Minister acknowledged. They were saying that they want their fundamental rights and freedom as human beings in this place, let alone as citizens. I do not propose to detail all the rights of which they have been deprived over the last 25 years. I have in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last three years since I entered it in December 1981 complained again and again about the violation of these rights and I do not propose to go through them again. I need only say one, and that is even on the question of a personal right as marriage, it would appear that some of our citizens still have to get the permission of the Government before he or she can marry. This is a personal right. So our citizens were saying through the ballot box that it is time that their rights were recognized, their rights as citizens, their rights as human beings, were recognized by this Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, only not very long ago, the Opposition Leader of a country not very far from here was also calling after their elections for the restoration of full democratic rights. And he was warning the government in that country that there would be social unrest unless the full democratic rights of the citizens were restored to them. I am not here to warn the Government of social unrest but I would urge upon the Government to take that seriously. These rights are universal rights, recognized now by all countries all over the world. They have become fundamental and universal for the wellbeing of every human being wherever he or she may be, whether it is Singapore or Timbuktu. Secondly, the voters were saying, Mr Speaker, that government should be conducted openly, that decisions of the GoVernment are seen by the public to have been made upon due reason, due causes, and Ministers are made to publicly justify their decisions. And they, of course, ask that they should be heard, that there should be adequate consultation with the people before any decisions are made. Mr Speaker, Sir, after this message, the signal, as the Prime Minister called it, from the voters, we have had a number of statements from the Ministers of the Government trying to pacify our voters and promising them that the Government would take note of their wishes and would implement measures to bring this about. We have had the First Deputy Prime Minister speak at a meeting of community leaders on 8th February and which was reported in the Sunday Times on 10th February. These are his words: 'So we have got to try and fire the imagination of Singaporeans so that there is a now creative environment, there is a new vitality to take us through the next 25 years.' And it is about this now creative environment, the creative vibrant society, that the First Deputy Prime Minister says will be the objective of the Government that I propose to examine. How is the Government proposing to bring about a creative, vibrant society which the Government accepts should be the desirable aim of us in Singapore? Whilst the First Deputy Prime Minister speaks about the creation of a creative, vibrant society, I find somewhat different the Prime Minister's speech at the Tanjong Pagar Community Centre New Year Gettogether which was reported in the papers of the 25th February 1985. To the Prime Minister, it seemed all that mattered was disciplining of the society. Society cannot, as I understood him, progress unless everybody was disciplined and those indisciplined were punished. And he says, "Well, you know, how hard we can punish." The Prime Minister was quoted as having said that the problem for younger Singaporeans was how they could be galvanized to go up and stay on top. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that that is the wrong diagnosis. It seems to me, in the first place, to be a very materialistic and selfish motive to set before the younger Singaporeans, before the young of our country. And that is partly the cause for our present discontent, the materialistic self-acquiring philosophy that this Government has preached from 1959. I would commend to the Prime Minister and to the Government that the problem is not trying to persuade Singaporeans to go to the top and stay on top. I do not think that Singaporeans, the young Singaporeans, are all bent on that, as it were, the rule of the jungle. As I see it, Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem that this Government will face over the next five years is how to persuade or convince our young people in our midst that in the Singapore society they can live their lives to the fullest dignity as human beings. That seems to me to be the problem - to get our young people to take pride in the society that we have built for them and to be ready to contribute in their own way to the building of the society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have studied the addendum to the first objective outlined in the President's Speech which, as you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, talks about the character of the society, and it is on that that I am speaking this morning, and I find neither in the President's Address nor in the addendum anything at all, nothing about the steps, the measures that this Government has, or plans to take, to achieve this creative vibrant society. In place of that, all we have is a lot & wishy-washy thinking, Mr Speaker, Sir. In his addendum, the First Deputy Prime Minister says 'we will have this and we will have that' and it goes on ad infinitum. The question is whether you are going to involve our people to build a society to their liking, to their satisfaction because that would appear to be the first objective of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, a vibrant creative society is one where its members live to the fullest dignity as human beings. An individual cannot live in the fullest dignity unless he has certain fundamental rights and freedoms which are protected and can be enforced if they are violated. So may I commend to the Government that the first requirement is a restoration or investing our people of their rights as human beings. Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister in his speech to the community leaders reported on the 10th of February, 1985, speaks about the machinery for consulting the people. I was asked by the press what I thought about this, and my reply was, "let's not have any more machinery. What is needed is freeing, liberating our people." Mr Speaker, Sir, we have inherited from the time that we were under the colonial government a restriction on the freedom of speech. Is it necessary to continue this restriction? We do not need any more feedback machineries. All we need is to allow our citizens to say what they wish to say, of course, within the limits of the law. There is the law of libel, there is the law of sedition. To criticize the government, to take it to task openly outside. The trouble, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that once you set up, as it were, a consultative machinery and you stage forums, you would only hear the things that you want to hear. People must be left to their own to say what they wish to say. The trouble in Singapore is that everything is over-controlled, over-regulated. The Government apparently thinks that our people cannot do anything unless they have a Minister in charge; even to the extent of arranging football league games or matches, they must have a Minister. Let us not insult our people. They can do it very well on their own. I seem to be spending too much time on this fundamental right, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I, because they are very important, refer you to one paragraph of the Report of the Constitutional Commission in 1966. Mr Speaker, Sir, after we came out of Malaysia in 1965, the Prime Minister was all euphoric about investing our citizens with their rights. He was going to have a new Constitution, everything was going to be spelt out, there was going to be fundamental rights, Singapore was going to be a model country for the rest of the world to take note, and so he said he was going to appoint a Constitutional Commission which would listen to representations and then come out with a Report and then there would be a new Constitution. That was 1966, Mr Speaker, Sir, and we are still waiting for a new Constitution based upon these proposals of the Constitutional Commission that was appointed in 1966. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that your predecessor in office at that time was the Deputy Chairman of this Constitutional Commission. It was chaired by the Chief Justice. They say this, in paragraph 20 (so it is not me who is saying it; it is the Constitutional Commission): 'In this present era a notion is the sum total of all its citizens. In a nation, under a democratic form of government, each and everyone of its citizens is entitled to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, the enjoyment of which is protected by law and the enforcement which can be obtained from the Court whom Judges are independent of the Executive.' They then go on to say: 'in return for the protection afforded to him of the enjoyment of these rights and freedoms each citizen owes a corresponding duty not to exercise any of these rights and freedoms if by so doing he unjustifiably prejudices the public interest or the rights and freedoms of other citizens.' It goes without saying that where you confer a right there is a corresponding duty. And I am sure our citizens will not be lacking in recognizing their duties if you confer on them their rights. And it is important that not only that the rights be conferred, but that there be safeguarding of these rights once they have been conferred, and there should be remedies where there has been a violation or a threatened violation of these rights of the people. I propose, Mr Speaker, Sir, now to examine how we can bring about the open government and the preservation of the rights of our citizens as human beings so that there will come about this creative vibrant society that we are all agreed should be our aim, a society where each citizen is proud to belong to it because he knows that he has his rights, he knows that he will be protected, he knows that he will get his remedies if they are violated or threatened, and a society where each is for the other in a caring, concern for one another, and a society where the government is made accountable for every decision that it makes, concerning the people and their lives. The first of the institutions, Mr Speaker, Sir, is of course Parliament. And Parliament, more than anything else, secures to the people that government is conducted openly, that government decisions are not made in a hole-and-corner fashion but are made openly so that the public may have access to the reasons and the background for the decisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is an institution of the people. That is an obvious statement and it was set up so that the task of governing may be done through Parliament. Parliament itself does not govern. It is the Executive that governs. But the important thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the governing is done through Parliament. Parliament should be, as Mr Lloyd George, a one-time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom observed - Parliament should be the sounding board of the nation. It is where the views of the people come, where the government brings its decisions and where they are tested against the views of the people. It is the sounding board of the nation. If I may quote from the book, "Thoughts on the Constitution" by another constitutional writer, Mr Leo Amery. He says, "the main task of Parliament is still what it was when it was first summoned, not to legislate or govern but to secure full discussion and ventilation of all matters." And it is in this sense, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we speak of Parliament as being the custodian of our liberties. Our liberties are not just protected by preserving them in the Constitution but more so, Mr Speaker, Sir, by ensuring that Ministers always have to explain and publicly justify their policies and actions. The question is: Do we, this Parliament, function as the sounding board of the nation? Or do we function merely as a rubber-stamp of the Executive? If we want a vibrant, creative society, there is only one answer: Parliament has to function as the sounding board of the nation. Parliament must not only talk for the people but must talk to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, in March of last year in an Adjournment Debate I raised this question about the efficacy of Parliament, and the then Leader of the House said: [Hansard, Vol. 43, col. 4661 '... we have been reporting to ourselves for years. Why should we report to you (meaning myself]?' Mr Speaker, Sir, may I tell the Member for Tanglin (now that he is no longer Leader of the House) that he missed the essential point. When Ministers come to Parliament, they do not just report to Parliament or to the Opposition. They report to the people. That is the great thing about Parliament - you are reporting to the people, you are justifying and explaining your decisions to the people, not just to the assembled company in Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was dissatisfaction felt in the United Kingdom that Parliament was perhaps abdicating its role because of the complexities of modern government, and there was widespread concern about Parliament's abdication of its role. So the Government itself, in 1976, in the Queen's Address, proposed wide, sweeping measures to bring about reform of parliamentary procedure so that Parliament may scrutinize Government decisions, may call Ministers to account, and be given the powers to do this effectively. They appointed a Procedure Committee following the Queen's Speech after a long whole-day debate in Parliament. The Committee came up with its Report. It was called the Procedure Committee Report and, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the House of Commons Report 5881 which was submitted to Parliament in 1978. The Committee stated its belief and it is worth noting the belief of the Committee: That the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day-to-day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and it is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I pause to say that in Singapore the working of the Constitution is weighted in favour of the Government to an alarming degree, and that is the reason why it has caused more than widespread anxiety in Singapore, resulting in the results we saw on 22nd December, 1984. The Committee, after several sittings (I think they went through 68 sittings), came up with ways and means to improve Parliament, and I quote: 'to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the modern state for which they are answerable and to make the decisions of Parliament and Government more responsible to the wishes of the electorate., You have it there, Mr Speaker, Sir, "to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers." When 1, speaking in March last year on this, said that Parliament was not exercising any control here, the then Leader of the House said, "Where does it say in the Constitution that Parliament exercises control over the Government?" As I said in a letter to the Straits Times after that, which was not published, the then Leader completely ignored the whole constitutional convention of parliamentary government. The Committee's main recommendation, Mr Speaker, Sir, was that departmental committees of the House should be set up to examine every policy of the Government and to examine decisions of the Government, and that the departmental committees be given powers to summon Ministers to appear before the committee and to explain and to justify their decisions, and the committee would then report to Parliament. It was also recognized that that was the only way in which Parliament could be informed effectively, that Members of Parliament would be better able to discharge their duties as Members if they were fully informed on all matters that concern the electorate, the citizens, the voters. The trouble in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that there has been a control on information being made available. I have complained in this House about the diffi culty that I have had in getting information from ministries. I will not go into all the difficulties because time is running out. The strength of these committees, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that they can take evidence from the public on any decisions of the Government. They do not, as at present recommended, pass Bills - that is still being dons by standing committees - but these select committees sit to take evidence from the public on any decisions of the Government or any actions of the Government, or any policy that is proposed by the Government. They can summon people before them. They can invite representations. So there you have Parliament speaking to the people and, as reported by the editor, of "The Commons Today", these committees do not just sit in Parliament House. They go out to the people. So Parliament is seen in action because the committee is a Committee of Parliament and it is just as much Parliament as the whole House is. They mention about a committee going out to a pub to take evidence from the people there and to find out the reactions on a matter that concerned race relations. That is the son of thing that Parliament should be doing if it is to be the sounding board of the nation. I find that there is no proposal at all in the President's Address or in the Addendum of the First Deputy Prime Minister of any intention on the part of this Government to strengthen the role of Parliament. Is it the intention of the Government that Parliament should continue as it had continued for 25 years when the Government dominated or had the whole House completely to itself so that Parliament was merely a rubber-stamp? If you are sincere, I tell the Government, about consultations with the people, if you are sincere about people participating in decisions, then you have to do something about procedures in this House. I would commend to the First Deputy Prime Minister that the Cabinet should seriously consider setting up a committee, just as it was set up in 1976 in the UK, to study a reform of the procedures of this House so that Parliament may become (i keep repeating, it is worth repeating) a -sounding board of the nation. Would the Government do that, or are we going to see Parliament relegated again to a more rubber-stamp? If you do, then you will find much greater dissatisfaction from the electorate. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we do not need the Government to fire the imagination of the voters. Their imagination, has already been fired. It has been fired, Mr Speaker, Sir, because of what we in the Opposition have done. What the Government may do is to douse this imagination if it does not take any measures. So there is the danger. You do not need to fire the imagination. The imagination is already there. Our people are waiting, ready to take part in a society which will be meaningful, which will give them full participatory rights, and they want it. Are you going to give it to them? Now if I may move on to another aspect, and that is, the Minister's powers. I have again complained about this several times in the last three years when I was a Member of this House. In our statute books, we find in abundance Minister's powers - Ministers given powers to delegate and legislate, to make orders, decisions without very much control from Parliament. I have warned against this danger and I would like to read, Mr Speaker, Sir, what was said very long ago, in 1926 I think, by the then Lord Chief Justice of England in a book, "The New Despotism": 'How is it to be expected that a party against whom a decision has been given in a hole-and-corner fashion and without any grounds being specified should believe that he has had justice?' That is worth taking note of, Mr Speaker, Sir. Following that, I think, there was another committee appointed, and this was in 1932, Mr Speaker, Sir, by Royal Commission, to examine into the extent of Ministers' powers. And this is published as Command Paper 4060, presented to Parliament in 1932, i.e. the UK Parliament. And this is what they say: 'Experience has also shown that in the course of delegating these very wide powers to Ministers, Parliament often entrusts them, or persons appointed by them, with the right and duty to take decisions which determine the rights of private persons and deprive them of their access to the courts of law. It cannot, we think, be denied that prima facie this involved an infringement of that rule of law which is a characteristic of the English Constitution.' Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that we claim in this country that the rule of law is a characteristic of our Constitution. The Committee refer to a statement of the ideal of justice, which was made by the then Lord Chancellor at a speech, and this is what the Lord Chancellor said: 'Amid the cross-currents and shifting sands of public life, the law is like a great rock upon which a man may set his feet and be safe, while the inevitable inequalities of private life are not so dangerous in a country where every citizen knows that in the law courts, at any rate, he can get justice.' I shall be moving on to examine the role of the courts in all these. But there you have the ideal of justice. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have given Ministers extensive, wide powers, because it is convenient. I suppose the complexities of modern government demand that Ministers should have powers. At the same time, we have denied our citizens access to the courts from the decisions of the Ministers. It may be that there are some decisions which cannot go on appeal, but there are a number of other decisions which can go. And this is the danger that they point out, the grievance that a citizen will feel where a decision is made in a hole-and-corner fashion and he is not allowed to test it or challenge it. People's livelihoods are threatened by decisions made by the Executive. People deprived of jobs, their passports withheld. Should there not be some redress for our citizens whose rights are violated in such an arbitrary manner? I could go on about the Ministers' powers, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I must move on. The next institution that safeguards the rights and helps towards the maintenance of a creative, vibrant society is, of course, the courts. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Constitution has some fundamental rights, but may I say here that in the Constitutional Commission's Report, they recommended a number of other provisions which have never found their way into the Constitution as yet. As I have said (that was in 1966, and we are in 1985) they made an important recommendation. They said (this is the Constitutional Commission) that there should be a provision in the Constitution which gives every citizen a right to apply to the courts for the enforcement of his fundamental right, if it is threatened or has been threatened; and they even spelt out how the clause should be worded. They borrowed it from the Constitution of Guyana. But we do not have such a provision in the Constitution, even after its recommendation in 1966. The courts are the traditional protectors of the people's rights under the Constitution, and we should not deprive them of this traditional role in this country. Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, in some countries, the courts are extending their jurisdiction on the question of fundamental rights of the people.

You have about four minutes left, and you have not yet moved your amendment. We are still waiting for it.

May I then very briefly talk about the other two institutions, and the first is the trade unions. It has been said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a strong, independent trade union is a safeguard, is a security for the people's rights and their freedoms. Does the Government plan to strengthen our trade unions? Does the Government plan to free our trade unions, so that they can serve their traditional role as trade unions and not as lieutenants of the Government, to try and keep the workers in control? That is not the role of trade unions. Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the Second Deputy Prime Minister, who is now the Secretary-General of the trade unions. The trade unions have become part and parcel of the Government. That is not the function of trade unions, to serve the Government. Then there is the free press. The press in Singapore is, I am afraid, a scandal. What is the Government's plan, proposal, policy, towards the press? Are we going to encourage an investigative press that will seek out injustices, that will seek out any wrongdoing and expose it fearlessly? Or are we going to have a docile press that will echo whatever the Government says? Mr Speaker, Sir (you have drawn my attention to the time) unless the Government is prepared to take these measures that I have tried to outline in the time that I have, I say to the Government: you will never achieve a creative, vibrant society. You will never have an open system of Government. It is merely lip-service. You have got to back it with deeds and actions. And so Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Address of Thanks to the President be amended by deleting the hill-stop after the last word 'Parliament' and adding in thereafter these words: 'but the House regrets that the Government's programme lamentably fails to contain any measures for the achievement of a free vibrant participating society, an objective accepted as desirable by the Government in response to the wishes of the electorate.,.,, Now, if the society we want is a creative, vibrant society, I hope the Government will soon table measures.

May I remind you, Mr Jeyaretnam, that you will not have any right of reply to the debate on your amendment. The Original Question was, '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.".'. It has been proposed as an amendment, at the end, to add, "but the House regrets that the Government's programme lamentably fails to contain any measures for the achievement of a free vibrant participating society, an objective accepted as desirable by the Government in response to the wishes of the electorate.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Honourable Members who wish to speak at this stage will confine their remarks to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I do so in response to the Member for Anson's amendment, and I reserve my right to speak later on on the main Question. Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly object to this amendment. If there is any lamentation to be made, it is to be made in respect of this amendment itself and not the President's Speech. Sir, the hon. Member for Anson, in his amendment, states that the Government, through the President has not set out any measures (and I repeat the word "any") any measures for the achievement of a free vibrant participating society. If I may refer to the President's Speech, Mr Speaker, the President stated: 'My Government will seek the participation of our people both the young and the old in these tasks. Everyone has an honoured place in Singapore society. Everyone has a valuable contribution to make. All must participate in the big decisions which will re-shape their lives.' The President has set out six objectives. Among the six objectives is a principal one, regarding the standard of living of Singaporeans - how to improve upon what we have already achieved. Mr Speaker, Sir, as an economist, I have access to a lot of data about developing countries. So many of them, after having achieved political sovereignty, independence, have failed miserably on the economic front. And because they have failed miserably on the economic front, their people live in abject poverty. They have slums for housing. They have to borrow money from abroad. They have to go round begging for economic aid, even their political sovereignty is being questioned. Many of them come under the thumbs of some major power. We can thank God that we have achieved tremendous economic success, and the $18 million that was spent on the National Exhibition is well-worth an expenditure to reflect what has been achieved in the last 25 years. So I would say to the Member for Anson that if he wants the voters of Singapore to take him seriously, let him not talk about his airy-fairy ideas of freedom and such like, but let him outline an alternative development programme for Singapore. Let him say to this House what economic policies he ha?. I have never heard a single word about his alternative economic programme for Singapore, either during the elections or during the time that he has spent in this House. But I have heard the consistent use of wild adjectives concerning the loss of personal freedoms in Singapore, violation of fundamental rights of people, criminal neglect of human rights. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has been an MP for the last three and a half years. He repre- sents a small section of Anson, but he speaks as though he represents the voters of Singapore. He wants a more open society, and yet he derides the Government's attempt to set up the new consultative machinery. He says that it would not work and people would not say freely what are on their minds. What does he want? He derides the present Parliament but he has made excellent use of this Parliament to make his wild allegations to some effect, regrettably. And now he has the TV cameras right here in Parliament. What else does he want? I feel very sad, Mr Speaker. I said so during the elections. In countries like America and Europe where there is an Opposition, at least the people know that the Opposition are in for something. They are for the sovereignty of the country, for the defence of the country. They have an alternative economic programme. They are upholding the constitution of the country. And even the people on the government benches in those countries feel quite safe should power one day pass to the Opposition. But not so in Singapore. The Member for Anson referred to the Prime Minister's reaction on election night. He said that the Prime Minister looked disturbed. The question is: why was the Prime Minister disturbed? He is here, but let me speak my mind. I have done so in the past, fearlessly. It was not because of fear of the Member for Anson. The Prime Minister quoted from the Bible: "And there arose a new King and he knew not Joseph." Therein lies the clue to why he looked so disturbed. The Prime Minister and his senior colleagues have invested their lives in Singapore. He was a young man when he started out, and look at his grey hairs today. He was concerned because if on some small issues the people could react that way, especially the young voters, what is the future of Singapore going to be? If the people of Singapore could elect Opposition Members like the Member for Anson, what kind of future can we have for Singapore? If the people of Bedok could cast 5,000 or 6,000 votes for a man who was medically unfit, what is the future of Singapore?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

What is the point of order?

Is it permissible for the Member to attack somebody who is outside the House, this candidate for Bedok?

I thought it is a fact. It is a factual statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson wants "a free vibrant society", and yet he would deny my freedom to speak here. If there is any abuse, Mr Speaker, it has been totally by the Member for Anson. I have another example here of his abuse. He attributed to the Prime Minister's reaction on election night that the Prime Minister was acknowledging implicitly that a lot of Government policies were made in a hole in a corner -

Hole-and-corner.

All right, hole-and-corner. How many corners you want, you can have it! That is, without consultation with the people. The Government has openly acknowledged that perhaps in some policy areas, there is need for some correction and the younger Ministers have been very open about this. The press, I have never seen the press so open as after the elections. So many letters have been written advocating new things, condemning some of the older policies. And the election was conducted freely and openly. I want to say something about this question of the ballot papers because I am very amused, Mr Speaker. For many general elections, the Opposition Parties, particularly the Member for Anson, made the point that voting in Singapore is not secret because there is a serial number on the ballot papers. But that is because they lost every election. But after the Member for Anson, to his surprise, won the by-election in Anson in 1981, suddenly we hear no more complaints about the ballot papers. Perhaps the PAP should have put out some lines like, "Remember, there are serial numbers." That could have frightened the voters away from voting for the Member for Anson! Sir, if the Opposition wants credibility before the voters in Singapore, they have got to do far better than this. I would urge the Member for Anson to emulate the Government Backbenchers, particularly my good friend the Member for Ayer Rajah. He has been very hard hitting in terms of Government policies, and yet I know, and my colleagues know, that he will never bring Singapore down. He stands for certain basic fundamentals. I would like the Member for Anson to declare to this House what are the fundamentals he believes in about Singapore? State his case clearly and plainly to the people of Singapore. What does he stand for? Does he want a Singapore that is defensible? Does he want a Singapore that is sovereign? Does he want a Singapore where everyone, irrespective of religion, race, culture and language, can get a job, can got a flat, can have a decent standard of living? Will he uphold the Constitution that he swore on the Bible the other day? Can we be sure of this? Will he put a stop to all these unfounded allegations and come up with points of substance on which the Government can rebut and we can debate? If he has some constructive points to make, I would be one of the first to join him. If the Hansard were open to the public, the public would realize that there was no issue raised by any Opposition Member during the last elections which no PAP Backbencher had failed to raise in this House, at sometime In the past, and much better too. Take the question of the Housing Board accounts. Who first raised it? I did, and I regretted it later because I handed ammunition to some irresponsible people. And we are going to be more guarded from now on. Yes, we will make our points but we will want to ensure that people do not misuse these points. We have spoken out freely on this side of the Bench, Mr Speaker, in the best interests of Singapore. We have prodded the Government publicly and privately, and we shall continue to do so. I have spoken fearlessly. My colleagues have spoken fearlessly. I feel no restraint in this House or outside this House. So where is the lack of freedom? Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge this House to completely reject this wild amendment. 12.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to restate some of the obvious from time to time, and I think the first is that we have to educate a new generation. In the brief few minutes that I was here, it was obvious to me that we are going to have a replay of all the issues which the Member for Anson had flogged in the last Parliament. No person can better state the position why Singapore is what it is than I, because I made the decisions that made Singapore take the turning it did. - The first decision I made was to agree to the Tunku's desire that we should separate. It was a crucial decision because we had to decide whether or not we could make a go on our own, and there was no guarantee that we could have made it. That at the end of 191/2 years we have is a tribute to fortitude on the part of the leadership and determination on the part of the people. Yes, we had a Constitutional Commission in 1966. Heard them all. I accepted some proposals on minority rights. I rejected all the others, and my colleagues supported me. And because the Constitution has worked, therefore we have evolved and developed to this point where there is sufficient cohesiveness in the community to allow races who speak different languages, who have different religions, different cultures, to meet and to talk more or less in English, and to have our debates televised. That is why my younger colleagues can now begin to talk about a vibrant, creative future. The alternative was downhill, like Guyana. They have got all the fine, fundamental rights written into their Constitution. What kind of lives do their people live? Can you take out a writ against the Minister or the President of Guyana, and say, "Where is my job, my home, my hospitals for my children, my wife, my future?"

And here?

Of course, you have got a job.

Take out a writ?

If we had acted ultra vires, if we had contravened the Constitu- tion. This is the Constitution of Malaysia, and we have made no transgressions against the fundamental provisions since we separated. There have been more amendments of the Constitution in Malaysia than there have been in Singapore since 1965. I stand by the decisions we made, and the Constitution is functioning. And any tampering, any desire to follow Whitehall or Westminster, Singapore undertakes at its own peril. I know what works. I am not defensive about my colleague, the Second Deputy Prime Minister, being in charge of the NTUC. It is a system that works. It has brought prosperity, high wages and a good life to Singapore workers. Let me remind a younger generation of Singaporeans who do not know that a British Prime Minister tried to do likewise. Mr Harold Wilson, in 1966, co-opted his Chairman of the TUC, Mr Frank Cousins into the Cabinet. Got him into Parliament; made him a Minister of the Cabinet. Mr Frank Cousins, because he could not carry out policies which he supported in the Cabinet with his TUC, took the easier way out and resigned, and went back to be a great trade union leader. Why is the country in a shambles? Is that a paradigm for us? Or is there not a lesson, that perhaps what is functioning in Singapore should be jealously preserved. Work within the system. There have been more than 50 constitutions promulgated by the British on the independence of their various colonies. Very few have worked, despite radical amendments, despite one-party states. Ours has. Why? Because we have a practical people whose cultures tell them that contention for the sake of contention leads to disaster. I have said this on many a previous occasion: that had the mix in Singapore been different, had it been 75% Indians, 15% Malays and the rest Chinese, it would not have worked. Because they believe in the politics of contention, of opposition. But because the culture was such that the populace sought a practical way out of their difficulties, therefore it has worked. But I go on and inform my younger colleagues here that, in the process of change, we moved away from the Chinese schools, where the principle is that the rights of society come over and above that of the individual, to the English schools where the philosophy is the individual and his rights to the exclusion of everybody else's. That we now face, even with the Chinese, the English-educated, a novel situation where he has a conflict within him, of deep, abiding cultural beliefs of the family, the clan, the nation, but super-imposed, the books he has read, the television series he watches, in which the rights of the individual are paramount. If we go with the West, then I say we will have all the maladies, the malignancies of Western society. The Japanese have pointed out to the Americans that they have seven engineers to one lawyer. The Americans have seven lawyers to one engineer. They are always contending. $150 million for one libel suit by a general against CBS. $50 million by an Israeli general against Time magazine. It is a society that believes in contention. I know exactly what the older generation in Singapore wants. I do not have to tell them; they do not have to tell me. We are pan of one whole that has made Singapore. I am asking the younger generation to ask themselves what made Singapore work. Are you wise in tossing overboard fixed, settled values which are part of our culture, of our ethos, for principles and theories of government espoused in the West which are not part of our culture and not part of our system? I understand the Member for Anson because that is all he has. He does not share in this other part. It is not his fault. His name is Joshua Benjamin. I know large parts of Jaffna where they cut off their connections with their ancestors and called themselves by the names of their plantation owners. It is not his fault. But these are deep fundamental beliefs, abiding beliefs. He knows no other system. So he comes forth with this. I know what I believe is a superior system. We adopt enough of the West in order to hoist in their science, their technology, their competitiveness. Like the Japanese, we should try to remain as much ourselves and to keep as much of the fundamentals as we can. And it is very difficult. Language is the key to daily influence, via the media, We have educated a whole generation in English. With it goes all the TV serials. Unless a conscious effort is made, it will be a different Singapore. Do not kid ourselves. I fought strenuously to prevent the drift of the students from the Chinese schools into the English schools. I tried to slow down the process, but parents decided that they wanted their children to have this key to the future. But this key also opened up other values, besides science and technology and engineering. That is the difference between Japan and us, apart from size. No feature goes to Japan without somebody actively having considered the matter, deciding that it is wise to translate or interpret, either a TV feature or a book. We are wide open. And I am suggesting to this younger generation: you are going to hear more and more of this, and not just from the Member for Anson. If it is just from the Member for Anson, it is easy to demolish. It is from visiting professors, from eminent practitioners in every field, whether they are surgeons, ophthalmologists, whatever. They come from a different system, they espouse the views of their different system. Have we got the self-confidence to say, "No. I start off as the product of a unique civilization, the only one which has no break in continuity for more than 4,000 years." There must be some reason. Is it that inferior? Yes, it has lost in the race for science and technology. But in the interpersonal relationships, the fundamentals of filial relationships, familial relationships, is it an inferior system? This is what the debate is about, about our future. And we will deceive ourselves, particularly the PAP backbenchers, if we begin to talk to the older generation. They already know they are with us. They do not want what they can see is happening with their children, but they do not know how to stop it. And it is partly our circumstance. We had to go this way because we wanted the knowledge to make Singapore viable. There was no other way. The hazards had to be run; the hazards are being run. Our job is constantly to remind them how different we are, and how important it is that we should stay different in order that we can survive. We are so jejune, so young as a people. We have made decisions without knowing their long-term consequences. I illustrate a very simple one. When the pill was discovered, it was supposed to be a blessing for mankind, and we just took the pill in, and family planning dispensed the pill. It has led to promiscuity in the West, the total breakdown of all family control over children, a new kind of society where you shack up with people and you have one-parent families. It may interest Members to know that the Japanese forbade the pill. And it is still forbidden. If you want birth control, you buy the old fashioned condom. They have it in multi colours. It has taken me nearly 15 years to realize the wisdom of that move. We are too small. Even if we ban it, they will go to Johor Baru and get it. But, as a result, they have maintained their values - chastity, high level of fidelity, maybe old-fashioned, double standards for men and women, but the integrity of the family is preserved. I am not sure what is going to happen to our families. Our divorce rates are slightly up, but nowhere near the dangerous levels of Britain and America. But we have working women fully independent, economically. We have already unlocked important family grids that hold the units together. We are proliferating homes into Housing Board units. Where are we going? We are not arguing with the Member for Anson or the Member for Potong Pasir. We are arguing for the minds of the next generation and they are too young to know, as we indeed were too young to know what was good.

Order. It is 1.00 p.m. This Sitting is suspended until 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Resumption of Debate on Amendment to Question, '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.".' Which Amendment was, At end, to add - "but the House regrets that the Government's programme lamentably fails to contain any measures for the achievement of a free vibrant participating society, an objective accepted as desirable by the Government in response to the wishes of the electorate".- (Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam].

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Anyone wishes to join in the debate? There being no response -

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Sir, may I not be permined to reply to the speeches?

You are not permitted to reply, I am afraid.

On the amendment?

No.

Because it is my amendment.

I am afraid so. Standing Orders do not provide a reply. Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

I call for a Division, Sir.

Take a division. The House divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 63; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes (cont) Chiam See Tong Chin Harn Tong Jeyaretnam, J.B. Chng Hee Kok Chua Sian Chin Noes Dhanabalan, S. Abbas Abu Amin Goh Chok Tong Abdullah Tarmugi Goh Choon Kang Ahmad Mattar Heng Chiang Mong Ang Kok Peng Ho Tat Kin Barker, E.W. Hu Tsu Tau Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Ibrahim Othman Chai Chong Yii Jayakumar, S. Chandra Das, S. Koh Lam Son Bernard Chen Koh Lip Lin Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Lai The Chai Chow Heng Ching Lau Ping Sum Noes (cont) Noes (cont) Lau Teik Soon Tang See Chim Lee Boon Yang Tay Eng Soon Lee Hsien Loong Teh Cheang Wan Lee Yiok Seng Teo Chong Tee Leo Yock Suan vasoo, S. Leong Horn Kee Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri Lim Boon Heng Wan Soon Bee Lim Chee Onn Wang Kai Yuen Ng Kah Ting Wong, Aline K. Ong Teng Cheong Wong Kwei Choong Othman bin Haron Eusofe Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ow Chin Hock Yatiman Yusof Sia Khoon Seong Yeo Choo Kok Sidek bin Saniff Yeo Ning Hong Tan Chong Bock Yeo Toon Chia Tan, Dixie Yu-Foo Yeo Shoon Tan, Augustine H.H. Zulkifli bin Mohammed Tan Soo Khoon Tan Tee Yong, Philip Abstention Tang Guan Song Yeoh Ghim Seng Amendment accordingly negatived

The Question before the House is the main Question. 2.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion made in the name of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address unveils a new horizon for Singapore. It spells out the next lift-off or another big leap for Singapore into a more exciting and a more dynamic era. Singaporeans can look forward to a much more pleasant and a much more enriching environment where the citizens can live in better planned and better organized satellite towns, where they can travel unhindered along the wonderful expressways, where they can walk along the clean streets and thoroughfares, breathe the unpolluted air and also stroll along almost crime-free streets and they can also, for those who are more athletic, jog and exercise in salubrious environment. In the offices and factories we will have citizens who will be productively oriented. In the skies and in the waterfront, we will see planes from the major international airlines and also ships from the different oceans coming to Singapore and, through our telecommunications network, Singapore will be plugged into all the global information centres. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Singapore of our future, and in the Presidential Address it is stated that every Singaporean has an honoured place in this island republic, and indeed he has. And Singapore will ensure that his life span in Singapore will be a meaningful one. Let me just briefly sketch what is in store for a Singaporean during his life-cycle in Singapore. Hers, for convenience, may I just borrow Shakespeare's classification of the different stages in life that one has got to go through, of course, with some modifications, and to examine that during these different stages the Singapore that Singaporeans inherit now and in the future will make his life-cycle a more orderly, a more enriching and, above all, a peaceful one. Let me begin from the time of his conception in his mother's womb. Through our improved maternal and child health care services, he is already ensured of a good start in life. After being born and going into the second stage of childhood, his health and education are well looked after. He is immunized against major diseases - smallpox, diphtheria, measles, rubella. And he is given a good health screening while he is in school and, during his childhood days, he also receives an education best suited to his ability. He then proceeds to his third stage of adolescence. Here, he is further grounded in a good general education. He is further given a good dosage of self-discipline during his military service. And when he enters adulthood, that is, his fourth stage in life, if he is not too choosy, he is assured of a decent job with a decent salary. After being gainfully employed for several years, he may decide to enter his fifth stage, and that is, his nuptial kingdom. And at this stage he is able to secure a home for himself and his family. But when he reaches his sixth stage, that is, when he graduates to become a senior citizen, or an elderly citizen, he can be assured that his society will give him the due regard, the due care and respect, and from this penultimate stage of his life, he crosses to his final stage and, God willing, he will be given a decent and honourable burial. In a nutshell, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans from cradle to grave will be well looked after and he should, of course, count his blessings. Perhaps this small quotation from a newspaper would be appropriate, at this juncture, to illustrate my point. I quote from the Singapore Monitor of 27 February, 1985, from a Singaporean who writes: 'My follow Singaporeans, let us be frank with ourselves. The PAP has done extremely well to make Singapore what it is today. I am very proud of our beloved notion and its efficient leadership. For those PAP critics, my advice to you is this: Look around you - a city so beautiful and green with modern sky-scrapers, countless eating places, people free to lead lives of their own, abundant jobs, nice homes, no fear of chaos and disturbance, racial harmony, and a chance to have a bright future as long as people are willing to work hard. When I read about the instability and struggling economies of many developing nations, I consider myself very fortunate.' My message, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this brief preamble is a simple one, and that is, the present leadership has adopted an integrated and total approach to nation building where every citizen and every Singaporean has a stake and every citizen can contribute according to his worth and ability. However, in this march towards a more intense modernization process, there will always be the less endowed and the less able who will be unable to achieve what they set out to do. This is the 15 to 20% lower income group who form the significant minority. Needless to say, Singaporeans of the Malay ethnic group form a sizable proportion of this significant minority. It is within this context, Mr Speaker, Sir, of wanting to uplift the general well-being of the Malays that the First Deputy Prime Minister has recently suggested the formation of a special committee to address itself to this problem. Coming as it were from the striker of the new leadership, this suggestion has been well received by the Malay public. However, let me throw a caveat to this issue, lest it is seen as the panacea to solve the social ills for the Malays. It is recognized that collectively the Malays are lagging behind in educational and economic fields. Much exhortation and much rhetoric have gone by, urging every Malay to strive for higher education and better jobs. But the rate of progress is pathetically slow. It is now realized that some form of governmental impetus is needed to accelerate this slow progress. I want to quote two positive examples. One is the mosque building fund programme. With the administrative and manpower support from the Government, the mosque building fund programme is a shining example of the self-help and self-reliance concept in advancing the religious aspects of the Malay society. Similarly, Mr Speaker, Sir, having the same potential for success is Mendaki, that is, the Council on Education for Muslim Children. Here again, the support forth-coming from the Government in allowing Muslims to voluntarily, may I repeat, to voluntarily contribute to Mendaki through the CPF machinery augurs well for the increased progress of the Malays in the field of education. But what is needed is not an outright financial assistance to the Malay society, but to create an administrative machinery and infrastructure that could act as a catalyst to mobilize, to motivate, to galvanize the energies within the Malay society in a more organized, disciplined, systematic, and above all, in a more productive way towards their socio-economic upliftment. It is this principle that the special committee should address itself and make the necessary recommendations to the Government. I realize that working within the concept of meritocracy, no particular section of the society should be rendered any privileged treatment. But, on the other hand, in a multi-racial society it is, to me, untenable for a particular section of the society to be identified with poverty and deprivation. Thus, an honourable solution must be worked out. The Government, I am sure, has taken cognizance of this, of the special circumstances and of the special problems facing the Malay society, and is undoubtedly sincere in working towards alleviating this problem. The Malay society, on the other hand, should not see this as a total responsibility of the Government per se. They must also play their role. They must free themselves from this minority syndrome, They must free themselves from this crutch mentality, for otherwise they will forever be trapped into a mendicant society. Therefore, the Government should work towards a situation where whatever form of assistance given is to enable the Malays to help themselves free from this poverty trap. With this self-help and self-reliance concept, the Malays will bring upon themselves the honour and dignity they earn. The odds they face are formidable. But they are not by any means insurmountable. Once overcome, the benefits are enormous, both to the society and the nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now move to another area of concern, of national dimension, and that is, in the realm that borders on our sense of patriotism. Imbibed by the sense of common destiny, every Singaporean has that sense of patriotism in him. However, I think, occasionally we need to restrengthen this, and this can be done, to my mind, by reflecting and introspecting our national fixed points. What then are our national fixed points? To me, Mr Speaker, they are embodied not only in our Constitution but also in our national flag, in our national anthem, and to the school-going population, it is in their school pledge. These represent our guiding principles when we started on our road towards nationhood. It is a sad commentary to know that many Singaporeans are ignorant of the meaning and significance of our national flag. Other than hoisting them during National Day, how many really know the meaning of the red and white colours, the significance of the crescent moon, and the meaning behind the five stars? Lest we forget, the red colour symbolizes universal brotherhood and equality of man, while white signifies pervading and everlasting purity and virtue. The crescent moon represents a young nation on the ascendant illuminated by the five stars symbolizing Democracy, Peace, Progress, Justice and Equality. In essence, Mr Speaker, Sir, they embody our national ideals. But coming to the school pledge, how many Singaporeans who have left school can still remember the pledge? I will venture to add that this school pledge be upgraded as the national pledge, because in this pledge is embodied our common aspirations very much akin to that of our national flag. Let me recall the contents of this pledge:- 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. These fixed points, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I term them, can indeed be termed as our national trinity. They constitute our national ideology. To me, they should be immersed in our minds and hearts, so that their true significance and appreciation should spontaneously radiate from within ourselves whenever the national flag is hoisted, the national anthem is sung and the pledge recited. They constitute to me as our psychological and emotional glue that would enhance and strengthen our Singaporean ethos. Perhaps it might not be too much to stipulate that this national trinity of ours be one of the criteria for the conferment of citizenship to those who apply for it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to conclude my speech, again, with a reminder to Singaporeans. Singapore has done remarkably well so far. God willing, we will achieve greater heights. But lurking in our midst are some latent dangers. Fortunately, they are now dormant. But there is no guarantee that they will not resurface, more so during difficult times and more so when the economy is on the decline. These inherent dangers, I would term them or refer them as the three Cs - communalism, complacency and, what Dr Goh Keng Swee once referred to as, the cargo-cult. We know that communalism would shatter our racial tolerance and harmony and we realize that complacency would sap our vitality and dynamism resulting in the decline of our work ethics. And we also know that this cargo-cult would place materialism as the be-all and the end-all of life turning us into a crass, callous and possibly soulless society. I hope Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans will now be able to visualize the national scenario and to see for themselves where the valleys are and where the precipice and gorges are. If they cultivate these valleys wisely, they will harvest bountiful crops. But if they ignore or choose to ignore the precipice and the gorges, destruction and perdition awaits them. 3.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of the Member for Ayer Rajah in thanking the President for his Address. Sir, allow me to comment today on some aspects of education. In Singapore today, we have education easily available and of very good quality, equal to any in the world. That this happy state should have been achieved within a very short period of two or three decades is all the more remarkable and a testimony to the wisdom and the energy of our leaders during these years. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We must press forward towards the goal for our people. And this is not a new goal, for let me read from the Constitution of the People's Action Party: 'To achieve their maximum potential through education and training so that there will be a place and role for every Singaporean whatever his contribution.' And so, Mr Speaker, Sir, the comments I have to offer today are offered in the spirit of striving harder towards the goal that our leaders have had for our nation all these years and which we must continue to have in front of us. Let me begin with the infants and young children because education begins from babyhood, not from kindergarten, not from going to school, but indeed from babyhood. During the first four or five years of life, children undergo very rapid growth, physically, mentally and emotionally. Also during these four to five years of life, they develop strong emotional bonds with their parents. Traditionally, these bonds begin between child and mother and later to go on to include the rest of the family. All these areas of growth and their nurturing are extremely important for the development of the whole personality. And the personality includes aspects such as learning ability, social behaviour, emotional toughness and many others besides which are the ingredients for success in education, not only in education but in all other areas of life. Therefore, I think the nurturing of the first few years of a child's life is extremely important to us as parents as well as to us as a nation. Although women now have education equal to the men, and girls do better than boys in school by and large, still, we have a need to make sure that we bring up the next generation as well as possible in order to give them every chance that they will need when they grow up. Actually, modern or otherwise, mothers of young children must think seriously about interrupting their work careers outside the home in order to devote themselves to their children during this very important phase of development. Singaporeans have so few children nowadays. Naturally the children are very precious and parents are anxious that they have every chance for success in life. Let us get our thinking straight. If we want them to succeed later on, we must give them this early foundation. If we want them to be filial to us later on, we must take the trouble to establish this parent-child bond in the family. And there is no shortcut to it. This brings me to the subject of child care centres. I am not against child care centres. I think we need to have them. But let us not forget the harm which we will do to our nation in the long term if we bring up a whole generation of infants and young children in these centres, however excellent they may be. Let us have the child care centres, but let us have them for the kindergarten age and the primary school age children, rather than for infants and young children. Let the infants and young children stay at home with their mothers. I have to digress a little bit, Mr Speaker, because in order to encourage women to break their careers to stay at home for a few years, we have to take into consideration their fears that when they have stayed home for a few years, they may have trouble or difficulties returning to work. And these difficulties are quite well founded. So in order to have this good thing that we wish to promote - having mothers to attend to their young children - we must have easily available schemes for the retraining of women before they return to work, retraining so that they can regain skills which have gone rusty, and retraining so that they can feel confident enough to go back into the work force. I think these efforts are well worth the while because on the one hand, it is well worthwhile for a woman to stop earning a salary for a few years because the gain that we get from establishing a family on good solid ground is worth the while in the next generation. Furthermore, it is worthwhile for employers to bring these women back after they have been off work for a while. Because let us say a woman has her first baby at 23 years, second baby at 25 years and goes back to work at 30 years. With the retirement age now at 60, and maybe going on to 65, we have a woman here still with 30 years of service to give to the nation, 30 years of earnings to help the family. So I feel this is a worthwhile matter for the Government to consider, and perhaps Government as a major employer could take the lead to offer jobs for women in this situation. What women are looking for are not special privileges, special pay, and everything else special. What women are looking for is a fair deal, a willingness to take them back, a willingness to know that they are a little bit rusty and therefore they might need a little while to settle down. But I feel that once they come in, they would be good workers for another 30 years and the effort would be very profitable. Let me now touch very briefly on in-service training of teachers. The Institute of Education conducts numerous courses in the teaching of various subjects and I am sure the teachers do benefit from them. However, it is my observation that most of these courses are not intensive enough and not long enough for these teachers to obtain a certificate. In other words, it is not enough for them to be recognized as having special skills in certain areas. Therefore, when they get posted back to work, these special skills tend to get overlooked in the difficulties of job postings. I believe it is very difficult to draw up a time-table for teachers and so forth. Many of the teachers who have actually obtained some special skills do not get the opportunity to use them in their job assignments. Skills which are not put into practice soon get lost, and then the teachers would have wasted their time and the Institute its resources. I propose that the Institute of Education should introduce full-time in-service courses in the teaching of particular subjects and in special education so that the standard of teaching can be raised in a systematic manner. Now, I would like to say a few words regarding the second language in school. Here again, I must say that we have much to thank our leaders for introducing bilingualism into the schools. I think now in Singapore all our people accept the fact that we need - to study English and our native language, and I think most of the students do not have much problem with the arrangement. But I see no reason why we must compel every last student to take the language of their ethnic group. The vast majority will do it anyway. But for the few per cent who do not want to do it, I see no reason why we cannot allow them to select one of the other Singaporean languages. I think this will have two good side effects. On the one hand, students whose home language does not coincide with their ethnic group would have less difficulties with second language in school if they were allowed a freer choice. Secondly, there are also students who have special aptitude for languages, and they may well elect to study their native language at home and to do another Singaporean language at school, which means that is their second language and thereby become proficient in three of our languages. Also on the subject of second language, we have in Singapore an entry requirement into the National University of Singapore which is a minimum standard at 'AO' level in second language. In my opinion, education in languages is part of general education and general education ends at 'O' level. This is the level to which we wish to educate the majority of our population. The purpose of pre-university education is to prepare students for entry into the university. Entry into university involves knowledge in the subjects of the chosen course of study and also a good command of the language of instruction which, in our case, is English. So I see no real good reason for insisting that students going into our National University should have a certain minimum qualification in second language at 'AO' level. That is the one that, I think, is not necessary. I think this may well bar many students who are eminently suitable for entry, but because they are not so good in the second language, they have trouble meeting this minimum requirement. It is all right to keep the second language even in pre-university education, but let us be clear that this is not for university entry but for improvement of social interaction later in life and also for cultural ballast. Therefore, I propose that this minimum requirement ought to be reconsidered with a view to dropping it, I thank you, Sir. 3.17 p.m. The Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion by the Member for Ayer Rajah to thank the President for his address to Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Addendum from the First Deputy Prime Minister, a vision has been outlined for Singapore, to which we will be heading. It is not a remote vision. It is not something which will happen in a future generation. It is something which will happen in our life-time and, indeed, which will happen substantially in the term of this Parliament. An hon Member: 1999, a long way.

1999 may sound a long way away but it is 15 years, 14 now, and this Parliament will take us more than one-third of the way there, not only in terms of time but also in terms of achievement and practical results which will lead us to the society which we wish to become. One aspect on which this progression depends critically, and which has rightly been emphasized in the President's Address, is economic growth. It is fashionable for us nowadays to denigrate it. This morning we heard the Member for Anson describe this as being a materialistic and selfish policy, suggesting, although he hesitated to say so, that it would be better if we were less well off. Mr Speaker, Sir, I see no virtue in poverty. What we do with our own lives is for us to decide, but none of us has the right to impose poverty on our fellow Singaporeans, much less on the entire nation. And when we talk about growth, we are talking about the livelihood of the whole nation. The President stated that we want to have a growth of 5-7% a year, and productivity increases of 3-5% per year. That means each one of us will be 3-5% more productive, and we hope that much better off. We need the growth, I think, for three reasons. First of all, because we must afford the vision which we seek. Who will pay for the vision? The question has rightly been asked. I think the answer is obvious, but perhaps it should be stated again. We shall have to pay for the vision ourselves, the people of Singapore, the people who will live here, who will enjoy it, whose life it will represent. What does this mean? Does it mean you are accumulating worldly goods? Does it mean you are accumulating colour television sets, VCRs, washing machines, material things, without end? It does not. We are talking about MRT, about transportation, about health care, about the education of our children, about leisure which makes sense, and which gives people freedom of the spirit. We are talking about things which make life worth living, and these are things which I am afraid are not free. They require resources, they require our resources, and if we are to have them, we must work to earn them and to deserve them. Secondly, we need the growth because we need to raise the living standards of our people. We have done well in this respect. In three years our wages have gone up by more than a third, 37%. Now an average worker earns more than $1,000 a month. Indeed, even a construction worker, who admittedly has to sweat for his living, will earn $800 a month. I think it is a record to be proud of but it is not a record at which we can stop. Because a substantial portion of our population still earn less. One-third earn less than half of that, $500 a month. Is it something to be ashamed of? It is not. Because if we compare ourselves with where we were, if we compare ourselves with where other people are, and if we compare ourselves with where many other people will continue to be for many years to come, I think we have done well. But we will have to do better, and efforts will have to be made, specifically directed at the group who are now earning less than $500 a month, the poor group, to help them raise their standard of living, to help them afford the basic amenities of life. That, I think, is what economic growth is about. The third reason why we talk so much about growth is specifically because we care for our people, for compassionate reasons. We want to grow, because we want to make sure that all our citizens are looked after. It is not possible to do this if we grow poorer and poorer, nor is it possible to do this well if we remain only what we are. I believe that the best welfare scheme this Government can arrange for is to make sure that there is full employment, a job for everybody. The best welfare is a job, because nothing else which we do for a person, no matter how generous the terms may be, can compensate him for the self-respect, for the dignity, for the satisfaction which he gets out of earning an honest living. That is what welfare is about, if we are talking about the vast majority of the population, if we are talking about all Singaporeans. There is no other way to do this. Could we achieve these goals if we did not have growth? From time to time, and lately frequently, the suggestion is made that all these could be done by a wave of the hand, if only the Government were not malevolent, were not malignant, were not predatory, were not rapacious. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an illusion, indeed it is a malevolent illusion that this is possible, for there is no magic by which wealth may be created, there is no magic by which resources may be had, by which people's lives may be transformed, apart from what people make of their own lives. The Member for Kampong Ubi referred to the cargo cult. He meant collection of goods without end. It is perhaps worth- while to remind hon. Members here today that the cargo cult had another meaning. In the South Sea islands it meant a belief that aeroplanes would fly overhead and drop manna from heaven. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I sincerely hope that Singaporeans will not be taken in by a cargo cult philosophy; and will resolutely reject false prophets who try to convince them that cargo cults are, in fact, the in-thing. What does all this mean if we care for economic growth? If it were to happen automatically, then we would not have to worry about it. But growth is far from automatic, although many people who look at us developing successfully think that it just happens by magic, and many Singaporeans who have seen their lives improve day by day are tempted to believe that it can happen without too much effort. In fact, growth is the result of a lot of hard work, a lot of thinking ahead and a lot of wise decision-making and early decision-making. Even then, it is not an untraumatic experience, because when we think of economic expansion, it is not like a piece of dough with yeast in it which rises gradually, uniformly and effortlessly. Growth is like a child growing up. He suffers growing pains, his milk teeth drop out, new teeth grow; his shoes need to be changed, his clothes need to be changed, he undergoes crises of identity, and eventually, if he is lucky, if his parents look after him well, and if he is himself a person with character and with spirit, he grows up to be a healthy, adult, balanced individual. Growth is like that. It means stress, it means adjustments. Workers have to adjust. When jobs are lost and new jobs are created, they must learn new jobs. Employers must adjust, when some businesses close and other businesses are created, they must learn how to do new types of business. The Government must adjust when old policies cease to work and new policies have to be brought in. And when that happens it is not only the Government that must adjust, but the entire population that must also change direction. So the policies laid down mean rapid, responsive, efficient government. It means close links between the government and the people, because the government can only go where it can bring the people. It cannot go alone, it cannot go without the consent of Singaporeans. We can work out policies, but we must be able to move fast, not because we are impatient for ourselves, but because we are impatient for the sake of the population, of all of us, who need a higher standard of living, who need a better life. The Member for Ayer Rajah made a metaphor of him and his son at the Botanic Gardens, when his son was left behind sitting on a stone, feeling very miserable and feeling very remorseful. I would, with your permission, choose a different metaphor. We are all passengers in one bus, travelling in traffic, moving forward as quickly as we can, quicker than all the other buses on the road. The others are travelling mostly in the same direction, some are not. Some cross our path, some may not see us, others may be hurtling deliberately towards us, hoping to clear us off the road so that they may have a clearer way. We are here and the Government is at the helm, at the steering wheel. We want to move faster than the rest of the traffic. We want to arrive sooner, safe, with everybody intact.

In the MRT and SBS.

Perhaps even in the MRT, we will arrive safely. We shall arrive safely provided the passengers know where we are going, agree that we are going in the same direction, and agree on the means to get there, be it by bus or be it by train. It will help greatly in this business if the passengers can see out of the window, know what the dangers are, and understand why it is that the bus has to make a sudden turn, or a sudden halt, or a sudden change of direction, why that manoeuvre has had to be made, and perhaps some people have been discomforted. It will help if they can see ahead and understand what is looming up, what is about to reach them, what the driver is thinking, and what he is going to do. But the objective of everyone, the driver, the passengers, is the same. It is to arrive together safely at the same place. That I think is the way in which we should see our efforts at inducing greater participation of the people, at bringing in new ideas, at encouraging people to speak up and voice their views. It is not to slow us down. It is not to allow a minority to have a veto over the interests of the majority. It is not to satisfy some abstract and probably irrelevant ideals, dreamed of by political philosophers. It is in order that we may have a safe, comfortable ride, that we may all arrive, and we may be in a fit state to go on the next day to a further destination, all together, If this Government carries out these policies along the lines outlined in the President's Address, we shall reach there. The Address provides for this. It has provided a goal - a better life for all. It has provided a means of getting there - economic growth, social development. It has provided a driver - a strong government - and effective administration. And it has provided a mechanism for consensus between the driver and the passengers of the bus. Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore wholeheartedly support the motion to thank the President.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah. Sir, the speech given by the President at the opening of Parliament outlined the policies of the Government for the future. There are two main goals and six main objectives. These goals and objectives will depend on two main organizations to realize. One is a newly proposed unit which will be set up in the Ministry of Community Development to serve as a consultation and information centre for the Government to receive feedback from the people to help the government to formulate or adjust its policies. The second will be the new Town Council or the new Housing Estates Committee. Be it consultative or information centre or town council, all these are meant to consult the people in running the country. The implication of these two proposed entities is that we have not consulted the opinions of the people in the past. Are we telling the people that in the past 25 years of nation building, we have not been listening to the people? The people are the roots of a nation. We have consulted the people and sought their opinions in the past. We have actually done so through various channels. Just look up the Hansard records of what the Backbenchers have spoken in the House, just look at the minutes of Citizens' Consultative Committees' long meetings or community centres' records of meetings or go through the records of Residents' Committees' meetings. All the suggestions, opinions and feedbacks from the people are there. Furthermore, in the past 21/2 years, the younger ministers have gone. round the different constituencies on "walkabouts". Are not all these consultations with the people? If not, what are the Ministers doing in these constituencies during their walkabouts? I am inclined to think that perhaps because of the attitude of the Ministers, or the attitude of Government officials involved in these walkabouts, true feedback was not obtained. Perhaps when the Ministers visited various constituencies, the people responsible just passed on pleasant information to them and hid away the unpleasant information so that the Ministers were misled and did not get the true or full picture of things, thinking that everything was well. This is not good for the Government. My suggestion is that Ministers should make surprise visits to the constituencies and not make any pre-announced visits with fanfare so that the Ministers could see things as they are and the actual situation of Government officers at work on the spot. Of course, consulting the people or visiting the various constituencies is in principle the more, the better; but more important is the attitude in listening to the people. We should not just listen to pleasant opinions and neglect or turn down the unpleasant ones on the excuse that these unpleasant ones are personal issues. Let us remember that at the general elections government leaders said there were no national issues. So we looked for local issues and there were no local issues also? Since there were no national and local issues, all other issues were treated as personal issues or grievances, and we just didn't talk about these personal issues in the election campaign. I think the Opposition candidates have been successful in exploiting these personal issues to got more votes. So, Sir, what is important here is the quality of the people. What the Presidential Address has listed out is about material and economic aspect of nation building which is what Brig-Gen Lee has described as economic growth. As I am more conservative, to me, what is also important is the spiritual and cultural aspect of life. I am inclined to emphasize on the quality of the people and the traditional values of the society. If you just keep on providing the people with what they want, they will all the time keep on asking for more, from 1-room flat to 2-room, to 3-room and then 4-room flats, etc. There will be no end. The nation has other tasks to perform, not just providing living accommodation and the like to the people. We just can't keep on providing the material tangibles without at the same time maintaining or improving the quality of the people through cultural activities which are conducive to good spiritual and cultural aspect of nation building. Let us look at the new line up of the Cabinet Ministers. There is no "Minister for Culture". The former Minister for Culture has become Minister for Community Development. Now the Cabinet is without a Culture Minister. If, in the next 5 years, we pay too much attention to material development, neglecting the spiritual or cultural aspect of development, then the Cabinet will be eventually branded as a Cabinet without Culture. No wonder from the newspapers and from other quarters, we have found that many of the older artists and people in the cultural circle have been quite disappointed by the fact that there is no mention of a cultural policy in the President's Address. The spiritual and cultural aspect which forms the qualitative substance of the people is fundamental to a nation, and we shouid pay special aftention to it. You may like to know that, according to Confucian thoughts, there are these four fundamental national virtues - courtesy, righteousness, integrity and sense of shame. A country depends on them for its existence, without them a country would perish. Let me explain in simpler terms, lest you do not understand. Courtesy, we should have, is politeness in human rela- tionship. Because we lack courtesy, that is why we have a courtesy campaign every year. Then there is righteousness or justice. This is about our personal behaviour. Integrity means clean and honest. Our Ministers are clean and honest that is why the Government is clean. The last one is the virtue of knowing what it is to be ashamed. These are the four confucianistic pillars or social virtues which support a civilized society. The society will become lopsided or even collapse if these four virtues are not duly cherished. So the people should be cultivated in these various virtues and not just be provided with material supports without end. If we treasure these virtues, then we will have a right concept of values and will be of a quality befitting our existence and future development. Otherwise, we shall have to face the unpleasant and unwanted outcome in the future. The Prime Minister has just said earlier that whatever kind of society our future generation wants is something which our older generation is very concerned about. Our present society does not seem to show respect to the elders, our older generation. That is why we have to have a yearly campaign to teach young people to respect the elders. In this respect, let me quote this from the conclusion in the Presidential Address: "the young must adjust their attitudes to make our senior citizens feel that they are participating members of society, and not left to be objects of charity, outside the mainstream of life." Even the President is so concerned about the aged, if the younger leaders are not concerned about it, and do not pay special attention to cultivate social respect to the aged, it is rather lamentable. Just now the Hon. Member for Teck Ghee said that we are all like passengers in the same bus. We have to depend on the driver, the Government, to take us safely to our destination. That is fine. But the important thing is the quality or behaviour of the passengers - the people. If each of us behaves well and takes our seats in the bus in a proper manner, then all is well. If we try to scramble for the front or better seats and don't bother to give up our seats to the sick, the aged or the ladies, then chaos, friction and unhappiness will be created inside the bus. The bus will be rocked and finally overturned because of the social disorder inside the bus. Sir, let me turn to the new town council. In principle, this sounds very nice. Singaporeans are strange. When there is a new thing, everybody will rush to say that it is good. Sir, even before the details of the organization of the new town councils have been spelled out, everybody has said that it is good. From a Chinese newspaper this morning, I read that there was a question asked about whether the parking fees should be given to the town councils or to the central authority - the Government. If the implementation of the new town councils is not well-planned, then there may emerge groups and factions or power centres contending for the management of these councils. Each town council will try to outshine each other and want to be more autonomous than each other. If we are not careful, each town council will end up going in a different direction. Instead of unity and cohesion, the Society will be fragmented and divided by rival town councils, each asking for more money and more say in running their towns. I am not against the formation of the new town councils, I am just cautioning against ill-timing and planning. You can see that even before the town councils have started, there have been talks of who is going to got what share of the money collected from the car parks. When talking about money, everybody will have his eyes opened and there will be demands for a share in the booty. With more money in town, then there will be people asking for more welfare like in the welfare states, such as the United Kingdom. These people will say since we have enough money, we should give more to the people without asking people to work harder. These people even talk about liberating our people. This morning I heard somebody say in this House that the people should be emancipated or liberated, I got a shock. Does he mean that our people should be liberated from their 4 or 5-room flats and sent them to the streets to be free? Are we going to form a people's liberation army to free our people? If there are people who suggest the formation of a liberation army for liberating our people, then I would ask them to direct their attention to a big neighbouring power where modernization is going on and where large numbers are being retrenched from its people's liberation army; maybe they can get their recruits from these retrenched soldiers but I would suggest they should get the permit from the Minister for Home Affairs first before they form the PLA. Sir, we must pay attention to all shades of opinions from all the language newspapers. The Government should not give the people the wrong impression that we want to seek the opinions and allow everybody to air his views and yet let them fall on deaf ears and carry on to do what we like, ignoring the opinions publicly expressed. Let me quote from Lianhe Wanbao a report on the 28th February this year. Let me quote just a little portion which is not very eye-catching. It is about an interview with Liu Jun Tau, general manager of Lawn tennis centre who said (or the reporter said): "In the past, the Government did not pay very much attention to the opinions of Chinese newspapers." It is 1st March now and so far the Government has not clarified it or responded to it. I do not know whether this is due to the fact that the Ministers could not or have not read Chinese newspapers or whether the translators in the ministries did not want to give the Ministers the translation in order to avoid more trouble. I think the Ministers also know that many Singaporeans do not or could not read English newspapers. They just learn about the Government policies and form their opinion about the Government from the non-English newspapers. So if such an expressed opinion as quoted above is not corrected or not replied to, then in the long run it will remain as real in the minds of the readers. Then the general impression given to such people will be that the Government is really not paying attention to Chinese newspapers. This is not a healthy manifestation. Of course, provision of food for the sustenance of life is of prime importance to the people. But after being satisfied with the supply of daily necessities, one would tend to direct one's attention elsewhere. If one's thoughts are not right, one's heart lusts for something lewd, there will be danger. Therefore, the quality of the people is very important. To me, a government is to develop the society economically, providing material needs for the people, and at the same time, to improve cultural and spiritual quality of the people; utopia may not be achieved, but such danger as mentioned may be averted. But if you do not pay attention to the cultivation of cultural and spiritual quality of the people, then the society will be disintegrated in the long run as a result of the lust for more material gains. So, I hope the new Government, the new leaders, will remember that, although material construction or economic progress is important, the cultural and spiritual development of the country and people is also important and should be promoted at an equal pace. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I lend my full support to the Motion standing in the name of the Member for Ayer Rajah. In the speech the President, in his opening remarks, mentioned that the Government's duty is to improve upon what has been achieved in order for us to arrive at a better society. It may be useful for us at this point of time to pause and reflect on what we have achieved, what we are going to achieve in the coming 10 to 20 years and what are the impediments that may prevent us from achieving what we set out to do. If we cast our minds back 25 years, the sustained economic growth which brought about social development, as well as prosperity for all our people, did not come accidentally. Underlying this prosperity was the political stability that we enjoyed since 1965. This stability is created by an honest, effective government headed by the People's Action Party. The honesty and effectiveness of the policies have enabled a firm framework to be laid for the people of Singapore to participate in, to create and generate economic growth. The President's speech has pointed out quite rightly that the Government cannot create wealth, it can only provide the infrastructure for wealth to be created b the components of a corporation or by the people of a country. The people of Singapore in the last 25 years demonstrated that wherever they may be, whether they are in the working class, whether they are entrepreneurs or civil servants, they have cooperated with Government policies in ensuring that these policies generated the results. Most important, I think, is that in times of crises, whether it was the oil crisis in 1974 or, going back a bit further, the withdrawal of British troops in 1968, or the era of high inflation in the late 1970s, these people can come together and tackle the problems as one. This is the hallmark of the Singaporean people - to come together in moments of crises to achieve objectives, even at the expense of making some sacrifices in the meantime. It is quite clear that in the last few years, there have been a number of danger signals in Singapore. Firstly, because of the unprecedented growth that we had experienced in the last 15 years, particularly for the younger generation, the people have come to regard growth as self-sustained, that nothing more need to be put into this engine to ensure that future growth can be sustained. Worse, in the absence of any major crisis in the last 15 years, our people may have gotten used to living in periods of prosperity, to the extent that when a crisis does arise, not only are we unprepared to face it, worse still, we may got into a panic and start throwing our hands up in despair or running in all directions, losing touch of the real aim of what we have set out to achieve all these years. In this regard, we may well look at our neighbours in Hong Kong, who despite many crises - major ones, minor ones - have adapted themselves to face up to them squarely and to seek solutions to overcome these crises. These danger signals should be recognized now because as we look forward to the next two decades and set out to achieve the vision, as outlined in the Presidential Address, we must ask ourselves whether these dangerous trends will stand in the way of what we want to do. There are two factors that we have to take into account when we look at the future. In the last 15 years Singapore had achieved; to my mind, all the easy goals. All that can be done without much effort has been done. By way of analogy, it is like climbing a mountain of, say, 20,000 feet. The first 15,000 feet is a breeze. You walk up and you enjoy the scenery. But the last 5,000 feet will be pretty difficult. First of all, it is going to be steeper. Secondly, you cannot do it alone anymore. You will need more equipment. You may have to have oxygen, and you suffer every single foot of the way until you reach the apex. This is what will happen to Singapore. The easy solutions have been found and we have reached where we are without sweating too much. From now on, as we transit from a low-technology country to a high-technology one, we have got to quit the minor league and enter the major league. And more than the usual effort has to be exerted in order for us to get there. In order to achieve the more difficult tasks, we may have to bear with policies which are not likely to please everybody because nobody likes change, but change there must be. And in order for these policies to be fulfilled, our people must be ready to cope with these changes, no matter how painful or how inconvenient it may be for them. This transition from a minor league to a major league for Singapore is also taking place in a period of stagnant growth in the world economy. If we had done this when the world was booming, it would have been that much easier for us to be more flexible and to absorb the inconveniences that may come along with it. But the world economy is not within our control. Time is not on our side, and we have to make this move now. The question then must be asked: What we can do together to generate economic growth and produce the fruits of labour which we can all share, the people of Singapore. The first thing that comes to our mind must be that nobody owes us a living. In the world map, Singapore cannot even be seen but we are here. If nobody owes us a living, then we create our own. And the economic growth and prosperity must come from the efforts of all of us in Singapore, whether we are in Government, whether we are in the private sector. In other words, at all levels, in all segments of the population, each and every one of us must do our share, and it will have to be more than the normal share to bring Singapore magnitudes higher than what we have brought them to today. Here, perhaps I could comment on one of the Addenda of the Presidential speech, outlined by the Minister for Trade and Industry. True, the Government can only provide the infrastructure of growth, it cannot generate growth. It is up to the private sector to pull themselves together to compete in an increasingly competitive world. But the private sector can only do so much because, like it or not, competition is getting more fierce. And in the last 4-5 years where we experienced a period of high-wage adjustments which formed part of the economic restructuring programme that the Government has introduced to prepare us for the high-technology environment, most private sector employers, whether they are in the service or the manufacturing sectors, have come to the realization that cost increases have been the major factor impeding our competitiveness in terms of the products they produce and the services they offer. No doubt part of this was due to the tight labour market situation that prevailed, but in the world economy where cost-effectiveness dictates how efficient your product or your services will be, cost will be one of the major considerations. And it is my view the costs have just come to the level of being unbearable. As an example, if a private sector employer employs a person, the cost to him is not just the pay. To his salary must be added at least 40% more to allow for Central Provident Fund contribution, Skills Development Fund levy, bonus, sick leave and other benefits. It is not that the manufacturer or the employer grumbles about giving all these benefits, but it does make the cost of the products that much less competitive. I am not quarrelling with the overall policy of bringing more efficiency to our industries, to our services, to one of capital intensive rather than labour intensive. But one has probably got to take into account that these policies may apply over a period of time, and therefore adjustments must be made from time to time to take into account particular circumstances that may prevail during certain periods. When we are in a period of stagnation, it is perhaps unwise to load on more and more because the only end-result that may come about is that these corporations or the services would cease to exist. Therefore, I would urge that in addition to giving incentives to manufacturers, to those who provide services, whether it is in tourism or trade, the Government should perhaps take a look at the various policies that have cost impediments for the private sector to do what they want to do, to be competitive once more and to be able to fight in the world market. Incentives can only be enjoyed when there is a business to run. But if the business has to close because of high costs, then there are no benefits to be enjoyed at all. Having said that, it is paramount that our people, as I said, whether we are employers, workers or civil servants, must come together or, as they say in football or rug by, bunch together and face these challenges as one unit. If we hope to carry Singapore into the major league and achieve the vision set out in the President's speech, we must not take growth for granted. And for those of us who have grown too used to this prosperity, we must snap ourselves out of this complacency and prepare ourselves for the tasks ahead. We should perhaps take a lesson from our forefathers who have found this out the hard way in the last 25 years and perhaps learn from them to face the more difficult problems ahead with the same kind of determination that they have done in the past. It is only through this way that we could scale the last 5,000 feet of this mountain. It is not true to say that the people of Singapore have been left out of it all in the last 25 years, as has been put by the Member for Anson this morning. Without the efforts of the people, nothing would have been achieved and we would not find ourselves in the situation we are in today where we can still enjoy a vision of things to come because we have already got the basics. But let us not forget how we got here and much better to learn how we got here and apply the same lessons, the same techniques, to achieve what we have set out to do in the next 15 years. 4.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion of the Member for Ayer Rajah expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of the Sixth Parliament. The President has stated clearly the higher goals, the objectives, and the vision, which the new and younger Cabinet has set out to achieve, to build a better society for our people. I am happy to note that our leaders have taken note that some segments of our population will face difficulties as we proceed along this process of development and will be giving particular attention to those who will have difficulty to keep up with the pace of change, namely, the 15% to 20% in the lower income group and the aged. There is also the firm commitment to get the full participation of our people in carrying out the difficult tasks ahead. We have to ascertain that our people are sufficiently prepared for the measures and the discipline they must have and the sacrifices which must be made to achieve the higher goals. The crucial question is whether the society which will develop in 1999 would not only be a better one, but a happy one as well for everyone. I think that the fear of the lower income group is that they may not be able to adjust fast enough to the requirements of this new society based on high technology. Our leaders must therefore be continuously aware of the problems which they will face and be always able to instil confidence in them that there will be a place for them, their contributions and that they will continue to be able to enjoy a good life. There is also the crucial need to be vigilant that in this development, inflation can be kept to a minimum so as not to cause hardship to the lower income group. A firm stand must be taken to ensure that prices of housing, utility charges, bus fares, cost of essential items and so on should be kept as low as possible and action taken to restrain excessive price increases. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like now to comment on the Addendum to the Presi- dent's Address on A Better Society which starts off with the statement: 'Our people have achieved their basic needs. Now we can set out to achieve higher goals.' While this may be generally true, there are some among us who have yet to achieve their basic needs. Obviously, here the definition of "basic needs" may differ from person to person. The Government must be prepared to set aside some resources to help them and their families, to get better educated, to increase their level of skills and knowledge and to help them to earn better wages. Some of our workers do not have the necessary paper qualifications but they have skills and experience through hard years of work on the job. It is important that they are given recognition for their contributions and also wages commensurate with their contributions and their performance. We have many such workers working in the Government as well as the statutory boards and the Government can set a good example by reviewing their work and contribution and by giving special attention to help them. Basically, at this level the need is for more or better incomes which can not only help them but also their family members to upgrade themselves. Advances in technology, ample facilities in support for music and so on would be of little interest to them if they find it tough to maintain their families and to give their children a better opportunity in life. I would like therefore to urge the Government, in particular the Ministry of Finance, to review the terms and conditions of employment of the daily-rated workers and the other officers in the lower grades, to see how they can assist them to upgrade themselves and to earn better wages. Some of these workers work overtime. But instead of giving them wages, they are given time-off which is of little use to them. This is not a very easy task but we must do our best to help them. I would like now to turn to the Addendum on the Ministry of Labour. We have been able to enjoy a harmonious industrial relations climate because of our responsible labour movement and the discipline of our workers. Our trade union leaders have always asked our unions and their rank and file members to work closely with employers and management to ensure that this peaceful climate of industrial relations can be preserved. The Ministry of Labour has stated that it will build a team of professional labour officers to preserve and to promote a more harmonious labour management relationship. I would like to remind the Ministry that not all our managements are responsible and treat their employees in a fair and equitable way. While the National Productivity Board will work to train managers in people centred management and to get them to treat their workers as important assets, I think it is also necessary for the Ministry of Labour to come out and take bad management to task. The trade union leadership has always been in the forefront to help develop good industrial relations and to motivate workers to perform to the best of their ability to achieve high productivity. The Management Federation and Associations should also do likewise, i.e., to get the management in the various organizations to come out and behave responsibly in their relationship with their employees and their unions. They must also realize that it is in the national interest that the unions are strong and are in a position to provide effective leadership to our workers. They must therefore do everything to support unions in their organization. After all, we have worked closely on the basis of tripartism with labour, management and Government, working closely to ensure a harmonious industrial relations climate. Without this strong framework of labour management cooperation, our industries and our companies, would not be able to gear themselves up to higher productivity and to be competitive in the international market. I would like therefore to urge the Ministry of Labour to come out more strongly and take to task management who do not treat their workers as important assets and who have been clearly unfair in dealing with their employees and the unions and who have not given the union leadership in their organizations the recognition and the respect they deserve. Our managements should realize that their companies and organizations can only flourish and scale higher heights of per- formance if there is mutual trust and respect between their employees and their supervisors and managers. Sir, in conclusion, we can preserve what we have already achieved and we can work to attain higher goals if our people continue to work together and have the confidence that whatever is being done, have been or will be done with their welfare and their interest at heart. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by the Member for Ayer Rajah. As a friend, I have a suggestion to make to him: I hope he will buy a bicycle for his son! Sir, this Parliament is a turning point in our political history. The power of ruling a country is being passed on to a new and younger political leadership. The younger political leaders have formulated their ideal vision for 1999. They have adopted a new style and a new image. They had dialogues with community leaders, mingled with them at a tea party for the Chinese New Year and took pictures for them. But the fate of a nation does not depend only on the quality of the leaders but also on the quality of the people. More and more of our voters belong to the younger generation. Therefore, the direction and mentality of our younger generation will determine the future of our nation. Vast spans of country are like a stage of chess ( ), so to speak. So the long term vision requires concrete measures in terms of short term targets in stages. The President in his Address delivered last month has set out six main targets to be achieved in the next few years. The first three targets are wide-ranging that involve all the people. The latter three are directed at the aged, the lower income group and working mothers. Concerning the problem of the aged, we have the Howe Yoon Chong Report and had debated on it last year. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss about it in future. Regarding the question of working mothers, the Member for Ulu Pandan, our elder sister, has given her views. So I would not want to repeat the points here. I would like to give some views on the question about the assistance to be given to the lower income group to acquire their own HDB flats. The Government has the duty and should try to help the low income group to get out of the vicious circle of poverty. On 21st June last year, I had made a suggestion to the Government that we should provide such people with interest-free loans so that residents in 1-room and 2-room rental or even 3-room rental flats will be able to buy their own flats. If my memory is correct, the Minister for National Development in December last year also expressed his willingness to do away with the 20% down payment for HDB flats. But I personally feel that the provision of interest-free loans will be a more positive way of helping them, since they may understand that the Government is sincere in helping them out of their difficult position. It is not just a matter of HDB itself removing its own restrictive rule of 20% deposit which has been regarded as the stumbling block in their purchase of flats. I would like to add that we should not only pay attention to the interest of the lower income group, but also at the same time pay attention to the aspirations of the middle income group. Besides desiring higher income and higher material living standard, Singaporeans also want to raise their educational standard so as to achieve excellence in education. Among our middle income group, there are people who, for financial reasons or for some other reasons, have missed their opportunity for higher education. Therefore, I feel that our Universities should consider initiating some part-time courses for those improvement-conscious people so that they may use their leisure time after work to acquire university degree or to receive professional training. I understand that the Polytechnic has certain part-time courses for technicians and the National University also has part-time courses for graduates to obtain Master's degrees in Business Management and Engineering. Sir, as the saying goes: "talent needs learning; where there is no learning there is no talent" ( ).What we need now is a comprehensive plan for part-time courses covering levels of education ranging from secondary to tertiary and even higher degree so as to provide these people an opportunity for more comprehensive and fuller education and training, only then can we raise the general education level of our people as required by a country like ours where manpower is our own resource. The third point is about giving assistance to our medium and small size enterprises and how to promote local entrepreneurship. Because of time, I would not touch on this aspect now. I shall raise it when we debate on the Budget. Sir, the present Parliament, as I said, symbolizes a new beginning. The younger generation leaders should not only strengthen the close relationship which the first generation leaders have with the people, but they must strive harder to win over the support and confidence of the younger generation. The new leadership should work more closely with our younger generation. It is difficult to create an enterprise. It is even more difficult to preserve an enterprise. But, if we realize it, it will not be difficult. We should not only preserve an enterprise ( ), but create new enterprise ( ). I will quote from Robert Kennedy: 'Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream things that never were and say why not?' We should have this kind of why not spirit in meeting challenges. Singapore is a small place with limited resources. "We must make use of what opportunity that is given from above and should make use of what treasure that is in store on earth below and, in the midst of these, make use of what human talent we have" ( ). Besides, we must all the more have this spirit of taking up challenges and the will to create something new. The Government and the people must, together with one purpose, cooperate with each other and strive to climb the higher mountains in order to build a better society and a better future for our next generation. 4.24 p.m.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I also support the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah in thanking the President for his Address. Mr Speaker, Sir, everyone has got his own feelings, and expectations. If there is no scope for expressing such feelings and expectations and if the Government makes a mistake in assessing the people's expectations and feelings, and such suppressed feelings are not channelled to a proper outlet, the whole system of politics will be challenged. Conversely, if everyone can express his own view, feeling and make constructive criticisms and suggestions to the Government, and if these views and suggestions are accepted by the Government and appropriate responses and adjustments made, then it would help Government in formulating and implementing policies. When the people's views are reflected to the Government and the Government's policies are channelled down to and understood by the people, this kind of interchange will be of immense benefit to the Government when it formulates and implements its policies. This will improve mutual dialogue, strengthen common bonds between the Government and the people and also help in promoting the people's confidence in the Government, Sir, I fully support the first objective in the President's Address, namely, a greater voice and participation for the people in the development of the country. We should understand that the views of the new generation differ from the old generation, to a great extent. The now generation are better educated. They have got their own way of thinking and their own judgment. To let them have a greater voice and participation in national and social issues will motivate them to greater involvement in their development and to be more concerned with the interest of our society, which, in turn, will promote national consciousness, patriotism and pride in our nation. Sir, I also fully support what is stated in the President's Address about the target of 100% home-ownership for the people. Ours is a small island state with limited land space. We should see that every family should own his own home, occupying part of the country so that the people will have a sense of belonging and a sense of pride. Although most of our citizens have their own homes, however, as the President's Address has pointed out, there are still 15-20% of our population in the lower income group living in rental flats. Unlike other more fortunate citizens, they do not receive the benefits of our economic growth and prosperity. They are left behind by the mainstream of our economic life. They are burdened by their daily living, toiling for daily meals. Sir, those who are living in the 1-room and 2-room flats are mostly engaged in casual work or odd jobs without a fixed place of work. Many of them are daily-rated labourers. Because of the heavy burden of life, they are unable to make CPF contributions. They do not have the surplus. If they are monthly paid, their total income would not exceed $600 per month. With this meagre $600 and deducting the 25% CPF contribution, how much is left? $450. This meagre sum of money will not help them make ends meet if they have to support a family of four persons. Therefore, they are compelled to take up casual daily work to earn an income of $30-$40 in order to meet their daily expenses. In order to help them purchase flats, we should encourage daily rated workers to change to monthly paid employees so that they will have fixed regular income with CPF savings. In order to attract them to monthly paid jobs, we should raise the minimum monthly salary from $200 to $400 whereby the workers are required to make their own CPF contribUtions. This minimum amount of $200 was fixed many years ago. However, with a rising-cost of living, this amount is no longer realistic and should be raised accordingly. Another measure will be to allow those drawing under $750 a month to contribute only 10-15% to CPF so that they may have more take-home pay to meet their basic living expenses. With the employer's contribution of 25% to CPF, they will have 30%-odd of CPF savings monthly. In this way, they will be enabled to buy 2-room or 3-room flats. As long as they have self-discipline and are thrifty and diligent, with the increased contribution in CPF year by year, they will be able to purchase even better and larger flats one day. In order to lighten their burden of life, we should consider reducing the interest they have to pay on their loan for the purchase of an HDB flat to help them pay off monthly instalments. HDB should investigate and understand the living conditions and family background of these 15-20% of our citizens, so as to better help them to purchase their flats earlier. Sir, I would like to make a suggestion here. If we want to help the aged, we can make use of the CPF by deducting $1 monthly from each of our one million CPF contributors' monthly contribution, just like what MUIS is doing. In this way, we may provide for the centres for the aged with good facilities to enable them to engage in suitable activities in their leisure time. If we can do so - 4.30 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption.

Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 4th March, 1985." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan). Adjourned accordingly at 4.30 pm to Monday, 4th March, 1985.