Hansard, 1988-02-25

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Yeo Cheow Tong (Hong Kah), Acting Minister for Health - from 6th to 14th February, 1988. Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson) - from 7th to 16th February, 1988. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos) - from 7th to 10th February, 1988. Dr Ahmad Mattar (Brickworks), Minister for the Environment - from 7th to 10th February, 1988. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat), Speaker - from 10th to 24th February, 1988. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai) - from 12th to 21st February, 1988. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 12th to 16th February and from 14th to 19th April, 1988. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan) - from 16th to 21st February, 1988. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 23rd to 26th February, 1988. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for National Development - from 24th to 26th February, 1988. Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi) - from 25th to 27th February, 1988. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 25th February to 2nd March, 1988. Encik Sidek bin Saniff (Kolam Ayer), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry - from 28th February to 2nd March, 1988. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 1st February, 1988 (i) Child Care Centres Bill; (ii) Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill; and (iii) Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether, in view of the development of new private and Housing and Development Board housing estates since the last general election in 1984, the Government intends to increase the number of constituencies for the coming general election in 1988/89 and, if so, what steps are being taken in regard to new electoral boundaries and preparation of electoral rolls.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill to provide for Group Representation Constituencies is now before the Select Committee. Many representations have been received. These may have a bearing on the nature and number of Group Representation Constituencies. The Government will not decide on the number of constituencies for the next general election until the Select Committee has reported to Parliament.

Sir, will the First Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether general elections will be held this year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I suspected that that was the interest behind the question. I would not so indicate.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the effect of Prince Norodom Sihanouk's resignation on (i) Asean's support for the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and (ii) the future of a peaceful settlement in Kampuchea.

Sir, Singapore like other ASEAN countries, continues to support the Coalition Government Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK). The CGDK remains intact as the National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful and Co-operative Cambodia, (FUNCINPEC), Prince Sihanouk's party is still in CGDK and the National Sihanoukist Army (ANS), its military arm, fights on against the Vietnamese. Prince Sihanouk has announced recently that he has decided to return to the Presidency of the CGDK because Vietnam has not taken up his offer to negotiate with him. However, the Prince will still remain on leave from the Presidency and hold himself open for negotiations to resolve the Cambodian problem. Singapore respects Prince Sihanouk's decision to step out of the CGDK. The Prince is an experienced statesman and nationalist. He is committed to the restoration of independence to his country. The Cambodian problem is a complex one requiring a multi-pronged approach. The situation is constantly evolving and seems to be entering a more fluid phase. Prince Sihanouk's meetings with Hun Sen in France on 2nd to 4th December 1987 and the 20th and 21st January 1988 opened a new diplomatic front and Singapre supports the Prince's initiatives. The Prince has indicated that he wants to meet with the Vietnamese, or with the rmetnamese together with Hun Sen, to discuss a peaceful settlement in Cambodia. The Prince has also indicated that he is still willing to meet Hun Sen in France at the end of this year for a third round of talks if Hun Sen is willing to take a more constructive approach. The Prince is the only person who can unite the Cambodian people and bring about national reconciliation. All parties agree that he must play a pivotal role in any Cambodian settlement. Vietnam no longer maintains that the situation in Cambodia is irreversible but agrees that there should be a negotiated solution. If it is sincere in wanting a genuine political compromise, Vietnam must talk to Prince Sihanouk and not let the opportunity slip by.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will give an idea as to the types of housing that are likely to be built in housing estates affected by relocation; and (b) when the rebuilding programmes will be implemented.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the mix and type of flats that the HDB will build on the vacated sites will depend on the location of the sites. In the city area, the emphasis will be on better quality flats. Going by current demand, it is likely to be a mix of 4-room, 5-room and larger flats. Redevelopment will inject new life into the old estates and improve the living environment. The redevelopment programme is targetted to be implemented in 1989. Building contracts will be called in some of the older estates where rental blocks have been cleared and sites are ready. The actual schedule will depend on how soon the affected tenants can be relocated. The HDB will release more details of this programme as soon as it is ready.

Sir, could the Minister of State look into future relocation programmes that could be gradually phased so that disruptions to neighbourhood life could be minimized?

Mr Speaker, Sir, certainly HDB will take note of the Member's comment and I will ask them to make sure that future relocation programmes are phased in such a way that there will be minimal disruption. But I cannot promise the hon. Member that there will be no disruption at all.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will indicate the number of 1-room and 2-room Housing and Development Board flats that will be retained after the relocation exercise; (b) whether there will be plans to upgrade these flats; and (c) whether the HDB will review the age criteria set for application for these flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the relocation exercise is being carried out in phases. The existing stock of rental flats is 120,000 units. Under Phase 1, some 39,000 units of these rental flats are affected. They will be demolished when the tenants affected are completely relocated. The numbers affected in Phase 2 and subsequent phases will be reviewed in the light of experience of Phase 1. It is not the intention to demolish all rental flats. Some 3-4% of the population will continue to require rental flats. These include people who cannot afford or who do not need home-ownership flats, newly-weds and other groups who rent housing as an intermediate step before upgrading to buy their flats. The HDB will retain sufficient numbers of rental flats to cater to their needs. Sir, the rental flats that will be retained will be subject to the normal maintenance cycle. In addition, the general environment of the rental blocks that remain will be improved through the redevelopment of some of the vacated sites. New amenities and landscaped areas will be included in such redevelopment programmes. Thirdly, Sir, the age limit of 29 years is based on the average national marriage age. Until such time when there is a significant change in this national average, the HDB has no plans to review the existing age limit.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information what measures are being taken by the Registry of Vehicles to ensure that vehicles imported into Singapore are free of manufacturing defects and safe on our roads.

Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. Sir, the ROV requires all cars imported into Singapore to meet the same standards as those required in the country of manufacture. Standards have been in existence for a long time and do not vary significantly from country to country. They cover safety standards and checks on manufacturing defects. Besides relying on the certification of standards by the car manufacturing countries, the ROV also conducts a thorough check on prototypes before the particular model of car is allowed to be imported, to ensure general compliance with stated standards. The test is similar to the mandatory periodic inspections required for all Singapore registered vehicles. Most of the cars imported into Singapore are from large international companies. These manufacturers have a vested interest to maintain their reputation and manufacturing standards, not only in Singapore but internationally. Hence, whenever manufacturing defects are discovered, the manufacturers do not hesitate to request their local agents to check and rectify these defects.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he will comment on reports that travellers have difficulties in getting confirmed flights to certain destinations and what has been done to resolve this problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in civil aviation, Singapore practises what is termed in the industry as the "open skies" policy. We actively seek to exchange air rights with other countries to provide passengers with the maximum choice and convenience of travel. However, not all countries practise this policy of free and open competition. It takes lengthy negotiations and considerable amount of time for air services agreements to be concluded. To date, we have a total of 67 air services agreements with other countries. In recent years, there have been sharp increases in air travel wordwide. As a result of that, some routes and services are unable to cope with the increased demand. Some of the difficulties experienced recently in getting confirmed seats are for flights to Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The situation is especially acute during the peak periods of school holidays in Singapore in the months of June and November to February, when increasing numbers of Singaporeans and residents fly off to these countries for their holidays. Fortunately, our active and continuous negotiations have been fruitful. In September last year, we reached agreement with Japan to add two more weekly flights from November 1987 and another two more weekly services from 1st April this year. We are scheduled to meet the Japanese authorities again sometime this year to discuss further capacity increases. Also in November 1987, Singapore and Australia agreed to increase capacity between the two countries by a total of seven weekly services from December 1987. We also had discussions with New Zealand last year to increase services between our two countries. Another round of negotiation is planned for the first half of 1988. On top of the negotiations, CAAS also encourages airlines to mount supplementary flights. Where these flights exceed the provisions of air services agreements and where negotiations for more flights are not completed, CAAS has freely granted additional traffic rights. As an illustration, during the period of November 1987 to February 1988, CAAS approved a total of 264 supplementary flights between Singapore and Australia. These were mounted by Qantas and SIA. CAAS also holds regular meetings with travel agents and airlines to monitor and determine when and where shortages may occur. The objective is to help airlines plan for such supplementary flights. For the future, CAAS is exploring with civil aviation authorities in other countries the possibility of automatic increases in services should demand exceed certain trigger points or load factors. If such an approach is accepted, then services will match more closely the demands without undue delays resulting from prolonged negotiations. Sir, while all these measures can help alleviate difficulties, passengers sometimes aggravate the situation by over-booking. For example, some passengers wanting a flight will book flights on several different days, or even several flights on different airlines on the same day. Quite obviously, this can result in bona fide travellers being left without seats because flights appear to be fully booked. Passengers can help by informing airlines of any change in their travel plans early, so that seats can then be allocated to others. With cooperation from all quarters, the problem of difficulty in securing flights out of Singapore can be resolved.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Traffic Department has received reports of forged Singapore driving licences and whether a new type of driving licence will be introduced to replace the present handwritten one in the foreseeable future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Traffic Police detected a total of 323 cases of forged driving licences over the last five years. However, with the introduction of a new procedure to verify the driving licence of a person who is unable to provide his driving licence on the spot, the number of forgeries has significantly declined to only 25 in 1987. The Traffic Police therefore consider this not to be a serious problem as there are some 750,000 qualified driving licences issued in Singapore. I would also like to inform the Member that the feasibility of introducing a new tamper-proof driving licence is also being looked into now.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) how many local small enterprises applied for work permits to employ foreign workers in 1987; (b) how many were rejected; (c) what is the percentage rejected; and (d) why some small restaurants, confectioneries and motor workshops are not granted work permits to employ foreign workers while restaurants within hotels are granted them.

Sir, the statistics requested by the Member are not available as my Ministry does not categorize employers in the manner requested. I would, however, like to assure the Member that within the broad guidelines of our foreign workers policy, companies may be permitted to recruit foreign workers irrespective of whether they are small, medium or large, local or foreign. Companies are differentiated not by their size or who their shareholders are but by the nature of their operations, whether they are export-oriented and whether they can contribute to the upgrading of our economy. Under the existing policy, foreign workers are allowed in the manufacturing, hotel, construction and domestic service sectors. Confectioneries and motor workshops do not belong to these sectors. As for restaurants within hotels, they are granted work permits as they clearly form part of the hotel industry. Restaurants outside hotels are more oriented to the domestic market. However, where they are directly serving the tourist industry and paying the 3% tourism cess, they may also be allowed to recruit a limited number of foreign workers. The Singapore Tourist Promotion Board decides which restaurants will qualify under its criteria.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) when amending legislation will be introduced to extend maternity benefits to female employees bearing the third child; and (b) if the Government will take steps to encourage the private sector to amend collective agreements to include such maternity benefits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has not decided to amend the Employment Act to extend maternity benefits to female employees bearing the third child. This was considered during the formulation of the package of incentives to encourage procreation under the new population policy. Instead of paid maternity leave, it was decided that a tax incentive should be given to working mothers who have to take unpaid maternity leave for their third child. Such working mothers can now claim additional tax rebate equivalent to 15% (or about two months) of their annual earned income. The maternity provisions in the Employment Act should therefore be viewed in the context of the total package of incentives to support the new population policy. Under the Employment Act, collective agreements can only provide for maternity benefits in respect of the first and second children.

asked the Minister for Community Development what steps he will take to dispel the general misconception that an approval for marriage, by the Registrar of Marriages, to a foreigner will entitle the latter to stay in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before a foreigner contracts marriage with a Singapore citizen or permanent resident, it is made very clear to him or her by the staff of the Registry of Marriages that marriage does not automatically confer on the foreigner the right to remain permanently in Singapore. The documents which I have asked the Clerk to circulate are brought to the attention of the foreigners. There are two categories of foreigners. Work permit holders require the approval of the Commissioner for Employment to marry a Singapore citizen or permanent resident. In the approval letter he is informed by the Commissioner that marriage to a Singaporean does not automatically confer on the foreign spouse the right to remain or reside permanently in Singapore. If you look at paragraph 3 of Annex A (Cols. 603 - 604) you can see that paragraph quite clearly stated. paragraph 3 of Annex A (Cols. 603 - 604) For a non-Work Permit holder an Immigration Notice, ie in Annex B (Cols. 605 - 608), informing that marriage does not confer automatic residency is given to the foreigner. Annex B (Cols. 605 - 608) In a letter to the marriage applicants calling for their attendance, the Registrar of Marriages also makes the same point. That is in paragraph 3 also of Annex C (Cols. 609 - 610). paragraph 3 also of Annex C (Cols. 609 - 610) From the documents and notices issued, there can be no doubt that foreigners who are affected are fully aware of their position before they contract marriage with Singapore citizens or permanent residents.

Sir, is the Minister suggesting that married couples under such circumstances should live apart?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made no such suggestion. The question simply asks whether a foreigner who marries or intends to marry a Singaporean, when registering with the Registrar of Marriages, is clearly told that the approval of marriage does not automatically confer on him the right to remain permanently in Singapore. That is all I said. I have made no such suggestion.

If the foreign spouse does not have the right to live in Singapore, how then can the married couple live together? That is my question.

That is a question of permanent residence or residing in Singapore, which is clearly under the purview of the Immigration Department. I would reserve the privilege of answering this question to my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs.

What is the rationale of the Government in allowing a couple to marry and then to separate them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, under our marriage laws, the Registrar of Marriages will register any marriage. We cannot stop any person from wanting to register the marriage here. But whether a foreigner who marries a Singaporean is allowed to remain here or not is a totally different thing altogether. That is a question of residence which is clearly under the purview of the Home Affairs Ministry which, as I have just said, is a question which I would prefer my colleague to answer. I think that privilege should be reserved to him.

Mr Speaker, the Minister has not answered my question. I asked what is the rationale? On the one hand, the Immigration authorities cleared and allowed the Registrar of Marriages to register --- Some hon. Members: No.

As I understand it, all foreigners who want to marry Singaporeans must get the clearance of the Controller of Immigration. Some hon. Members: No.

That is what I have experienced, a foreigner getting married in Singapore. Some hon. Members: No.

But that is my experience. I have not got proof here. But before a foreigner can marry a Singapore citizen, he must get the clearance of the Controller of Immigration, be he a Malaysian or any foreigner, a Filipino girl or a girl from the Riau Islands. Normally clearance is given. So he gets married, and now you want to separate them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Minister answers, could I suggest to the Minister that he should attempt to answer the question and not pass the buck to another Minister.

Clearly I cannot speak on behalf of my colleague. This is a matter under the Home Affairs Ministry. Does the Member really expect me to answer his question?

In that case, could he and his colleague, the Minister in charge, work together so that either of them is able to stand up and answer the question?

We always work together in all these issues. I think the point is whether the question that was asked by the Member for Telok Blangah has solicited the right answer. He has. I have given the answer. If he were to ask a different question, like residence, that is a totally different question. Another question can be raised and it will be answered.

In order not to prolong this debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recall that at a sitting not long ago the question of Immigration policy, in particular the question of permanent residence for foreign spouses, whether or not they are holders of work permits, has been raised and the policy has been fully explained in this House. If any Member feels that the policy has not been fully explained, the proper course is for the Member to direct the question to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and I can assure Members that the full answer will be given if they consider that the full answer has not been given before.

Mr Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister for Community Development. Is he aware that there are people who go abroad to seek brides without knowing that when they try to bring them back to Singapore they are subject to this restrictive immigration rule?

If a Singaporean wants to register a marriage with a foreigner, the right thing to do before he goes overseas to find a foreign bride is to check with the Registry of Marriages, or to check with the Immigration Department, if he or she intends to bring her or him back to Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked this question because I believe there are genuine cases of people who are ignorant of this non-compliance between the two Ministries. The Minister has given us two sets of forms, one set is in four languages whereas the other set is only in one language. I am wondering whether this could be the cause of it. Because I have heard of cases where they are genuinely ignorant of the fact that the granting of permission to marriage does not automatically allow the foreigner to stay in Singapore.

This set of form in Annex B is given to anyone who wants to register his marriage. So it cannot be the case where a person wanting to register his marriage went to the Registrar of Marriages and was not told of the conditions. The form is in four languages and even after signing it, the Registry staff would explain to the applicant as to the implication of his application. So if he can refer to me a particular case of a person who has not understood the condition, I will have it investigated.

May I request that this form can be done in the four languages too.

It is in four languages.

Can the letter from the Registrar of Marriages be in four languages too?

Sir, there is no need for the letter to be in four languages because before a marriage is registered the person has already received a form and that form clearly is in four languages. If you were to write letters in four languages, I think what it will mean is that you will have to write all official correspondence in four languages.

asked the Acting Minister for Health (a) if he will give a progress report on the reorganisation of polyclinics; and (b) whether there is adequate manpower to man the heavily utilized polyclinics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Health currently provides primary health care services through a network of polyclinics, outpatient dispensaries (OPD) and maternal and child health (MCH) clinics. My Ministry plans to consolidate the present 35 clinics into 16 polyclinics by retaining six existing polyclinics and building 10 new ones in the HDB new towns. This will enable my Ministry to achieve a better utilization of manpower and facilities and will make primary health care services more easily accessible to the people. The existing polyclinics to be retained are Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Bukit Merah, Clementi, Kelantan and Queenstown. Two new polyclinics will be completed each year. The new Toa Payoh Polyclinic was opened on 1st February 1988. The Jurong Polyclinic will open later this year. Tampines and Hougang Polyclinics are scheduled for completion in 1989, followed by Yishun and Bukit Batok in 1990, Central and Geylang in 1991 and Woodlands and Chua Chu Kang in 1992. With regard to whether there is adequate manpower to man the polyclinics, I wish to assure Members that the polyclinics are adequately staffed except during outbreaks of influenza. When such occasions ar ise, manpower will be deployed from other institutions and hospitals of the Ministry to help out.

Sir, is the Minister aware that since the reorganization of some polyclinics, the waiting time has increased. The situation has been no better and patients have to wait for two hours before they are seen by the doctors.

Members will recall that about a year ago a similar question was asked about waiting time in polyclinics. My answer then was that the patients tend to come at certain periods of the day. For example, they tend to come early in the morning at 9.00/9.30 and therefore it is not possible to man the polyclinics just for the peak loads. We try to encourage regular patients to come at other times of the morning so that they do not have to wait so long. For example, those who come in the later part of the morning will find that their waiting time is very short but those who come together with the huge numbers who arrive at about 9.00 am which is the peak load will find that they will have to wait much longer. It is inevitable when peak loads occur.

Can I ask the Hon. Acting Minister for Health whether the dates of completion of the polyclinics that he named are firm dates or are they just estimated dates of completion, and when will these polyclinics be operational?

For those that are due to be completed in 1988 and 1989, the dates are fairly firm in terms of the year. The months may shift a little bit.

asked the Acting Minister for Health whether there is an increase in the mortality rate of children and infants attributed to home accidents and what measures have been taken to reduce such mishaps.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a decrease in deaths from home accidents among children and infants over the last 10 years. In the late 70's an average of 19 children died each year as a result of home accidents. Over the last three years this figure has dropped to an average of 11 a year. Vigilance in the home is the key to preventing home accidents. Towards this end, my Ministry and the National Safety Council have been working together to promote home safety. Talks on prevention of home accidents are regularly given to mothers attending the Maternal and Child Health Clinics. Talks and exhibitions on home safety are organized by the National Safety Council in schools, community centres and at other public gatherings. Talks are also given over the radio and TV on the different aspects of home safety. Unlike road and industrial safety where laws can be enacted to enforce observation of safety rules and regulations, home safety can only be achieved, especially in the case of young children and infants, by parents being alert and taking proper precautions at home. Parents should also train their children to adopt safe habits and to understand the potential hazards in the home. 11.35 am

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the occupancy rate of the HUDC flats at Anthony Road; and (b) when these flats will be sold to the public and what are the estimated selling prices.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, 36% of the flats at Anthony Garden were tenanted as at 31st January 1988. Sir, the HDB has no immediate plans to sell these flats to the public. When market conditions are favourable, the HDB will sell the flats at the prevailing market prices.

Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether it is the policy of the Government to build HUDC flats for speculation or to provide affordable housing to middle-income wage earners?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, HDB does not build flats for speculation. It builds flats to meet the need. But the process of building flats takes many years - the planning and building of these flats - so sometimes there is a mismatch between demand and supply. In the case of the Anthony Garden flats, at the present moment there is a surplus of HUDC flats. There are, in fact, 946 units available but that should not be taken to mean that HDB is building flats purely for speculative reasons. At the moment, there are applications for such HUDC flats and flats are being sold in other areas.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether taxi stands will be provided at or near Mass Rapid Transit stations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister. Sir, the answer is yes. Taxi stands have been provided for all the 14 MRT stations which are now in operation. For the other MRT stations, taxi stands will also be provided at or near the stations.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the response to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore's Changi Connection Incentive Scheme and free city tours for passengers in transit to see the sights of Singapore with a view to attracting them back to Singapore for a longer visit; and whether the CAAS has introduced other promotional programmes.

Sir, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has a number of different programmes to help with the promotion of Singapore as a tourist destination in order to help our tourist industry. I will list some of them. In July last year, the CAAS launched what is termed the Changi Connection Incentive Scheme. The idea is to promote Singapore as a destination to passengers transitting or transferring in Singapore. The transit and transfer passengers who do not normally come into Singapore are given special booklets which contain vouchers. These vouchers entitle them to discounts in our hotels, shops and other local tourist attractions, should these passengers come back to Singapore. Over the last seven months, about half a million such booklets have been issued to the transit and transfer passengers. Of these, 25,000 discount vouchers have been redeemed - 4,200 for hotel accommodation, 18,900 for shopping and 1,900 for sightseeing. In dollar terms, the redemption of vouchers for hotel accommodation alone accounts for a quarter million dollars. This is extra business for our tourist industry. So far, the response to this scheme has been assessed to be very satisfactory. CAAS expects more vouchers to be redeemed over the coming months because the vouchers are valid for a period of one year. CAAS also conducts free city tours for transit passengers. This scheme was introduced in April last year. The coach tours take approximately two hours and they are aimed at giving visitors a glimpse of Singapore and getting them excited and eager to come back to visit Singapore again. Daily, there is an average of 33 passengers. In a survey of 246 transit passengers who have joined such tours, 89% of them responded that they would like to return to see Singapore and spend a longer period in Singapore. Besides these two programmes, CAAS also conducts other activities which give transit passengers a preview of life in Singapore, to give them a flavour of the local culture and what we do best in Singapore. Four times a night, a programme known as the "Singapore Experience", an audio-visual show on Singapore, is screened in a theatrette in the Transit Lounge. Promotional videos on Singapore such as the recent cleaning up of the Singapore River and our changing landscapes are also screened in the in-house theatre with a closed-circuit television system available for passengers to watch it while they are waiting for their planes. Since March last year, CAAS has also started demonstrations and sale of local handicrafts in the Transit Lounge. Sir, all these and other programmes have been mounted to help sell Singapore to the two million transit and transfer passengers who pass through Singapore each year. We want them to come back and visit us. We want them to come and fill our hotel rooms and buy from our shops. And after having visited Singapore, we want them to revisit Singapore yet again. Some of the results of these efforts can be measured in dollar terms. But much more importantly, we help to create a good, positive and lasting image of Singapore which will benefit all businesses in Singapore in the long run.

asked the Acting Minister for Health (a) if newborn babies are tested for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus, the cause of AIDS, and if not, why not; and (b) if such tests are made, how many newborn babies have been found to be anti-body positive and what follow-up action his Ministry takes in such cases.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, newborn babies in Singapore are currently not being tested for HIV antibodies. It is unlikely that the infection has spread to this segment of the population as so far only one female, the wife of a patient with clinical AIDS, has been found to be infected with the AIDS virus. Only two of the 19 males found to be infected are married and the majority are homosexuals. In countries with a similar low level of heterosexual spread of AIDS, infected children are either haemophiliacs infected through contaminated blood products, or are the offspring of infected intravenous drug users. In Singapore no haemophiliacs have been found to be infected, and there are very few intravenous drug users. My Ministry will continue to monitor the situation through periodic screening of the population, including newborns, should the need arise.

asked the Acting Minister for Health what is the ruling and method of disposal for all radioactive isotopes used for treatment in hospitals; whether there has been any case of radioactive contamination due to improper disposal of used radioactive isotopes; and what measures his Ministry has taken to ensure that such incidents will not occur.

Sir, the disposal of radioactive isotopes in hospitals is governed by the Radiation Protection Act under my Ministry and the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act under the Ministry of the Environment. Liquid waste arising from the use of solutions of radioactive isotopes is kept in special storerooms to allow the radioactivity to reduce to a safe level before it is discharged into the sewers. Solid waste, which includes contaminated syringes and needles, is stored until it is safe to be disposed of by burying at the Ministry of the Environment's designated sites. The safety limits imposed on the disposal of these wastes by my Ministry and the Environment Ministry are in line with international practice and are, in fact, even more stringent than most countries in order to protect our limited land and water resources. Sealed sources of radioactive isotopes such as Cobalt 60 and Caesium 137 used in the treatment of patients in radiotherapy are re-exported to the suppliers when they are exhausted. All sealed sources of radioactive isotopes are individually monitored by my Ministry's Radiation Protection Inspectorate from the time they are imported until the time they are re-exported. This system ensures that there is no improper disposal of such high level sources. There has been no case of radioactive contamination in the hospitals due to improper disposal of radioactive isotopes. My Ministry conducts regular checks on users of radio-isotopes in the hospitals to ensure that they comply with the regulations and to prevent any radiative contamination due to improper disposal.

11.45 am

"to amend the Dangerous Fireworks Act (Chapter 72 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, 'That this House adopts the Goals and Challenges contained in the Agenda for Action and presented to Parliament as a Green Paper (Paper Misc. 2 of 1988) as the basis for nation building and Government policy.' We are coming to the close of one chapter in our political history and laying the groundwork for a new one. It is for this reason that I am seeking the House's endorsement of the Goals and Challenges as we see them. Sometime after the next General Election, Cabinet will consist entirely of new guard leaders, Ministers who were inducted by the Old Guards into the governing party since 1972. Senior Minister, Mr S. Rajaratnam, had said publicly that he would not be contesting the next General Election. He could be wrong, however, when he said that that would be his last birthday celebration in Kampong Glam as an MP. He has just turned 73. The Prime Minister is phasing himself out of Cabinet. Mr E.W. Barker, the third Old Guard in the Cabinet, is easy either way. Parliament too is dominated by a new generation of MPs. More new faces will appear after the next General Election. Our political leadership is in transition. We will be without the old pilots within a couple of years. We could wait until then to forge a new consensus with the people. Or we could do it during the transitional stage. We could wait until we are in charge before letting Singaporeans know what our vision is, what our goals are and how we see the challenges. Or we could let them know now so that Singaporeans could decide whether to embark on the plane with us. We believe it would be unfair to Singaporeans not to let them know early what we stand for and where we intend to lead them. We believe it would not be in Singapore's interests to keep them in the dark. For example, before investors decide to put their money here, they want to know what Singapore will be like after Lee Kuan Yew. If they are uncertain what our policies will be, they will hold back. If they are uncertain as to whether the new guard leaders can implement these policies, they will not come. That was why we decided as early as December 1984 to let Singaporeans know our Vision of Singapore. Then they would know the destination in which we intend to lead them to. That was why we followed up with the National Agenda discussion. The aim was to reach an accord with the people on the type of society they want. This Green Paper, the Agenda for Action, is the quintessence of the year-long discussions with Singaporeans from all walks of life. It captures in a few pages, not just the goals of the younger leaders, but also the hopes and fears of all Singaporeans. It is a consensus document. It is presented under my name but it is the collective effort of the new guard leaders. The National Agenda Committee, chaired by BG Lee Hsien Loong, must take the main credit for it. Apart from the transition in political leadership, we are facing another turning point. Singapore has enjoyed steady economic growth since Independence; growth exceeding 10% per annum from 1966 to 1973 and high single-digit growth from 1974 to 1984. But we are nearing the upper limit of our resources - land, human resources, water supply. So high economic growth in the future would be more difficult to come by. There is also a danger that our society may lose some of its dynamism as it matures. Such loss of dynamism has taken place in many countries. In Europe, for example, they have coined a word for it to describe this process of getting old - when the arteries and tissues hardened and we lose our suppleness and nimbleness. They call it Euro-sclerosis. Loss of dynamism will take place in Singapore if our population does not rejuvenate itself, and this problem will be compounded should able Singaporeans emigrate. This economic turning point, coinciding with the change in political leadership, will make our job of bettering the lives of Singaporeans much more difficult. But it will not be an impossible task provided we can release a new burst of energy, a wave of new ideas, and mobilize people to do things in new and better ways. This is what our Vision of a Nation of Excellence is all about. Our Vision is not just for the rich and the able. It is for all Singaporeans belonging to whatever social or economic class, Singaporeans of whatever race or religion. The Vision deals with ideals. The Agenda for Action deals with the fundamentals, the basic goals and the formidable challenges. Once Parliament adopts it, we will move on to the next stage, which is to prepare the programmes. With the full weight of the Government and the people behind it and behind us, we will achieve a better life for all. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this parliamentary debate and the acceptance of the Agenda for Action is the culmination of a whole year of discussion, feedback, consensus building. The Agenda for Action, this Green book, owes its existence to the thousands of people who have participated. Their views have been distilled and refined into this Green Paper, but in essence this document belongs to the people and represents the will of the people, as interpreted by the PAP Government to the best of its ability. The National Agenda discussions have demonstrated that there is a consensus on our future. Singaporeans do understand the issues, they do have views of the future, and they are in basic agreement as to which way to go. All the issues in the Agenda for Action are national issues. They affect every citizen, whether or not he agrees with the solutions proposed by the PAP Government, whether or not he would like the PAP Government to lead him through them. We have put sharp, difficult questions: (1) Is there any priority more important than building a harmonious, multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore, where every citizen enjoys equal opportunities and where minority communities can feel secure that their place is guaranteed and their rights will not be trampled upon? (2) How do we fulfil the aspirations of young Singaporeans who want a better life? How do we take care of the poor, the infirm, the people who need help to catch up? Can we do this if we neglect economic growth? Can we stop worrying about fair rewards, education, endeavour and excellence? Are we now wealthy enough, as some have pretended, that we can make free with our riches and give away our hard-earned reserves? (3) Does it matter to us whether Singaporeans are having too few children, whether our population will grow elderly, lose vitality, become decrepit and infirm? (4) Do we realize that Singapore is always vulnerable? And if we do, are we prepared to pay the price for security, that is, eternal vigilance? (5) Should we not build an indissoluble consensus amongst Singaporeans, so that we will not dissipate our energies quarrelling among ourselves? And finally, drawing all these threads together, (6) Ought we not work together to achieve common objectives, to accomplish everything that we dream of, and to create a new Singapore for all of us? Many Singaporeans have thought over these issues, brought their minds to bear, spoken up, and made up their minds. Their answers are clear. They have concluded that these are momentous, national priori- ties. This PAP government agrees with them. At the same time, the discussions themselves have strengthened the consensus and have heightened Singaporeans' awareness of the issues. This is especially true of the debate on our multi-racial society, a highly sensitive issue, one of overriding importance, central to our well being as a nation together. We could not have discussed it 10 years ago like this. In many other less happy multi-racial countries, you can never talk about it at all. The subject is taboo because just to mention it would be to expose insoluble contradictions, intolerable injustices. It would generate unmanageable pressures, emotions, possibly rioting and bloodshed. That such a debate could be conducted at all in Singapore, and conducted frankly, sensitively, and sincerely, is a measure of the maturity of the population and of the progress which we have made. Had we achieved nothing else from the entire year of effort, except the discussion on the multi-racial issue, the enormous energies which have gone into the National Agenda would have been well worthwhile. Nobody has been excluded from these discussions - grassroots leaders, professionals, academics, trade unionists, neighbours, ordinary men and women in the street. The opposition parties too were invited to contribute. True, they have not come up with any different list of crucial issues, nor have they propounded any plausible alternatives for solving them. But that is in itself significant. Because it is a tacit admission that this Agenda has addressed the right issues and presented solutions which command the acceptance of all Singaporeans. Their silence is a most eloquent silence. If this were no more than a wedding, I could say, "Speak now, or forever hold your peace." But this is not a wedding. It is of far greater and more momentous importance, and they cannot remain silent. On such an important issue, no political party which wants to be taken seriously can afford to be coy and bashful. You cannot brush the Agenda for Action aside without explanation, without alternatives. You must make your stand unequivocally and explicitly. And this debate today is the occasion to do so. Where do we go from here? Parliament is asked to accept the Agenda as the basis for national education and government policy. That is a sweeping mandate. Once that mandate is given, the task begins. First, we will proceed to act on the issues contained in the Agenda for Action. The First Deputy Prime Minister has announced the formation of six public committees to oversee the implementation of specific programmes - committees on culture and the arts, sports and recreation, family and community life, youth, the disabled, the aged. We should not waste any time turning words into deeds. Second, the PAP will continue to campaign for the Agenda. This is not a static document. It is an unending exercise in National Education. Every year, 40,000 new Singaporeans come of age. Every year, 40,000 need to learn the facts of life. We do not have a racial riot each year to educate them - thank God. But they must learn the painful lessons of the riots which Singapore has already been through. These events are seared in the memories of those who lived through them. They must be engraved - burnt - into the collective memory of all Singaporeans. 1969: May 13th. 1964: Prophet Mohammed's birthday. 1950: the Maria Hertogh riots. Who was Maria Hertogh? A Dutch girl, left behind during the war by her parents with Malay foster parents. The foster parents brought her up as a Muslim. After the war, her natural parents came, found her, claimed her back. The foster parents disputed this. The case went to trial. She was given back to her natural parents. The foster parents appealled. Pending the appeal, the Christian judge sent Maria for safe keeping to a convent. The newspapers carried pictures of her in the convent. I have one. This is the Singapore Standard, 5th December 1950, from the Archives, from microfilm: "Bertha [Maria's other name] knelt before Virgin Mary statue". It says here: 'Bertha Hertogh knelt before the statue of the Virgin Mary beside her mother in the Convent of the Good Shepherd, Thomson Road, yesterday. She did this of her own free will. Bertha's mother, Mrs Adelene Hertogh, said that when Bertha saw other girls wearing white dresses, she asked, "May I wear a white dress?" She handed her Malay clothes to a Reverend Mother.' On another page, there is a picture, at her special request, Bertha with a nun. Even today I would hesitate to recommend to the Straits Times, much less the Berita Harian or the vernacular Malay press, to print this 38 year-old picture. In 1950, after the English press published it, the Malay press took it up, in Jawi, and talked about jihad. Within a week, riots broke out. 18 people were killed, 173 injured. 38 years later, the Member for Potong Pasir was reported in the Straits Times to have said that the Maria Hertogh riots were not racial, but involved people fighting for "political and social rights" and a "better livelihood". That is why continual National Education is necessary! Even with continual National Education, there will still be foolish politicians who would wish to rewrite history. But at least, fewer will believe them and there will be far fewer tragic consequences. This Agenda for Action will be the PAP's manifesto in the next General Elections. The PAP believes in riding into battle with our banners held high. We state what we believe. We declare what we intend to accomplish, and we will do it together with the people of Singapore. But the Agenda for Action is more than an election manifesto. It states the priorities which any government of Singapore will have to address. It represents the PAP Government's programme for this term of office, for the next term of office, but more than that, provided it is the will of the people, for several more general elections after that. Singapore is now at a turning point. The momentum of the struggle for Merdeka, independence, of the battles for survival after we achieved independence, of the initial spurt of economic growth which took us from a poor, impoverished, island to a successful graduated NIC - that wave has carried us thus far. A new generation must now decide whether to take up the challenge, whether to run another stage of the race, and if so, which way to go. This Agenda for Action is part of the answer. The Government does not claim in this document that we have foreseen all the eventualities which may occur in the next two decades. The future is always uncertain. From time to time, urgent problems and unforeseen opportunities are bound to arise. And when they do, they are bound to demand our concentrated attention. But whatever comes about through the National Agenda discussions, I think we have achieved two things: First, we have identified the main goals and challenges for Singapore. These goals and challenges will be important to us, whatever else may pop up. Secondly, we have established a method of consultation and consensus building which has proven itself and which will be useful to us in tackling many future issues. We are prepared for the future. What we need now is the act of will to make it happen. On behalf of this Government, let me invite all Singaporeans: if you agree with the ideals and the objectives in the Agenda, come forward, join us in our common mission. This is our future. Let us make it come true. Thank you very much.

Mr Tarmugi. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Tarmugi first, please.

I wish to seek clarification.

Mr Chiam, you can have the Floor after Mr Tarmugi. 12.10 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we spent several months last year in reaching out to the population and involving them in mapping out our future. This Green Paper compresses the deliberations and outcome of that massive exercise. To me, this is not only an Agenda for Action but also of hope; a breath of fresh air. Allow me however, Sir, to share my own observations and comments on what I think are two of the most crucial issues in connection with this Agenda. The first one concerns the section on multi-racial, multi-religious, society. I fully subscribe to the sentiments in and aims of this section. And I firmly believe that the harmony between the races and religions is indeed a cornerstone of our society. For so long now we have accepted this as the nation's creed. But so far - and perhaps because we consider it so priceless - that we have kept this attribute of our country in a showcase of sorts, avoiding to touch it or to discuss the problems that may be connected with it openly for fear of tarnishing or breaking it in the process. Sir, it was like an encased trophy. And because of this, there may exist among some of us at least certain assumptions or perceptions about other groups or other faiths which we prefer to keep to ourselves and command our actions rather than to discuss them with others to ascertain whether they are right. This Green Paper suggests that we take this trophy out of its protective covering for us to see, to touch, to explore if there are flaws or other valuable facets which we may have missed. I fully agree to this suggestion, for only then can we achieve full appreciation and understanding of what it means and whether we can make it better. However, I would like to emphasize that in our being frank and in our being open in our discussion of religion and race, we should do so with great care and sensitivity. Inter-racial and inter-religious harmony is so fragile, so unpredictable. The evidence around the world underscores this. It takes very little to spark off trouble because we are essentially dealing with something we are born as and cannot get out of, or something which we believe determines our eternal salvation. So our attitudes when dealing with race or religion should therefore be to seek to understand, not to prejudge; to soothe rather than to hurt. We will need to shed whatever prejudices or stereotypes we may have, because as long as we cling on to them, there can never be real openness or any solutions. I feel it is not enough for us to merely accept multi-racialism, and multi-religionism. We must want it. We may be a little awkward in our initial attempts at handling ethnic and religious issues openly. But I believe that with the right attitudes, enough experience and commitment, we can succeed in our goals. For me, Sir, my own dream is for a Singapore with its multiplicity of races and religions without any form of chauvinism, without any form of bigotry; diverse yet one. Let me now come to the next issue, and that is on means and ends. Sir, in the 60's and 70's when we strove to build proper homes for Singaporeans trapped in slums and squatter settlements; when we had to clear land for the needed factories and offices; when we had to start a credible defence machinery to fill the void left by the British, our needs and our goals were urgent. Our very survival was at risk. The ends justified the means we employed then, painful as they might have been to many Singaporeans. But now, Sir, these urgencies are no more and the Vision in this Green Paper is testimony of our desire and readiness to achieve beyond our basic concerns. The scenario has changed together with the attributes of our population. And so must our methods. Sir, no one can seriously quibble about the general goals we have set for ourselves. What we will have to consider now is to see whether the means which we adopt - our policies and the way we project and implement them, our civil servants and the way they deal with the public - will enable us to achieve these ends. Some Singaporeans generally doubt that these goals can be fully achieved unless the conditions, and atmosphere, for their achievement are present. If we want to develop, and I quote from the Paper, "into a lively, vibrant nation, full of ideas and creativity" or, to quote from another section, where "we want Singaporeans to make decisions for ourselves and have a stronger sense of control over our own lives", then, Sir, an environment for these to happen must be put in place. Someone said to me, many times Government's good intentions suffered (yes, suffered) because it tries too hard and too seriously. He was, of course, being facetious with his words. But, Sir, his message was serious, more serious now than it has ever been because of changing circumstances and because of the very characteristics we wish our society to possess in future. Now the means may be just as crucial as the ends. We should not therefore dismiss this viewpoint. So while we accept these goals, and these are excellent goals, in my view, we should also in tandem prepare the suitable means to reach them. This is one area we will have to seriously address ourselves to. At this point, Sir, let me stress that I am not for one moment suggesting that we go along as if we are free from the challenges, free from the constraints outlined in the Green Paper. And I certainly hope that Singaporeans share these concerns with us. But I believe, Sir, that even within these limiting boundaries we still have some considerable leeway to act in consonance with our goals. To be fair, there is already a discernible trend in this direction. I think this holds a lot of promise. We can do more, and I am confident that we can succeed. As I said earlier, Sir, this Agenda is like a breath of fresh air.

I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I sat there and listened to the First Deputy Prime Minister, I am still not very clear in regard to the Member for Kampong Glam, Minister for Law, and the Prime Minister himself. What is their position? Will they or will they not be standing in the next General Elections? You said as regards Mr Barker, he is "easy either way". What does that mean? He can either stand; he cannot stand. But then you said, there will be no old guards in a couple of years in the Cabinet. We are about to discuss a very important document and it says here, "We have to be open and frank about it". But you are speaking in such vague tones. You left me with a doubt as to exactly what their positions will be in the next elections. Can you please clarify before I make my speech?

Do you wish to clarify now, Mr Goh?

Yes, very quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I said very clearly the Senior Minister has said that he would not be contesting the next General Elections. He said that that was his last birthday celebration in Kampong Glam. I said that he could be wrong because he could be celebrating another birthday in Kampong Glam, next year perhaps. If Chiam is unable to follow me, I will elaborate to say that the elections is not due for quite some time yet. Now we come to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that he will be phasing himself out as Prime Minister. I said that he will be phasing himself out of the Cabinet and within a couple of years the old pilots will not be in the cockpit. Now we come to Mr Barker. I said he is easy either way, which means that if we leave it to Mr Barker he will leave it to the party. If we decide that he should stand for election, he will be happy to carry on. If we decide that he should perhaps retire, he would also be happy to go along. I made the remark that within a couple of years there will be no Members of the old guard in Cabinet. It could be that they could still be in Parliament, but not in Cabinet.

I do not think this is a good start to debate on the Agenda for Action with such vagueness from the side of the Government. Anything could happen. So although the Prime Minister says that he will be stepping down but he will still be holding the reins of power. Is that not true? Or will there be an election of a President after or before the next General Elections? This is the problem with the PAP. They say that they want to be open and frank but in actual fact they are really not. So the PAP's credibility is always in question. We have got one of the topics as population problem. I think the PAP should come out openly and admit their mistake that this population problem is created by them. They are the ones who come out strongly, "Stop at two", with all kinds of draconian administrative punishments for those who dare to have more than two children. Now they say we have a problem. I think the whole of Singapore can see that. As regards excellence in education, the PAP have got full control, absolute control, of the education system in Singapore. It has got a central control. If there is any problems, the finger squarely points at them also. We have got 600,000 of our workers who cannot have an elementary numeracy and literacy. In fact, all the other NICs are ahead of us as far as workers' education is concerned. I read recently that 50% of our applicants to the University each year cannot get a place in our University. Do you call that excellence in education? In most of the developed countries like Australia and New Zealand, I think the university ratio to the population is about one to every 500,000. So if we go by their standard, we should have four or five universities in Singapore, and every one who wants to get into the university should have a place. Why should you limit the intake to your needs of manpower? I think that is a bad policy. I think anyone who wants to train his mind, to cultivate his mind, whatever he is going to do afterwards, should be given a chance. Because we never know. It does not mean that if you go in and do an Engineering course, you must come out to be an engineer. He may want to do something else. So the process of going into the university is just the training of the mind. In fact, that was the British tradition. Teach people to think, teach people to create, leadership. These are the qualities that we want to go into the university for. We come to this Maria Hertogh issue. This is a judgment value. Of course the Malays were incensed because they felt that one of their members of the community had been taken by another community. It was a Malay affair. But that was in 1950, a time after the Second World War when people were against the colonial power, when feelings were definitely wanting to have freedom, to better their lives. So any little incident could spark it off. But the true reason is that the people wanted to overthrow the colonial power. It is political and they want to have a better economic life. They want to get along. That is my analysis of the Maria Hertogh case. But if you want to say that it was based entirely, 100%, on race, it is up to you to say so. You can have your opinion on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I offer the Member for Potong Pasir a point of information?

Please do not interrupt me.

Are you giving way?

I am not giving way.

I am sorry, General Lee. Continue, Mr Chiam.

Let me have my say. You have got plenty of time. You will be given full opportunity to speak. I did not know that the Opposition were invited to participate in the so-called National Agenda. As far as I know, I was unaware of it. But in any event, to us it was not a National Agenda. It was a PAP Agenda, the purpose of which is nothing more nothing less, just electioneering. The Agenda for Action makes nice reading. But it is not effective. It is hollow in respect of nation building. It appears to be giving a lot but it gives nothing. Its main purpose is to keep the PAP in power indefinitely. The main priority at this stage of Singapore's development is to open up our society, just like Gorbachev in Russia. He realised the need to open up Russian society. So too we in Singapore must open up our society. We cannot be forever an authoritarian state. We cannot remain a colony forever. Our people are hardworking, our people are intelligent, we are capable of attaining greater heights in our social, political, economic development. We are no longer in the 60's, 70's. We are in the 80's. Two-thirds of our voters at the last General Elections are the ones who have not voted the PAP into power in 1959. Singapore today is not the Singapore of the old guard of the PAP. This fact must be driven home to the PAP old guard leaders. I am not just talking about the change of the physical face of Singapore. I am referring to the present population of Singapore. Singaporeans today are definitely better educated, better travelled, more efficient, property owning, more knowing, more knowledgeable.

Who made that?

Mr Prime Minister, if you want to claim the credit, fair enough. I think it is for the people to say so, Mr Prime Minister, but I give you credit for much of what you have done. But like the English tradition, leaders normally know when to step down and when they step down in the proper time, it is just like saying, this is just by way of saying, if you visit somebody it is better to leave 10 minutes earlier than to be driven out. I am not saying that you are visiting Singapore, Mr Prime Minister. But I am saying that if you leave in the proper time, when you are no longer here, your statues will be all over Singapore.

You are going to put one up?

Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the people of Singapore are more knowing, more knowledgeable, with high expectations and the people of Singapore are responsible. I do not think that Singaporeans today will go down to the streets and riot. They will not overturn cars, break windows, kill people, unless of course you are saying that they are mad. But Singaporeans are not mad. Singaporeans today want to get on. They want to get on to build the nation, to build the economy, to create, to innovate. They want to write freely. They want to speak out without fear. But they cannot do all these things without some apprehension. Many feel that the Government is in their way. We have a strict paternalistic Government. The Government takes the attitude that it only knows best. Many people perceive that anyone who speaks out against the Government policies will be victimized, will be punished. They fear that they will lose their jobs or they cannot get the licences they want or carry on the business they are doing or want to do. Many in this House will think that because I am in the Opposition I am speaking all these unfavourable things of the Government. What I am saying are not my perceptions. They are the responses to the Minister for Communications and Information when he called on academics to come out into the open to take part in politics. Their responses were published in the Straits Times of 14th February 1988. I shall read some of them. A finance director in a public company, in his mid-30s, who did not want to be named, had this to say: 'I doubt that Dr Yeo's call will have much effect. By and large, we are afraid to break our rice bowls and afraid of the immediate reaction of our superiors if we speak up. People, especially the older folk, always tell us that it is better not to say too much to the Government. [This is Asian value for you. Old people said you better do not get involved in Government affairs.] The Government's approach seems to be that if you say something, you are out to persuade the public to your point of view. So it has a tendency to over-react and have the last say. People generally tend to think that if the Government says you're a fool, then you're a fool. To encourage more people to come out, there should be more such calls backed by action, or rather, lack of reaction by the Government.' There you are! It is not the Opposition who is speaking. This is a finance director in a public company. [Mr S. Chandra Das interrupted.] I do not know. His name is not given. Then we have a top level banker, in his early 40s, also preferred not to be named. 'I don't think the Government blacklists people, but Singaporeans still remember the turbulent past when the Government came down hard on communists and racialists. I think people are afraid to speak out because in Singapore, if you suffer a public embarrassment, you have got no place to ... hide yourself.' So there is some apprehension there. Then we have got an Associate Professor Yu Wei Shin, 39, of NTI's School of Mechanical and Production Engineering. She says: 'Show that people who hold different views are treated kindly and this would encourage others to speak up. Differences of thought and speech must be allowed. Getting involved in politics? The apathy that is seen in the general membership of some professional bodies hold a direct parallel to participation in politics.' So there is apathy, fear. Political participation amongst the public in general has been smothered by the PAP. Almost the whole of our population has been depoliticized. School children, university students are told, "Don't take part in politics. Just study and pass your exams." So you come out with very narrow views.

Except you?

Otherwise I would not be here, would I? Associate Professor Yu said "apathy is seen in the general membership of some professional bodies." I would say that apathy has set in on all professional bodies after some of the Council members of the Law Society of Singapore were grilled in front of the television cameras by Members of the Select Committee who were looking into the amendments to the Legal Profession Act. The public proceedings of that Select Committee were broadcast nationwide by SBC. That was the sort of treatment meted out to members of a prestigious professional body which dared to criticize laws made by the Government. After that kind of treatment, who dares to speak up? What about the professionals who were last year hauled in by the Government, detained under the Internal Security Act and made to confess publicly, again in front of television cameras, on their alleged Marxist conspiracy? These types of draconian action on the part of the Government against professionals are aimed at terrifying the professionals in particular and the public in general. Then we have this Minister again visiting the University as if nothing had happened and enthusiastically calling on academics to come forward and take part in politics. I say that this Agenda for Action will not be accepted by the public, not because of its contents but because of the fact that the people of Singapore in general no longer believe in the Government. The credibility of the Government is very much in question. The Government has packaged the Agenda for Action very nicely, very attractively and, of course, the PAP will launch it as its programme in the next General Elections. But the question is: will the people be won over to it? If the Government is sincere, it has to assure the people of Singapore that it will not tamper with the Constitution just to make sure that it stays in power. It has to assure the people of Singapore that it believes in the western style of parliamentary democracy. The best way it can do this is to incorporate in the Agenda that the Government believes that there is a place for genuine opposition in Parliament and not the NCMPs and that it will institutionalize opposition in the Singapore Parliament. When the Government does that, the people will then surely believe in the PAP. How can there be democracy in Singapore if there were no real effective Opposition in Parliament?

That is your fault.

I cannot even move a motion. The Government says in the Agenda it wants "representative democracy". This is not matched by the Government's action. The Government has refused to hold two by-elections at Anson and Geylang West. In those two constituencies which became vacant more than a year ago, the residents have been deprived of their representation in Parliament. Where is your representative democracy? They were not allowed to choose a representative of their choice. Further, with the proposed group representation constituencies, voters in the GRCs will be deprived the right to elect a representative of their own choice.

Order, Mr Chiam. The question of GRCs is a subject matter of a Bill which is now referred to a Select Committee. It is out of order for you to discuss this matter on this question.

All right. I will take that. The question that is uppermost in our minds is: why do we need a democratic environment in Singapore? The reason is that without this prerequisite condition, Singapore can never attain the present Swiss standard of living in 1999, in particular, now that Singapore has been graduated out of the GSP in America, effective next year. We are going to be classed a developed country. So we have to compete equally with Japan, America, Germany and the other European countries. They have got a democratic system in which their citizens are able to exercise their talent to the fullest under such an environment. It may be of interest to this House that since the Swiss standard of living was taken as a standard, the Swiss were already practising democracy in the mid-1800s. I think in 1846 there was already one canton practising the system of referendum. If there is an important Government decision, they could ask for a referendum. So they have democracy more than 100 years ago. I thought that maybe they had democracy only 15 years prior to 1984 but, in fact, they had a democratic way of life many, many decades ago. In fact, referendum is part of their system. So they have the prerequisite for conditions to really grow and attain the heights they want. I am sure the people of Singapore like to see Singapore attain the present Swiss standand of living in 1999. Why not? It is a good target. The Government should give them an opportunity to do so by practising true democracy in Singapore and not only pay lip service to it. This morning I was reading the papers about an interview given by the Prime Minister to a German journalist. One thing struck me. A Singapore worker is very efficient. She was paid $1,000 a month (about $1,300 was given there. I remember $1,300). But the productivity, she could produce goods 10 times that amount. An hon. Member: 100 times.

Was it 100? Anyway, it was tremendous value-added. The lesson is that if our Singaporeans were given a chance to run a Singapore concern instead of Nixdorf, a German concern, but a wholly-owned Singapore concern, think of the amount of money that we will be earning. [Laughter.] I do not think we should laugh. I think Singaporeans are capable of attaining this standard. We have got brilliant people in Singapore. Why not?

We've got Chiam See Tong!

Well, that is a start. Thank you.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, speaking on the Agenda for Action, I am reminded of the Singapore situation towards the end of 1950's and the early 1960's. At that time there was a kind of an Agenda for Action entitled "The Tasks Ahead -PAP's Five-Year Plan 1959-1964". That document constituted a national development policy, well-formulated, and opening a new era and a new phase for the people of Singapore at that time. Considering that the population of Singapore at that time was rather backward, the PAP Five-Year Plan could be considered to be far ahead of its time. It was more detailed and very realistic. No other political party at that time could present a manifesto to match the PAP Five-Year Plan. The characteristics of society in the 50's and the 60's were much more different from that prevailing today. Many of the people were poor and backward. Population was about 1.5 million people, the Birth rate was high, about 65,000 per year and the economy was still based on entrepot trade. Its political situation was unstable. In short, Singapore at that time was an under-developed country that had inherited a large population, facing low employment rates, a very small percentage of home-owner, a multifarious system of education, and sluggish economic growth. To overcome all these problems, the PAP Five-Year Plan presented a nine-point policy. This covered problems facing women, education, labour, trade unions and social security, economic policy, housing, rural development, health, the restructuring of government administration and national development which at that time was termed towards a Malayan nation. Mr Deputy Speaker, that was the PAP vision at that time. That was the PAP National Agenda at that time. That was the PAP's promise to the people of Singapore of that era. What is the PAP Government's promise to the people of Singapore today? The promise is contained in the Agenda for Action that we are debating today. This promise far exceeds the nine-point promise of the PAP Five-Year Plan. It is more comprehensive. It is more serious and intense. It is more solid. It is not intended for only five years. It is for 20 or 30 years ahead. It is not intended for one community or race, but for all races. It does not just fulfil domestic needs, but also responds to the possibility of having to face external challenges as well. Compared with the previous PAP Five-Year Plan, this Agenda for Action has one special characteristic. The Five-Year Plan was presented in a somewhat raw state to the people. The people gave no reactions, opinions or made any modifications to it. On the other hand, this Agenda for Action has been tooled and tempered, sculpted and smelted, discussed and digested, refined and distilled, and fathomed and grasped by the people. It represents the climax of the aims aspirations and goals of the Government and the people together. It is a tower of vision supported by two grand pillars and reinforced by 10 joints of development. The grand pillars are the Goals and Challenges while the joints of development are the ten headings, from Nation Building to Limits of Growth as contained in the Agenda. This Agenda for Action clearly is a reflection of the culture of the modern society of Singapore. It is in harmony and in accordance with the political,economic and social characteristics of modern Singapore. The drumbeat struck by the young people of today is the rhythm to which the new generation leaders would have to dance. We realize that the Singapore of the 50's and 60's is not the same as the Singapore of the 80's or 90's. But every era presents not only new problems of its age but also creates its own challenges. In this regard, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to touch on one or two challenges mentioned in the Agenda. Ever since Singapore gained independence, we have been able to maintain our political stability. Our political patterns and rhythms have been coloured and modified by the socio-political climate of Singapore. A political scientist, in his book Governing Singapore, recently described Singapore's political stability as follows. (In English) 'Singapore, thanks to the achievements of the PAP, has progressed far beyond that Third World environment of politics. Politics in Singapore is operated at a more rational level. In the general atmosphere of vitality, dynamism and prosperity, people are not attracted to destructive Third World politics. Race relationships remain manageable and an atmosphere of live-and-let-live prevails.' (In Malay) How has political stability remained in Singapore all these time? It is because we practise constructive politics and not destructive politics. Politics is only a social weapon or tool. The user must be capable of using the tool and not allow as in the Malay proverb, "Senjata makan tuan", i.e. the tool turning against its master. The secret is in the wielder not using the sharpness of the political weapon to carve the body of the society to cause fatal blood-letting. What this means is that political freedom must not be misused to undermine public peace to such an extent that it results in bloodshed. The Government firmly believes in this principle of political stability. One leader of the second generation leadership was reported to have said: (In English) 'We have placed a lid on politics. We do not allow political freedoms to the fullest extent in two areas. One, where you can cause a communal threat, incite communalism and tear apart the society. We will never allow anybody to incite communalism. The fear of communalism will always remain in Singapore and, therefore, we can never relax on this. Second, we will not allow the communists the freedom to destroy what we have created.' (In Malay) Mr Deputy Speaker, with regard to the threat of communalism prevailing today, which is still under control, it has a lot to do with racial harmony. The prerequisite of racial harmony is mutual respect and tolerance between the multi-racial communities of Singapore. Mutual respect and tolerance requires that we do not raise anything that may offend the feelings of the other races. More importantly, we need to be careful and cautious so as not to ridicule the cultural traditions and religious practices of any race. If we are unable to appreciate the traditions or religious practices of the other races, we should avoid giving descriptions or interpretations that may give rise to misunderstanding or may be misconstrued by others. Such an attitude would ensure and preserve racial harmony. Racial harmony as it exists today in Singapore does not mean each community being concerned only with its own interests, with no regard for national interests. Apart from emphasizing the beauty of our cultural mosaic, we must also foster loyalty together towards the country. Where the survival of Singapore is concerned every community must be united and not divided. This was emphasized in an interview given by the Prime Minister with Raj Vasil: (In English) 'What we can do is to create a situation in which on the fundamental issues, those vital for the survival of the community, of the nation, there are no differences or divergence of interest or opinion. Whether you are of Chinese, Indian, Malay, Eurasian or Ceylonese descent, when it comes to the survival of Singapore, we must all be one, that is, Singapore must be defended and her interests upheld for everyone's benefit. On that, there can be no disagreement' (In Malay) I said earlier that this Agenda is the Government's promise to the people of Singapore. It is aimed, of course, at all levels of society in Singapore. I am very happy to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister saying in this Agenda that while Singapore progresses, different communities may not progress at the same rate. He added with a call to the people of Singapore to try their best to help the rather slower communities to progress so as to enable every community to fully participate in the mainstream of our national life, whether in the economy, politics or social aspects. We know that one community which is rather slow in its progress is the Malay community. The key to accelerating the progress of this community lies in upgrading its educational status. About six years ago, in May 1982, the Government gave its blessings to the formation of Mendaki. Its blessings was given because the function and task of Mendaki is to upgrade the educational level of Muslim children. Considering that one of the goals under this Agenda, Human Resources and Education, is a challenging one, it is my hope that the Government will reinforce its support and assistance to Mendaki. In the coming decades, the issue of education among the Malays will not be free from negative social problems and, therefore, I hope Mendaki would in future be expanded in its role to cover other aspects that might hinder the progress of Malay children in education. So it is important that the Mendaki machinery be strengthened and expanded so that it would be in the position to address and fulfil the increasingly pressing needs in the education of the Malays in future. I am expressing this hope to the First Deputy Prime Minister as the prime mover of the Agenda for Action. Whatever he has stated in this Agenda, I believe he and his colleagues would put them into action, as we say in Malay: Kerbau di-pegang talinya. Manusia di-pegang janjinya. (The buffalo is held by its reins, but Man is held by his promises.) That is all, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope the Agenda would achieve excellent results.

Order. I now suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm

Debate resumed.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Agenda for Action generally reflects the wishes of our people. The Government is now determined to realize the goals enumerated in the Agenda for Action, and it calls for full support from all. I would like to point out that in the coming two decades when the Government tries to achieve the goals of a society of distinction, it would mean that our process of nation building would be as fast as what has been done in the past and there will be even more intense competition among the professionals and the educated and the diverse personnel. There will be a greater gap between success and failure. Therefore, there will come into play the ever popular stress on utilitarianism. Under these circumstances, those who are successful, those who have advanced to the front, will become heroes and are pillars of the nation and supports of the society. Their position will be high and their income will be high too, enjoying high standard of living. On the other hand, those who are behind, those who have failed, who are disappointed, wounded, lost and feel dejected, these people living on this small and densely populated island will not be able to find a place to live in peace with stability and may not be able to bring up their children with ease, their livelihood would be very tough. However, Sir, I support those who are successful such as the bankers, industrialists, the generals, the artists, the literati, doctors, lawyers, etc. We should encourage all such successful people so that they may remain in Singapore and enjoy better living taking Singapore as a paradise for them, to enable them to contribute further to Singapore. We should let them have added benefits and opportunity to stay high in our society. At the same time we should help and lend a hand to those who have failed, those who have forever not been able to follow up to such people. Give them some sympathy, give them some needy help in their difficulties to enable them to overcome their difficulties so that our society can become a successful society a society as one that has warmth and compassion, even viewed by the world, unlike the western selfish and mercenary variety. Therefore, I appreciate very much what is recorded in this Green Paper on page 4, paragraph 15, which says that we should be a compassionate society as what the First Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out that Singapore should be for all Singaporeans. Only thus can Singapore be the more successful and the more prosperous and can progress further so that all of us can regard our neighbours as our brothers within the four seas so that there will be compassion and warmth among our society and the world at large. On this point, I support the motion.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the topic of our discussion "The Agenda for Action" is concerned with the critical task of nation building. As the earlier speaker pointed out, how we do this very important. Our economic progress in the last thirty years is evident, but higher living standards are only a means to an end, not the end itself. We should strive for a society of distinction where there is not only affluence but also vigour and vitality, discipline and concern for others. To attain these objectives, the following conditions must be met. Firstly, there must be economic security. In many Third World Countries, severe economic difficulties exist. There is widespread poverty as well as massive foreign debt. Their governments are corrupt and totally incapable of meeting the basic needs of the people. Their people become restless. It is, therefore, clear that a pre-requisite for a society of distinction is the provision of adequate housing and meaningful jobs for the people. Secondly, our environmental health is still less than ideal in spite of the success in cleaning up the environment. Last year, I met a Japanese tourist at a food centre who told me that he had been deeply impressed by Singapore. However, he was disgusted by the state of our public toilets. I think the Ministry of the Environment should do more to solve the problem. Moreover, the conditions of the lifts in the HDB estates leave much to be desired. These examples reveal the shortcomings in our social development. Apart from the efforts made by the Government and the community leaders, we should educate our younger generation on the importance of good social behaviour. Earlier on, the MP for Henderson mentioned the emergence of a materialistic attitude. It is, perhaps, inevitable in the business world. In an attempt to increase productivity, some people will try to obtain maximum gains with minimum efforts. In USA, 'covert' operations have become common. The President sold arms secretly. On Wall Street, a banker sold confidential information and engaged in insider trading. Even evangelistic preachers indulged in scandalous pursuits. Is it an ideal society that considers money more important than morality and the price of an item more relevant than its value? We may use these as lessons for us in the process of nation building. Human relationships form the foundation of our society. In the course of rapid social changes, what will be the effect on these relationships? Will familial relationships and friendships be affected? Broken families and single-parent families have become more common. These have brought untold misery to the young. Therefore, in striving for a society of distinction, we should focus greater attention to these social trends. If a talented person disregards social issues and has no time for those who are less fortunate, then what kind of person is he? I agree with the Member for Henderson who said we should pay more attention to the less fortunate, the handicapped, the aged sick and consider carefully whether we have given them sufficient assistance. In the last thirty years, we have concentrated on economic development and paid less attention to this matter. But I hope that from now on more effective assistance will be given to them. A society of distinction does not mean golfing, yachting or playing various games only. We should spend our leisure hours well by cultivating a wide range of interests. In particular, we should promote the reading habit. Once again, I appeal to the authorities to open the national library and its branches on Sundays. Our people should be able to go to the libraries to read and spend their leisure hours meaningfully instead of wasting time at the shopping centres or roaming about on the streets. A healthy mind should go with a healthy body. In this regard, the promotion of sports by the government should be stepped up. More could be one. In the years to come, all of us have to work hard and together we will achieve a society of distinction by the year 1999.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to present my views and opinions on the Agenda for Action presented by the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, as a Green Paper - Agenda for Action, Goals and Challenges. It contains specific goals to be achieved by our nation and the challenges to be faced in the coming decades. For three decades under the PAP Government, Singaporeans have enjoyed a standard of living which we can all be proud of. In fact, our achievements have greatly impressed many other countries. We should remember that all our achievements are the result of the positive attitude of both sides, ie, the Government and the people. Ever since gaining power, the Government has from the very beginning given priority to national and social development. Working in accordance with the principles of democracy, the Government has overcome challenge after challenge through comprehensive planning. Under the guidance of this astute leadership, and with perseverance and dedication, we have attained the heights of success which were at first viewed sceptically by others, both outside and in the country. Singaporeans have so far shown a rational attitude in facing important and sensitive issues affecting their lives. It was this positive attitude and this determination that enabled us to build a strong and stable nation. As such, let us all maintain this positive attitude, prepare ourselves, take the necessary steps, movein the same direction, towards further improving the nation's economic performance as well as upgrading the economy of all our people in order to guarantee a brigther future, not only for ourselves but also for our children and our future generation. The Green Paper, the Agenda for Action, Goals and Challenges has outlined the basis for our future, The way of life we want in the 1990's. All of us surely want a nation and society of excellence by the year 1999. Thus, I would like to call on all Singaporeans from all walks of life to work together and offer full support for all the proposals presented in the Green Paper. Thesedocuments, which may appear ordinary on the surface, are actually a very important working paper because the successful implementation of these proposals will determine our way of life and standard of living in the future. With total dedication, with careful planning, and with specific programmes, I am confident our younger leaders will be able to implement successfully everything that has been outlined in the Green Paper. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have successfully created a harmonious society. We must continue our efforts to nurture tolerance in our multi-racial society in Singapore. We must live (Malay proverb) like the bamboo clump and the river bank, i.e. in an atmosphere of mutual help. In this way we can continue moving forward and enjoying the fruits of our common efforts. Now I would like to touch on education and manpower. Earlier it was stated by the Member for Potong Pasir that 500 or 600 thousand of our workers did not possess a PSLE. Actually these are remnants of those under the colonial government. These are old workers who had been sacrificed by history because opportunities for them to enjoy education like what our children are now enjoying did not exist then. These people are those above 40 years of age and it is not the fault of the PAP Government that they are not educated. In education age should not be an obstacle. As long as we have the will, we should continue to further one's education. We need to continue with our efforts for a better life, while not neglecting our respective responsibilities to our families, communities, cultures, languages and religions. With regard to employment, workers should be willing to upgrade their skills. We do realize that among the older workers, it is difficult to obtain another job once they are retrenched due to economic recession or technological developments. They must have the will, the positive attitude, the desire to undergo retraining or further training provided either at their places of work or by the VITB. I would like to urge the Government to give more attention to the future of older workers whose means of income have been affected by economic recession or technological developments, which are taking place at a rather rapid pace in our country. Mr Deputy Speaker, page 7 of the Green Paper touches on Social and Cultural Development. I fully support the idea to build a nation that is not only excellent but also where the people are Vibrant, full of enthusiasm, happy and creative. There is no doubt that culture is a factor which can help us to establish a better and more gracious society. I would like to add that there is another aspect that require earnest, organised efforts and wide-ranging measures. I am referring to sports and recreation. The goal is to have more of our people, especialy the youths participating in this healthy activity. Sports is a means to not only physical fitness and but also towards closer ties among all levels in our multi-racial society. Indeed, it can promote closer ties among neighbouring countries in the region. If in the past we have achieved excellence through our sporting greats, such as Wong Peng Soon, Neo Chwee Kok, Tan Howe Liang, C. Kunalan, Awang Bakar, Dollah Kassim, Quah Kim Song, Peter Hill, Zainal Abidin, Patricia Chan, Junie Sng, Ang Peng Siong and many others, why can't we in the coming years produce such famous champions to be the idols for our youths to emulate. Thank you.

( In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, let me say that it is necessary for me to rebut the equivocations the Member for Potong Pasir uttered this morning. The Member for Potong Pasir agreed that this document is very important. But he did not touch on the contents of it and he also did not explain why it is important. Let me explain to him that this document is important because it has been compiled after one whole year's consultation between the Government and the people. Secondly, this document will become the basis of Government's policy and nation building for the coming decades. Therefore, it is obviously very important. The Member for Potong Pasir, he is not here now, when making his speech this morning, said that Singaporeans dare not express their opinions. He also quoted certain remarks of members of public quoted in the English newspapers to support his argument. I feel it is wrong to generalize on just a few examples. As a Member of the Feedback Unit Supervisory Panel dealing with public opinion or feedbacks, for one whole year I had the opportunity to have dialogues and discussions with people from all walks of life, including professionals. We have found that the people of Singapore are not like what he has said, who dare not express their views. On the contrary, they have willingly expressed their views on the National Agenda and Policies, bluntly and constructively. Maybe there are a few people who dare not openly express their views or who dare not disclose their identity, fearing there might be some undesirable consequences to blunt expression or such disclosure. Perhaps there may exist such people. Some people just dare not frankly express their opinion in public in the open without qualms. Let me give my views on the motion before us today. In the past 25 years, our older generation, namely our parent's generation and leaders of that generation had strived very hard to make Singapore what it is today, a well founded and modern middle-class society. They have been able to achieve this admirable position for Singapore because they had far-sightedness, they had idealism for a better future and they had common objectives. They were able to work together, struggle together and they strived hard through thick and thin and overcame all difficulties and challenges unstingingly with concerted efforts and undaunting spirit so that they have achieved a Singapore of the present status. This is the success factor, due to the single-mindedness and self sacrificing joint effort of our parent's generation, all the people on the one hand and the Government on the other hand that has made the present Singapore. Should a country have no common objectives for the people, there would be internal disputes among the people and there would be internecine trouble, division in the country and social disintegration, dragging the country down, as the people are not able to be united in their common objectives and in nation building but spend their time in petty squabbles, causing their countries to be divided and ruined. That is why certain countries in the world have landed themselves in civil wars, turmoils, poverty and other troubles. Now we can enjoy what we have today, we are fortunate and should be grateful to what had taken place in the past, that is through the efforts of our parent's generation and the Government so that today we can enjoy a better standard of living. Just to say thank you is not enough. As younger generation and as a younger Singaporeans, our more important task is to try to preserve what we have inherited from the older generation and at the same time try to develop further. Today we are at a very important juncture of history of our country, at a very important turning point. The older generation had contributed their effort in their spring time. Now most of them have retired. The older political leaders are now also preparing to transfer their political burden and duties which they had shouldered for the past three decades to the second generation leaders. To sum up, the pioneering generation have fulfilled their common objectives and vision of some three decades ago and they have fulfilled their historical part for them to play. The new tasks will inevitably be falling on the shoulders of the younger generation. What has been created and the foundation laid by the older generation will have to be carried forward by the younger generation. To create a heritage is difficult, to preserve it is not less difficult. But if the younger Singaporeans cannot preserve what has been created and passed down to us, then we will be failing in our duty as Singapore will be degenerating. Therefore I say it is now an important turning point in our history. To preserve the heritage, the younger generation, including the people and the leaders, must have definite common goal and common idealism. At the same time, in order to realize this common goal and ideal, we should strive together with concerted efforts and there must be rapport and mutual trust between the Government and the people and a spirit of comradeship between them. An important question is "Is there a common ideal and common goal between the younger generation and the younger leaders?" The answer is "yes", as evidenced in this piece of document which contains the common goal and common ideal that have been derived from one whole year's consultation and discussion. It is not something that has come out from nowhere or without any foundation. Our aim is to continue to build a harmonious multi-racial society. We want to achieve better economic development and progress and also we want to build a more cultured, excellent society based on the present material foundation on which we are also striving to achieve a better spiritual life. This is our ideal which is also the concrete result that we have gathered for National Agenda from the people over the past one year. Therefore, this document represents the wishes and the aspirations of our younger generation who not just aspire to inherit what is left over to them but also want to develop further and improve on what is already existing, to build a better Singapore. With common goal and ideal it is a good beginning. Following this, the greatest trial for the younger generation and leaders and the greatest test is whether the younger Singaporeans and the political leaders can jointly realize this common ideal and goal with zeal, concerted effort and undaunting spirit just as what the older generation had done before us.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I was reading the Green Paper on the Agenda for Action - Goals and Challenges - a basic theme leaps out from the pages, ie, people, people and people. This is a people-oriented document. It covers the issues facing Singapore comprehensively but the thread that ties all these issues together is the focus on the people of Singapore on the full development of their potential as individuals as well as members of a nation. That this is so is not surprising at all since the document is a summary of a nationwide discussion that has been going on at every level of the society. It represents the distillation of the thoughts of thousands of Singaporeans, ordinary Singaporeans, men and women who make Singapore what it is today. It contains the aspirations for themselves and for Singapore. I believe all of us in this Chamber, including the Member for Potong Pasir, will find that in this document we are listening to the voices of the people of Singapore. Of the issues discussed in the Green Paper, I shall restrict my comment to only a few. On education, I believe this Paper echoes the aspirations of every Singaporean when it states in no uncertain terms that each member of the Singapore society shall be given the maximum opportunity to achieve his or her potential and that no student shall ever be denied an education he deserves for lack of money. The Ministry of Education is already introducing innovations in our education system by the implementation of the concept of independent schools. Besides this, I believe we should pursue the improvement of our schools at every level. For instance, we have reached a point in the evolution of our education system that a double-session school system is probably no longer appropriate for the optimum development of our students. We should implement expeditiously the full session school for secondary schools as well as extending this concept to the primary schools. Sure, such a step will be very costly but I believe it will be worth it as our future generations are involved. Recently, there also emerged public opinion calling for a review of our university admission policy. In the past, the number of university students has always been tied directly to manpower projections. This is a prudent policy. However, historical data have shown that the projections have been conservative year after year. This not only has led to a tight market for university students, graduates in general, but also in engineering and computer professionals in particular. Besides higher labour cost for these skills, this conservative forecast has resulted in aspiring students going overseas for education for those whose families can support them. How about those who are less fortunate? Hence, the recurrent calls to use CPF for education. As a result, to fill our needs in manpower, foreign graduates are hired to fill existing vacancies. I would call on the Government to work on getting the manpower projections to be done more accurately. If we were to be more aggressive in these projections and err on the liberal side, I think we should. From past experience, the chance of large numbers of unemployed graduates is low if Singapore continues to manage its economy well and achieves good economic growth. On the building of a technological society, the use of modern technology in our society should be continued and accelerated. Since the growth of our population is limited, economic growth that funds future developments must come from increased productivity through the use of modern technology in every sphere of our activities, computer being only one aspect of this. Communications is another. For instance, we should introduce toll-free international telephone service in Singapore to promote the service-oriented industries. New services, such as Cellular radio telephones and teleview services should also be introduced aggressively to improve our productivity. On the subject of creativity, I believe the ability to be creative is inherent in our people. Right now, however, owing to the relentless pressure to excel in school, most children devote their energies in academic pursuit. This has resulted in the pressure-cooker syndrome in our education system. In fact, one of the reasons for some of our professionals to migrate to other countries is precisely this. So the question is: do we really want our children to grow up without the experience of joy of childhood where they only remember the rigours of school work? I believe, as we move into a more cultured society where people of all skills can make a comfortable living, the pressure to train everyone either as an engineer, a doctor or a lawyer, shall abate somewhat. This Green Paper calls for the promotion of arts and culture. We should evolve into a society where people who enrich our cultural life can make a reasonable living, just like the SSO musicians who are now making a reasonable living. However, most of these musicians are non-Singaporeans. Perhaps an SSO scholarship scheme should be introduced for aspiring young Singapore musicians. The very fact that we have foreign musicians is a very clear indication that we did not cultivate our own talent 20 years ago. Surely, we should not be in the same position 20 years hence. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Paper forms the basis for the future development of Singapore. I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have noted that a few Members have commented on the matter of the University's admission policy, just now by the Member for Bukit Timah, this morning by the Member for Potong Pasir, and also recently by our Parliamentary Estimates Committee. I feel, Sir, that it would not be out of place for me to say a few words this afternoon to clarify the Government's stand on this very important matter, a subject which is not only important to Members of this House but also to students in our schools and to the parents. Sir, I wish to state quite clearly and without any equivocation so that there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that it is the policy of the Government to admit to the NUS every student who can qualify for admission and can make it through university. Sir, this has always been our policy. This is our policy today and this will continue to be our policy. It only makes sense. We are a small nation a country of 2(r) million people with no natural resources. It is in our interest and in the interest of the student himself, that we should try and educate every child to the maximum of his or her ability. Every child that we can nurture and groom through university is an asset to himself, to his family and to Singapore. Therefore, Sir, it is, as I said, our Government's policy to try and ensure that as many students as possible can qualify and make it through the NUS. But, Sir, does this mean that we should simply open the gates and allow anyone and every student to enter university? I presume this is what was suggested by the Member for Potong Pasir this morning - that we should not worry too much as to whether these students would have jobs after they graduate but that we should open the university so that they can go in, cultivate their minds, and this is the way towards a Society of Excellence. The point, Sir, is this. If we do this, are we doing a service to these students? What will happen to them when they graduate and find that they cannot get enough jobs? Is it better to be an unemployed graduate or to be an unemployed non-University student? I think it makes no difference. When you are unemployed, you are unemployed. I do not think it is a service to allow thousands of students to go through university, spend time, spend money, make an effort and then find, when they graduate, that there is nothing for them to do. I think, Sir, that this is also one reason why students in many of the newly-developing countries have to emigrate and go abroad to find jobs because they find no room to exercise their talents in the countries where they are educated. Therefore, Sir, every responsible country must plan its university graduates in accordance with its manpower requirements. This is not to deny any student the chance to go to university but to ensure that we will not have a situation as has happened in many other countries, where there are thousands of unemployed graduates. You have graduates working as hawkers, waiters, waitresses - jobs which manifestly do not require any university education but which, because these graduates cannot find jobs, they are forced to take on this type of employment. I do not think it makes any sense. And just because they have gone through university, I do not think they will thank us for it. We must make sure that when we admit a child to university, we must be reasonably sure (we cannot guarantee, but we must be reasonably sure) that there will be a demand for his or her services after he or she graduates. I take the point of the Member for Bukit Timah that we should not be too conservative in our manpower projections. I think that point is well meant. We have been in a fortunate position where we have very few or no graduates unemployed. I think this is something which we should always try to preserve. Sir, we should also, Sir, recognize that our economy is developing and changing and so there will be a need for more university graduates in the coming years. And this point will be taken into account in planning our university intake. Now, Sir, the matter of academic standards. Why is it so important? Why should we try so hard to ensure that the standards of our University are not compromised? Standards are important because they are a brand of quality. Every student who comes out from the NUS with an NUS degree shows evidence that he or she has reached a certain standard of academic performance, has gone through a certain rigorous course of instruction. This is something which we have built over the years. And the performance of our graduates, as they move out to fill jobs in the economy over the last two or three decades, has shown that employers can trust the degrees of the NUS. Not only Singaporean employers, but employers like the MNCs, are familiar with what good graduates should be, what graduatesof a quality university should have achieved. And the fact that our graduates have performed well and can fulfil the expectations which they are required to meet, I think speaks well of the high standards of the NUS. Our professionals, for example those in medicine or engineering, have no difficulty in meeting the necessary qualifications for admission to the relevant professional institutes in Australia, in England, and in other well-established countries. This is something, Sir, which we should not compromise. Our standards in the NUS are high and deservedly so, and we should not compromise it. I do not think there is any reason why we need to apologize for keeping high standards of the NUS. We must always ensure that thestandards of the NUS are equivalent to the standards of a well-established university of quality in our major competitor countries. Only in that way, Sir, can we do a service to the thousands of students who go through the NUS. To do otherwise is to hold out false hope and, eventually, to do a disservice to them. Now, Sir, what is the responsible way of getting more university graduates? I do not think the responsible way is simply to relax our admission policy and allow more students to go in. The responsible way is, first of all, to have better schools, to improve the standards of education in our primary schools, in our secondary schools and in our junior colleges. With better schools, we will have better quality candidates, and with better quality candidates we can admit more students into the NUS without any deterioration in academic standards. It is because we have improved our schools significantly over the last five or six years that the NUS has been able to increase its intake by 50% from 1982 to 1987, and to do this honestly, responsibly without any lowering of standards. And if we continue to improve our schools along the lines suggested by the Member for Bukit Timah, then I think we will see a steady increase in the intake of university students and these students will be admitted without any lowering of academic standards. At the same time, Sir, we must also make sure that our economy continues to grow and to progress, so that the economy continues to expand, more job opportunities will be created, there will be more jobs, there will be better-paying jobs, jobs which can be filled by the graduates from the NUS and from the NTI. It is these aspirations, Sir, a thriving, prosperous economy leading to plentiful job opportunities, a meaningful life for our graduates, for all our students in our schools, this is what the Agenda for Action is all about. 2.55 pm

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, on scrutinizing the Green Paper presented by the First Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, we can make three conclusions as follows. The first conclusion is that it is a solid document, the result of an extraordinary effort involving almost the whole community from all levels, from all categories, in setting out its future. The second conclusion is that it offers a clear avenue towards the goals that we are aiming for, taking into consideration the challenges of the future, including the various obstructive 'humps' that we might have to overcome, in a rational manner and with a rational attitude, whether they be local or international, taking into account also the interests of our neighbours. The third conclusion is that it gives an assurance to the international community, especially the investors, of our effort to consolidate the country's stability by giving it its particular patterns. Allow me to put across these patterns and, where necessary, to give my comments. The first pattern is the pattern of leadership. A political leadership that ensures continuity and a smooth transfer of leadership for at least two decades from now. These two decades make up a comfortable period of time and an important time-frame for investors and a comfortable one for plans to be carried out well. We congratulate the Old Guards, those who are still in this House and those who are outside this House, for their far-sightedness and their sacrifices that have enabled our self-renewal policy to be implemented smoothly. Congratulations to them. The second pattern is balance. A united community and efforts towards reinforcing this unity, such as the GRC proposal, the town councils, and so on. The unity of this multi-racial society very necessary and we must preserve it in order that there be no thorns in the flesh, stabbing at the heart, ie, our unity, and putting the body, ie, Singapore, into suffering and even death. I am very impressed to find in this Green Paper, under the heading, Nation Building, Topic 1 - Multi-racial, Multi-religious Society and Consensus and Participation, article 9, where it is stated that "the Government can be popular without being populist, firm but not high-handed". I agree with this view which is in line with the considerations reflected in the four articles below which should be practised by all countries, all societies, and indeed, by all individuals towards ensuring their well-being, that is, (1) a country or a person must be strong but not arrogant; (2) He or the country may be soft but don't think he/it is weak; (3) he/it is generous but not wasteful; (4) and he/it is thrifty but not stingy. This practice would in itself cover many of the aspirations of the people, something in the form of more comprehensive national development and progress, reinforcing the concept of a plural society moving towards a just and prosperous society. This is in accordance with the intent of article 5 of the same section, where the Green Paper says: "Let us do our best to help the slower communities to participate more fully in the mainstream of our national life, be it in the economic, social or political fields." The Government's attention to this community is getting more evident. This community on its part should enhance its participation and increase its sacrifices. At the end of this speech, I would try to touch on something has been circulating within the Malay community in its efforts to join the mainstream of Singapore. The third pattern, population distribution. Under the topic, Home Ownership, articles 17 and 18 give due attention to the success of this scheme and describe the steps taken and assistance given in order that more people of Singapore will be able to own apartments. And if it should happen, say, in the year 2000, we have 90% or 95% home ownership as described by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of National Development to Encik A. Kadir Jasin of Berita Harian Malaysia on 16th February 1988, this would mean, as the Green Paper says, "Singapore will increasingly be a middle-class society." My question, to the First Deputy Prime Minister, is: does the population distribution policy still adhere to the population profile of Singapore, that is, each constituency reflecting the ethnic proportions of the total, population, ie, having 75% Chinese and the balance made up of the minorities? Could this profile be extended as best as possible down to every block? What about flats which are purchased or sold privately and occupants of one community move out of the area to be replaced by occupants of another community, thereby turning the profile out of proportion? I think this issue needs clarification now. The fourth pattern. This relates to the role of the trade unions. We cannot agree more with the intent of the section on Economic Growth and Progress that workers should improve themselves, which in turn places emphasis on the positive role of the trade unions, through the BEST, WISE and MOST schemes. And I am sure the Member for Potong Pasir appreciates these noble efforts. Many more of our workers are benefitting from this symbiotic relationship. This must be continued because our future lies in how best our people are able to gain education and new technology. The success and self-respect of the country and the society lies in it. Here allow me to express my congratulations to the NTUC for the maturity of their actions recently when they expressed their protest against the United States attitude on the GSP issue. This is necessary. More necessary is that all of us, in particular our workers and our employers, are conscious of the need to work harder to enhance our productivity and ensure that our products have the competitiveness edge in the international arena, especially in the US market. US and the GSP can be likened to an umbrella. But the trouble is that now we have and weare relying upon a leaking umbrella. We hope in future that the United States will not go to the extent of being, as the Malays say "Harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi", i.e. the guardian who preys upon the very people he had been entrusted to protect. Locally or internationally, people want not only political democracy but also economic democracy and social justice, even humanitarianism and morality. This must be emphasized. The United States must be magnanimous in its actions towards the countries that it considers its friends. It must shed its damaging capitalist cloak. It has been said that the capitalist "is like a snake, it moves singly, the most in pairs and keeps only his interest or the interest of the pair." Perhaps they should ponder over what David A. Stockman, the former whiz kid of President Reagan wrote in his book "The Triumph of Politics". This the United States must appreciate, because it has also been said that "Communism moves in a herd and takes care of its own herd only". Now we have seen how the Communists are trying to put on new clothes through 'glasnost' (openness) and 'perestroika' (economic restructuring), which have now become the focus of world attention. They now propose to withdraw from Afghanistan, after having taken the lives of about 30,000 of its own soldiers and one million Afghan freedom fighters. This withdrawal I am sure is welcomed by the world and the United States must really take heed of this. Meanwhile, I am sure trade unions around the world and workers as well must remain wary because the trade unions are still an arena of communist infiltration. Two decades is a long time but not to them. In this modern and sophisticated era, the urban areas are expanding and the rural areas too are getting more sophisticated. Guerilla warfare is not as easy as before. The possibility that this ism would focus more of its efforts on the urban areas is very great. And I am sure the trade unions is still an important target to it. The fifth pattern is mentioned in the Introduction. It refers to the young people and the Government machinery. Allow me to touch on something stated in the Introduction, paragraph 2, relating to the involvement of young people, "..... the Government's intention to reach an accord on the character of the society young people desire, and involve the young in working towards its achievement". This is very appropriate because no society in the world could give its descendants or its young people a future or a world that is certain, according to our tastes or even according to their tastes. At most, this could only be a future possibility. But we could provide or prepare our young people, for their future, education in line with the needs of 10-20 years from now: strong traditional values and the consolidation of belief in these values within a plural society. I am confident they aregetting more sure and they understand better the issue of war, after having gone through national service and our policy total defence. I am also sure that our young people now have a better perception, for example, of the dangers of racialism, of religious fanaticism, of voting according to one's whims and fancies. It is our duty to give them more exposure of all these elements through education, from the schools to the university, through (PA) or People Association, social organisations and the mass media and other channels that we might consider appropriate as a public education, as mentioned earlier by the Minister for Trade and Industry. We must win the hearts of these young people in a wise and rational manner. There must be some form of attraction for them. They are a very important component. The sixth pattern is the civil service. In paragraph 4 of the Introduction, it is emphazied, "It now needs to be implemented with the full weight of the governmental machinery" which I take to mean the civil service. This is, of course, very appropriate because the progress and the smooth administration of a country lies in the combination of three elements - a competent government full of good programmes, a population that appreciates and supports the government's action through mature organizations and a well-organized civil service that works in concert with the planning and aspirations of the government. We have inherited a good and important legacy of the colonial government in the form of the civil service. The wheels of the civil service machinery have been turning in tandem with the government. Improvements after improvements have been made and this need to be continued. They should more seen than heard, whether executing Government policies or attending to customers at the front counters or serving the general public. Like the Government leaders, they need to be efficient and firm. But like all of us, they must also be courteous, polite. This is important. Because any deficiency in this regard would usually affect the image of the Government. I welcome efforts now being made to ensure that these faults would not occur. While we try our best to reinforce this important value on ourselves and in the civil service, I would like to appeal to the general public to be more understanding because one does not clap with one hand. Courtesy works both ways. It is a two-way street. My final point, as I said earlier, concerns the Malay community and the ideal of a society of excellence, a nation of distinction. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, finally, specifically on the Malay community. We have never had a government as good as the present. This is a reality, a fact that we should all realize. The Agenda for Action has outlined a programme for several decades ahead involving all the communities of Singapore, including the Malay community. For more than two decades, the Malay community, together with the Government, has been going through the phases of history, through thick and thin within Singapore together with the other communities. The Malay community has long abandoned a nagging and begging mentality. They now prefer action. Mendaki is an example and so is the Kemas Congress and the Danamis proposal. This positive attitude needs to be multiplied if the Malay community wants to participate in the mainstream of the Singapore society. If before, Malay Members of Parliament and local organizations called the Malays sacrificing milk and sugar in their coffee just to go to Makkah - and I am sure, God willing, if our children do take part in such a scheme, by having one foot in Makkah, the other would be prevented from going into drugs, and the problem of reducing that 64% could be addressed like other issues - then, I feel in the matter of shares and financial institutions, we require more awareness and sacrifice. Perhaps, this time it would be more than just a cup of bitter coffee, perhaps in terms of some cassette tapes or videotapes. I am not asking for the cash in their pockets. I am asking those who spend their money on cassette tapes or videotapes whether by hire or purchase, to sacrifice some of them. If usually there are 30 in a year, take away four or five for a share in our future. The same for videotapes. If 30 videotapes a year - I heard more than 30 in some cases - take away five, about $60 to be put into shares. I am not asking for cash, but this kind of money. This means we would have at least a share of $5, $10, $20, $50 or even $100. Better still, if some are so full of conscience abd realisation that they are prepared to give a day's salary, a week's salary and even one month's salary,not more than $1,000, to be put into such a scheme. If we just consider $100 per head, on average, take 100,000 of the Malay community in Singapore out of 150,000 workers, before the end of the year the Malay community would have $10 million. If it is $200, $20 million. If on average it is $300 per head, $30 million. And if this practice is continued every year for 12 years, God willing, we would be joining the mainstream of Singapore society more effectively. The Malay community needs to think about this very seriously. If contributions are made in such a manner, it would multiply. This awareness and sacrifice of the Malay community would enable us to go more aggressively into new fields including perhaps one day into construction, medicine, or private hospital administration, which would in itself be in support of the Government policy to make Singapore a regional medical centre. Such a positive exposure I am sure would enable the non-Malay communities to better understand the aspirations and values of the Malay-Muslim community. The year 2000 is only 12 years ahead. The Malay-Muslim community has striven in education through Mendaki, in economy and in commerce. The Malay community must further enhance their awareness and sacrifice in these areas, education and the economy. We must have the spirit and even more necessary we must have a deeper conviction to achieve this success. We cannot have, say, a spirit that is a mile wide but just an inch of conviction. I am sure the Government and the non-Malay communities would always be prepared to assist us. In fact, they have been helping us. Only the awareness and the sacrifice of the Malay community are needed now for the next 12 years.

With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Sir, I rise in support of the motion. Sir, this Agenda for Action sets out the goals and challenges facing us as a nation. It has been formulated after extensive debate and discussion over one year. Even the Opposition has been invited to give his views. The Member for Potong Pasir this morning said that he was not invited, but I have hear a clipping of the Sunday Times, 18th January 1987, with the headlines, "Chiam responds to call for ideas". [handed to Mr Chiam]. He has also said that the Agenda is not acceptable but not because of the contents. He did not comment on the contents itself. He said that the public did not accept the document because they questioned the sincerity of the Government. My question to the Member for Potong Pasir is whether he accepts the contents of the document. Whether his Party accepts the contents of the document. Mr Chiam, would youlike to answer?

I think you go on.

Thank you. Well, in that case I will assume that he accepts the contents of the Agenda.

I did not say that.

I assume that he accepts the contents. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

You want to respond now?

Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Fengshan gave me something to read. I have only completed the second paragraph and he wants me to answer him on something else. At least to be fair to me, give me time to read this first. Let me digest it, I comment on this and then we go on to something else.

I think you are right. Dr Beng, you should not interrupt Mr Chiam's reading.

My apologies, Mr Chiam. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, the Agenda has been set before us and it is an extensive and a very important document. However, as the saying goes, it is easier said than done. The goals that we have set for ourselves have set the compass to correct us, to direct us. However, as in all things, there are many ways to achieve a goal. We must thus translate into practical terms the steps that we will take to achieve these goals. Sir, I would like to discuss only two topics, namely, nation building and the changing life-styles in Singapore. Sir, of all the goals that we have set for ourselves, the most fundamental is nation building. Ours is a nation of approximately 20 years of age. In this short period we have transformed ourselves from a largely immigrant society into a cohesive society. Approximately 85% of the population are home owners. We have been able to convince our citizens of the importance of national service and total defence. Our reservists take their training seriously and mobilization exercises also very seriously, for they know that in an emergency the reservists will be the front line soldiers. However, can we claim to have arrived in nation building? The answer is that we have achieved much compared to the time of the Maria Hertogh's riots. Here again, the Member for Potong Pasir claims that the Maria Hertogh's riots are not racial. May I again, Sir, with your permission, give the Member the newspaper clippings for his perusal in the conviction and hope that I may be able to change his mind. [clippings handed to Mr Chiam See Tong]. Sir, we are a multi-racial, multi-religious society, living in a small country. To achieve harmony, we must start at the grassroots level. In our housing estate, in each block, Malays, Indians, Chinese and others, must learn to live harmoniously. We must respect one another's cultural and religious beliefs and practices. We must learn to be more considerate and tolerant in our daily living. The grassroots organizations, such as the Block Committees, Residents' Committees, Community Centre Management Committees, Citizens' Consultative Committees, have an important role to play here to provide for social inter-action. We are indeed fortunate that we have so many volunteers in our grassroots organizations. We must remind ourselves that they are volunteers. They have limited time to spare for community work. Should we not, recognizing their importance in the role of nation building, make their load lighter by at least helping them in fund raising? The Ministry of Community Development should make available some funds, for example, $5,000 per Resident Committee per year, so that the volunteers can concentrate more of their time on activities and programmes rather than on fund raising. This will not detract from the aim of making the RCs self-sufficient, as I believe that each RC serving 15 to 20 blocks of flats spends more than this in a year. As I mentioned earlier, this grant will lighten the work of the volunteers and allow the members more time to spend on other activities other than fund raising. Let us not only pay lip service to community development and welfare. Let us invest in this area in real dollar terms. Changing life-styles. Sir, as we continually evolve into a modern city state, there are certain segments of our population who find themselves struggling to keep pace. Unless we lend them a helping hand, they will feel that what we consider as progress is actually a nightmare to them. Amongst others, I have two particular groups in mind. Firstly, the HDB shopkeepers and, secondly, those who are in the middle-age group, above 45 years old, and are unable to find suitable employment. Sir, the HDB shopkeepers are now facing tremendous competition from large supermarket chains and departmental stores. Ten years ago when they were thriving and prosperous they were amongst the most generous supporters of our grassroots activities. Here we should not look at this problem from the point of view of whose fault is it, but instead ask ourselves as to what can be done to help them modernize and stay competitive. They deserve our sympathy and help because many of them are staying above their shop units. Closing their business will also mean losing their home. Sir, finding suitable employment for the retrenched worker in his 40's is a real problem. Many of them are unskilled and have very low educational qualifications. Previously we could help them by giving them hawker licences or taxi licences. However, even these two avenues are now closed. Even those with taxi licences are unable to find a taxi to rent and drive. Will progress mean unemployment for these persons? Sir, in closing, I would like to call on the Government to pay special attention to the needs of those who may be unable to cope for one reason or another with the pace of change. We should strive to achieve the goals that we have set for ourselves but this should be done in a way that the majority can accept. The way to achieve these goals is as important as the goals themselves.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been given this newspaper cutting in regard to Maria Hertogh. I see nothing in there at all. It is just two human-interest stories. Nothing said about racial riots or Jihad. Where is it, can you please point out to me?

Do you want to comment on the other cutting?

No, let us stick on to this first. Point out to me where it says there was racial riot and there was a call for a Jihad War.

Do you want me to read the whole article?

No. Just point out the relevant parts. Don't echo your master so soon. Better look it up yourself first.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these two pictures speak for themselves.

What is it?

I did not mention anything about Jihad. Maybe the Minister for Trade and Industry would like to comment on that.

Don't pass the buck, please.

You can see from these two pictures, and these are pictures which will be made available to the Press. As to the human touch ---

Stories.

Human stories which led to?

To what?

Racial riots.

No, I did not say that.

I am telling you that, that it led to racial riots.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, so as not to waste everybody's time, may I justify and provide chapter and verse for my statements. I showed the picture from the Singapore Standard, 5th December 1950. I said it led to further articles in the vernacular Malay press, referring even to Jihad. I quote here from a book, "Tangled worlds" - the story of Maria Hertogh. It was written by a Tom Eames Hughes, British official who was in charge of the Social Welfare Home which kept Maria Hertogh before she was sent to the convent. He came back 30 years later to do the research and wrote the book. That was the 5th December 1950. "From the 4th to the 11th December, articles appeared in the Melayu Raya, a Jawi Malay newspaper, presenting the case as a religious issue between Islam and Christianity. On the 9th December, Karim Ghani, he was the agitator, an Indian Muslim - issued free copies of his newspaper, Dawn. Its main feature was a report of a meeting, said to be packed to overflowing at the Sultan Mosque the previous day, at which Karim Ghani had spoken of a Holy War, Jihad, but only as a very last resort. He was reported also as saying "the feeling today is not confined to Muslim civilians but also to members of the Police", a dark prognosis of what was to come. There was another issue of Dawn on the morning of the day of the outbreak of the riots. It contained two open letters, one to the police, the other to the court, called provocatively "The Trinity who will sit in judgment today." The court was to hear the application of the stay of execution of Mr Justice Brown's order of the 2nd December. The letter to the police indicated a possibility of rioting on that day. That was the day the riots broke out." You can have this copy. [Copy of document handed to Mr Chiam See Tong.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what has been read out to me does not indicate that it was a racial riot, more so, a religious issue. This is if you were trying to put a point across. As I gather, it is more a Muslim issue, Muslim against Christian issue. There is no mention of race at all. But the point, when I spoke at one of our forums, was that I was trying to analyse indepth, saying that the essence of the riots was not racial but that there was already a wave of anti-colonial feelings. People were already wanting a better life. They wanted political, economic and other advances. That is my analysis of the situation. Of course, whoever the writer is, he can look at it from any point of view he wants and he writes a book 30 years later. Hearsay after hearsay, he can piece them together and make out a hypothesis, a theory of what happened. He has his right to do it. So if you are saying now that what you have read out is on race, I do not see it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was reading a translation provided by Mr Eames Huges ---

Where is the racial issue?

--- of original source material published in Jawi. We can produce it if we wished. They are on microfilm in the National Archives. Read it, and tell us if what was said had nothing to do with race, that political and social rights were at issue, and a better livelihood was why they cited "The Trinity" in judgment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Member for Potong Pasir to clarify whether he was actually invited to make representations on the National Agenda? Does he still deny it?

What are you talking about? Are we going to another issue now?

The other clipping. This morning you said that you were not asked to give your opinions on the National Agenda.

I would be happy to answer the Member for Fengshan. We had a dinner, I believe, that day. And either that morning or the morning before, there was a headline in the papers about the National Agenda. So I thought it would be good just to comment on that. But, as far as I know, no formal letter or nobody came and give me a telephone call or say, "Look. Would you like to give your views on the National Agenda?" So it was in my speech I said, "All right. I will contribute to the National Agenda." And that is part of my speech.

Without invitation, you want to contribute.

I think everybody has a right to contribute on national issues, especially when we are Members of Parliament. So I made some of the points, and this was made in January 1987. In fact, without referring to some of these points, I repeated these points in this House again today. But I do not see it included in your Agenda for Action at all. It really makes no difference whether I contribute or not.

Sir, does the Member accept the contents of the Agenda as being for the national good of Singapore?

I have already said that I am not quarrelling against the contents. I have said it in my speech. But whether or not it will be accepted by the people is another matter. The other point I made is the credibility of the PAP. It is no point having a beautiful attractive written out piece of document but your actions do not match what you said. I have brought out several points. No. 1, population. It was your Government's fault. No. 2 ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we should not allow the Member for Potong Pasir to launch another speech on the same issue. I shall reply to his question on credibility later on.

Mr Chiam, you have responded sufficiently to Dr Beng's point. Unless you have any fresh points to make, I cannot allow you to continue. Have you any fresh points?

It is because he invited me, that is why I responded.

But you have already responded.

Sir, I felt I should join in this discussion about history because the Member for Potong Pasir obviously not only does not understand history but he is also prepared to take history and turn it around. We are referring to the Maria Hertogh riots in the early 50's. His point is that it was a non-racial riot. I do not know where he was at that time. I certainly was around when it happened and I can testify on a first-hand basis that it was racial. A neighbour of mine, a Swiss gentleman, Mr Richards, was driving a car in town on the day of the riots. A perfectly harmless person, he happened to be white. He was stopped by a group of rioters. The only reason the group of rioters attacked him and nearly killed him was because he was white. I do not think you should just take historical lessons and give them a new interpretation to suit your party's interests, because if you have no sense of history and you are prepared to take history and turn it on its head, then I do not know what credibility means. I think you should be prepared to accept evidence of history and not try to twist things to the interest of your own party line.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for this opportunity to speak. I have no intention originally of joining in the debate but since the Member for Potong Pasir's favourite catchword is credibility, maybe we should also look at his credibility. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir was quoting a particular newspaper report from Sunday Times this morning, and he gave us the impression that the response to a speech which I made in the National University of Singapore sometime back was that the people were all afraid of speaking up, and he gave us some quotations. My intention is really just to read some other quotations in the same report which the Member for Potong Pasir has very conveniently left out, and indeed, to read the quotation from one gentleman whom he has quoted but has quoted only one portion of the remarks that the gentleman has made. This gentleman referred to in the report is a top level banker in his early 40's who preferred not to be named, and these are the quotes which the Member for Potong Pasir has very conveniently left out. He says: 'The call is timely and necessary and is a sign of a new leadership showing that their style is open and receptive. More such calls will encourage more people to come out, speak up and serve.' And then he goes on: 'If you speak as an individual in a sensible manner and show them you are not trying to mobilise others, I think the leaders will be receptive. I give them my views privately. They know my sincerity. They know I have no axe to grind. So I dare to say many things.' Very conveniently, the Member for Potong Pasir has left that out. Sir, I will give Members of the House some other quotations from the same report to show that the Member has completely quoted out of context the responses of a large number of people, and then I leave it to the Members of this House to judge for themselves whether the Member for Potong Pasir has been less than honest with the House and whether his credibility ---

Sir, this is a point of order. I object to him saying that I am less than honest.

I did not say that you are less than honest. I said that I will make it possible for the House to judge whether the Member is less than honest with the House. Sir, let me quote a number of views expressed by people in this particular report. I will just selectively pull some of them because it is a fairly long report. Twelve university lecturers, graduates, professionals and businessmen, these are the people who agreed to be interviewed. Six did not wish to be interviewed. They said they felt it was good to hear the Government urging young Singaporeans to speak their mind and give their ideas and criticize. Specifically, the National University of Singapore Society's assistant honorary secretary said: 'Personally, I think the Government is listening to people who speak up. But it has to ensure all the way down the line that this is what it wants - for people to speak up and share their views and ideas. It must show in action that speaking up is healthy and that feedback helps improve society, otherwise people won't speak up.' And that is what the exercise that culminated in the Green Paper, the Agenda for Action, has all been about. A businessman who gave his name felt that he fears of reprisals (and he quoted the word "reprisals"), the fears of reprisals for speaking up were "more in the mind than anything else." Again a direct quotation "more in the mind than anything else." Further on, he said that: '... those with such apprehensions should come out from under the shadow and test the Government's call for themselves.' As Chairman of the Association of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, this particular businessman said: 'He always spoke his mind in discussions with politicians and bureaucrats and had never been penalised.' Another businessman, a company director and a banker who had discussed issues with Ministers at social functions or business meetings said: 'They found them [namely, the Government, the politicians and the bureaucrats] receptive to even highly critical viewpoints.' Then of course they went on: 'Are there channels for expressing views in Singapore? Some of those interviewed felt there were enough formal and informal channels for this.' The Head of the Human Resource Management Unit of the National University of Singapore's Business Administration Faculty, a lady, noted that in recent years, the Government had invited more academics and professionals to sit on various Government committees. She felt that this was a good sign that the Government wanted inputs from academics and professionals. Another academic welcomed the setting up of a think-tank in the form of the Institute of Policy Studies as a new outlet for the expression of ideas. I just want to read from the same report, just to give Members of this House a flavour of the report itself. I have no doubt that they would have read it but I just want to illustrate that by only choosing one example and another one selectively, distorting the thrust of the views of the banker in his early 40s, the Member had not given this House a fair representation of what the report was all about. Sir, it is not surprising at all that some people are afraid to speak up. There will always be such people. There will always be people who are afraid of the dark, people afraid of the unknown. But that does not mean that they are right in believing that mortal danger awaits them every evening when the sun goes down. It does not prove that they are right at all. It does not prove that what they fear is real. I think it is important, and this the Government has already embarked over the last few years, that the Government should continue to reach out, to meet with people, to talk with them, those who are afraid at least. Those who are afraid to express their views in public, either through the newspapers or at some forum or other, they can express their views in private. We may have to go, maybe help hold their hands, to reassure them that the dark does not always represent danger for them. Sir, I would go so far as to say that those who are afraid of expressing their views and values, we are quite happy to leave them with their own views if they do not wish to express it. But if we are looking for leaders of Singapore, people who will lead others, then I do not think the people who are afraid of having their views examined, having their views contested, or even having their views criticized, I do not think these are the sort of people that we are looking for to provide the leadership for the future. How then can you expect future leaders of Singapore to be willing to meet with others, to carry forth government policies, to put this Agenda for Action and convert it into concrete results if they are already, to start with, afraid of expressing views, lest their views be examined and found wanting? Sir, I said in my speech to the NUS academics that I am very aware that it is much easier, much safer, and also much more comfortable to stay on the sideline. Because if they should come in, whether it is in politics or in some public position, then their views too will be subjected to criticisms and they too may be condemned. And that was the test I asked them: were they prepared to put themselves in for the test? Sir, I have no doubt that this Green Paper, with the challenges and goals of our Government, will find the full support of the people of Singapore, and I give my wholehearted support to the 1DPM's motion and the Agenda for Action.

Sir, this document that is presented to the House today is the result of a year of discussions among the people, the grassroots leaders, professional groups and the Government. It is a milestone in our history as never before has so much consultation been going on between the Government and the people. The Goals summarized in the Green Paper are a consensus of the people. The consensus shows that Singaporeans generally agree on major issues, even the Member for Potong Pasir cannot disagree with them. I feel that this method of discussion to arrive at consensus is a better alternative to national referendums on major issues and policies, as at a national referendum people only vote yes or no for a policy or choose one policy among a few alternatives. National referendums do not provide feedback and do not allow constructive criticisms or suggestions to be collected. I urge the First Deputy Prime Minister to continue to use this method of consultation with the people when new major policies need to be introduced in future. Allow the people to discuss and debate before the subject is brought to Parliament because the discussion process is a very important aspect in the national education of the people. Sir, whilst it is good to have the goals which we should reach by the year 1999, I would like to know what are the immediate actions that Government will take to ensure that the entire nation could reach the goals and enjoy the benefits. I would like the 1DPM's assurance that the Society of Excellence will be for every citizen, including the poor and the lower income groups. Take the goal of making Singapore a fully home-owning society as an example. The Government's aim to achieve a 100% home ownership is a noble goal. It will help to foster a closely knit, self-reliant community. But at present, home ownership refers to ownership of 3-rooms, 4-rooms or more, and only a small percentage of 2-room home ownership exists. Sir, we do not need to wait till the 1999 to be a compassionate society. I would urge the Government to be compassionate even now, to allow the lower income groups to upgrade themselves in gradual steps. For example, lower income groups with large families staying in 1-room rentals who wish to upgrade to 2-room rentals should be allowed to do so. Lower income groups who wish to upgrade to 2-room purchase flats should be encouraged. In this way, the lower income group will not see home ownership programme as something out of their reach. Sir, land will be always be scarce in Singapore. Yet in recent years the HDB has been building bigger and bigger flats from 4-rooms to 5-rooms, and now talking about 6-rooms. Having a bigger flat does not necessarily equate to excellence in living. A smaller flat well designed in layout, properly decorated, will offer a better living environment. Because of the shortage of land, recent buildings of HDB apartments are built very close together. Although flats built close to each other may help to foster neighbourliness, residents are complaining of lack of privacy. Sir, in a City of Excellence, privacy will be a very important aspect of life. I therefore urge the Government to seriously review the need to build bigger and bigger flats in view of our limited land resource. Sir, the goals of a City of Excellence and a Society of Distinction sound very exciting. But to some, it also projects a very developed but very expensive city to live in. I have some concerns. Will the living standards of a City of Excellence be so high that most of us will live in poverty because we are always kept in the mad race trying to earn more and more, just to be able to pay for the higher and higher cost of living? Will the high cost of living in a Society of Excellence make us lose much of our tourist trade? Sir, I support the motion as the Agenda for Action is more than the programmes of the PAP. It is the nation's blueprint for the future. Once Parliament adopts this Agenda for Action, the ideas can be translated into government policies and we shall be one step nearer to the Vision of 1999.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the past year, our citizens, young and old, coming from various backgrounds have had the opportunity to participate in the National Agenda debates. These discussions were held at a pace which had enabled Singaporeans to follow and examine keenly the issues, the goals to be achieved and the challenges before our nation. Every one who wished to make a contribution was given the opportunity to do so. The discussions were open and frank. We have now before us the Agenda for Action which the Minister for Trade and Industry has aptly described as representing the will of the people. The Agenda represents the hope and the aspirations of the people to an even better future for them, their children, and the generations to come. To me, it is a historic document, a document which Singaporeans by working together with great determination can translate into reality and can bring about a better and brighter Singapore. As we now go into the next phase of development and work out programmes and policies to achieve the goals set out in the Agenda for Action, we must continue with the same approach of consultation, education and consensus building. I am confident that our leaders will continue to do so. However, I would like to caution here that in the past we have seen examples where policy formulation and also implementation of policies, which were no doubt in our long-term interest, were carried out at too rapid a pace and many Singaporeans were not able to keep pace. As a result, they felt that they were not adequately consulted. They had not been able to follow and understand the reasons for these policies, why they were introduced, and why they were implemented so fast. This had resulted in great unhappiness and the people became less supportive of these policies. I think there are various examples of these policies, for example, the car ownership policy, the discussion on the withdrawal age of CPF, to mention a few. So I would like to caution that special care must therefore be taken to ensure that as we develop programmes and policies, the general population must be given a chance to follow and understand these policies and to keep pace, and be able to take and accept the changes to be introduced. Coming out with our policies and programmes must be an educational process. At the same time, we must also giver very community and all Singaporeans an ability to identify themselves with the Agenda for Action. They must be able to see the goals that have been identified, and that these are goals which are within their ability to achieve. They must also understand clearly the limits of our resources. The Member for Kampong Ubi has already spoken about the challenges faced by Mendaki, to raise the educational levels of Muslim children. I share his concern and join him in his appeal for more Government assistance for Mendaki to help the Council achieve its objectives. For the lower income workers, the production workers, the daily-rated workers, and so on, I think Government should work out ways to assist them to enjoy a better quality of life. One way is to help them to get the opportunity to receive training and skill upgrading. We have got the Skills Development Fund and I am happy that the Fund will now look into ways to help the lower income earners to get the necessary training, and education. But what I would like to encourage is for more employers to invest more in the education and training of their employees. Many of them, especially those in smaller firms,are currently reluctant to invest more in the training of their workers. I would like to ask Government to work out programmes and to introduce incentive schemes to get these employers to invest more, to train and educate their workers. Another way to help the lower income group is to help their children get an opportunity to get an education to the best of their ability. In lower income families, children are at most times left to fend for themselves, especially when both parents are working. More funds should therefore be allocated to the development of child care centres, day care centres for primary as well as secondary students, where they will have the facilities to develop themselves and can also receive help and guidance in their studies. Sir, with this contribution, I support the motion in the name of the First Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Agenda for Action contains the main tasks facing Singapore in the 1990s and beyond. It represents the sum total of the efforts put in by Singaporeans in dozens of forums, discussions and debates, on the goals which we as a nation wish to achieve. In short, the Green Paper, the Agenda for Action represents the wishes of the people of Singapore, and how Singaporeans would like their children, and their children's children to live and work in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when Singapore achieved her independence in 1965, our leaders, the PAP leaders, were able to rally the people of Singapore with the battle cry "Merdeka". Merdeka brought hope to Singaporeans. To the poor, Merdeka brought hopes of better jobs and a secure future. To the oppressed, Merdeka brought hopes of freedom, and the chance to run Singapore for the benefit of Singaporeans. To the rich, Merdeka brought hopes of more wealth as new business opportunities were opened up. After more than 22 years of independence, these hopes have been fulfilled. Our wealth, as measured by the per capita GNP, has increased from $1,330 in 1960 to $14,678 in 1985. About 85% of Singaporeans live in HDB housing estates, and 80% own the homes they live in. Singaporeans have already satisfied their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing. Social scientists will say that Singaporeans today are more interested to satisfy their esteem needs, ie, the need for recognition, for prestige, and for self-respect. The Agenda for Action will help Singaporeans satisfy their esteem needs. Today, Singaporeans will find it difficult to rally to the battle cry "Merdeka". But Singaporeans will easily identify specific sections of the Agenda that will satisfy their respective needs. They will see that by supporting the Agenda for Action they will help build a strong, united and pro- sperous nation. They will realize that the Agenda will help their children to have a better education. Through the Agenda for Action they will understand the challenges facing Singapore and what we must do to adapt to changing circumstances. In summary, the Green Paper, the Agenda for Action, is an action plan that will help Singaporeans lead a more gracious, fulfilling, cultured and secure future. Only the PAP Government has taken the difficult task of preparing this action plan through extensive consultations with Singaporeans from all walks of life. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I give my full support to the Agenda for Action and I am confident that it will also receive the full support of all Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Green Paper on the Agenda for Action has shown that Vision 1999 is not a political mirage. It is a clear set of goals which will lead our people into another golden era of peace, prosperity and great living. Notwithstanding the recent economic recession, the Government has pursued these goals by engaging the people in a year-long public discussion and education. However, I believe that Vision 1999 is even now still very misty or unheard of to many Singaporeans, especially the less educated. The Feedback Unit may bear me out on this. I therefore think that publicity campaigns and public discussions must go on until all Singaporeans are aware, convinced and motivated to work towards these goals. I suggest that this Green Paper be published in the four languages and distributed nation wide. I also suggest that this important document be used in all our secondary schools and tertiary institutions as a regular subject matter for discussion and education. Sir, during the two years of economic recession, our people were worried about retrenchment and had to contend with wage restraint and cut in CPF contributions. It was not easy then to understand and appreciate Vision 1999. Now that the recession is over, optimism and confidence have returned. But of course we must not forget the importance of good economic performance and that there will be no Vision 1999 if our economy does not perform. So the first and the most important step towards Vision 1999 is continued economic growth, continued industrial peace, increased productivity, a flexible wage restructure and our products and services must have that competitive edge in the international market. How do we arrive at a consensus with the people? We can either hold a referendum or do what we have done through public discussions and feedback through the various channels. Hence, after a year-long discussion with the people, we are able to produce the Agenda for Action with the confidence that the people have participated in the drawing up of the Agenda for Action. As people become better educated, they do expect that this exercise of consultation and discussion with them be a permanent aspect of the style of implementation of Government policy, at least the major policy. This message to the Government is very clear and it serves well for the Government to take heed. The Government must always plan well ahead and time must be given to the people to thrash out major issues before they become policies. The Government should avoid taking a shortcut as a wrong policy may go down very badly with the people. On the other hand, the people must not expect the Government to be perfect and infallible. The Government is after all human. Sir, how do we bring the racial groups closer together? I believe after the national Agenda debate and the Herzog event, there is now more goodwill and more desire among the various races to want to come closer together. But old habits die hard and people are generally reluctant to start new habits. I believe that we should start new habits with the young and do it in the schools. The racial composition in every primary school must reflect that of the community. Children must be given basic lessons on all the cultures, customs and religions of the main races. In this way, they will grow up knowing what types of people their friends and neighbours are. They should also be encouraged to visit each other's homes and attend each other's festivities. Sir, I do not believe that a Singapore culture will evolve. Singapore will always be unique in that the cultures of the people will be as diversified as the people are non homogeneous. This is neither unhealthy nor disuniting. Singaporeans should be proud and be appreciative of all the various cultures. To do this, again we must start in the schools. So in 1999 I would like to see more Singaporeans able to appreciate and to participate in the cultural activities, not only of their race but also of the other races. I would like to see Singaporeans able to explain with pride to visitors of Singapore the more popular cultural performances of all the various racial groups. Sir, how do we become a gracious people and live in a cultured society if our people cannot shake off their anti social habits? The discourteous behaviour of Singaporeans in shops, restaurants, Government departments and other places is still very obvious. Our annual courtesy campaign has yet to show any significant results. Littering, dirtying our public toilets and urinating in lifts are still very common problems. Can we get rid of all these problems by the year 1999? People are fined today for littering and spitting because they are uncivic. Is it possible that by 1999 people will become gracious enough for us to abolish all these Acts? I do have my doubts on this. I think the solution to this problem again lies in educating the young in schools. It is through our children that we can build our hopes and our vision of a cultured society. It is through our children that we can begin to influence the ungracious habits of some of the adults. What would I like to see in a housing estate like Telok Blangah in the year 1999? What would I like to see as a community living in excellence? First of all, I would like to see more modern amenities for the residents. There should be a modern recreational club with an Olympic-sized swimming pool, with modern facilities. There should be good quality schools, well-equipped library, well-run kindergartens and day-care centre. The CC must remain as the focus of cultural activities. High professional standards will be expected of teachers and organizers. I would like to see that the residents become closer together, knowing each other better, that there will be fewer strangers in the estate. I would like to see more people greeting each other in the streets, in the lifts, in the void decks. Community singing, folk dancing, will become a pastime. More residents will come forward to join the RCs and would want to serve the people to find satisfaction and fulfilment in community work. There will be more old people and I would like to see them enjoying good health, living independently and in dignity. Those who are sick and lonely will be well cared for by the families and the community. We may even have our own symphony orchestra and hold art exhibitions of works of our very own Telok Blangah artists. And, of course, we must have a well equipped and a well trained civil defence force. Sir, I would like to conclude by emphasizing again that before these goals can be achieved, every Singaporean must be made aware of and must be motivated to work towards these goals.

Sir, I would like to speak in Mandarin. But before I do that, would you allow me to comment on what the Member for Potong Pasir has just said? It is better for me to say it in English for his own convenience.

Mr Teo, make your speech either in Mandarin or in English?

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Potong Pasir has said that he has no objection to this Green Paper. I would like to ask him whether he would use it as a manifesto for his party in the next General Elections. If he can do so, then the PAP and the SDP will be able to tell the electorate to make a choice between them on a common objective. I would like the Member for Potong Pasir to consider whether he can do this. I support the First Deputy Prime Minister's motion that the Agenda for Action be taken as the basis for nation building and government policy hereafter. The Agenda for Action is a continuation of the PAP's election manifesto in 1984. It will ensure that we will realize the goal of turning Singapore into a Society of Excellence in 1999 and will enable our people not only to enjoy better material life but also live in a more cultured society, with cultural vigour and progressive spirit. Since the concept of the National Agenda was officially proposed about a year ago, it has received general attention. Grassroots organizations, comprising people of all walks of life and of all races including workers, hawkers, merchants, professionals, have been holding seminars under the guidance of their MPs, discussing and analyzing the issues. Members of the public had also separately held discussions and seminars to express their views with the various Ministers during the Ministers' walk-about. Therefore, this Agenda for Action represents a guideline from the collective will of the people of our multi-racial society. This is a gentleman's way of collecting public opinion. At the same time, it also shows the Government's open mindedness and willingness to listen to the wishes of the people. This will enable every citizen to contribute to the progress of the country and feel proud for its success. It is also a correct measure adopted by the Government to achieve excellence. The goals targeted in the Agenda for Action have been broadly graduated and comprehensively formulated. In nation building, the Agenda stresses the importance of building a multi-racial and multi-religious society. It encourages national participation and consensus and pointing out the necessary step to face the challenges ahead. It also attaches importance to community development and welfare, promotes Home-Ownership and enhances general alertness in our Total Defence. In the field of promoting economic growth and development, it also stresses that there must be adequate rewards according to contributions, and there must be competitiveness through upgrading. Furthermore, there will be efforts towards developing human resources and education and achieving the goal of development of social contact and cultural education. This document is indeed a well-thought plan for action. It also further demonstrates that the PAP Government hopes to get the support of all the people for its policies in order to achieve a conviction of all for the building of a better country. The PAP Government has achieved economic progress in the past three decades and the results achieved in the fieldsof education, aviation, transportation and health, etc have been the results of the joint efforts of the people and with the Government. Together they have gone through various troubles and overcome many difficulties. The Agenda will ensure that all these hard-won fruits will not be destroyed over night. We must let the people have the opportunity to take part in deciding their own future and the future of their next generation so that the people will the more treasure the fruit they have got, will be the more united to face any problem. The plan to encourage the people to participate in policy decision will also enable our people and those with better education, who have their own idealism, to understand better the contributions the Government has made for the country. The peace, progress and prosperity that we enjoy today cannot be taken for granted. And the world conditions have certain influence over us, at the same it will enable the Government to understand better about the feelings of the people regarding certain Government policies. When all the aims and measures have been achieved at through consultation and consensus of the people and with their participation, they will feel it is their joint responsibility to strive hard so as to achieve the common objective. The future challenges enumerated in the document will enable us to be more alert. Undeniably, ours is a small island country. The surrounding political atmosphere and other conditions will affect us. Therefore, in implementing its polices the Government will always have to do step by step. The people must always remember that Singapore must always be a multi-racial country, and that we alone cannot stand the impact of any conflict. We must treat problems and implement our policies with sincerity, acumen, alertness and far-sightedness. We must respect the views and opinion of every Singaporean, but to consult the opinion of the people does not mean that everybody must agree on everything. Otherwise the Government machinery will grind to a halt and the situation will become worse. The important crux about consultation with the people on policies and topics is that we try to have a general discussion and afterwards arrive at a consensus of opinion and reach a basic agreement so that measures with better advantages will be adopted and implemented. While seeking a better material life we must also strive to develop our cultural foundation and promote spiritual life so that we may not become extravagant and unrealistic. The more successful and fortunate people should try to encourage and help the less fortunate so that we may enjoy together our prosperity and good life. Political stability, a higher educational standard of our people and the reception of higher technology are the most important factors and conditions for attracting more investment and promoting commercial and industrial development. Therefore, we must exercise proper control over the quantum changes in our population. As long as we can properly control the population to adapt to our changing environment and needs to ensure our healthy development and maintain a good and viable social environment, we will be able to have a better life through better education. This document will enable us to march in the right direction towards a better future in building and developing our country, so that our country will successfully attain a position of distinction and excellence and our Vision for 1999. This is provided that all our people understand the moves of our Government while the Government understand the wishes of the people at the same time. I fully endorse the Goals set out in the Agenda for Action which maintain the importance of the continuation of racial harmony and the building of a common identity. I am also of the conviction that a capable Government that enjoys the support and confidence of the people will continue to be able to bring the country to everlasting progress and success.

Sir, I wish to confine my remarks on one aspect of the Paper only, and in doing so I wish to concentrate more on the Action rather on the Agenda. Sir, I am very pleased to note that the Agenda recognizes the need to help the poor, the physically handicapped and the disabled. But I would like the Government to do more than that. In fact, more than just making this statement, I would urge the Government to explore more as to how to help the disadvantaged in our society than merely saying, "Let us give them all the support they need." I am referring to that section of our population who do not attend forums to speak up and who cannot write to the newspapers, those who have been lagging behind the mainstream of our economic progress all these years, because when we announced our economic growth figures, it has little or no meaning to this group of people. We have carefully designed a system that avoided a disastrous policy of unlimited subsidies. But how have we been able to help this pocket of the less advantaged, less well-off Singaporeans? Some estimates have been given that this group of people amount to 15%-20% and it belongs to the lower income group. Most of them work as odd job workers or casual labourers. The plight of these people is illustrated by the fact that they were among the first to be retrenched during the recession and they have found it most difficult to gain re-employment when the economy recovered. Because as the Ministry of Labour's survey of June 1987 showed, seven in 10 of those who were unemployed belonged to the lower income group without Primary Six education or less. I think we should do more for this group of people. So far the Government's approach to this problem, as stated by the First Deputy Prime Minister, is through high economic growth, universal education, skills training, smaller families, etc. I think these are right. But I believe that this macro-approach has not sufficiently reduced the problems of the lower income group. The question I would like to put to the First Deputy Prime Minister is what more can the Government do to help the less privileged in Singapore? They are caught in a vicious circle. The key question is how can we help them to break out of this vicious circle? How do we upgrade the low income earners to become higher income earners? I believe we must look more carefully at the special needs of the poor. Give them hope for their children. Do this through education. Government can provide more assistance for education at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Education must be seen as a form of investment. Providing highly subsidized education to the poorer in our midst would not be too heavy a financial burden for the Government. Education is but one of the means to assist the less privileged in Singapore. Many other forms of support and assistance should also be considered. Like the Government, I believe it is better to give the less privileged a fishing rod and teach them the skill to fish than giving away free fish. This will allow the less privileged to be more resourceful and move ahead. The First Deputy Prime Minister has announced the formation of six advisory councils or committees for the promotion of arts, leisure and others. I would urge him to set up a 7th council, a task force to study the problems facing the poor and the less privileged. The Member for Chong Boon made a similar call in this House in March 1985. I hope this time it does not fall on deaf ears. Based on a proper and detailed study, the Government can then take appropriate measures to help the poor move up the economic ladder. I would urge the Government to act quickly and effectively so that every Singaporean can share in the Vision of 1999 and participate in the building of a Nation of Excellence. Sir, the credibility of the first generation of our political leaders was established when they implemented their vision which is spelt out in 1959 and in the early 60's. what we achieved in the Singapore of today is testimony to the credibility of the first generation leaders. The credibility of the next generation in this Vision would be established when we systematically apply ourselves to implementing the goals that we have set for ourselves. That is how we should look at the question of credibility, a matter which the Member for Potong Pasir had earlier raised. I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir about the credibility of the SDP. For example, I would like to ask him whether in his Party there are two standards, one for the Chairman and one for the Secretary-General, particularly with respect to the issue of multi-racialism, an issue which we consider to be fundamental to the success, the stability and the progress of Singapore. Would the Member for Potong Pasir announce unequivocally in this House whether his Party subscribes to the principles of multi-racialism and whether he has sorted out his differences with his Party Chairman.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think not only myself but everybody else who has been reading the papers as well as the Petir is getting a bit tired of this subject. I would like to tell the House that, in fact, the constitution of the SDP, although it does not specifically say that we are a multi-racial party but under the section on membership our party is open to all who are above 17 years of age except that they must not be members of another party. So in that respect, we are multi-racial because our party is open to all except for certain criteria that they must not be involved with other parties. So it is multi-racial. We do not have to go on that subject again. As far as the Chairman of the SDP is concerned, I think myself and all the other party members have great confidence in him. He is certainly a multi-racialist or he is multi-racial to the core of his bone. [Laughter]. I do not like to end with the word "racialist". It sounds very bad. He believes in multi-racialism. That is as far as our Chairman is concerned. We have every confidence in him. He is a true Singaporean and we have no doubts about him.

May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir whether he would ask his Chairman to state very unequivocally the fact that he supports multi-racialism.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to be given the privilege of coming up to speak so often. I can tell you that he is very disturbed by all this newspaper adverse ---

Mr Chiam, I have allowed you to rise not to make a new speech. Just respond to his point.

Of course, he is.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Agenda for Action by the First Deputy Prime Minister actually contains in the majority the resolutions adopted by the PAP Convention held on the 23rd last month. This is the first time that the ruling party's policies have become a motion to be discussed by Parliament, when passed, to serve as guidelines for government actions. This is also the first time that we see an obvious Merger of the Party with the Government as far as policy making is concerned. This is the inevitable result of the growing strength of the PAP. We can simply say, without PAP there would not be Singapore of today. PAP has in the past apppeared in the society in low profile. However, the policy of PAP has always determined the fate of Singapore. Our party branches in all the constituencies have gone deep into the communities, conducting various kinds of useful activities, serving the people, such as the weekly meet-the-people sessions by the MPs, kindergarten classes and the BEST and WISE courses. All these have been very popular. Although the Agenda for Action is a document adopted by the PAP Convention, it has been derived at through one whole year's consultation with the people of all walks of life throughout the length and breadth of the country. Therefore, this document can be said to be an unprecedented document of importance as it contains the consensus of the people. It contains goals which are the aspiring ideals of the people of Singapore. The objectives and idealism contained in the document although lofty are not something that cannot be reached; provided we all work hard together, we shall be able to make Singapore in 1999, a City of Excellence and a Society of Distinction. As pointed out in paragraph 21 of the Green Paper, economic development is the foundation for political, social and other supra-structure development. Our economy under the PAP Government has achieved remarkable results every year. In spite of the 1985 economic recession, with a series of tough policies and stringent measures of the Government and with some necessary sacrifice of our people, we have rapidly revived our economic progress. Given the continuance of all the conditions for economic growth such as judicious leadership and rational society, we should be able to achieve a 6-8% yearly economic growth and there is greater possibility for us to realize the Vision 1999. Sir, in my view, it is easier to achieve the target of a City of Excellence but it is not so easy to realize a Society of Distinction. One is a material and tangible achievement while the other is more metaphysical involving psychological development of individuals. Everybody has his own different background, and upbringing and resultant idiosyncracy and way of behaviour. It is not easy to merge all the 2.6 million individuals together and inculcate in them the same thought and consciousness and produce the same reaction and behaviour within a brief period. Our forefathers were all immigrants who came from different countries. We all have our different traditions, cultures and customs. Although we are all citizens of independent Singapore and we have a common political identity, but as regards cultural identification we still have great differences. Of course we hope to see the emergence of a unique Singapore culture, the identity with which by all people will help their emotional unity. We cannot forcefully merge all the cultures of different communities together and produce a kind of rojak culture as Singapore culture. The evolution of a unique Singapore culture will take time. We must allow free development and interchange of different cultures a certain period of time. In the meantime, we can only seek identity from diversities and allow the cultures of all communities to develop freely while encouraging the understanding of mutual cultures and traditions. Culture and arts will enable our people to develop similar feelings and will enrich our social life. A Society of Excellence cannot be realized without culture and arts which reflect its standing. To the world in the field of economy Singapore may be a giant, but in culture Singapore is still a dwarf. If we want to achieve our Vision in the coming decade, we should strive harder. We cannot deny that in recent years the Government has exerted some effort in the promotion of culture and arts, while civic organizations and clan associations have also taken part in promoting culture and arts within their provinces. But to change our cultural desert into an oasis, we have to redouble our efforts. The Green Paper in paragraph 31 urges the Government plan to provide more resources for cultural and artistic development. This is something we welcome very much. In the realm of providing cultural and artistic infrastructure, the Government's effort is still not enough. In the field of performing arts and visual arts, there is a lack of site for exhibition or activities. Although we may more or less make use of a few places like the Victoria Concert Hall and Kallang Theatre for performing arts, but compared with those big opera houses in other parts of the world, ours appear to be sub-standard. We pale by comparison. The Government may consider building a more spacious and presentable opera house. In the field of visual arts, the situation is even worse. For exhibition purposes, the only somewhat presentable place is the Arts Gallery in the National Museum. Sometime ago there was also the Victoria Memorial Hall having some space for exhibiting some art work. Now it is being leased out as a branch bank to generate income. Increditable, indeed! Talking about the National Museum Art Galllery, it consists of only some rooms in the left wing of the National Museum. The renovation of this part of the building had cost around a million dollar funded by the Singapore Arts Council. Now this part of the building is dilapidated, being a hundred years old. Often it is infested with termites, the roof is leaking and the ceiling is dropping down. It is understood that from October this year this art gallery will be closed for major renovations for one year. There will be a greater shortage of sites for larger scale art exhibition. As a national art gallery, in addition to an exhibition hall there should be some storehouse for the systematic collecting and storing of art works. At the moment, the National museum Art Gallery storage is not ideal. Every year, there is only some $30,000-$40,000 allotted for purchasing art pieces. Not only world famous artistic pieces are beyond our reach, even for acquiring local pieces this meagre sum is not sufficient. Therefore, a long time the National Museum Art Gallery has to depend on donations from local and foreign artists to enrich its collections. All those who have gone abroad would know that almost in all big cities there are Art Galleries. In some cities or even provincal towns there is more than one art gallery. Now is the time for Singapore to have a proper Art Gallery at the present stage of its development. When it is completed, It will become the focal point of our visual arts and will also serve as a centre for spiritual nourishment. It should have wide storage space and adequate exhibition halls so that it can also exhibit on permanent basis artworks, not just short-term ad hoc exihibitions. Students may turn up there to appreciate or learn the art works of famous masters. This Art Gallery will be able to greatly raise our standing on world cultural map. Some of my friends have told me that if in Singapore there is a proper National Art Gallery, then they will be willing to donate some of their treasured pieces to it. Such a National Art Gallery will likely be a centre for storage of art treasures that can be admired by all. An excellent society should be one in which everybody is cultured and it must be a society that exudes abundant cultural atmosphere. In order to reach this stage, other than the Government providing the necessary foundation and basic infrastructure and the necessary encouragement, all the people must be mobilized to engage in cultural promotion. Of course, not everybody can become an author, an artist, a painter, a dancer or a musician. But with a little training, everybody can become an appreciator of arts or take up a kind of artistic pursuit as a form of recreation for them to spend their leisure time. Human nature has the potential for seeking truth, perfection and beauty. These potentials are capable of being developed given proper initiation and guidance. By then, our people will not be ignorant any more, not even knowing who Picasso or Beethoven or Shakespeare was. An excellent or graceful society is one in which the people will have a balance of material life and spiritual life. Sheer pursuit of material enjoyment will make the people mercenary and uncaring for the others and the society devoid of human compassion. Spiritual life will enable the people to realize what is meaningful living. Indeed, full spiritual living is an internal force that will drive our people forward and upward towards excellence. And this spiritual force will enable our country to be on an invincible position forever. Sir, I fully support the motion by the First Deputy Prime Minister on the Agenda for Action. 4.46 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this document, the Agenda for Action, is a very important document because it will form the basis for future government policy. I have therefore tabled it in Parliament to enable all MPs to have a chance to debate and to endorse the Goals and Challenges, as spelt out in the document. I am pleased to note that every Member of Parliament in this House fully endorses the Agenda for Action, including the Member for Potong Pasir. He has said openly that he agrees with the contents of the document, though he may disagree in other aspects, such as the implementation of ideas in the document. I take it that he agrees with every word as contained in the document because in his speech he has not singled out a single phrase or a single word in which he may not agree with. I therefore would expect him, if he is sincere and honest, when we come to vote on the motion that he would vote in support of the motion. I had hoped that the Member for Potong Pasir would not have followed the steps of the former Member for Anson, and that is to come to this House and make smears against the Government, not backed by evidence. He said that the Government lacked credibility because I refused to tell him when would be the date of the next General Elections. He wanted to know and he was pressing as to when the Prime Minister would retire as Prime Minister. Of course he got no answer from me so he said we were not open enough, and that the Government lacked credibility. Now, if the Government lacks credibility, how would the Member explain that this party has won every General Election since 1959 and each time with more than 50% of the votes? How would he explain the homes which we have built for the people, the MRT, the beautiful city, and the fact that he can have a successful practice in law in Singapore? Lack of credibility? Be realistic and do not come to this House just to smear, and hoping that he can in the process gain some disaffected votes. He said that the Government, if it believes in democracy, should hold by-elections in Anson and Geylang West. Now, where does it state in the law that a by-election has to be held at all? There are now two seats vacant and I am giving the Member for Potong Pasir advance notice that soon 79 seats will be vacant in this House. He should make good use of the time, the notice which I am giving him, to look for good candidates, if he can get them, to meet us in the General Elections in all 79 seats. He might claim that he would not be able to do so because we have de-politicized Singaporeans. Have we in any way stopped the Member for Potong Pasir should he wish to call mass rallies to politicize the people? Has he not been holding forums to meet our points? Of course, we know that his forum has not been very well attended. I believe maybe about 100-150 people attended.

Why don't you attend and find out?

We know because I send members from Marine Parade to your forums from time to time. And if we do not do so, I think your audience would have been smaller! He made another smear against the Government - that people in Singapore fear to speak up.

Can I clarify?

Mr Goh, are you giving way to him?

Yes.

All right. Mr Chiam.

I have not made any smear. I have made a point and I backed it up with reasons. So I do not think it is fair. Please justify what you say. Where did I smear the Government or say anything which I have not backed up with reasons?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought he was going to challenge me on a very important point. When a Member comes into this House and merrily say that the Government has no credibility to implement the Agenda for Action when that Government has won every election since 1959 and has built, by his own acknowledgement, a modern Singapore, you say that is not a smear against the Government?

But I backed it up with my reasons. You want me to repeat?

Please desist from repeating your smear.

Repeat with reasons.

Now, he took exception with the Government for the way it handled the Law Society. I think if members of the Law Society were to repeat their past actions, and that is, to stray away from its legitimate right of presenting views on Bills, the Government will again have to take them through the same course of action. There is no restriction on anybody who wants to speak up in Singapore. Honourable people with honourable intentions and honourable views do not have to fear speaking up in public, criticizing the Government, if they think they have got a point of view. But we cannot allow anyone just to merrily throw stones at the Government. We reserve the right to reply. This point must be clear to the Member for Potong Pasir and to all Singaporeans - that the Government insists on the right of reply, whether stones are thrown at the Government by local Singaporeans or by foreigners. You have the right to speak; we have the right to reply. It is not the fear of speaking up that prevents them from speaking up. It is the fear of the way the Government will reply to them, in the process humiliating them perhaps, when we show them up to be people with no serious views, no serious arguments against our point of view, people who are unable to back up their criticism. And the same applies to our reaction to the Law Society when they took on the Government - that we were trying to stifle dissent when we moved the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act in this House. We asked for the right to reply and in the process, some of them were hurt. When we arrested the people who were involved in the Marxist conspiracy, the interview given by one of them proved our point - that they were using the Law Society for a purpose outside the legitimate interests of the profession and the Society. I have here the transcript of the TV telecast given by Tang Fong Har. She was making the point on how they had moved into the Law Society and using the Law Society for a purpose outside the Law Society. I quote: 'And we talked practically nothing, except the 1984 General Elections. [She was referring to her conversation with one Paul Lim.] And Paul Lim is a very excitable person. He gesticulates a lot. He made many points and he was in favour, he stressed, he emphasized that it is important that perhaps there is a need for more effective opposition.' And Paul Lim encouraged Tang Fong Har to move into the Law Society and to turn the Law Society more effectively for their purpose. To quote Tang Fong Har again: 'I could not recall whether it was at the same discussion or subsequently at another discussion, but Paul Lim specifically talked to Soh Lung and myself about our work in the Law Society.' And later on, she went on to say that: 'It would be good to have lawyers, be discussive about things outside, issues outside the legal profession. But as far as I could recall, he did not specifically suggest any project.' Would you expect the Government not to react to the Law Society when it transgressed its rightful path? Surely any government must be vigilant in its preservation of law and order, in ensuring that members of profession stick to their charter. Another the event happened only last year, but the Member for Potong Pasir seems to have forgotten that had it not been for the vigilance of the Police, the Internal Security Department, there could have been some racial skirmishes. The Internal Security Department arrested four Muslims who were out to create racial riots. I am surprised that within a matter of nine months, the Member for Parliament has forgotten this incident. And it is timely that we should remind Singaporeans from time to time that such possibility of disorder can erupt any time. Four Muslims - one, who was a Fire and Security Officer, who was dismissed from the Police Force; another, a Police Constable attached to Tanglin Police Station; the third a driver, and the fourth a student. The information for this conspiracy by the four Muslims came from members of the Malay community themselves. Have we not reached a stage where there was mutual trust and confidence, where there was accommodation between members of the Malay community and the other races, that information would not had been forthcoming. And that is the position which we want to achieve under our Agenda for Action - to create a multi-racial society whereby there is mutual trust and confidence amongst the various members of the different communities. But in our pursuit of the goals in our Agenda for Action, we have to be vigilant to ensure that no such group will on the quiet work to disrupt the harmony in our society. By all means speak up but do not burrow yourself underground, hide yourself behind legal associations, and plan to create mischief. Because if we do discover that mischief is being planned, we would have to take very stern action against them. I made that point to counter the Member for Potong Pasir's argument that Singaporeans are rational, that they would not go on riot. I am telling the Member that had it not been for the vigilance of the ISD there could have been a racial skirmish. And maybe if conditions had not been created for the races to live in harmony, that incident could have erupted into something more serious. The Member made another point that Singaporeans can now do many things for themselves. They can run their own companies like Nixdorf. I think he lacks a sense of reality. Nixdorf is a German company and it is successful. You have to bear in mind that it is formed by people coming from a continent comprising more than 300 million people. We only have 2(r) million Singaporeans. Do you think Singaporeans can just create a Nixdorf? We can do things ourselves? We should be grateful that we are able to attract companies like Nixdorf Singapore. Nixdorf, well known as it is, is in no way a giant as compared to IBM and Fujitsu. And you want these multi-national companies to be out of Singapore, these multi-nationals be kept away, so that Singaporeans can do things for themselves? We have to have a sense of proportion, a sense of reality. There are certain things which we can do but there are many things which we cannot do. And if we cannot run a multi-national company like Nixdorf, at least we can train ourselves to have the necessary skills to work in such companies and thereby improve ourselves. Now may I touch on another note, that is, the population policy. I feel quite strongly that in order for us to carry out Vision, we have got to be able to mobilize our people to recognize that we do face a very serious problem, ie, if we do not reproduce ourselves, the vitality that is present in this place will be sapped away. You can still feel the vitality now, but 25 years from now if we do not succeed in increasing the population fertility rate, then this place would not be the same as it is today. Last year, we came out with this new population policy to encourage Singaporeans to have three children and more if they can afford it. There is, however, a danger that this policy may be misunderstood by some people - that it means that instead of "Have three and more if you can afford it", it means "Have more". The danger of over-population is far more serious than the danger of under-population. It is not a policy of encouraging everybody just to have more babies, which is why we had this stop-at-two policy some years ago. We have to take into account our resources within the family, as well as the resources within the country, the capacity to support ourselves before we have more and more babies. There is no contradiction in terms. You want to have more babies to improve your fertility rate but that should not be translated into just "having more babies. It is "Have more if you can afford it". It is important that I make this point. Otherwise, very quickly we may have to reverse the policy because everybody is having more children whether or not he can afford it. The policy which we have announced seems to be producing some results. But at this stage I am unable to say whether it is the result of our new policy or whether it is because the policy coincides with the year of the Dragon and the year of the Rabbit. Last year, the total number of marriages increased by 17% over 1986. That is healthy. The number of births increased by 14% over 1986, from 38,380 babies to about 44,000 babies. That is positive. You might recall seeing an article in the Straits Times of a young couple holding a large number of stuffed toys, teddy bears, and proudly proclaiming that they would not be having any babies. They are happier with teddy bears. If all Singaporeans take that attitude, we will end up with more teddy bears than people in Singapore and that would be the end of Singapore. I do not propose to answer every point that has been brought up by Members of Parliament. Many of the points concern details which I will leave to the appropriate Minister to answer during the Budget session. I would like, however, to comment on one or two points raised by some Members. The Member for Kampong Ubi suggested that Government should show more support for Mendaki in its effort to raise the educational level of the Malay community. Yes, of course, I think we would support Mendaki as much as we can. I would suggest that Mendaki should also explore other areas like the drug problem facing the Malay community. Mendaki should try and recruit more members into its management committee so that they can focus their minds on, not just educational, drug addiction problems, but also other social problems which the Malay community may face or is facing even now. The Member for Kolam Ayer asked what would be the policy of the Government with regard to the settlement of the various communities in housing estates. He understood that the policy was to spread the different communities over the different housing estates in Singapore so that each housing estate would be a fair representation of Singapore. In other words, in each housing estate you would find Chinese, Malays and Indians, more or less reflecting their population proportion. He supported this policy. But he has observed that because we allow owners to sell off their flats, there is a tendency for some blocks to be attracting more members from a particular community. He was, I believe, referring to the 3-room blocks of HDB flats where, because of our resale policy, more and more Malays are moving in. I detect that he was concerned that this might lead to an over-representation of a particular community within a block. And he asked what our policy on this was. I think the basic policy of wanting to have a fair mix of population in each housing estate and within each block remains. The question is how do we implement this? Over here, I would look to the Malay Members of Parliament for suggestions as to how best we could implement this policy, how to persuade the people that it is in our interest that each block of flats and each housing estate, has a fair mix of Singaporeans. Now that Parliament has debated the Green Paper and given its unanimous approval, the next step is for us to prepare the programmes to implement our goals, our vision. I propose to adopt a sectoral approach instead of a generalised approach. In other words, focus on specific subjects and plan programmes accordingly to advance the interests within that particular sector. I have announced earlier at the PAP Convention that we intend to form six advisory councils. The idea is to have members outside Government represented on the councils so that policies and programmes as formulated by civil servants, by the Government, can be assessed by others outside the Government. This way, programmes that we would formulate would be more national in character and we can be more sure that different points of view are debated and taken into account before we implement them. The subject matters fall very much within one Ministry - the Ministry for Community Development. Hence, the idea of having one council headed by a different Minister. Otherwise all resources would have to come from a particular Ministry and that would be too narrow a base for us to come out with national programmes to advance our goals as spelt out in our Agenda for Action. The Culture and the Arts Council will be chaired by the Second Deputy Prime Minister; Sports and Recreation by Mr Dhanabalan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and National Development; Family and Community Life by the Minister for Community Development; Youth by BG Lee, Minister for Trade and Industry; the Advisory Council for the Disabled will be chaired by Dr Tony Tan, Minister for Education; and the Council for the Aged, the elderly, will be headed by Prof. S. Jayakumar, Minister for Home Affairs. The Member for Kebun Baru suggested that we should have another council to focus on the needs of the lower income group. I had thought of that council before we decided on the six. The reason why I did not announce the formation of this council was that I do not want to give any false hopes or expectations to the people. The very name of a Council for the Poor, I think, will raise a lot of expectations. Unless we are clear as to what our programmes are and unless we are sure that we can come up with meaningful programmes to advance the interests of the poor in a way in which we have not done up to now, I would hesitate to form a committee. Our formula for eradicating poverty has worked. And that formula will be followed. The formula is to give every Singaporean every opportunity to advance himself through education, a job and self-reliance. That formula has allowed us to successfully increase the number of home owners in Singapore. It has allowed many of us to be here in Parliament. I know for a fact that the Member for Kebun Baru came from a rather humble background, but that formula has allowed him to go beyond that lower income group. The same formula applies to me. I used to live in a wooden house where some 20 people would queue up for one bathroom. My son now lives in a house where he has his own bathroom. So we have to look for the reasons why people still remain where they are. It does not mean that we should not pay specific attention to that group. As I said, our approach now is to be sectoral instead of generalized. I would be happy to reflect on the Member's suggestion as to how we can structure a committee to look into the needs of the lowest income group. I would define the lowest income group as that group which is still unable to own homes. Then the picture is definite. Then we know whom we are talking about. "Poor" means different things to different people. A five-roomer occupant can claim he is poor if he is compared to a Singaporean who lives in a bungalow. We can confine our interest to one particular group, the 20% or so Singaporeans who have not yet own their own homes. How can we get them to own their own homes? How can we improve the educational level of their children? How can we convince them that the way to break out of the poverty trap is not to have more children than they can afford? It is useful for us to think through this before we set up the committee because, as I said, unless we are very clear as to what it is we are capable of achieving, we should not give false hopes to the people who may be affected. Sir, I would like to thank all Members for their contribution to the debate on the Agenda for Action. Now that Parliament, from the speeches made by MPs, has fully endorsed the Agenda for Action, we are ready for the next step which is a Programme of Action, and you will see us coming out with such programmes and implementing them in a matter of months. [Applause].

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House adopts the Goals and Challenges contained in the Agenda for Action and presented to Parliament as a Green Paper (Paper Misc. 2 of 1988) as the basis for nation building and Government policy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Prof. S. Jayakumar, Mr Wong Kan Seng, BG Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Lee Boon Yang be added to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 23/87), and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill (Bill No. 24/87). Sir, on 12th January 1988, I referred the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill to a Select Committee. This House approved the nine Members I named for the Select Committee. Of these 9 Members, only three are Cabinet Ministers. The Select Committee invited the public to submit their views by 15th February, 1988. The Committee has received a total of 99 representations from the members of the public. This is a record number, I believe, of submissions made before any Select Committee of our Parliament. In view of the large number of submissions, and the possibility that a few of the Select Committee Members may be away from Singapore, I propose to add a few of my younger Cabinet colleagues to the Select Committee. They will help the Select Committee weigh all submissions carefully and thoroughly. I propose, first, that the Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, be included. Next, I propose that the Second Minister for Law, Prof. S. Jayakumar, the Minister for Trade and Industry, BG Lee Hsien Loong, the Minister of State for National Development, Dr Lee Boon Yang, be also included in the Select Committee to assist the Committee in its deliberations.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Prof. S. Jayakumar, Mr Wong Kan Seng, BG Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Lee Boon Yang be added to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 23/87), and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill (Bill No. 24/87).

Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourn to Friday, 4th March, 1988." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.

5.24 pm

Sir, much has been said and written about the withdrawal of GSP status for Singapore by the US Administration over the last few weeks. I think it is important to establish certain basic points in this House. At the outset, I must state that I am well aware that the GSP status is a privilege given and not a right. In fact, Sir, we should be thankful for this privilege. Sir, the question that bothers me is: Why the sudden withdrawal? We were told in this House that there was a linkage between the introduction of the Copyright Act and the granting of a new GSP package by the United States Government. This House, Sir, accordingly enacted one of the stiffest Copyright regulations in the world and undoubtedly one of the main beneficiaries was the United States. In return, Sir, a new and favourable GSP package was given to Singapore in 1987. I am told this package, in fact, amounted to a 12% increase in monetary terms, compared to a 3% increase for Hong Kong. The improved package by the US Administration was because Singapore in good faith incorporated all the major US requests. Sir, I am also told that this package can normally be varied only on two grounds: (1) If there is a possible product graduation for sensitive items, and, (2) If Singapore surpasses the per capita income ceiling of US$8,500. Sir, Singapore has not surpassed the US$8,500 per capita income ceiling and neither has there been selective product graduation. Suddenly now the GSP status will be withdrawn with effect from 1st January 1989 for the four NICs to help invariably to reduce US trade deficit. Sir, if the target was really Taiwan and South Korea, then the US Administration should have just removed them. As someone said the other evening, if you just kill one person, then you have committed murder. But if you murder one and shoot three other persons at the same time, then the saying is either you have gone berserk or amok. Sir, the US Administration has chosen to lump us together with the other far more dominant NIC's. Not only were we ignored but apparently we were trampled as well. Sir, I am not saying that Singapore should never be graduated. We all know sometime we must be graduated and we must assume our responsibilities. We have many things in common with the Americans. We both share certain com- mon political and economic values. We both believe in democracy and free enterprise economic system. Both countries believe in free and open trade policies. Singapore has always looked upon the US as the leader of the free world and a dependable partner for free and equal trade. Of course, there are some among us who pontificate that if we are slapped on the right cheek we should offer the left. They advise us that we should not act rashly or hastily and descend at the same time to the same level of the Americans. They even suggested that the American word may not be good. But that does not mean that Singapore should do the same. Sir, to these pundits, I say they should be preaching this to the US and not to us. We are really the aggrieved party. Sir, the removal of GSP status does not mean we are doomed. It means that, from 1st January 1989, US importers will have to pay a tariff of S$70 million or thereabouts for the same level of imports from Singapore. The bulk of these exports to the US under the GSP are parts and components, largely manufactured by US companies in Singapore. This will mean higher costs to US manufacturers and, I believe, will thus further reduce US export competitiveness. One then must ask the US Administration how this action against Singapore will help reduce trade deficit. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am raising this subject in this House because I feel that we have been unjustly treated by the US Administration. What I cannot understand is that if there is an agreement or understanding between the US and Singapore about the linkage between a favourable GSP package and for the enactment of the Copyright Act, then surely it is not asking too much that such understanding be honoured. I hope, Sir, that the Singapore Government will make public whatever documents there are to tell our public and the world at large of the US breach of faith. It is important that this be made public in order to set the record straight. Sir, I also call upon the Government at the same time to take all appropriate measures to put our case strongly to the US Administration. The mood in the US for the time being may not be right because of the impending US election. Nevertheless, Sir, we should not take this action lying down.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I share the view that the US move is a breach of faith as it had earlier promised to continue GSP privilege to Singapore in return for enacting the Copyright law. Till today, we are still puzzled as to why the US has chosen to withdraw GSP benefits from Singapore. If it is because of income, we have yet to hit the per capita GNP ceiling of US$8,500. Is it because the trade balance between the two countries is in our favour? But the US Government must remember that we have a trade deficit with them for many years. Only recently did we begin to enjoy a small trade surplus. Did we impose tariff barriers against US products recently? But we are a free port. Our relationship with the US on a government-to-government basis has never been better. What then are the reasons for graduating us? I urge our Government to seek from the US Government clear criteria for removing Singapore from the GSP list. It is estimated that about $1.5 billion worth of exports to USA will be affected by the move next year. As a result, we are likely to lose something like $50 million worth of benefits. This impact may not appear great but it would be if other countries, such as Japan and the European Community, were to follow the US footsteps to remove Singapore from the GSP list. The overall impact on the economy, including job losses, will be significant. The removal of Singapore from the US GSP list from January next year appears to come at the wrong time for us, especially when economists and businessmen have forecasted that there could be a slowdown in our economy in the next one to two years, including the possibility of another economic recession. This would be a double blow to our Singapore companies, coming at a time when they have just emerged from the recession and implemented drastic measures to become more competitive. I hope the US Government would review its decision, conduct a more careful study of Singapore's situation and consider deferring the withdrawal of GSP benefits from Singapore by a few more years. I support the suggestion by the Member for Chong Boon that our Government should continue to take up the matter of GSP benefits with the US Government. I would also like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he has plans or measures to prevent other countries, such as Japan and the European Community, from following the US footsteps to prematurely withdraw Singapore from the GSP list. This recent development of US GSP has once again confirmed our vulnerability as a very small nation. The move also sends a strong signal to our local businessmen that we cannot remain complacent but to continue to upgrade and be productive, to improve our international competitiveness and to diversify our markets. Perhaps it is appropriate at this juncture for our local businessmen to seriously consider joining forces, merging and forming what we call Singapore MNCs to compete overseas. Only by investing and operating in overseas markets can our businessmen overcome protective trade barriers. I hope this development will help accelerate the process of formation of Singapore MNCs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to you for letting me join in this discussion. The crux of the matter is whether we have infringed any of the established rules of the US GSP to warrant the action of the US Government. Although the GSP, as we know, is a privilege and not a right, there are nonetheless very clear rules. The US Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, has stated that the US plays by the rules. Unless Mr Shultz is referring to another set of rules the reality is that Singapore is the party that has played by the US rules. In a mandatory General Review which was completed on 4th January 1987, the US set a ceiling of US$8,500 per capita GNP to define the upper limit income of a developing country. My colleague has already indicated that we are within that limit. There are six other factors which I would like to go over in some detail. First, whether the US has equitable and reasonable access to our market. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the US. Almost all US goods come into Singapore duty-free. Next year, less than half of Singapore's exports to the US will not attract duty. Another important consideration is that our imports up to now from the US are mainly equipment and machinery. This means long term dependence on spare parts and long-term imports. Our exports to the US have no such long-term implications. Second, whether there are any unreasonable export practices. Our record is clean. Third, trade distorting investment practices and policies. Singapore has no such investment practices and policies. Fourth, whether we remove barriers to trade. We are one of the greatest exponents of free trade. Fifth, whether we accord to workers internationally recognized worker rights. Our record of the NTUC speaks for itself. Lastly, whether we provide adequate and effective protection of US intellectual property rights. We met this condition at the instigation of the US in passing the Copyright Act last year. There is no question that we have played by the US rules and that the absence of the Copyright Act was our only deficiency under the GSP scheme. As the Copyright Act was tied in to the US GSP issue, I think the linkage is very clear. My reaction then at that time, on 29th January, was to support the call for the suspension of the Copyright Act. However, a suspension will gain us little and will alienate friends who have supported our stand on this issue. This morning an American businessman told me that nine out of 10 US businessmen support us in this matter. As a small country, we have few bargaining chips. Therefore, the Copyright Act should be retained so that we can use this as a preamble in all future negotiations and dealings with the US. Nothing is more honourable than to speak with conviction and strength that we have kept our side of the bargain. By all means, diversify our market dependence, increase trade with those who are supportive of us and even use administrative measures to redress the imbalance which will be in favour of the US next year. But I say let us stay on a high moral ground and leave the Copyright Act alone. Besides the apprehension raised by my colleague from Kaki Bukit, the other repercussion is that this may affect our efforts in attracting new investments into Singapore. The access to the US market through the GSP is a very important investment tool. Of the some 50 or so major exporters to the US under the GSP, about 70% are foreign-owned, mainly from the US, the European Community and Japan. Their export value is much higher than 70%. With the loss of this important investment tool, we will have to work much harder to be ahead of other developing countries. This is assuming that we are already not doing our utmost. This blunting of our competitive edge as an investment centre means that the Government must do all it can to convince the next US Administration to re-admit us into the scheme. As this is election year and is probably the main motivator of this GSP move, our chances of a good argument carrying weight are almost nil.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the question of the withdrawal of our GSP rights by the United States, we should see the dispute in context. The US is a strategic ally of Singapore. We have many interests in common. This dispute is not with an enemy but with a friend. And despite the dispute, he is still a friend, and that determines how we should react and what actions we should take in response. The Member for Chong Boon briefly outlined the terms and conditions of the GSP (Generalized System of Preferences), a unilateral grant by some developed countries of privileges to developing countries. In America, it comes under the 1984 US Trade and Tariff Act which states quite clearly that these are privileges which will cease when the following takes place. Either we hit US$8,500 per capita GNP, which we have not, or the law is changed by the US Congress, which has not happened either, or the law expires, which takes place in 1993. This is 1988. So according to the established criteria, we were not due to be graduated. We have made the point that there is a linkage between GSP and Copyright. Some doubt has been cast as to the nature of this linkage. The Member for Chong Boon asked just now: what is it? The linkage occurs like this. I propose to provide the full chronology and the documents to prove it. In 1985, the US Trade Representative's Office's conducted a GSP General Review. It is a mid-term review to decide what changes are needed in the scheme until it runs to completion. It was to decide which countries should continue to enjoy GSP privileges and, if so, to what extent. The Member for Radin Mas gave a list of the criteria: (1) Access to Singapore markets for US goods and services, (2) Export practices. That means do we give unfair subsidies to our exporters. (3) Protection of US intellectual property rights. That means tapes, discs, computer programmes, software. (4) Trade distorting investment practices and policies, (5) barriers to trade and goods and services and then (6) internationally recognized workers' rights. Do we have a union movement? Are our workers' interests protected by law? Six items. The US told us in our discussions that, as far as Singapore is concerned, only one was of interest and, that is, intellectual property rights. On the rest, we were as clean as we could be. Our first bilateral consultations took place on 13th November 1985. The US expressed the hope that Singapore would pass a new copyright law before the end of the GSP General Review. We responded that positive steps were being taken towards enacting a new law. Second bilateral consultations, 6th May 1986. The US said they could not commit the Singapore request for competitive need limit (CNL) waivers, ie how much of each type of item we are allowed to send to US under GSP tariff-free. They could not commit. In other words, bargaining: the US would not tell Singapore first, but if Singapore were to respond favourably to US concerns on copyright protection, then it would be possible to exercise greater flexibility on Singapore's waiver requests. We cannot commit, but if you improve copyright protection, we can show greater flexibility. Third bilateral consultations, 22nd to 23rd September 1986. We showed the US our draft copyright legislation and pointed out that we had expedited our legislation, brought it forward and speeded it up because of the US GSP General Review. Secondly, that we had incorporated specific provisions which the US side had requested. The US studied this. They made further specific requests for changes. We took note. The US stated at this third consultation that, in view of Singapore's action on copyright, the US Trade Representative's Office could defend a GSP package "plus side of net neutral" for Singapore: something slightly more than nothing. And then the GSP package for Singapore would be better than that offered to the other advanced developing countries - Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. We recorded this in a Record of Understanding, agreed by the two sides. I am releasing the Record of Understanding to the press. Let me quote here just two sub-paragraphs from (ii) and (iii): 'The US delegation stressed that it would recommend a favourable GSP package described below if the new Copyright Act were passed with the changes described below and protection granted to US works by the end of 1986.' In other words, improve copyright, better GSP package, terms spelt out, particular items. Paragraph 3: 'Based on paragraph 2 above, the US delegation would recommend a favourable package for Singapore under the US GSP General Review.' It is quite unambiguous. In November I met the US Assistant Secretary of State, Mr John Monjo. He was visiting in Singapore. There was some delay in our Copyright legislation because the Select Committee received more sub- missions than we had anticipated. The Committee had to go through them and hear all the representors, and we could not meet the December deadline. So I informed Mr John Monjo that the Copyright Bill passage might be delayed for a few months. The Singapore Government fully intended to proceed with it, but it was just harder to do than we expected. The US officials were greatly alarmed. They thought we were reneging, cheating. They expressed extreme concern, because the GSP General Review had to be completed by January 1987. In other words, stick to the deadline; if we did not stick to the deadline, the deal was off. And to make quite sure we understood, they later handed us a "non-paper". A non-paper is a document with no date, no signatures, no attributions. This one presented the US position, stressing the linkage between copyright protection and GSP. I quote from the non-paper: 'Both the timing and the quality of copyright protection were key in justifying the recommendation of such a favourable GSP package for Singapore. Deterioration in quality and/or timing of copyright protection will result in the GSP Committee recommending a less favourable GSP package for Singapore.' Then, finally, the punchline: 'Our principals have asked that the Government of Singapore inform the Embassy by December 5 whether it will carry out the terms of the Record of Understanding or, alternatively, whether the Government of Singapore wishes to reopen the GSP package agreed upon in September.' In other words there was a package which was sealed, please stick to it. We satisfied the Americans that the delay was not a malicious one and was in good faith. In January 1987, the US Administration affirmed Singapore's GSP status and granted us a favourable package, as you have heard, better than the other countries. In April 1987, Parliament passed the Copyright Bill. In May 1987, one month later, Singapore entered into a bilateral agreement with the US on copyright protection. This was necessary because the Copyright Bill only protects works of Singapore writers and works published in Singapore. To protect works published elsewhere, like in America, a bilateral agreement was necessary. Framework was provided, but the agreement was signed in May. On 1st July 1987, a new GSP package came into effect. Nearly two years after the negotiations started, in July 87, we started to enjoy the enhanced privileges. The linkage between GSP and copyright is therefore quite clear. It is hard to understand how now, barely six months after the new package became effective, the US can argue that, notwithstanding the agreement, it is entitled to graduate Singapore unilaterally at any time it likes. At the least, such an interpretation must make it harder for the US to persuade other countries to improve the protection they give to US intellectual property. We are an example and the lesson will not be missed. The Member for Chong Boon asked that we put our arguments strongly to the US side. This we have done, and we will continue to do. In fact, we have formally asked the US to confirm three things: First, that the facts, as I have just presented them, are correct. Secondly, that the US, and particularly the US Trade Representative's Office, did make a clear and explicit linkage between Singapore's GSP status and the timing and the substance of the Copyright Bill which was passed in Parliament; and Thirdly, that having met US concerns on copyright protection, Singapore should have been able to enjoy the benefit of the GSP package as provided for under the 1984 Trade and Tariff Act of the United States. We are now waiting a US reply. How do we respond? The Member for Chong Boon says, "Please don't just turn the other cheek." I think we respond not meekly but in a measured, commensurate way. The Government is still considering the alternatives. We are studying the possible appropriate means to register our protest and we will act in due course.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes to Six o'clock pm to Friday, 4th March 1988.

asked the Minister for Education if he will state the number of PAP kindergartens currently opened in Singapore and the number situated in (i) Housing and Development Board estates and (ii) privately owned buildings.

There are at present 180 PAP kindergartens. 177 are situated in HDB estates and 3 in privately-owned buildings.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the likely effects of the withdrawal of the Generalised System of Preferences by the United States on the Singapore economy.

In 1987, out of the 3,000 products under the US GSP programme, Singapore exported slightly more than 700 items valued at about S$3.5 bn (US$1.7 billion) to the US. However, 40% of this trade failed to qualify for GSP because of insufficient domestic content, other GSP rules, or administrative reasons. As a result, only S$2.5 billion of our domestic exports to the US actually enjoyed duty-free treatment under the GSP programme. This is about 20% of our exports to the US, and 9% of our total non-oil domestic exports. With an average duty of about 5%, our exporters will have to pay some S$125 million more in duties without the GSP benefits. Graduation of Singapore from the US GSP programme on 2 January 1989 will undoubtedly affect our competitiveness in the US market. Fortunately our major competitors, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea will also be graduated at the same time. For items where we are competing mainly with these countries, like radio cassette recorders, toys, motors, computer equipment and telecommunication equipment, the impact will therefore be less severe. A significant proportion of our GSP exports to the US are manufactured by US MNCs here. The removal of the GSP benefits will hurt the competitiveness of industries in the US which depend on these imports as industrial inputs. Loss of GSP benefits will also affect many Singapore industries. Industries can no longer afford to depend solely on GSP markets. They will have to find ways to cut costs and improve their productivity. They must compete not only in price but also in product design and quality. Singapore must work harder to attract new investments. We will have to improve the quality and efficiency of our infrastructure and skilled manpower. If we can do this, our economy will weather this untimely graduation and continue to develop and prosper. paragraph 3 of Annex A (Cols. 603 - 604) Annex B (Cols. 605 - 608) paragraph 3 also of Annex C (Cols. 609 - 610)