Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Green Paper on the Agenda for Action was adopted by Parliament in February this year as the guideline for Government policy that would lead Singapore into the 21st century. It was the culmination of more than one year's effort in involving large numbers of people from all walks of life in consensus building. As such, the document belongs to the whole nation. It is an agreement between the people and the Government on what our national objectives are, and how we should achieve them. At the tabling of the Green Paper, the First Deputy Prime Minister promised to commit the full weight of the Government machinery to the implementation of the Agenda. But the events of the last few months - beginning with the re-arrest of the eight ex-detainees in April, followed by the detention of Patrick Seong, to the disclosure of the Hendrickson affair, the detention of Francis Seow, and lately, the White Paper on Devan Nair - have taken up so much of the Government's and the public's attention that they threaten to distract our efforts from putting the Agenda into action. In addition, these events have caused a lot of bewilderment, confusion and sadness to the nation. Now that these issues have been adequately dealt with, I feel it is the duty of someone from the Backbenches to call upon the Government to quickly put them behind us and to concentrate on the tasks that lie ahead. In all of these events, it was necessary for the Government to take action. The Government did not cause these events to happen. It was only reacting to them, as they unfolded, one by one. When a group of ex-detainees issued a joint statement denying their involvement in the Marxist plot and alleging mistreatment at the hands of the Internal Security Department's officers, the Government had to investigate into their allegations. When the Hendrickson affair was discovered, the Government had to protest. When Mr Devan Nair denied his medical condition at the time of his resignation, the Government had to clarify. However, it was very difficult for the general public to absorb the huge amount of information that suddenly flooded the mass media, in the form of published statutory declarations, press conferences, news reports, columns in the Forum pages, and what have you. There was hardly any time to digest the full significance of one issue before another would emerge. And in spite of the time, energy and resources that we spent on explaining and clarifying, some people are still not convinced; others feel the Government has over-reacted. In the case of the White Paper, nobody is delighted by it. In fact, we are all saddened and embarrassed by it. Perhaps, Sir, the most unfortunate thing that has emerged from all these events is the widespread perception, particularly among the professionals and intellectuals, and even among some grassroots, that the Government has used these events to sound a warning to its critics, or worse still, to crack down on dissent. This perception threatens to counter all the worthwhile efforts we have made towards an open-style government which is the very essence of the consultation process that gave birth to the Agenda for Action in the first place. In retrospect, the perception has developed over a couple of years out of what seem to be conflicting signals from the Government itself. On the one hand, the open-style is evidenced in the work of the Economic Committee in 1985; the formation of the Feedback Unit, March 1985; formation of the nine Government Parliamentary Committees, February 1987; and the National Agenda forums throughout 1987. But on the other hand, there were the controversial Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, September 1986; Legal Profession (Amendment) Act, October 1986; gazetting of Time magazine, October 1986; Asian Wall Street Journal, February 1987; Asiaweek, October 1987; Far Eastern Economic Review, December 1987; and the arrest of the Marxists in May and June last year. These seem to indicate the Government has little tolerance for criticism. The Government's actions on each of those controversial issues during 1986 and 1987 were based on reasons specific to the circumstances of each case. The issues concerned were different, separate issues, but some members of the public see a connecting line between them. They see a design, a fitting together of a pattern. They doubt the sincerity of the Government. They feel disenchanted, discouraged and some even feel intimidated. This kind of perception, if left unchecked, will eat into the confidence of the people in the younger generation leaders. To win back the critics and the skeptics, we require patience and gentleness; firmness, yes, but not what may be construed as heavy-handedness. Meanwhile, we must turn back immediately to our task of meeting the needs and aspirations of the majority of the population. The majority of Singaporeans are more concerned over jobs, housing, and education for their children. They fully appreciate the success with which the Government has revived the economy within two years of the 1985 recession. They have taken their CPF cut in great stride and supported wage restraint. Now that the economy is doing well again, they expect a fair share of the rewards. Small and medium-sized local enterprises still look to the Government for assistance and workers, young and old, depend on the Government to provide training and retraining. Beyond these bread and butter issues, the population also aspires for more social and cultural opportunities, for more meaningful family and community life. All these needs have been given proper recognition in the Agenda for Action. It is undeniable that such needs can only be met if the fundamentals are kept intact. Thus, it is instructive to remind the population occasionally that it should not be complacent. To my mind, the debates generated by the Herzog visit, the Commission of Inquiry into allegations of executive interference into the judiciary, the Commission of Inquiry into Mr Teh Cheang Wan, the Marxist plot and the Hendrickson affair, have reminded our people of the importance of fundamentals. But these have also cost much precious time during the last two eventful years. Now, we must press on with our work of leading the country onto a higher plane of development. We have very important legislation still to be considered. We have the work of Town Councils to be implemented and we still look forward to the recommendations of the six Advisory Councils. I would appreciate the First Deputy Prime Minister's re-assurance that he will put the full weight of the Government's machinery behind the implementation of their recommendations.