Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed privileged to be given the opportunity to speak and to move the Motion of Thanks to the President. Sir, I beg to move, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.". The Sixth Parliament saw a period of significant changes and emerging trends in our nation. This Seventh Parliament stands on the threshold of a society that could well be markedly different from the one that we have known. Our job, as a government, would be to consolidate those changes which seek to bring our country to a higher level of economic, social and political development and to arrest or reverse those trends with the potential for instability and possibly chaos. The President's Address provides us with the broad direction that this Government should take. And I therefore urge my colleagues in this Chamber to consider and debate the speech carefully and seriously. Sir, economic concerns have taken a somewhat lower profile in the speech. The emphasis has been on moulding values and institutions in preparation for a qualitative change in Singapore. It is in the political arena that changes and happenings have been most dramatic. We introduced the GRC concept, town councils, the proposal for an Elected President and saw the change to a younger political leadership. We launched the National Agenda, set up Government Parliamentary Committees and mooted the formulation of a National Ideology. We witnessed the passing of a Minister, the disqualification of an MP, and the resignation of a President. All these serve to heighten the political awareness of our population and will no doubt have a deep and lasting impact on our future. The success of a new political contract between government and the people concluded at the last General Election and of the new political leadership will depend on how we proceed from here, how they are accepted by the people, how practicable and effective they are. There is no doubt, Sir, that our people have become more politically conscious and discerning. They are now more prepared than previously to articulate their views and criticisms, more eager to participate in the running of the country. Sir, one section of the population that we have to pay particular attention to is the young among us. Those between 15 and 30 years old make up about 32% of the population. This is a significant proportion, judging by their numbers and considering the role that this group would play in shaping our future. About 8 in 10 are below 25 years of age, which means that they have grown up in a period of increasing affluence and political stability. Speaking to many young people left me with the impression that few really appreciate the constraints, limitations and challenges that dictate our lives here. Many also feel that we have exaggerated somewhat these challenges and limitations without realizing that they have not inhibited our progress because we have so far managed them effectively and efficiently. And unfortunately too, some of the youths who do appreciate these challenges would rather leave for other freer and bigger countries than stay on to contribute. Sir, the entire memory of local politics among youths is filled with relative political calm in a one-party dominated government which, to quote an academic friend, "benevolently regulates every niche in one's life". Compared with the liberalism seen and read about in other countries, it is therefore understandable if our youths, especially the well-educated ones, should feel constrained and restless, and their expectations of local politics different from the generations before them. This trend is already discernible and this trend is becoming stronger. But the trend is also no less significant among the older age groups. Some perhaps have forgotten their earlier political experiences; some perhaps think that our political history and methods have no bearing on the present and on the future. Yet others want changes because of perceived personal injustice done to them. The sum total of all this, Sir, is that more Singaporeans wish for a more participatory form of government, less regulation, more flexibility. I remember the then Member for Changkat had alluded to these growing sentiments in a similar motion at the last session of Parliament, and I am reiterating her point as I see the trend gathering momentum. To be sure the Government has responded to these changes. The Feedback Unit was established, GPCs were formed, the Institute of Policy Studies was set up, Advisory Councils were formed. We should therefore continue and even enhance our consultative and more open style of government. More ways should be found to accommodate dissenting views and to seek out alternative suggestions so long as they are constructive. This process, Sir, may mean slower but, I am sure, more acceptable decisions for the people. The conditions are right, the people want it. The Government should therefore be more forthcoming with explanations on policy proposals and decisions and provide the public with more information wherever possible. Feedback should continue to be sought and acted upon. More innovative carrot-and-stick methods should be looked into. Till now we have depended heavily on monetary rewards and penalties to achieve our aims and solve our problems. To slow traffic growth, more taxes; to discourage increase in foreign maids, we up the levy and make all employers pay the security deposit cash, regardless of whether or not they abuse the system. Sir, the danger of monetary penalties is that they can be easily overcome as we continue to prosper, without the objectives of these penalties being necessarily achieved. But worse, they may imbue in our citizens the impression that money can solve almost everything and rankle those without the means to pay. Let me touch briefly, Sir, on the Elected President proposal. I am heartened by the President's assurance that the issue would be discussed fully before it is implemented. This is important because we should not be seen to be bulldozing the proposal, beneficial as it may be, onto a reluctant and sceptical population. My own experience in the recent General Election indicated that the method has yet to be conclusively resolved. There are people who do not agree with the proposal even among those who claim that they voted for the PAP. We may proceed to equate voting for the PAP as a package which includes assent for the proposal. But there are nevertheless voters who make a very clear distinction between support for the Party and agreeing with the proposal. This we must not dismiss altogether, otherwise they will feel cheated if we do not make this distinction too. We therefore must proceed carefully and unhastily. The bottom line, Sir, is that the Government will have to be more responsive to the expectations and aspirations of Singaporeans. But at the same time, the Government will have to continue to remind Singaporeans of our constraints, our limitations, and the challenges that lie ahead for the nation. The latter must accept that we are unique in many respects and what works in other countries need not necessarily be workable in our context. And so long as our fragility and constraints are recognized, changes within these boundaries need not be feared and our political stability can be assured. Let me now proceed, Sir, to the subject of the National Ideology. The proposed formulation was first introduced by the First Deputy Prime Minister in October last year. This was prompted by the need to institutionalize a system of core values to serve as our national ethic in view of the continuing drift of our people, especially the younger ones, towards more liberal western values and attitudes, and to build a more united and cohesive Singaporean society. As with all things new, the proposed formulation of a National Ideology (NI) has its share of sceptics and its share of critics. Do we really need one? Why now? Will it not impose certain values on our citizens? These are some of the questions asked and indeed they must be answered satisfactorily. But the most daunting task, Sir, will be the search for and choice of values that will be part of the NI. The inherent nature of the NI and the heterogeneity of our society inevitably begs the question: Whose values do we adopt? And given the distribution of communities into the majority and the minorities, the natural and expected question from the latter would be: will the majority determine and impose their will on us? The reaction is understandable. Sir, it is one thing for people to dress in others' national constumes or to partake of other culinary traditions. But to adopt from elsewhere and call one's own something as personal, as deep and powerful as a value, is a different and more serious exercise altogether. I am therefore gladdened first, by the views of the Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs who cautioned against cultural chauvinism and then, more recently, by the Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence, who assured us that the national ideology was not a ruse for imposing Confucian values on the minority communities. Now that the game rules have been established, I hope we can get on with the search for the values which will be included in the NI. I therefore urge everyone, and the minority communities included,to participate fully in this search for there is much that everyone can contribute. And my appeal, Sir, is for everyone to keep an open mind, sceptics and crticis alike, about the NI and give our sincere and honest input. Indeed, the national ideology is for the future, something which we will bequeath to the generations that are to come. However, I can see an immediate benefit in the very process of the search for the set of values, for it would require the whole nation to consciously bring its mind to bear on the whole range of ideals and their sources for possible inclusion in the NI. In so doing, each of us will have to define our own concepts and ideas and compare and contrast them with those of our neighbours. This, Sir, is an education in itself, for as we examine the validity of our own assumptions, our own premises and conclusions and judge them against those of others, we increase our awareness and understanding of the social, political and emotional environment in this country. And provided we conduct this process honestly and constructively, I am confident that we can arrive at a consensus on what the national ideology should contain. And we need not do so in a hurry, Sir, for we must be seen to be working with rather than for the people on this project. Already some have dismissed this whole process as merely going through the motion and that Government has already determined what the NI should be, all completed and stashed away somewhere merely awaiting announcement at the appropriate moment. One final point, Sir, on this subject and that involves the term "national ideology" itself. One organization feels that the word "ideology" invites misinterpretation. It has political connotations and could create discomfort for some who may feel that they are ascribing to some political thought. And this organization suggests the word "philosophy" instead as a possible alternative. This may be a matter of semantics and does not stray from the form and purpose of the set of values that we seek to build for the nation. But if it makes for a more acceptable final product, the Government should consider looking into this suggestion. Let me now go on to multi-racialism which, to my mind, is a cornerstone of our nation. Sir, we speak tirelessly of the need for the various communities here to live in peace and harmony with each other. But after doing so for so long, I believe we still have to continually remind ourselves of this crucial need for the country. This is because we have seen nations, previously models of multi-racialism, crack or crumble almost overnight because of breakdown in racial relations. This is because there are still chauvinists and communalists even among the educated among us. This is because should we be divided by race, the country may never ever recover from the destruction. So it is imperative that we be sensitive when it comes to discussing race or when we handle issues which impinge on race. Sir, brought up in an atmosphere where open discussions of race were taboo, I found the recent statements on racial issues at first unsettling. It was just like standing up to walk immediately after having sat cross-legged for hours on end. Never before had issues on race been discussed that openly and often with candour. I must confess that I had felt uneasy and even chagrined by the emerging frankness with which references to my own community were made. It appeared that we did nothing right. It seemed that we were singled out for regular unmeritorious mention. The reaction and perception of the Malay community, Sir, were not unsimilar and even many non-Malay friends asked me for the reasons for this new phenomenon. Indeed it came to a point when some members of my own community were on the verge of disowning my Malay parliamentary colleagues and me for not openly championing their interests or challenging strongly enough the perceived indignities aimed at the community. Sir, I have used this episode and personal experience to illustrate the sensitivities and the realities of our multi-racial society. Like an eggshell, it is so easy to crack, immensely difficult to patch up. Yet, I do not propose that we stop the trend of discussing race openly and frankly provided we know and accept the limits. For keeping it a forbidden subject would mean each of us continuing to live with our own preconceptions, our own prejudices and our own stereotypes. We will continue to live in ignorance of one another, depending on hearsay, on rumours, and act as such and pass on our own values and attitudes to our children and theirs. I do concede, Sir, that in the initial stages such openness could heighten our consciousness of race and its various issues. Many will be uncomfortable and even feel hurt. But I believe that if we proceed carefully and cautiously, all this can come to pass. The potential explosiveness of the subject will be diffused and we will emerge more at ease with our own individual differences. It may take some time and it will need a lot more effort and the right frame of mind. While we are being increasingly open we will still have to maintain our sensitivities and indeed increase our tolerance. And for the time being at least, there will still be ethnic issues which many of us are still unprepared to deal with openly but discussed only among the informed and only behind closed doors. Openness, Sir, must be comfortable for all. It must be to seek better understanding. It must be to clarify. It must build; never, never, Sir, a licence for indiscriminate or irresponsible comment or accusation. On the other hand, sincere and constructive comment or statement should be viewed in like manner and taken positively. I do realize that this may be easier said than done but a beginning will have to be attempted if any headway is to be achieved at all. Sir, sensitivity does not stop at mere avoidance of unwanted utterances and unwanted acts. It also implies taking into account ethnic factors in every field of endeavour, as the President rightly pointed out in his Address. A case in point is the unequal rates of progress among the different communities here. The need for the Malay community to keep up with the others must be the concern of the community itself. But it has to be viewed, as has been pointed out, as a national issue and problem. No society can remain unaffected for long if one of its component communities perceives itself as being far behind the others and left with only a meagre slice of the economic pie. I am therefore gratified with the President's assurance that Government will continue to assist the Malay community to further progress into the mainstream of national life. And reading between the lines, Sir, I hope I am right in concluding that this includes assistance to the proposed Mendaki II project to uplift the Malay community. I concede there may be political costs involved. But then again, such costs can be minimized if everyone can see the issue as a national rather than a purely communal one. To be sure, the Malay community itself must play its part and is a more crucial one too. The opportunities which present themselves must be grabbed, worked at and snowballed to further upgrade the community. For no amount of assistance will help unless the community itself makes its own efforts to progress. Without this effort, it is like gorging on cake and ice-cream while running on a treadmill to reduce one's weight. The community must therefore support the proposed institution and participate in the programmes it intends to organize, and indeed all other Government and community programmes and policies aimed at improving the community. This will indicate to the Government and to the rest of society that the community is serious and positive and committed to respond to the schemes beneficial to the community and, by extension, Sir, to the nation. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.