Hansard, 1989-01-20

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated:- Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC) - from 27th January to 2nd February 1989. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will give the number of residents already relocated from 1-room and 2-room flats affected by the Housing and Development Board's relocation exercise, as at the latest convenient date; (b) what steps are being taken to assist residents who cannot be relocated from these flats; and (c) whether adequate 1-room and 2-room HDB flats will be retained for future need.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 23,701 tenanted rental units were affected when the relocation exercise commenced. By 1 January 1989, tenants in 23,254 units (or 98% of the total) had been relocated. The remaining 447 cases are being offered rental flats in the same or nearby estates. HDB will give them priority if they intend to purchase flats. The HDB will retain an adequate number of 1-room and 2-room rental flats for those who require transitional housing or the few who are unable to purchase their own flats.

Sir, could some attention be paid to giving a face-lift and improving these flats before the town council takes over?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the Member means by "these flats". Does he mean the flats affected by relocation?

I mean those 1- and 2-room flats not affected by relocation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, where the flats are to be cleared and demolished, I see no purpose in giving them a face-lift. But those that are going to be retained will be given the usual face-lift in accordance with the cyclical repairs.

Can the Minister tell us whether residents have been forced to get out of their flats?

Mr Speaker, Sir, once a block has been identified for re-location and everybody who is in that block is given notice to move, they can move to another rental flat or they can purchase another flat. If they want to purchase another flat, of course as I mentioned, they will have priority. In addition, they will be able to purchase a flat without having to make any downpayment. They will get 100% loan for the purchase of a flat provided it is not bigger than a 4-room flat. So every assistance is given for them to move. But they have to move because the block cannot be demolished and the place cannot be redeveloped if it is occupied.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether any decision has been taken with regard to the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation's plan for a North-East route which will cover Serangoon New Town, Jalan Kayu and Punggol.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has decided, in principle, to extend the MRT system in a north-easterly direction, from the vicinity of Chinatown and the City to the vicinity of Punggol and Jalan Kayu. The timing for the construction will, of course, depend on the development of housing estates in the north-easterly sector, because unless there is sufficient demand for the MRT, the MRT will not be economically viable. Presently, MRTC, URA, and HDB are studying possible route alignments for the MRT extension bearing in mind the future housing and urban developments along that corridor. Detailed MRT engineering and soil studies will begin when HDB and URA have completed their plans.

Sir, is the Minister aware that some of the properties along Upper Serangoon Road are said to be affected by the plan and as a result, the owners of these properties are unable to sell their properties even though they are in financial difficulties?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that matter is under the purview of the Ministry of National Development. I am sure if the Member for Braddell Heights will bring this to their attention, the Minister will look into the matter.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give an assessment of the current drug problem and the steps which are being taken to strengthen the control of drug flow through the Woodlands check-points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the drug problem in Singapore is under control but I must inform the House that we are very concerned because the overall drug supply in this region continues to deteriorate. The Golden Triangle region (the border area formed by Burma, Laos and Thailand) where opium is produced remains a big threat. This is because bumper harvests have been recorded since 1981 and more opium is expected from that region. Neighbouring countries, such as Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong, have also reported increased seizure of narcotic drugs in 1988. Correspondingly, Singapore has also detected increased inflow of heroin last year. Last year, the main drug of abuse was heroin, with 85% of addicts being on that drug. 5,451 drug addicts were arrested, of which 23% were identified as new addicts. We are also concerned with the increase in the proportion of Malay heroin addicts, especially the increase of new Malay heroin addicts. In 1983, they comprised some 40%, which increased to 69% in 1988. However, the incidence of school children and SAF military personnel abusing drugs is still very low. Most of the drugs enter Singapore through the Woodlands Checkpoint. It is being smuggled by both Malaysian and Singaporean 'ant-traffickers'. The number of Malaysian traffickers detected has also increased over the last two years. In 1986, 46 were detected; in 1987, 68; and last year, 85. To curb the inflow of drugs through the Woodlands Checkpoint, several measures have been taken. First, we have set up a Woodlands Task Force comprising officers from CNB, Customs, Police and Immigration to complement Customs' efforts in detecting the illegal smuggling of drugs. This Task Force uses narcotic detector dogs to help sniff out concealed drugs. Secondly, we have installed an instant urine test (IUT) machine to detect drug addicts coming into Singapore. Some of the addicts are what I described as 'ant-traffickers', that is, they traffic in small quantities of drugs so as not to attract capital punishment. Confirmed addicts are admitted to the Drug Rehabilitation Centres for treatment. Malaysian addicts are refused entry. From March to December 1988, 164 Singaporeans were detected and 533 Malaysians were refused entry. A total of 26 traffickers were also detected at the Woodlands Checkpoint. We are also stringent in issuing passports to ex-drug offenders and persons who are believed to want to travel for purposes of consuming drugs in Malaysia. In 1988, a total of 1,065 Singaporeans were denied passports. Central Narcotics Bureau will purchase more instant urine test (IUT) machines for use in their island-wide operations to identify and ferret out drug addicts. Marine Police will also intensify their patrols around Singapore waters and Customs will intensify their checks at all entry points. Members will have read recently, a large consignment of heroin, some 23 kg, was seized by alert Customs officers at Clifford Pier. To tackle the increasing number of Malay addicts, the Malay Anti-Drug Abuse Task Force working with other Malay/Muslim organizations is currently planning a strategy to tackle this problem. It will work very closely with my Ministry and SANA. Finally, Sir, a 2-month anti-drug campaign will be launched later this year to create public awareness and educate parents on the dangers of drug abuse.

Sir, could the Minister tell us the level of cooperation between Singa- pore and the neighbouring countries in the control of drug trafficking?

Sir, I would describe the level of cooperation as excellent. All the countries in Asean region as well as other countries further away realize that, to combat drugs and drug trafficking, there has to be cooperation and, in particular, exchange of information on patterns of trafficking as well as exchange of intelligence on specific syndicates and their movements. In particular, I would like to say that there is excellent cooperation between the Cawangan Anti-Dadah of Malaysia and the Central Narcotics Bureau in Singapore. It is this close cooperation and exchange of information which has allowed and enabled the countries to keep the incidents of drug trafficking to manageable proportions.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will supply the latest unemployment statistics and the percentage breakdown by age groups.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at June 1988, the unemployment rate was 3.3%. The unemployment rates by age groups were as follows: Age Group Unemployment Rate (%) 15-24 5.6 25-34 2.9 35-44 2.4 45-54 3.0 55 & over 1.8 The 15 to 24 age group had a higher unemployment rate because of the entry of fresh school leavers and graduates into the labour market.

Sir, will the Minister confirm that we have reached a stage of full employment?

Yes. 3%, I think, is equivalent to what is known as "frictional unemployment"; in other words, people moving in between jobs. But that does not mean that there are no people left who can be tapped from our labour market for employment. For example, there are about 300,000 Singaporeans who are above the age of 55, and about 75% of them are not working or looking for work. So if you can encourage them to continue working or re-enter the labour market, there will be a big potential labour force to be tapped.

Sir, the Minister has given us the percentage. Would he be good enough to let us know the numbers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, our workforce is about 1.2 million. So 3.3% would be about 40,000 workers who are in-between jobs.

Would the Minister for Labour tell us that since there is virtually full employment in Singapore, why not allow more foreign workers to come to Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the Member was present yesterday when I gave the answer to a similar question. Perhaps I could give him a copy of my reply.

Would the Minister tell us that there are quite a number of people who have not registered and whether the numbers are included in his calculations?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of people who have registered for employment assistance with my Ministry has dropped from about 10,000 to the region of 4,000. The unemployment figure is actually assessed from our labour force survey. It is the sum total of people who are looking for jobs, not only people who are registered with the Employment Service.

Sir, would the Minister consider allowing the existing foreign workers to take up part-time jobs so as to ease the labour shortage problem?

Sir, this is something that has to be studied. The problem is how to control it so as to avoid abuse.

Sir, does the Minister have breakdown figures of the two sexes, how many of the unemployed are males and how many are females?

I do not have the figures here. I can supply them to the Member if he wishes. Roughly, the percentage would be about two-thirds males and one-third females, corresponding to our workforce.

A supplementary question, Sir.

I will allow one more.

Would the Minister consider those people who work a couple of months a year and are actually semi-jobless as jobless people, Sir?

We classify the unemployed as those people who are actively looking for a job and who do not have a job. I do not know what is the tendency of the Member's question. He seems to be trying to fish out the big army of unemployed that he referred to the other day. The fact is that we have more than 150,000 foreign workers.

asked the Minister for Labour whether the increase in foreign maids levy runs counter to the Government's policy of encouraging more female participation in the labour force.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no contradiction between the increase in the foreign maids levy and the policy to encourage more Singaporean women to work. It is not the Government's intention that any particular policy should be pursued to its ultimate limit regardless of other consequences. There has to be a balance between the various policies. Employing a foreign maid is only one of several options available to women who have to work and who have to cope with household and childcare responsibilities. The other options are: (i) The married woman stops work after childbirth and returns to work after the children are older and more independent; (ii) Part-time or home-based employment; (iii) Traditional help from parents, in-laws, relatives and neighbours; (iv) Foster-care; (v) Childcare centres; (vi) Sharing of household duties among family members; and (vii) Local domestic help, mainly part-time. Sir, there are over 40,000 foreign maids in Singapore today as compared to a total of 630,000 households. Clearly, the vast majority of Singaporean families have managed to cope without maids, either local or foreign. Many developed countries with higher female participation rates than Singapore (eg, Switzerland, Japan and Australia) do not depend on foreign maids. My Ministry recognizes that it is not easy for working parents, especially mothers, to juggle their job demands with their childcare and household responsibilities. However, employing a foreign maid should not be the only or even the main solution to the problem. The growing number of foreign maids shows that we are heading to a situation where employing a foreign maid is seen by many as the only option. We should avoid this for various reasons: Firstly, the large number of foreign maids poses long-term social problems and increases demand on our public facilities such as medical services and transportation. Secondly, the long-term effects on the values and work ethics of children brought up by foreign maids are still unknown and therefore we should be cautious. Thirdly, other local alternatives for childcare and housekeeping will not develop fully. This will affect those who cannot afford to have maids. Employing a foreign maid has assisted some Singaporean women to continue working. However, the situation becomes untenable if most working women require maids. The number of maids will then become extremely large. There are 207,000 Singaporean wives who are working and most of them are managing without maids. The number of foreign maids in Singapore has shot up from almost zero in 1978, when the foreign maids scheme started, to more than 40,000 today. As the number is still growing rapidly, the Government has no alternative but to take measures to dampen the demand.

Sir, since the Minister is quite impervious to other forms of proposals, except the financial one, I would like to suggest this proposal. Will he consider a form of progressive rate on the levy? That means those who earn less probably pay slightly less than those who earn more. In fact, another form would be a modification of this. Those who employ a second maid probably would have to pay a higher levy. And those who employ a third maid would pay a still higher levy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the Member meant when he said that I am quite impervious to other suggestions. As for his question about differential levies, the problem is that from a national viewpoint, the social cost of a maid is the same, whether she is employed by A or by B. And do you want to enter into a situation where we have different pricing of the same services to different people because of different incomes? As for pricing the levy higher for second maids, this will not solve the problem because less than 5% of the families have more than one maid, in other words, they have two maids. And the Ministry does not, in general, allow any family to have more than two maids. In fact, most singles do not qualify for maids. Already there are administrative controls to try and dampen the number of maids. We have tried to defer this increase in the levy for a long time. But unfortunately the numbers have gone up and so I am compelled to take this action.

Sir, may I give a point of clarification first when I said the Minister is impervious?

I am sorry. Ask your question, please.

Sir, my question is this. If the Minister is so concerned about the numbers increasing, then I would like him to look at any scheme, any idea, that can dampen the numbers to any extent and it would surely be in line with his objective.

Sir, I would say yes that my Ministry will welcome all suggestions on ways to tackle this problem. I realize that this is a complex issue, that working mothers deserve help, that we want the women to have children, to work and so on. So it is really a very complex issue that even countries like Japan cannot resolve, if you refer to a newspaper report a few days ago about the problems of working mothers in Japan. Sir, if Members have good suggestions, my Ministry will consider them. There is one school of thought which says that we should allow only people who need maids to have maids. That is one school of thought. I do not know whether we want to go to that extreme. If I may remind you, ours is a free market economy. So we depend on a mixture of pricing and administrative controls. In socialist countries, there is this statement, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs." Do we want to go that way, such that even if you can afford to pay for a particular service, the State says you cannot have it because you do not need it? I was following closely the debate the other day about problems of working mothers and I sympathise with them. We have taken this action because there was no alternative. We already have administrative controls in place since 1987. But the numbers are still going up so rapidly that the number of maids could double in maybe five years. So we have to do something. If you can come up with better ideas, please let me know.

Sir, if it is the case as the Minister has stated that the majority of families can actually cope without maids, then why did the Government allow maids in the first place; and, secondly, why allow increasingly large numbers over the years? The second question is that if we are only going to allow families who need maids to have maids, what will be the criteria that the Minister will use?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not the Labour Minister when the door was opened to foreign maids. Looking back now at this policy, it has its good and bad points. Certainly, it has helped a lot of working women, the better qualified and those who can afford maids to come out and work. And as a result, the female participation rate has gone up. So it has been a good policy. On the other hand, we cannot have too much of a good thing. So we have to control it. In fact, most mothers cannot afford maids with or without a levy. So other solutions must be found and childcare centres could be one of them. On the other hand, I think we should avoid a situation where the family or average Singaporean tends to look to Government for solutions to every problem. The traditional solution has been for the grandmother to look after the grandchild. Unfortunately, with the easy availability of maids, I have had cases at my Meet-the-People sessions where the chap comes in and says, "My mother-in-law used to look after the child for me. But now she says, "Why don't you get a maid because I am already 50 and I want to enjoy my life? So why don't you have a maid?"" This is a trend that is coming and we must try and arrest this tendency. One consequence of this development could be the loss of this opportunity to inculcate in our young the social values of the older folks. As regards his other question, I think he missed my point. I did not say that we should allocate maids according to needs. In fact, I am saying that we should allow a mixture of policies - needs, for example, where they have sick parents as well as other instruments like the levy.

Sir, when the Minister mentioned about the grandmother, does he mean that he thinks grandmothers should not be allowed to enjoy themselves?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the Member was joking. I presume he was. Of course, I did not mean it that way. It is perfectly all right for everybody to relax and have a good time. But I am saying that there are, in fact, a lot of older women who are at home and looking after children, whether their own, their grandchildren or other people's children. This is, in fact, a good source of income for these people. So if you allow other sources, more foreign maids for example, they will be depriving these people of their income.

asked the Minister for Community Development whether and when a public swimming pool will be built in Serangoon New Town.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a public swimming pool will be built in Serangoon New Town. Design work is in progress and tenders are scheduled to be called in late June 1989. The swimming pool is scheduled for completion in early 1991.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the degree of accuracy of his Ministry's econometric model for Singapore in view of the sharp variance between the actual and forecast 1988 economic performance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in December 1987, the MTI forecast growth for 1988 at 5-6%. Actual growth turned out to be 10.9%, much better than expected. On a sectoral basis, MTI predicted growth of the construction and the financial and business services sectors reasonably well, but grossly under-estimated growth in the other three sectors, namely, manufacturing, commerce, and transport and communications. Commerce grew three times faster than expected, while manufacturing and transport and communications grew twice as fast. The economy in 1988 benefitted from unforeseen changes in external conditions. In December 1987, when we made our first forecast, our index of leading indicators had been declining for three months. After the stock market crash of 19 October 1987, the outlook for the world economy was subdued. But as it turned out, there was no post-crash global recession in 1988. Instead of slowing down, the US economy grew by nearly 4%, or twice the original forecast. There were sectoral factors as well. Strong worldwide demand for disk drives buoyed the manufacturing sector. The high Yen and the upturn in regional economies brought us record numbers of tourists. Transport and communications expanded on the heels of the manufacturing and commerce sectors. Sir, economic forecasting is always uncertain, however good the econometric model. Many events are unforeseeable and cannot be anticipated by any model. We can only update our models with fresh data on a regular basis and revise our forecasts during the year to improve their accuracy. MTI also has to bear in mind that an over-optimistic forecast may do more damage, in terms of mistaken Government policies, ill-founded business expectations and excessive wage settlements than a slightly conservative one. MTI therefore prefers, if need be, to err on the side of caution. When growth exceeds our expectations, as it did in 1988, we are glad to be proved wrong.

Sir, the general belief is that to the Government's prediction we should add 1% more to the growth to get the actual. In view of what has happened, how many percentage points will the Minister advise that we should take into account now?

Sir, MTI forecast growth for 1989 at 6-7% and the Member realizes that this was only released some three weeks ago. Barring unforeseen circumstances and in the light of the data that we have, I must advise that the estimate is the best that is currently available. But of course, as I said, if we are proven wrong and growth exceeds our forecast we will be glad.

Sir, the Minister has said that the forecast is not accurate and I do agree that a variance of 10-15% is acceptable. But in this case, I think the variance has been very big, from 6-7% to about 10.9%. This will make the forecast quite valueless and meaningless.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained in my reply just now, the forecast was made at the end of 1987 and, as it turned out, actual growth, as the Member rightly pointed out, was much more. But there were extenuating circumstances as to why the forecast in the end turned out to be wrong. As I have indicated earlier, MTI will revise its forecast on a quarterly basis.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he will comment on the fears expressed by some members of the business community that the increases in the foreign workers levy, the employers' contributions to the Central Provident Fund and road tax may drive up business cost and push the economy into another recession.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have circulated some graphs which I will refer to in my answer. I am well aware that some members of the business community are worried about the impact of some of the recent cost increases like the foreign workers' levy. It is natural for them to compare the present situation with that before the last recession. But the two are not the same. Whether our costs are high or low depends on how we compare with others. MTI monitors our position relative to the other NICs, and we compare two particular things: unit labour costs and the profits of firms in the manufacturing sector. The figures show that we are better off today. The first chart, Chart I (Cols. 455 - 456) shows the relative unit labour cost. It takes into account nominal wages, labour productivity and exchange rates, Singapore on the one hand and the NICs on the other. If you look at the index, we started in 1980, the index of 100 is there. That is the base. We were highly competitive. Labour costs went up steadily reaching 150 in 1985, that was the recession, when we were out of line. Since the recession and after our cost cutting measures, the index has fallen steadily to the current level of 110, where it was in 1981, and where we were highly competitive. Chart I - SINGAPORE'S RELATIVE UNIT LABOUR COST AGAINST THE OTHER NICS IN MANUFACTURING (Cols. 455 - 456) The estimated effect of a $250 foreign worker levy and employer's CPF increase by 4% points is to raise the index, as you can see, to 115, the dotted line, where we will still be competitive. Now look at Chart II (Cols. 457 - 458). In terms of profits compared to South Korea and Taiwan, we have also improved. One way to measure profit which we have used is ratio of gross operating surplus to value added in manufacturing; in other words, out of the net output of the industries, what shares goes to profits and depreciation, that is the employer's share, shareholders' share, and what share goes to wages. In 1980 we stared off with about 62%, going to profits and depreciation, about the same as Korea and Taiwan. In 1984 before the recession, you can see the Singapore line at the bottom, we have fallen to 55%, and we fell further to 52% in 1985 during the recession, way below South Korea and Taiwan. Chart II - SHARE OF OPERATING SURPLUS IN VALUE ADDED IN MANUFACTURING SECTOR (Cols. 457 - 458) We rebounded with the cost cutting measures. In 1987, the most recent years for which figures are available for all three countries, profitability was back to 62%, where it was in 1981, but with a difference. Because by 1987 South Korean and Taiwanese profitability had fallen and we have become more profitable than both. The line for 1988 is conjectural but it shows that we will still be the most profitable of the NICs. I have excluded Hong Kong from this comparison because the data do not seem to be strictly the same. They cannot be interpreted the same way. In these altered circumstances, we cannot continue blindly with policies which were designed to stimulate a depressed economy to a quick recovery. Now we need to restore CPF contributions, allow more flexible wage settlements, limit the inflow of foreign workers, push for wage reform, and still watch our competitiveness. The Government can understand why employers affected by these measures may wish they were unnecessary. Nevertheless, I hope that they will see that from a national perspective, the Government really has no alternative but to act. The effect of these policies will depend on the strength of the economy. If growth is lower, as MTI expects, the labour market should ease, and the number of foreign workers may level off and begin to fall. Since the new measures were announced in November, the labour market has eased a little. The Government will continue to monitor the labour situation closely but so far it sees no reason not to increase the levy to $250 in July. The Government also announced that it was raising the employer's CPF rate by up to 4% points, to give employers ample warning of this impending change, and to help them to factor it into their wage settlements. I hope that employers will make good use of this early warning. However, the Government has not yet determined the exact quantum of the CPF increase. It will do so only after the economic results for the first quarter of this year are known. If you will recall, last year we announced our decision just before May Day. Of course, the Government recognizes the need to be cautious when implementing policies which increase costs. Our most careful forecasts may turn out to be wrong, or the readers may have added the wrong number of percentage points to our forecast. External factors, such as lower OECD growth and worldwide over-capa- city in the disk drive industry may slow us down more than we expect. But as we can never foresee the future perfectly, the present uncertainties do not justify postponing the necessary adjustments. The Government welcomes feedback and inputs from the business community on economic and labour issues. EDB and TDB keep constantly in touch with the private sector. MTI holds regular dialogue sessions with businessmen, and studies their inputs carefully when making any major policy decisions. I personally hold regular lunches with employers and union leaders from different sectors. We will continue to do so. One difficulty, however, Mr Speaker, is that even when the economy is prospering, there are always some voices claiming that the recession is just around the corner. Eventually they may be proved right, but alas there is no way to tell in advance when this will be. Fortunately, there are also others who moderate and modulate their comments on the economy, and whose warnings of impending danger have to be taken seriously. The Government will try its best to distinguish the one from the other, in order to adjust its policies sensitively and in good time when the next downturn comes.

Sir, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. The first one is, together with these measures and the strong current external value of the Singapore Dollar, would these affect our export competitivenss? The second question is, since the Minister uses the chart as a means of measurement of relativity to compare with the other NICs, may I ask him on Chart I where he has put other factors remaining constant, whether the multiplier effect of all these changes, of all these increases in cost in the local context, have been taken into consideration in terms of, for example, inflation. The third point, on Chart II: is he aware that the methods of operation of many Taiwanese and Korean companies are such that their operating surpluses or their profits either in Taiwan or in Korea may be very much understated. This is because their currencies are non-convertible and they export at much lower prices and keep their profits abroad in countries like the United States?

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, on the Singapore Dollar. The effect of a strong Singapore Dollar is, in fact, factored into Chart I. It is one of the considerations. I would say that the description of it as a strong dollar may be an over-simplification because although we have appreciated as against the US Dollar, we have depreciated as against the Yen and also as against the Taiwanese and the Korean currencies and this is relevant when we compare competitiveness. Secondly, on the charts. The first chart indeed has other factors remaining constant. We have not considered inflation, but inflation should not affect the nominal unit labour cost compared to other countries. There is one factor which ought to be considered, but it ought to compensate for the higher cost as a result of these policies. It is this: if we did not follow through with these policies, the economy might continue to be very tight, and wages may be pushed up even more, because there are wage settlements, and our trade union colleagues will tell us that they push for the best settlement they can get. And without the CPF increase, without the gradual slowing down of the economy, they will push harder and rightly receive more than with the CPF increase. So we hope that by implementing these policies we are really moderating the overall cost increase. Thirdly, whether the operating surpluses are defined the same, the Member is probably right they are not. But the trend should tell us something. From the fact that we are where we were in 1980 in terms of profitability, whereas both the Taiwanese and the Koreans are worse off than they were in 1980, I think that qualitative conclusion can be drawn that we are still competitive.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to consider whether it is possible to postpone the decision of recommending an increase in foreign workers levy and CPF contribution because profitability does not necessarily mean that it equals to cash surplus.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is always possible to consider, and it is always possible to postpone. The question is whether it is ever desirable to do so. If the Member listened to my answer very carefully, let me quote the reply, what I said about the foreign workers levy is that: 'The Government will continue to monitor the labour situation closely, but so far it sees no reason not to increase the Levy to $250.' If you read that carefully, it means that it is still under consideration. Similarly with the CPF, the Government has not determined the exact quantum of the CPF increase. It will do so only after the economic results for the first quarter of this year are known and I think by that time we will know whether it is desirable or necessary to postpone the increase.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16th January, 1989], 'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".' [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi]. Question again proposed. 1.18 pm

Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap. Hon. Members in this Chamber in the last few days have covered much ground in the President's Address which he delivered on behalf of the Government. But for today I will just confine myself mainly to the discussion on consensus. Sir, ever since the second generation leaders took effective charge of the Government in the last Parliament, I think there is a more accommodating leadership. Our younger leaders have gone out of their way to seek views, suggestions and opinions from all Singaporeans. They also made special efforts to reach out to the young. In several public forums and closed-door sessions we have with young people, I find that the young of today are much more prepared to speak out openly and are openly critical of the Government. From my experience I notice that those young people who join us in the public forums and closed-door discussions show no fear whatsoever. They have not been victimized by the Government in any way and I dare say that the Government has taken them into its confidence, which allows them to speak out even more. Sir, in the language of the day, the Government has gone out of their way to seek consensus from the people. Hence it is no surprise that this is identified as the main way in which we will move with Singaporeans. The last Parliament also saw deliberations leading to the Economic Committee Report and the National Agenda. It also saw a reversal of a number of policies and philosophical stands of the Government. The graduate mother's policy was reversed. The CPF contribution, which was sacrosanct, was reduced in the face of the recession. The Government also reversed its stand on the use of CPF for educational purposes. All this on top of a number of other changes like petrol tax and diesel tax. As a further indicator, the last three Parliaments saw some 18 Bills committed to the Select Committee. Of these 18 Bills, 10 came in the last Parliament alone. Taken together as a whole, these last five years have probably seen more public participation in decision-making than the whole of the period since our independence. This is contrary to what has been claimed by the Opposition. There is clearly a change of style and the recognition that a new way of reaching the people must be pursued. With a younger and better educated electorate, a more consultative approach is inevitable in our continued attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people. In other words, we must be more than just good technocrats. I am, Sir, for consultative government and consensus building. We must adopt a more conciliatory approach of replacing contention with consensus in the family, at the work place and of course between the Government and the people. I will go so far as to advocate that dissenting views be better accommodated and I welcome the intention to increase the number of NCMPs. But in my mind this must be increased substantially and I will suggest that we should increase up to the full number in this Chamber, as many as eight or nine. Now that the NCMP concept has been accepted by at least one opposition party we should search for wider participation, wider representation so that a wider airing of dissenting views is possible. This Chamber must see a fuller debate of opposing ideas. It is therefore unfortunate that one of the NCMPs has been disqualified at the start of this Parliament. Provision should have been made to admit another NCMP in the event of such a disqualification. If this Chamber can rectify this shortcoming for this Parliament, I think we must do so. On the Minister for Trade and Industry's proposal of creating non-Government MPs, I should like to remark that presently views of business, of workers, of unions and university academics are already given a good airing by my fellow Backbenchers. What is needed is better and good listening skills of the Frontbench. I am more in favour of giving time to the maturing of the NCMP scheme. In the next few elections, younger and better educated opposition members will find their way into this Chamber as NCMPs. This group who are better educated will find that their standing in the public does not necessarily depend on their taking on strong adversarial postures. In the age of the DAT, the digital-audio tapes, CDs, some 45 rpm records in the last Parliament and, of course, definitely 78 rpm records will be confined to the antique shops of Sungei Road. I am an optimist. While agreeing with consensus, I am also cautious about our effectiveness. Have we gone too far in our effort to build consensus? Are our efforts recognized as such? There are claims that this is just an attempt to explain and elaborate on a chosen plan of Government action. Has our society reached a stage whereby all issues may be discussed openly? Are some issues not too sensitive and may best be handled in a more subtle manner? In the name of consensus building, we discuss and debate too many sensitive issues openly. Too often, an open discus- sion of sensitive issues will not necessarily lead to a solution supportable by all, especially the community which is focused. If the options for a solution are limited, generation of too much heat may do more harm than good. This often leads to entrenched positions and may not create a conducive climate for consensus building. For consensus to succeed, our younger and better educated Singaporeans must understand the parameters by which consensus will be arrived at. I am not certain that they will accept the fact that their views will be subordinate to the views of the majority. For in arriving at a consensus, it is usually the views of the majority that prevail. Even here, Sir, there are pitfalls. Sometimes the most obvious or desired solution may not be the best solution. This is amply illustrated by the Minister for Trade and Industry of British bombers in World War II. This is quite akin to having to take bitter medicine. We must be wary that in the process of consensus building, we may be raising the expectations of the people to such an extent that all measures are, in fact, subject to a de facto referendum. Elected representatives may be placed in a position whereby the electorate perceives that the Government needs the people's agreement to act on all matters. The Government is elected by the people to lead. We must establish consensus with the people that honourable Singaporeans may serve in Parliament. We must establish consensus with the people that they elect people with ability. In short, we need to build consensus with the people on who is fit to govern. This is quite different from building a consensus on everything which is governable. The Government should continue this consultative approach and make elaborate attempts to explain to the people. At the end of it all, Sir, it is the Government's job to decide in Singapore's best interest and to act. Even in cases where consensus is difficult to arrive at, especially in fiscal measures, I think the Government should implement its policies with a higher degree of finesse and creativity. They should apply the concept of incrementalism coupled with feasible alternatives. Incrementalism, Sir, is moving in small steps to achieve an objective. It is a concept familiar to strategic planners. This morning you saw one example about the foreign maids levy during Question time. I think you do not need a clairvoyant to predict that the numbers will grow substantially to what it is today. What does the Government do? In one move, it expects to smother and send all foreign maids back home. It did not recognise the problems of working mothers and, more importantly, they have not implemented this in smaller steps and offer alternatives to those who depend on the maids. The most obvious alternative is the cheap and easy availability of child care centres, as the Minister has already pointed out. But all the other measures and options which he has spoken of, like sharing family work, are all very impractical measures which many housewives and working mothers will find hard to implement. He also raised the question of aged parents taking care of grandchildren. Again that is not very practical because many aged parents, not because they want to enjoy themselves, but find that it is a physical strain to take care of young children. They will like to take it easy and, if possible, the physical effort to be passed on to a maid, I think they will be more than pleased to help look after young children if there is a maid. Another example is the land transport policy. In the name of curbing the growth of car ownership, the Government takes no cognizance of the fact that this growth is a direct function of growing affluence. Growing affluence and car ownership is a worldwide phenomenon. As we grow more affluent, everybody wants to have a car and the Government should have applied its expertise to find alternative solutions to ease traffic congestion, such as imposing a heavy utility charge on week-days. With the fine network of expressways, Singaporeans want the freedom on four wheels in their leisure. This is something we cannot stop and I predict that the next thing the Government will do is to look into raising the so-called AR. This will result in a bigger burden on young people who enter the workforce and wish to own a car after a few years. Sir, instead of creative solutions, we see the usual time-honoured fiscal measures more tax, more charges, and expect the problem to be solved. There is no doubt that there is a consensus of opinions in these two instances I quoted revenue generation. There is consensus. They say the Government is out to make more money. What have we lost in the process? We lose in the process perfectly good arguments of the undesirability of our young to grow up with alien values, as already expounded by the Minister. He has explained to us why it is not desirable to have too many foreign maids in Singapore. Of course, the Minister for Communications has also explained on several ocassions why we need to keep our roads free of congestion. These are valid, good arguments but as far as Singaporeans are concerned, the very measures adopted mean that the Government is only interested in money and not really looking for solutions. Quite clearly, sometimes well-intentioned and necessary policies become points of contention. What is much needed is careful thinking and I hope that with the expertise we have in our civil service, the Government should look for more creative solutions to problems.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address the President clearly sets out a practical goal for our people, that is, creating a clear and better life for all Singaporeans. He also pointed out that we have to safeguard our national security and maintain political stability within the country if we are to realize this goal. In addition, we have to overcome problems of scarce resources in land, water supply and human population. Other than these challenges, we must remind each and every Singaporean that the good life we aim for is by no means dependent on the work of the Government alone, but by the collective efforts of everyone, regardless of his family background, be he poor or rich. It is important that people make full use of the opportunities the Government has created for them, and with the necessary efforts and diligence on their part, they will set themselves on the way to success, both in their academic pursuits and their careers. It is through this process that a firm and solid foundation is laid for a bright future of good life. It is more important that we continue to strive for self-improvement, to constantly better ourselves and to hold a more positive attitude to learn better ways to deal with people and work, and to play our part for our family and society. Such are the ways to a better and more meaningful life and the only way for the Government to ensure the successful implementation of its plans and measures. Mr Speaker, Sir, as for education, the Government has given stress to improving the education system. It plans to increase the number of places in tertiary institutions and to allow to use CPF for university education so that more people will be encouraged to pursue higher education. With high hopes placed on their children to have higher education, parents naturally welcome such opportunities for their children. Therefore when the news was released, it was well received. But we have to face the fact, that those who can enter university are limited. This is true with any country. The Government has done all within its power to create maximum opportunities, in the context of limited resources for more intakes of qualified candidaes. With these restraints, it is quite impossible to provide place for the vast majority who intend to receive university education. Faced with this situation, we have to be practical and allow those who have been excluded to pursue other different courses according to their ability and interests, so that they may feel confident in their future and they could play an important role in their respective industries. With this in mind, I hope that in improving the education system, we focus our efforts on preparing the youngsters to cope with the adversities of life, help them to learn from their mistakes and failures, and spur them on to strive to better themselves through the learning process. It is also our responsibility to see that traditional virtues are inculcated in our young at home. These include the spirit of respcting and enjoying the work they do - They have to believe that with a positive and correct work attitude towards whatever they do they could enjoy good life. In this way, those who do not go to the university can also aspire to a good life if they have the positive work attitude and work diligently. The President's speech also touched upon some of the core values or national ideology that Singaporeans should follow and promote. One of them is the preservation of the family structure as the fundamental unit of society. I believe that most Singaporeans of the older generation will agree with the move to preserve this good Asian tradition. We have, often enough, heard our elders say, "I am prepared to slave like a cow or a horse and sacrifice everything for the sake of my children and family." But, our younger generation may not share the same thought. Many of them even see getting married as digging their own grave, and having children as seeking trouble for themselves. They do not have the traditional family concept. Therefore, in order to successfully propagate the family concept, we need to take the bull by its horns and focus on our younger generation, starting from the homes and schools, with support coming from both the Government and the community. As for family education, I believe that parents should not pamper their children too much as this will result in children being convinced that parents are there to satisfy their every need and whim, while they can sit back and wait for things to be handed to them on a platter. Worse still, many families with maids expect the maids to wait on the children in every way in everyday life. I have my reservations about these children growing up from such environment being able to cope with an independent life without stout spirit and resolve and face the challenges of the nation. They may not be in a position to pay the price for the good life they aspire to. Therefore, I hope that all Singaporeans, particularly those who are parents, are fully aware of this fact and try to avoid making such serious mistakes when bringing up their young. The President also stressed the importance of three other core values. They are: putting society above self, consensus through discussion, and racial and religious tolerance and harmony. Being closely inter-related, none of these can be done away with in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society. To place nation above self is to be concerned with community and national affairs, to play a part in the service of the nation by participating in or discussing social affairs and national issues with calm and sincerity. When dealing with major issues of the community or the nation, our priority should be that of the welfare of our people. For these reasons, it is necessary that we should further promote mutual understanding and respect for the religions, cultures and customs of the various ethnic communities. By so doing can we clearly identify our common aim, one that will enable our future generations to live peacefully and harmoniously together in their pursuit of a beautiful and better life for Singaporeans? Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days, several Members have already talked about how mutual understanding and respect for the cultures, the religions and the traditions among the various races can be promoted. I am sure most Singaporeans can see why it is impossible to create one culture and one religion for all Singaporeans as if we were preparing some kind of magic potion, by mixing the various religions and cultures into a common melting pot. To think that this is possible is indeed naive. And if ever someone thinks of trying this out, I would suggest he first makes a study of the nature of the various ingredients and their respective chemical properties so that he will not end up blowing himself up when the melting pot explodes. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we should do instead is that everyone should take pride in the fact that we are a nation characterized by our multi-culture and multi-religions. This characteristic indeed is one solid evidence of freedom and democracy, a way to a richer and more colourful life for all Singaporeans. Therefore, I believe that we should adopt the approach of "diverse tunes in one song" in handling the various cultures, customs and religions, to achieve the result of "identity in diversity". In other words, we should let our cultural lives be enriched by allowing individual ethnic cultures to flourish and blossom. If we can acheive that, I am sure there will be much greater harmony among all races in Singapore. It is generally true that most Singaporeans are still relatively family-oriented. For this reason, I believe a core value that is built upon this concept will be readily acceptable by all. However, my anxiety lies with the fact that over-emphasis in family life can result in disinterest in national and community affairs by the people. Although it is the wish of everyone to be in a position to provide the best for his family in this highly competitive society, however his time and energy are limited. So, many professionals while expending their resources on their own careers and for their families leave the welfare of the unfortunate people totally to the State and look upon community welfare service as a waste of time and effort, a job for the fools. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we wish to encourage individuals to be more actively involved in national affairs, we must stress the close ties that exist between the State and the individuals like the teeth covered by the lips, similarly there shall be no home without a nation. Therefore, it is only right that we place nation before self and be more involved with the affairs of the State and the community. It is also necessary that we remind Singaporeans, particularly the young, that a better life is not to be equated only with tangible satisfaction like a university degree, money, a house, expensive car, overseas trips and the like. Satisfaction and better life should include the warmth of the family, friendship, concern from friends and colleagues, friendly neighbours and the regard and esteem the society and the State place on us for our contributions. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the various races can appreciate this concept, I am sure there is little that stands in the way of building a better life and a more beautiful future. The Member for Tampines GRC, Mr Yatiman, mentioned in his speech the other day that it is necessary for us to coordinate our work and views, and at the same time maximize the use of our limited physical and human resources in order to strengthen social cohesiveness. I agree to his views. We will continue to make use of various measures and means like through effective corporate planning, Review Committee, Task Force and Advisory Council, etc. to tackle various issues relating to community development. Mr Yatiman also suggested that grassroots leaders be given the special task of building up closer community relationship. Sir, the basic task of grassroots organisation is to promote social cohesiveness. This can be done through encouraging various races to have inter-communication through participation in various activities organized by grassroots organisations so as to strengthen the friendly ties among various races within the constituency. Mr Yatiman also came up with the idea of setting up a community liaison committee in each constituency. This, indeed, is a good idea. Advisors to the grassroots organisations could look into how they can best serve the community by setting up this kind of committee to suit the unqiue requirements according to the demography and the religion in each constituency. But what is more important is that, as advisors to grassroots organisations, we have to set good examples and free ourselves from any religious and cultural biases, and try positively to have closer contact and rapport with the various groups by making a conscious effect to understand the customs and beliefs of various races so that we may be able to fully associate ourselves and interact freely with the community. Only in this way can we effectively perform our heavy duties as the representatives of the people in uniting various cultural and religious groups together. As to the suggestion made by Mr Yatiman and the Member for Fengshan on expanding the scope of responsibilities of the Ministry of Community Development so as to enhance liaison among people and community development or setting up a Racial and Religious Relations Department specifically for the promotion of racial harmony and religious tolerance, the Ministry of Community Development in fact has already been doing this through several existing bodies such as the Social Defence and Community Relations Division, the Feedback Unit and the Social and Psychological Advisory Council, as well as through programmes of other departments and with the participation of the grassroots and civilian organizations. We welcome and will carefully consider any good suggestions by Members, so that we may formulate appropriate plans to do the work better. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Fengshan has also brought up the point of giving the Feedback Unit greater autonomy, human and financial assistance. What I would like to explain is that the Feedback Unit is led by an independent supervisory body which is made up of five MPs and three members of the public. The Unit carefully considers all views of substantial evidence and then passes them on to the relevant departments, and where necessary to the First Deputy Prime Minister for personal attention. At present, the Unit is manned by a director, two executive officers and three clerks. It will review its financial and manpower requirements regularly. If found necessary, manpower and budget will be increased. I would like to express my thanks to various MPs for their concern and valuable contributions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by the Member for Siglap. 1.48 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap. Sir, the President in his Address on the 9th of January 1989 outlined several tasks for Singapore to accomplish in order to ensure a better life for all Singaporeans. I wish to share my thoughts on two of these tasks, namely, to consolidate political stability and to the development of our National Ideology. Sir, is our political stability under threat? The results of the last general elections are revealing. The PAP won 80 out of 81 seats and the popularity vote of 62.4%. This is an overwhelming victory for any democratic state in the world. However, in terms of popularity vote, there is a slight drop compared to the 1984 general elections. This is in spite of the fact that the Government has successfully brought Singapore out of its worst economic recession in 1985 and that it had actively engaged itself in diverse programmes to reach out to the people. Sir, the President has highlighted the need for us to achieve consensus, to accommodate alternative views and dissenting voice and to evolve a more open style of government. I fully agree with these objectives and I feel that we have already established the framework and avenues to reach out to the people. The key lies in the vigorous use and the refinement of this channel to strengthen our links and rapport with the new electorate. I see several problems with our existing process of reaching out to the people. First, the seemingly inconsistent response of the Government to feedback; second, the expectations on feedback and better communication by a more educated electorate; third, the public image of our leaders; and, fourth, the prevailing fear of victimization. Sir, there is in fact no shortage of alternative views and dissenting voice in Singapore. In this House, many alternative arguments have been presented by both the Government and the Opposition Members as illustrated by this present debate. Alternative views are also freely expressed at grassroots meetings, public forums and in the mass media. The problem is not the lack of alternative views but the lack of response to alternative views. This gives the impression that these views are not heard or deliberately ignored by the Government. As a result, when policies are implemented, it generates public unhappiness. This is especially so if the feedback was given after careful consideration and with sincerity. As an example, the Minister for National Development recently brought up publicly the danger of racial enclaves developing in HDB estates. He further revealed that there would be some policy adjustments to bring about a better racial mix in the housing estates. The public expressed several concerns, such as the possible drop in the value of the flats and the difficulty of living closer to relatives. So far, the Ministry has not responded to this feedback and this creates uncertainty among the HDB flat dwellers. Instead, the Ministry has stated that policy adjustment will be implemented soon. Sir, I think it would be better if response to feedback is given prior to announcing a policy. In this way, the Government will be seen to have given the feedback full consideration. Prompt response to feedback, I think, should be an integral part of the consultative process. One good example to illustrate this is when the Minister for the Environment announced his decision last Wednesday not to introduce the compulsory use of disposable crockery after consideration of the feedback from the hawkers. Next, a more educated electorate expects fuller explanations on decisions taken by the Government, Government agencies and the civil service. When this is not forthcoming, they get frustrated. For example, when the increase in the foreign maid levy was first announced, no explanation was given. An explanation was only forthcoming when a Member tabled an Oral Question to the Minister for Labour last Wednesday. Another example relates to replies given by the various Government departments. Although explanations are sometimes given but, by and large, the appeals are rejected without proper explanations. The standard reply one receives is that the appeal has been carefully considered and that it cannot be accommodated. Sir, this is not satisfactory. Specific reasons for the rejection should be given unless the reasons are of a very sensitive nature. Another problem in the consultative process is the public image of our policy makers. It is important for our leaders to reveal more of the humane side of themselves to the public. I read with great interest a letter in the forum page of the Straits Times recently. The reader expressed surprise at the care and concern that our First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, showed to his friends. He had the impression that Mr Goh is a very cold and uncaring person and this influenced his voting in the last general elections. Sir, the same impression may have been given by other Ministers. The electorate may feel that our Ministers are detached and unfeeling when announcing and implementing policy, especially the harsh one. Sir, more needs to be done to project and bring across the human side of our leaders to the people. This will help to dispel the misconceptions and fears that Singaporeans have. Last week, I watched the TV programme "Contact Y" which was referred to by the Member for Ayer Rajah and I too was shocked by the view expressed by some of the participants in the forum who felt that they could not speak freely because of a "climate of fear". Subsequently, I spoke to an NUS student and he too told me the same thing. When I asked him what he and his friend thought of the National Ideology, he told me that they had talked about it and they felt that it was a PAP's ploy. And they feared that the National Ideology would turn out to be like the little Red Book carried by the Red Guards in the cultural revolution in China. Sir, I am not saying that this is the view of the majority of the young people in Singapore. But this demonstrates the point that in spite of the extensive efforts of the Government to reach out to the people, the communication gap still exists. Sir, next, I would like to touch briefly on the National Ideology. I believe that the National Ideology is good for Singapore. It will foster even closer ties between the various communities and help us to achieve greater unity. Much has already been said and it appears that we have managed to identify some important values which are likely to be accepted by the majority of the communities in Singa- pore. These are multi-racialism, religious tolerance, consensus, emphasis on the family unit and placing community above self. Sir, the more important question now is how to implement the National Ideology when it is formulated and make it work. No concepts or ideals can be translated into practice and internalize without effective implementation. The Government should identify ways of rewarding those who practise these ideals in order to encourage them. Singaporeans are a pragmatic people. That is why we are able to make such progress. If the National Ideology continues to remain vague and does not impact on Singapoeans in a real and immediate way, I fear little will be achieved. We need to answer the question of what the National Ideology would mean to the poor and needy Singaporeans, to the jobseekers looking for a job and to the person looking for advancement in his career. Indeed, in the short-term, we may need to make the subject compulsory in school and in higher institutions of learning and to promote it to our grassroots organizations, town councils, social and Government agencies. Songs could also be used. These measures would serve to encourage more rapid and widespread practice of the National Ideology until such time when it becomes an integral part of our lives and culture. When this happens, we can be assured that Singaporeans will be fully equipped to deal with the undesirable aspects of Westernization such as the breakdown of the family unit, sexual permissiveness, drug addiction and over emphasis on the interest of the individual. 1.58 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me the chance to participate in this debate. I find the clarifications made by the Second Deputy Prime Minister in yesterday's debate on the meaning of "chauvinism" to be very significant indeed. And therefore I would like to begin my speech on one aspect which was touched on during our current debate on the National Ideology. When we are deliberating on something as important an issue as the National Ideology which is meant to be a common set of core values for all the communities in Singapore, we are bound to encounter, as indeed we have already encountered, very different viewpoints from the various racial communities. And these reactions, I think, indicate that racial sensitivities are involved in many of our discussions and that we have to be very careful in trying to handle these public discussions throughout the country. The minority communities, when they are asked to express their opinion on the National Ideology, are justifiably concerned. They are wondering whether the Chinese values might be imposed on all the minority communities. Specifically they ask whether Confucianism is actually meant for all Singaporeans. Now that the Government has made it abundantly clear that the purpose of the National Ideology exercise is to search for values which are common to all the communities and that consensus is the method by which this set of common values would be arrived at, I hope such anxieties on the part of the minority groups will be sufficiently allayed. Interestingly, the Chinese community is also asking some similar questions on the National Ideology. Does the National Ideology mean that they also have to adjust their values? They are actually quite confused by the Government's call for the preservation of traditional values on the one hand, and the repeated warnings against cultural chauvinism on the other. Among the Chinese educated especially, many feel that the Government has been giving out quite conflicting signals. Their hopes for a return to cultural traditions have been raised because of the Government's emphasis on preservation of traditional values. But whenever the warning against chauvinism is sounded, I think they feel that their hopes are also dashed to the ground again. The older Chinese population, in particular, feel that the word "chauvinism" conjures up very unpleasant memories. The term is linked to the Communist and communalist threats of the 1950's and 1960's. Of course,we have learnt a very bitter lesson from that turbulent period in our history and the mistake must not be repeated again. But when the term "chauvinism" is used within the present-day context, one wonders if it is still appropriate. There are some people who are even cynical enough to ask: "Is it not possible for other communities to develop their own kinds of chauvinism as well?" And "What about other people who think that everything from the west is best? Would it not constitute some form of western chauvinism also?" So it is in this light that, when I heard the Second Deputy Prime Minister's remarks and his clarification on the meaning of chauvinism, to quote him, "When we talk of learning Chinese culture and values through the use of Chinese for the Chinese, it is not chauvinism, and that when other races think about acquiring or learning their traditional cultures and values through their own mother tongues, it is also not chauvinism", I find that very very timely and very good indeed. I think this kind of clarification, this kind of reassurance to all communities concerned must be made, otherwise I think the Chinese community, in particular, would feel that they do not really know what the Government is driving at. The above aside, it is still necessary for us to take a closer look at what most of the Chinese want out of a policy on cultural preservation in the present-day context. Whether they speak Mandarin well or none at all, few of them would still identify themselves with the Chinese in China. What they want out of a policy on cultural preservation is based on what they see as a vacuum in the lives of their children, in the lives of their younger generation. They see it happening. So they yearn for some ways to give back to their children a cultural identity that will help them to face the vicissitudes of life with greater confidence and a sense of purpose. And that is all. Parents who think this way are not likely to be those who write to the Straits Times or speak up at forums. I do not know how many there are of these parents. I suspect there are a large number of them and they may even constitute the silent majority. So I think some ways must be found to reach them and to seek out their views. One should also note that among the Chinese not all embrace Confucianism in its totality. In fact, many among the Chinese think that Confucian values need to be modified to suit today's modern circumstances. One issue involved is the relationship, or how Confucianism is reconcilable with modern democratic values. There has been some debate in this House on the question of democracy and I note with interest that even Prof. Tu Wei Ming who in his earlier lectures given in Singapore was of the view that Confucian values were compatible with democracy has, of late, in his more recent lectures conceded that perhaps Confucian values would not lead a system which is the mere image of western democracy. He specifically mentioned that Confucian tradition places a premium on a Government which is based on moral authority, leaders who lead by moral example and acting in accordance with what wisdom and morality would dictate as a public good in the interest of the people. In other words, a model quite different from the mechanistic or simplistic model of western democracy. So that is one issue I think we have to thoroughly thrash out because many of the Chinese do not agree necessarily with the view that Confucianism is conducive to democracy. A second issue that also has to be thrashed out is the role of the family. The ideology of the family or family values occupy a very central position in Confucianism. But how are we going to reconcile this with the fact that, again, the lives of the people have changed much, aspirations of the people have changed much and we have witnessed in the last few days a raging debate on child care centres, on the foreign maids levy, on the participation of women in the labour force. So in other words, there are really some contradictions in the way we look at the role of the family and the role of women in the kind of society that we want. The Minister for Labour did not admit as much. He gave a very clever answer. He said no policy (unless I heard him mistakenly), no policy should be pushed to the extreme. But he seemed to be saying, "Yes, we do not know really what to do about these conflicting demands but the best solution is probably the medium or the golden rule of the mean." I hope he would not feel upset if I misinterpreted him. But my point is that this is a second issue that many people would hope to be resolved when we debate Confucian values and family ideology. As far as the question of the second language policy is concerned, I think some people still think that the teaching of traditional values need not be done through the mother tongue. This happens mainly among the group of Chinese who were English educated. It is not their fault that they did not have the opportunity to receive an education or receive some language skills in the second language when they went to school. They may not even use dialects at home but they cannot help feeling that the Government's policy on language and culture has left them in a peculiar, if not uncomfortable, position. So they examine their own lives. They have done well. They have moved up in society and they have made contributions. So, like the Member for Potong Pasir, they ask, "What is wrong with westernization?" I think to address the anxieties of this group of English educated people we need to reiterate the message that the return to cultural values, the teaching of traditional values through the second language policy is really meant for the next generation. It is really directed at the younger people. Nobody need feel hurt or need feel uncomfortable. If he or she does not speak Mandarin or the mother tongue it does not matter. It is directed at the second generation. Granted, the greater concern of the English educated is over the problems faced by the children in coping with the study of CL2. They fear the children's future will be affected if they cannot cope. Thus one hears very frequently that professionals are leaving or intending to leave Singapore because of the Government's second language policy. If this is the main reason for the emigration of professionals, actually I personally doubt whether this is indeed the main reason, but I have no evidence to show, but even if it is the main reason, perhaps something can still be done about the method of teaching the second language. But I would not agree with any further lowering of the standard required because here we are talking not just about a minimum standard of proficiency as a means of communication or as a communicative skill. Here we are talking about a minimum standard of proficiency for the transmission of cultural values. Yesterday the Member for Braddell Heights gave a very interesting table to the House which showed the L2 results at both the 'AO' level for GCE 'A' level students as well as the L2 results for GCE 'O' level examinations for the last three years. It is abundantly clear from these statistics that the percentage of people passing CL2 at both the 'AO' level and the 'O' level has been more than 90%, in fact around 95-96% throughout these recent years. So I think again the anxiety of the English educated parents who give the problem that their children have with CL2 as a reason for intending to migrate must be allayed again. Based on these figures it is clear that the children would not have a problem in coping with CL2, particularly now that the Government has given clear indications that we are not changing the list of vocabulary or raising the standard of the language course required. Let me move very quickly to a different theme in our debate. The concern for the lower income groups is a very major concern as expressed in the President's Address, and as the Minister of State for Community Development and Education in her maiden speech expressed over the impact of the rising health care cost on the lower income groups. This is also one of the major issues which my GPC has in the last two years taken up with the Acting Minister for Health and his Ministry. We have repeatedly called upon the Government to pay special consideration to the lower income families since they would be the most affected by the restructuring of the Government hospitals. The answer given by the Acting Minister for Health on this question has always been in the following manner. In fact,he gave the same answer to the Minister of State for Community Development and Education two days ago. He pointed out that the occupancy rate of C-class beds has gone down from 73% in 1980 to 65% today. This, he said, shows that even the lower income groups can afford the B2 wards. We know that in fact, parallel to the decrease in the number of C-class beds in Government hospitals, there has been an increase in the number of B2 ward beds. But does he not think that the reason, at least a very important reason for this drop in the demand for C-class beds may very well be on account of Medisave? A large proportion of Medisave members actually have balances of less than $1,000 and this amount is not going to last them very long, especially if they fall seriously ill. Since Medisave is money locked away unless it is used, people who can actually ill afford B2 beds are tempted to use it. Another fact is that many people actually do not realize that the difference between a B2 ward bed and a C-class ward bed is more than just a difference in the ward charges and the meal charges per day. Everything else adds up. Everything else, that is, the daily professional prescription fees, the X-ray charges, the laboratory fees, operations fees, and miscellaneous specialized investigation fees. The least the Ministry can do to help people from the lower income groups who are also likely to be less educated is to explain to them at the time of admission to hospital that there would be this kind of difference in the scale of fees if they opt for B2 beds. Then they can make the rational decision. Then I think the Government will have discharged its duty of explaining to these people before they choose the B2 beds. Once they receive the bill the shock comes but it will be too late. If this has not actually happened to many of the lower income families who were recently hospitalized, then why did the Minister for Labour find it necessary sometime back to call attention and to give a warning to the people that the Medisave accounts are running very low and that they should exercise more care in using them in future? I think there must be something there. The statistics may not show it but I think the reason is there and the Ministry should very well take a closer look into this matter - the use of Medisave and how, in fact, the lower income families have been using Medisave unwisely for B2, apart from the question that the rise in the charges, ie, the differential between C and B2 beds has now been quite steep in the recent 1988 exercise. The Acting Minister for Health also quoted the figure of only 1.8% of the C class ward patients applying for and were given waivers. My point is: how stringent are the criteria for application? If people go and ask, say, the medical social worker for consideration of waiver, the first piece of information that the social worker will inquire is how much is their household income and if they do not qualify they cannot apply. In other words, for those who applied, ie, the 1.8% who applied, of course they get the waiver because they meet the eligibility criteria. But does this mean that hospital services, even the C class beds in Government hospitals, have now become or have remained affordable to the lower income groups? So in the ensuing Budget debate I think the GPC members may very well take this matter up with the Minister again and hopefully he will give us a better answer this time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap. Sir, I will speak specifically on two topics, namely, religion and politics, and the Elected President proposal. May I speak first on the Elected President proposal. Sir, I am in full agreement that we need a two-key system for the future. With so much at stake, it would be wise to provide for a second key to guard our reserves and to protect the integrity of the public service. No one doubts the wisdom of this. However, opinions differ as to the means to achieve this end. The Elected President is certainly one way to provide a check and balance. There are other ways which should be considered. An Elected President, because he is elected, will have the mandate to check the government and Parliament in the key areas in which he has been given power. But election has one disadvantage. It leads to polarization. In making the change, will we be in danger of losing the office of Head of State which at present is above politics and acts as a symbol to unify all our people? In our multi-racial society, I believe that a President who is above politics is important. Other alternative methods to achieve a two-key system should be considered. One could be a Presidential Council. The Council could be elected or appointed. Its main strength will lie in its ability to alert Parliament and the public if it should disagree with the government of the day on the use of reserves or on key appointments. It could be as effective as the Elected President. I hope that this and other alternatives will be examined and I am glad that the Government in the President's Address has decided that the proposal will be fully discussed before a final decision is taken. On religion and politics. We have enjoyed real peace and harmony in Singapore for many years as far as matters of religious faith are concerned. This is despite the fact that we are a multi-racial, multi-religious society living in a small and crowded island. The more I think about this and compare ourselves with other countries bigger and better endowed than we are, the more I appreciate this fact. What has brought about this happy state of affairs? First and foremost, I believe that the vast majority of our people are pragmatic. They have exercised good sense and give and take in matters of religion. From time to time, there have been complaints about indiscriminate distribution of religious tracts. There have also been complaints about wind-blown ash and noise from religious ceremonies. The groups responsible for these have responded and generally moderate their practices. Good sense has prevailed and an easy accommodation of one another's practices has developed. The Government, the ultimate temporal authority of the land, has set a good example by being scrupulously fair and even-handed towards all religions. We are a secular state. The Constitution provides for freedom of worship for all our citizens. Religion is kept out of politics and the running of the country. It has not been allowed to become a factor in the social and economic life of our people. Imagine, Sir, how different the picture would be if it were otherwise, for example, if religion were a factor in job appointments, in educational opportunities or in the awarding of tenders and licences, practices which are common in religiously-biased states. There would be great indignation. We have been able to avoid this. The Government has not shown favour to any religious group nor has it discriminated against any group. It has been even-handed towards all groups. Sir, this happy state of affairs is likely to continue if religious leaders recognize that the right and proper function of religion is to meet the individual's spiritual and personal needs. From time immemorial, religions have provided an anchor and a compass for their believers. They embody core moral values and are responsible for transmitting them from generation to generation. They have contributed much to our society through welfare services, education and charitable works. All religions are primarily concerned with matters of the spirit and the transcendent. There are key events in everyone's life - birth, marriage and death. People experience happiness. They also experience distress and despair. At these times, many people turn to a religious faith. Religion has a unique role to play in being able to meet these personal needs. So long as religious organizations remember this, they will play a valuable role in our society. But if they should seek also to publicize themselves, to heighten their image and to impose themselves on others, this will lead to rivalry and competition from other religious groups. This will be the beginning of tension and disorder. Sir, it does not take much to arouse tensions. Insensitive job advertisements favouring applicants of a particular faith, careless and provocative remarks, even unintentional or intentional controversies started by letters to the press, these are enough to rouse emotions immediately. Religious sensitivities have arisen between different religious groups when criticisms are levelled by one group against another, usually by immature members of the group. Religious leaders have a responsibility to prevent such criticism. They should speak to the members of their group. They may by all means preach why their way is superior. But there is no need to denigrate others in doing so. Sometimes, in their enthusiasm for their faith, members of a religious group may decide to evangelize others without regard to whether they have espoused another religion. Some Christian groups do this. My advice to them is to refrain from doing so. There is a proper and orderly way for evangelism. Faith should, first, be borne out by the way one lives. And secondly, it should never be forced on other people. Religious leaders should therefore keep clearly in their minds that their primary role is to meet the spiritual and the personal needs of individuals. If they do so, the chances of friction with other groups will be minimized. Sir, religious organizations or religious leaders should never try to seek political power or even to influence politics. This is a particularly dangerous minefield for them to get into. When a small group of Catholics and non-Catholics began to organize for radical change under the cover of properly constituted religious organizations they breached this important principle. World history is replete with horrendous examples of the consequences when religion becomes involved with politics. The problem of separating church or religion from the state is not a new one. The debate goes as far back at least to St Augustine. In Europe, right through the Middle Ages and the Reformation, religious groups sought to dominate by capturing political power. States joining forces with the Vatican or with the Protestant churches fought bloody wars with one another. In our own continent, Asia, we still witness slaughter and bloodshed when religious groups seek to assert themselves by moving into the public, political arena. In our multi-racial, multi-religious context, the consequences of such things would be worse. The entry of any religious group into the public arena no matter what their cause will invite a response from other religious groups who do not want to be outdone. The chaos that could follow would be as bloody as that arising from inter-racial conflict. The problem is that religion appears to provide an attractive and almost sacrosanct cover. Misguided religious leaders may act from this vantage point believing that the Government would be reluctant to act against them because the Government does not want to be seen to be anti-religion. Worse, political activists and Machiavellian idealists may decide, for the same reason, that they should also operate from behind the shield of religion and in the name of religion. Sir, is this scenario far-fetched and alarmist? I do not think so. We have only to look at the religious/ political civil wars taking place in countries not far from us Sri Lanka, the Punjab. There is also a world-wide revival and resurgence of all religions. Two great ideologies have dominated this century: Communism which has captured political power in almost half the world and Individualistic Humanism or Individualism as a philosophy which has captured the hearts and minds of many, particularly in the affluent West. They have both failed. The communist leaders, Mr Gorbachev and Mr Deng Xiao-ping have said as much in their speeches and in their actions. In the West, Individualism promised ever-increasing individual freedom and happiness and self-realization. It has also failed. It has instead produced the breakdown of the family, the drug culture and disillusionment. The traditional religions are making a come-back. People are looking to them for new solutions to their old problems. This explains the resurgence of all religions. We have practically all the major religions present in Singapore. The question is this: as they revive, what are the chances that they will come into rough contact with one another? What are the chances that those who seek radical social actions will exploit this revival to further their aims of revolutionary change? I am glad that the Government has recognized these dangers and will be looking into ground rules which will keep religion and politics separate. Such rules should not inhibit freedom of worship. The rules should seek to prevent the misuse of religion for political purposes. They should protect religion from abuse. I urge the Government to consult all religious groups as it formulates these rules, so that the intention and purposes will be clearly understood and accepted by all parties. Sir, I have no doubt that there are issues touching on moral or ethical principles which religious groups would want to draw attention to. These are legitimate grounds which may affect them in particular or society as a whole. There are two ways for them to handle these matters. The one way I do not recommend is that they take the matter to the public and organize pressure groups and publicity campaigns. However worthy the cause, this is political action. It will invite reactions from other groups. The better way is for the religious group to communicate its views to the Government and to discuss the matter confidentially and frankly in private. Consensus, agreement and good sense is more likely to be reached by this approach. The Government should keep its channels of communication open. Sir, our Prime Minister said in a speech reported in the Straits Times on 14 December 1988, that Government Ministers and all Members of Parliament must serve all Singaporeans regardless of their religious beliefs. All Members of this House would surely concur with this. We are a secular state with a secular Constitution. The elected government is a secular government. Whatever our personal religious beliefs, we serve all Singaporeans regardless of their race, language or religion. However, Sir, I would like to add a corollary. I would like to ask that all religious groups should also recognize that this is a secular state. They should not expect special favours from Government. They should also avoid involving Government leaders and MPs publicly in their religious ceremonies and functions. I have two reasons for making this point. The first is this. If religious groups seek to involve government leaders and MPs in their religious activities, will this not lead to competition? All groups know that they will gain greater prominence if they can attract well-known public figures, like Members of Parliament, to attend their functions. This may be a perfectly normal human desire, but it will be a short step from this to competition by different religious groups for the attention, and even the patronage, of prominent state leaders. The converse will also be true. Political parties and politicians eager to win support will be tempted to move closer to certain religious groups. Where will it lead to? The competition and publicity can only excite feelings and increase rivalry and suspicion. My second reason is that mutual respect must work both ways. Government leaders and Members of Parliament have their personal beliefs, including religious beliefs. Although they are public figures, it would be wrong for those of another faith to try to involve them in their religious ceremonies. Respect for another person's faith means that we should not intrude into his belief by involving him in the ceremonies of other religions. Some Members of Parliament have no personal objection in accepting invitations from any or all religious groups. It is, of course, their own choice which I respect. But if mutual respect is to mean something, religious groups should not expect or require all Members of Parliament to do the same. Sir, I have drawn a line for myself. I have declined official invitations from all groups to attend their religious ceremonies, although I have attended their functions which are not religious but are related to charity. I have also turned down official invitations by Christian groups to their religious activities although I am a Christian. It is not an easy line to draw because there will be some who will misunderstand the purpose. But if we believe that the separation is necessary especially in our context, then maintaining a certain distance between the state and all religions is important. If the two sides get too close to one another, religious friction and political involvement will be the result. In conclusion, Sir, Singapore has enjoyed an unprecedented period of religious peace and harmony. Religious leaders have been sensitive and sensible. They have sought quietly to meet their members' spiritual and personal needs. They should continue to concentrate on this. They have wisely not tried to seek publicity and to excite feelings. Let us keep it this way. There are many religious conflicts in the world today. Religious extremism and xenophobia in the world is on the rise again. This can affect our own religious groups which have connections and affinity with outside groups. It is in Singapore's interest as well as their own interest that religious leaders should be wise and keep their followers calm. Religion, like race, is visceral. Once it is aroused, its fury cannot be easily contained. To quote the 18th Century French philosopher Blaise Pascal, he said: 'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions.' Religion when mixed with politics is an unholy and dangerous mixture. All parties must recognize clearly that a line exists between what belongs to the state and to politics and what belongs to religious faith and belief. If we do so, we will continue to enjoy peace. Sir, I support the motion.

Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Member for Siglap. Except for Mr Ng Pock Too, who has lost his voice and I believe will not speak this week, I am the last of the new MPs to make a maiden speech. As I contemplated last night of this prospect, I began to wonder about the origin of this term and its significance. Mr Speaker, Sir, does it mean that at the end of the day we will all lose our innocence and our virtues, whether Eastern or Western? I hope not. Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1988 General Election was a watershed in the history of our nation. We witnessed the retirement of almost all the veterans of the Long March, the first generation leaders of our independent state. More than we realize, it was the passing of an era. I wish, Sir, to pay tribute to these leaders who preceded us. They gave their best, and held nothing back in the service of this nation, to lay a firm foundation for us to build upon. The Government won all except one seat in the last Election. In most countries, this would be hailed as a landslide victory. But the votes went down by over 1%, despite the booming economy and the absence, I think, of major controversies. In my view, this is disappointing and disquieting in the context of Singapore. There were, as you know, even close-shaves in many constituencies. And some of us here today are very glad that we made it to this House. I believe, Sir, that the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans would like the PAP government to continue the good work, to have "More Good Years", but a significant number wish to send a signal to this Government to register their protest and their frustration. Sir, we can never win them all, but we must try to win most of them. What do we do to bridge this gap between the Government and those who are disenchanted? I am sure historians in the distant future will give their considered views. Here, in the meantime, I will offer some thoughts on this subject. Sir, we must first of all give more attention to the poor and less privileged of all races. Their voices must be heard. In the midst of prosperity and arguments here about car ownership, of buying a car before the expected car increase, we tend, I think, to forget that there are amongst us who are struggling to make ends meet. Some have double jobs and many work long hours. On my house-to-house visits in Bukit Batok, some of the residents pleaded with me to convey this to the Government: Please, when you next consider increasing any fees, remember there are many at the bottom who just can't pay. To them, it is all pay and pay. They are trying to keep their heads above the water. I discovered while working on my thesis as an undergraduate that in the early years, the PAP was the champion of the poor, the down and the out. It was this that attracted me in the first instance to join the People's Action Party many years ago. But have we, Sir, lost this zeal and mission for the less privileged? More, Sir, should be done for the have-nots. I am not asking for more hand-outs or a welfare state, but more thoughts on the effects of policies and imaginative schemes to help them in key areas, for example, more liberal remission of school fees, more bursaries, and more flexibile terms for home ownership. These will help them to help themselves and contribute to this nation. Sir, at this stage of our national development, we can afford to be more caring and compassionate. We can be caring, without being soft. Sir, besides the poor, there are other groups of Singaporeans who feel alienated from the Government. They are young, articulate, and disenchanted with some aspects of policies or the style of government. A new generation has grown up since the 1960s and 1970s. They want dialogue. They want to be heard. They want to be consulted. They may be misguided and may not necessarily be right, but the Government should never adopt the "cleverer than thou" attitude or the "Father knows best" syndrome. Yes, the Government has the undeniable courage to implement unpopular policies for the ultimate good of this nation, but we should not trumpet this endlessly nor wear this as a badge of honour. It is, in my opinion, a rather heavy badge that drags us down. I must say in all fairness that in the last four years, the Government has adopted a more open and more consultative approach. This is good. But somehow the perception of high-handedness persists. The Government should, therefore, be righteous and fair, without being overbearing. It can be firm, without being nasty. We must have the ability to laugh at ourselves. We must swing, move and be in tune with the people. Instead of a frowning face, Government needs to show a smile, now and then. A smiling, caring and approachable Government. I know that the Government is trying its best to bridge this gap. There is room for improvement. But it is trying. I believe that this Government is committed to a democratic way of life. How else could you explain the presence of a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament like Dr Lee Siew-Choh? His presence is proof that democracy is at work here. The proposal, Sir, floated by the Minister for Trade and Industry, for non-partisan MPs drawn from the universities and the trade unions is a step in the right direction. But this would take a number of years to work out. I have a suggestion, Sir, which I hope the Government will endorse and the Opposition MPs will support: Expand immediately the NCMP scheme from 3 to 6. Under the current scheme, we have three seats reserved for the Opposition. Mr Chiam was elected, Dr Lee came in as an NCMP and Mr Francis Seow was disqualified. Let us expand this number immediately by amending the legislation and backdate it, and allow the next three highest opposition candidates, Mr Mohamed Khalit Baboo, Mr David Chew and Mr Ling How Doong to come in here as NCMPs. Admit them into this House. The more, the merrier. We will have more spice, more variety, more input. Let them play a role in our democratic setup. This will disabuse the cynics and refute the charge that the Government tends to control the thoughts. Sir, to those who criticize the Government or take a different stand, I also have this to say. Do not just jump on the bandwagon and criticize the Government blindly, though it may be fashionable to do so. Give credit where credit is due. Indeed, I think we should also be thankful that the PAP Government has brought us 30 years of unprecedented growth, peace and prosperity. We should count our blessings. Criticize constructively, but do not be cynical or destructive. Otherwise, this country of ours will become ungovernable. If you can, offer alternative solutions to the problems of the day. If you must, argue, but never forget, as the President stated in the first sentence of his Address to this House, our "goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans". Sir, we are all Singaporeans, whatever our differences in approach. Or, if I may add, whatever our race, language or religion. At the end of the day, we all share a common destiny. This is our home; this is our country. Let us then be united in purpose; be part of "Singapore United" as a united football team if you wish and go for it, "to create a better life for all Singaporeans". Sir, I support the motion.

Sir, may I be allowed to ask for clarifications in regard to two points? The first one is in regard to the statement made by Dr Ong. He said that over 1% drop of the PAP's vote is disappointing and disquieting. What I read in the papers about what the Ministers say was just the contrary - it was an overwhelming victory. How does he explain that this is disappointing and disquieting?

Why can't he say it?

I want him to clarify. I am asking for clarification. The other thing that I require clarification is that he supports the Minister for Trade and Industry. He says bring in NCMPs drawn from the university and the Chambers of Commerce. And to have more NCMPs is a step in the right direction. He says this is democratic. But does he not agree with me that democracy means representation? All these people who come in as NCMPs do not represent any constituency at all. So where is the principle of representation in regard to this type of MPs?

Sir, I am expressing my views and I cannot pretend to speak for the Government leaders when I refer to the issue of the election results. I believe definitely it is a victory by all counts. But the trend is disturbing, from my own point of view. As regards representation, I think the NCMP scheme is a great step forward. We are the first to do it and I think other countries might think that we have found the key to stability in the Asian context. As Dr Lee Siew-Choh will say, he represents, in his view, part of the people of Singapore. I think we must concede to him because he won quite a number of votes. We cannot take that away from him. So I am sure Mr Chiam would agree with me that Dr Lee represents, to some extent, the voters who put in the votes for him. I would rather ask whether Mr Chiam would accept and endorse my proposal that the NCMP scheme be immediately expanded so that three other opposition candidates can come in here as NCMPs. Is he fearing some competition?

Sir, may I be allowed to answer?

Sure.

Sir, I gave a talk to university students, lecturers and professors recently and this same question was asked of me. The Prime Minister apparently has remarked that we are not having good people because I fear competition. I do not fear competition, Sir. In fact, I love competition. That is the reason why I want the Potong Pasir community centre to be run by the Opposition so that we can give them more competition. Sir, I am not afraid. In fact, if there are more elected Opposition MPs in this House, I would be very very happy. Unfortunately, we tried our best but only one got in.

He is very proud of it!

Sir, we are talking of representation as it stands at the moment. Of course, everybody represents somebody. Each one of us here who is elected represents a constituency. But there is a difference between the NCMP and an elected MP.

Tell us the difference.

The difference is that the elected MP has the mandate of those who have put him in Parliament. Whereas the NCMP has no mandate; he has been invited by the ruling party. He is here by the grace of the Government. That is the distinction.

No. It is a constitutional provision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Chiam whether he could confirm that he would support the proposal to expand NCMPs from 3 to 6. He is trying to wriggle out his way by giving so many comments but no firm commitment, one way or the other. Does he or does he not support the immediate expansion of NCMPs so that more Opposition voices or alternative views can be offered to this House?

Sir, immediately after the last general elections, our party announced that we were not accepting any NCMP seats if letters of invitation were received from the ruling party. Because this is a very important principle.

The answer is no.

Of course, it is no. If you start to compromise on this principle, Sir, then we might as well not have any elections at all. We leave it to the ruling party to invite whoever they like to come into Parliament.

Sir, may I ask Mr Chiam whether he is aware that 49% of the residents of Eunos GRC voted for the Workers' Party, and that is about 35,000 voters in all, and that is many more than those in Potong Pasir? And, therefore, Dr Lee represents 35,000 people?

May I be allowed to say few words, Sir? Some hon. Members: Yes.

Can Mr Chiam make his clarification before I call on you, Dr Lee? Yes, Mr Chiam.

I am much obliged to you, Sir. I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs has brought up an irrelevant point. We are contesting under the first-past-the-post system. So even if you lose by a whisker, you lose. Whether it is 49.999% or whatever, it is still a loss. This is the system that we have. We are competing under your system. We are not talking about proportional representation. That is another distinct system whereby under the law which says, "If you get 5% or more or whatever percentage, you are in by virtue of the law." But the difference here is that these MP-designates have to wait for the letter to come from the ruling party.

No.

Now it is not so. Let me clarify. In the previous elections, Mr Tan Chee Kien was invited. He refused, on principle. Then Mr M.P.D. Nair was invited. He also refused, on principle. But the Government stopped at that point. By right, you should have invited the third best. But it was your choice. In other words, the Government is given the discretion whether or not to invite whoever they like to come into Parliament. An hon. Member: No.

Yes, that is the position. It was a precedent set in 1984. So there is a clear distinction. They are, in fact, coming into this House under the invitation of the PAP. About numbers, I think we have got a small constituency and therefore our numbers will have to be less. But the percentage, I obtained 62.3%, better than many of the Ministers here.

Is Mr Chiam aware that Dr Lee comes in strictly under a constitutional arrangement as provided for in the Constitution as well as in the Parliamentary Elections Act?

I am surprised, Sir, the NCMP seems to be the butt of so many comments. Earlier on, the Government Ministers and MPs have been saying that the NCMP is here because of democracy. Let us go back and analyze how the NCMP came about. Very easy, Sir. At that time, you remember 1984, there were lots of people asking for representation from the Opposition. They wanted more Opposition in Parliament. And to create an image that the Government was not opposing any Opposition, they created this NCMP scheme, a facade, to create the impression that they would like to have Opposition, but that the only thing was that the Opposition could not make it. That was the whole idea. And now, of course, once it is in the Constitution, nobody can stop it, not even the Prime Minister. Of course, Mr Chiam has his own views. I do not want to disabuse him of them. We disagree on quite a number of points. I do not want to make any comments on that. But let us not forget that at this point, the NCMP is part of the Constitution. Hon. Members: Yes.

And, Sir, if the PAP had the choice when Mr Seow and myself came in, they would have knocked us out. They have knocked Mr Seow out. They are waiting for a chance to get me! Because they know that I know quite a lot of how the PAP works. I have analyzed, for example, why they created this National Ideology. And I have given you the steps as to how it came about. If you look at it, you will find that it is historically correct. I analyze events and things on the basis of facts and reasoned arguments.

Dr Lee, are you going on with another speech?

No, Sir, I will make it short and quick. There was another talk about representation.

Dr Lee, I am allowing you to clarify your position regarding what Mr Chiam has said about NCMPs. But I think you should not embark on another speech on the National Ideology.

No, I am not talking about the Ideology at all. I was merely giving an example of how we look at things.

But your clarification seems to be rather long.

Sometimes it needs to be long!

Could I ask you to be short?

I just want to say a few words.

All right.

It is not a matter of representation or mandate. Some people have more votes than other people and think that they have more mandate than others. That is not true. I want to make it very clear that I come from the Eunos GRC. As has already been admitted by the Leader of the House, we represent a very good proportion of the voters there; and also near 40% of the total electorate, which comes to hundreds of thousands of votes. Therefore, it is not non-representation at all. Maybe he wishes to confine himself to one constituency, maybe Potong Pasir. So, Sir, on the matter of representation, I do represent many voters. Let us not just harp on it again and say I do not, otherwise I will have to say something more.

Order. I will suspend the sitting and take the Chair again at 3.25 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.02 pm until 3.25 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm.

Exempted Business

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].

Debate resumed.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure you that I will not raise the subject of mother tongue this time because I have spoken on this subject for several years both inside and outside the House. Since the Minister for Education has touched on it at great length yesterday, for which I thank him, I will reserve my comments until more announcements are made in March on the implementation of mother tongue education. Today I shall give my views on the subject of national Ideology. Our economy is an open economy, relying heavily on foreign investments, technology and even labour. In politics, we have adopted the British style of parliamentary democracy. In education, we have raised English to first language level. Using the terminology of he yang ( ) "River Elegy") we are moving towards "oceanic civilization". This kind of civilization has brought about rapid developments all round, but at the same time we have also paid a very high price the loss of our cultural roots and confusion in our value concepts. The formation of National Ideology is like having a compass to guide us in our journey in the vast ocean hereafter, to lead Singaporeans, particularly the younger generation, towards the 21st century so that they may not lose their direction. Moreover, after economic development has reached a certain degree and after most people's material enjoyment has reached a certain standard, they will turn to spiritual wants. This spiritual want is manifested in different forms like art, philosophy, religion, personal freedom, etc. It is more difficult to satisfy this kind of non-material needs than to provide housing, jobs or education, medical services and so on as the former is intangible, pluralistic and personal. Because of the differences in, cultural, religious and lingual background, the spiritual needs must definitely be different or even contentious among people. Therefore, we must formulate a National Ideology acceptable to all races as the blueprint for our cultural, social and political development hereafter. In the past few days, we have been listening to comments of uneasiness expressed by some Malay MPs. This is understandable, because the minorities are worried that the Chinese majority might impose their value concepts upon them. At the same time, some have misunderstood or are critical of Confucianism or suspect the motive of the Government in proposing the formulation of a National Ideology. This has caused some confusion in the discussion on this subject. This confusion is unnecessary ad should not have arisen. The four core values proposed in the Presidential Address should form the basis for our discussion of National Ideology. One core value is "racial and religious tolerance and harmony". Let me express my views on this core value. Tolerance and harmony should be based on several premises. First, we must acknowledge the existence of differences between us. We should not try to whitewash or hide away the differences or pretend that they do not exist. After acknowledging the differences, we then try to find a practical way to bridge the gap or shorten the distance. Second, from the various different cultures, traditions and values, we should try to search for common good values that would be acceptable to all, in order to gel our society and nation. In other words, what we emphasize here is to seek similarity from diversity ( ). Third, we must also realize that national consciousness or ideology is not meant to replace our own cultures, traditions and values. Fourth, we must stress the term "mutual", that is to say, there must be give-and-take, a two-way traffic. There is a Chinese saying ( ), you should not do to others what you do not want others do to you. Therefore, we should not impose our own values andbeliefs on other people, if we do not want others to impose their beliefs and values on us. The Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs, whose speeches I do appreciate, had on 17th December 1988 warned us of cultural chauvinism. I believe nobody will oppose this principle, but he continued to say that if the Chinese Singapore an look only to Confucianism, then the Malays and the Indians would withdraw into their religious and cultural enclaves as a sort of self-defence. He was using it to illustrate that we should not display cultural chauvinism. But his example is not factual, because among the Chinese there are different religious faiths and philosophies. Let us take the 1980 Census of Population: Of the 1,520,000 Chinese 10 years old and above, 10.6% were Christians and Catholics, 34.3% were Buddhists, 38.2% were Taoists, 16.7% had no religion. From recent debate and readers' letters in the newspapers it could be seen that Chinese have different views about Confucianism, even conflicting ones. On the contrary, the 1980 Census of the Population showed that 99.3% of Malays were Muslims; 56.5% of Indians were Hindus and 21.8% were Muslims. Compared with the Chinese, the minorities were more homogeneous in their beliefs and religions. I believe the Minister of State did not refer to the Chinese as being cultural chauvinists. Nevertheless, his example has caused some concern, worry and doubts among the Chinese community. They ask: is it because we talk about Confucianism or about the standard of Chinese language that we are regarded as cultural chauvinists? Should it be that just because we are in the majority, so we must keep quiet and become the silent majority? Earlier, the Member for Changkat had also mentioned about the feelings of the Chinese community. If the Chinese, for the sake of avoiding suspicion or the black pot of history choose to opt out of the search for National Ideology, then any formulatedNational Ideology would be one-sided. This will also be contrary to another core value of "seeking consensus through consultation". Earlier the Senior Minister of State for Education talked about religion and politics. As MPs, we must separate politics from religion, because MPs are elected by their constituents of various races and faith. As Members of Parliament, and advisers to the various grassroots organizations, we must set a good example. Whatever our own faiths, we must do away with our religious biases against other religions or cultures. We should actively seek closer links with the various religious and cultural organizations in our constituencies and try to understand religions, cultures and faith of other people so as to be with the people. I would like to remind the Senior Minister of State that some religious organizations also organize social and charitable activities such as awarding scholarship and bursaries, and giving Ang Pows during Chinese New Year season. If an MP of whatever religious faith is invited to take part in these functions of the religion, then it is to be uderstood that he goes there as an MP and adviser, not because he belongs to the same faith. In other words, he must be able to discern clearly whether the activities of a religious organization are of religious nature or non-religious or social nature. One should be clear in understanding the nature of the occasions and should not mix them up. Now let me turn to Confucianism. From readers' letters to the press, it can be seen that members of the Chinese community, because of differences in, education, religion and language backgrounds, have different views and understanding about Confucianism. In fact, the essence of Confucianism is not in its Chinese-ism or Chinese-ness. What Tu Wei Ming said about the characteristics of Confucianism is its Chinese-ism is not wrong, because Confucius was born in Shanton Province in ancient China which is a fact no one can deny. Just as we say that Shaolin martial art originated in Shaolin temple of, Henan province in China is also a fact. This is not the main point. The essence of Confucianism is about ethics of human relationship between man and man and between man and society or nation. These Confucian ethical virtues of relationship merit our consideration for incorporation into our National Ideology. In the course of this discussion, I have noticed that there is confusion between "system" and "thought". Up to now, in the history of China, there has never been a democratic system in practice. The Minister of State for Finance mentioned about the "Three People's Principles" of Kuomintang. Even in Taiwan, up to the 1980s, before martial law was abolished, there had not been a democratic system in practice in spite of the "Three People's Principles". This is a question of system. But Confucianism actually has the spirit and ideas of democracy. As Mencius had said that "The people are important. The ruler is of less importance."( ) There was another great Confucianist in the Ming dynasty who said that "The water (which likens the people) can carry a boat (the boat refers to the Government), the water can also overturn the boat." ( ) The principle in Confucianism about "self-cultivation in character",( ) "disciplining of one's family" ( ) and "the administration of the country" ( ) are all in relation to human moral standard. The First Deputy Prime Minister had mentioned about "gentlemen in government" ( ). Therefore, it is in line with the interest of the country and not in conflict with the democratic system. I believe the MP for Potong Pasir is a gentleman, and I think he will agree with me. Some people have confused westernization with modernization and others have adopted a polarization stance either for the West or for the East. Some people think that oriental cultures represent conservativism, backwardness and regression, whereas western cultures and thoughts mean modernization and progress. On the other hand, some other people regard Eastern values as the standard of virtues, while Westernization as degeneration and decadent vogue. Both these thinkings are wrong. What we should be worried about, just as pointed out clearly in the President's Address, is that our traditional Asian ideas of morality, duty and society which have sustained and guided us in the past are giving way to a more westernized, idividualistic and self-centred outlook on life. As is also pointed out in the Address, there are also valuable points in the ideas and values of the West, such as the rule of law, democracy, creativity, research in science and technology which merit our absorption. Of course, there are also bad and outdated elements in Eastern value concepts. Therefore, we must try to select and choose and skim the cream out of the waste so as to adopt with care those elements and values which are in keeping with our social conditions and national mood, and also meeting our requirements in modernization, wherever they come from, whether from the East or from the West, or from whatever ethnic community among us. Finally, let me sum up by quoting a an article in a Taiwan magazine "Commonwealth" ( ) in Jannuary 1989 which commented as an objective observer on our search for a National Ideology. The article observed that the leader of Singapore (referring to Premier Lee) "has already seen certain unclear (cultural) problems appearing beyond the horizon, but time may not be in his favour ... ". The article also asked: "whether Singapore has the time to carry out the more onerous task of cultural reformation? To once more congeal the spirit of Singapore?". Let us ponder over these questions. 3.43 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me first of all to welcome the 18 new PAP MPs to this House. They represent the result of many years of search by the PAP for suitable candidates for elections to represent Singapore. I also welcome Dr Lee Siew-Choh. Although he is wearing a new badge now I do not think he is really a new MP because he represents an era way back in the 1960s. We believe that the 18 new PAP MPs are representative of their generation. I therefore listened with greater interest to their views because what they say will tell us what their generation thinks. As I sat there listening to the new MPs and, of course, to some of the older ones too, my mind went back to February 1977. I sat where Charles Chong now sits. On my left was Rahmat Kenap, Member for Geylang Serai, and further down, N Govindasamy, Member for Radin Mas. I never got to know N Govindasamy well because he passed away one week after Parliament opened. Rahmat Kenap served four terms. He retired in 1980. He was a Member for Geylang Serai from 1963 to 1980. On 23 February 1977, the Prime Minister spoke to Members. Those who were here will recall the marathon speech which the Prime Minister made. It lasted two and a half hours. He crammed his political experience and thoughts into those two and a half hours. Those of us who were here benefited from that speech. Let me use his words to convey the main theme of his speech, and I quote him [Vol. 36, col. 404]: 'Perhaps I ought to begin by saying that they [the new MPs] ought to take themselves seriously because we, on this side as Members of the Government, take them seriously. Upon us is the burden of finding a successor Government worthy of its responsibilities. It is not an easy job.' I looked at the Frontbench, quite puzzled. The Prime Minister looked young and vigorous. He was 54 years old, only about two or three years older than Ong Teng Cheong is today. I looked at Dr Toh on his right, and Dr Goh Keng Swee on his left. They were older than the Prime Minister but they still looked young and vigorous. And there were the others S Rajaratnam, Ong Pang Boon, Jek Yeun Thong, Chua Sian Chin, Lim Kim San, Othman Wok, E W Barker 11 of them occupying the Frontbench. They did not look old to me either. In fact, in my mind I was expecting one of them to succeed Mr Lee as Prime Minister. I did not understand the full import of the Prime Minister's message until much later. Self-renewal was still not a common term; it was still not in vogue. It became a common term only after 1977 or so. Over the years I came to understand the significance of PM's passion for self-renewal and what it is all about. In essence, it is about durable leadership to see Singapore through. In other words, without durable leadership Singapore cannot survive. The Prime Minister used to tell me and Chee Onn over lunch, and other meetings, that death is only one heartbeat away. And he asked us many times, repeatedly, what would happen to Singapore if something untoward were to happen to him. In fact, he put it more graphically. He said, "If I were to be knocked down by a lorry, and it can happen because I am on the road, what would happen to Singapore? Or if you think that is not possible, unlikely, because I have my backup cars, what if I were on a plane and the plane crashes? What happens? Who takes over Singapore? Who looks after Singaporeans?" He shocked Chee Onn and I into thinking about Singapore's problems, about Singapore's prosperity, growth, survival, after the Prime Minister. Today, the Frontbench is occupied by the younger Ministers, except for the Prime Minister. But I think we should drop the term "younger" from today onwards. If you look around, I do not think there are any Ministers older than ourselves. So we are the Ministers and let us not talk about younger Ministers anymore. The Prime Minister has succeeded in handing over power; transition has been smooth. Many might not believe it, but we have been more or less in charge since December 1984. When I was appointed Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and I agreed that he would not introduce any new policies unless I agreed with them. The reason is simple. If I am uncomfortable with any policy of his or any suggestion which he wants Cabinet to adopt, he would not be there to see through the implementation and the consequences of the policies. I will be answerable. My colleagues and I will be answerable. So we have that agreement. And any policy that was introduced since December 1984 my colleagues and I are answerable. This Government, therefore, is not a new government. But there is still a difference between now and the situation just after 1984. We are now in complete charge of the Government. If the Prime Minister does not agree with us on certain policies, we debate them and put them to a vote; and we can outvote him. And it has happened. We have outvoted him on certain policies and we decide. We are in charge, and the Prime Minister has agreed that that is the way it should be. He gives us his inputs; we value his inputs, but we take the decisions. Therefore, do not expect any sudden shift of gears, sudden reversal of policies or any dramatic movement, heading Singapore in a different direction. Of course, we will take a fresh look at policies, as suggested by Mr Chandra Das. We always do, always looking for new remedies to old problems, and remedies to meet new problems. We do that all the time. If you look up the President's Addresses since December 1984, you will find that fresh approach to problems. We have been responsible for all the President's Addresses since then. This current Address which is now being debated by the House, was drafted by BG Lee Hsien Loong based on the line I gave him. All the Ministers contributed their ideas. They commented on the draft. We discussed and, of course, the Prime Minister also contributed some drafting amendments. And the result is the President's Address before the House. If I may perhaps share with you how we work. We work closely as a team. No Minister is out to corner power and no one is pushing his personal political agenda. We meet before Cabinet meetings, we discuss our ideas. And if a Minister has an idea or a policy which he thinks is politically controversial, he would normally circulate a paper to the others. And we brainstorm, debate, contend, after which he would put up his paper to Cabinet. That is how we work. So major decisions of the Government are taken by Cabinet as a whole. They are not the policies of individual Ministers. And I thought I should make this point because I watched with some amazement and alarm that when an unpopular policy is introduced, Members of Parliament and people outside, would attack the particular Minister. Dr Yeo was criticized and attacked for the diesel tax policy on taxis. That is not Dr Yeo's policy. He is merely the Minister in-charge. It is our policy as a government. We stand by the policy and we are answerable for it collectively. Likewise, the Minister for Law, Marxist arrests, amendments to the Legal Profession Act, some of the ideas may be his, but we stand by those amendments and by those policies which he has introduced. We use each other's strengths to maximize the strength of the team. I use them, and I am not at all afraid of using other people's strengths for the benefit of the Government. On legal matters, all of us consult Jayakumar. I use him generously. On political matters, as you can see, I take full advantage of BG Lee's capability to articulate a point strongly. I take advantage of him to draft the President's Address. If I have to reach out to the Chinese ground, and because I was not educated in Mandarin, my knowledge of Chinese is still somewhat limited, I can either use BG Lee or Ong Teng Cheong. For union matters, of course I take advantage of Teng Cheong's links with the unions. So we work together as one cohesive team, taking advantage of each other's strengths and fortifying each other in the process. If I may come back to the Prime Minister's speech. I quote his theme on getting people to join the political leadership: 'The problem is really so simple, yet it has been solved only a few times in a few countries and only over certain periods of time a one-man one-vote, to produce a group of men who can provide a continuity in good government, change of policies, flexibility, to reflect the changing moods of an electorate.' That is the essence of the problem which the Prime Minister faced. And that is the essence of the problem which we face again today. It is the same problem, the same fundamental problem of getting people with the strength of character, the conviction, the dedication, and the sincerity to serve Singapore. Compare today with PM's time, I think we have a more difficult problem looking for people. The talent pool available to us is a Singapore pool. For the Prime Minister, he had a larger pool. His Cabinet of 1977, for example, had quite a few coming from outside Singapore. Goh Keng Swee, born in Malacca; S. Rajaratnam, Sri Lanka; Ong Pang Boon, Kuala Lumpur; Hon Sui Sen, Penang; Chua Sian Chin, Malacca. Look at all the Cabinet Members here today. All of us were born in Singapore. But I am not complaining. I think I have a good team. We may be politically less experienced than the Prime Minister's Cabinet of 1977. But intellectually and technically, I believe we are just as competent, if not more competent. And we have the advantage of practical experience in business. Take Richard Hu as an example. He was the former MD of Shell Singapore. When he retired, he worked as Managing Director of MAS, and we persuaded him to join the Government. So he has practical business experience of a very high level. Dhanabalan, I believe that had he not joined us, he would have been the President of DBS Bank. Tony Tan, prime candi- date for chairmanship of OCBC. Yeo Ning Hong, he worked in a pharmaceutical company. Ong Teng Cheong, a successful architect. Wong Kan Seng has experience in managing people and operations in a multi-national electronic company. So if we compare ourselves with the Cabinet Members of the Prime Minister's team, I think it is not a bad team. But the problem will become more and more difficult for us. As you can see, in the last exercise to recruit candidates for the PAP, we had reached down to the level of those below 30. I have been personally involved in this exercise of finding people who can help make the leadership of Singapore durable and I know how difficult it is to find them. It is not just a question of not having enough talent for the political leadership. You have got to find talent to run the civil service, to man the High Court Bench. And again, if I may illustrate how difficult it is to find people, let us look at the present High Court Judges. Where did they come from? Six out of 10 High Court Judges including the two Judicial Commissioners were born outside Singapore. Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, born in Penang; Justice Sinnathuray, Singapore; Justice Lai Kew Chai, from Perak; Justice L.P. Thean, from Selangor; Justice Punch Coomaraswamy, Segamat; Justice Chan Sek Keong, Ipoh, Perak; Justice F.A. Chua, Singapore; Justice A.P. Rajah, Negri Sembilan. The two Judicial Commissioners, Mr Chao Hick Tin and Mr Joseph Grimberg, were born in Singapore. And we are talking about the incumbents. When they retire, where do we get the people to replace them? The talent pool for politics is not the entire adult population of Singapore. Last year, I invited an accountant from an international auditing firm to be our candidate. He turned me down. Because to be a candidate for the party, he had to leave his job. That is the regulation of the company. And likewise, this is the regulation of many international companies, oil companies for example. Zulkifli, when we invited him to be our candidate, had to resign from his company. That is his company's policy. Banks, foreign banks, I think as a rule discourage their executives to take part in politics. And I am not even talking about the strength of character or the commitment of the candidates. I am just talking about the pool itself. Many capable Singaporeans who work in these foreign firms are not available to us. Civil service, SAF, Police, these officers are not available to us. When they join us in politics, they have to resign. If they think they can make it to an office position, they may calculate that it is worthwhile for them to resign because the job is larger. But if they resign and they could well become Permanent Secretaries to become just a Backbencher, I think the contribution is much smaller. So the civil servants who can make good Members of Parliament but not office holders are not available to us. The pool of people from which we can select Members of Parliament is therefore much smaller than the total adult population of Singapore. The private sector today is also much larger than the private sector in 1977 and the private sector pays much better. So there is an additional competition for political talent. Let me quote you some figures just to show how difficult it will be for us to recruit talent into the political leadership. The Committee which BG Lee heads, the Committee on Scholarships and Civil Service Careers, has compiled a table which I would not be circulating because the Committee wants to refine the data and release it at the appropriate occasion. The Prime Minister is paid $30,500, the Ministers, $21,300 per month. The banker who is paid the highest in 1987 received $196,000 per month. That is the top banker. If you average it out, for the top bankers in Singapore, the sum which the top banker in each bank received in 1987 was also a staggering figure, $141,000. You compare the Chief Executive of a bank with the Chief executive of a Ministry or the Chief Executive of Singapore, what incentives do we have, for a young man to leave a lucrative career to join us? Multi-national manufacturing companies, the highest paid employee earned $81,600 per month. On average, the CEOs received $63,800. For the lawyers, and this is relevant because it would underline our difficulty of getting people for the Bench, the highest paid lawyer in 1987 received $157,000 per month. On average, the top lawyer, ie, the senior lawyer in each of the bigger legal firms, earned $102,000 a month. If you think the top lawyers' earnings are somewhat distorted, let us look at the third senior most partner in law firms. On average, the third senior most partner in a legal firm earned $69,500 per month. Compare that with the earnings of the Chief Justice of $24,300 per month and Judges, $17,600 per month. The problem will become more acute for us because now we have able students doing law. The young lawyers amongst them will not have the incentive to join the civil service. And when we spot them, how do we get them to give up their career to become a Member of Parliament and take up office. In fact, for the last elections, I invited a senior executive of a multi-national firm to join us. He has got the potential to be a Minister. He was not quite ready. He said that he might be ready from the family viewpoint in the next term. But how do we compensate him for giving up what he is earning now? Even if you make him a Minister, I think he will not be receiving more than 50% of what he is earning or what he will earn as a senior executive in a multi-national company. Mr Mah Bow Tan, he was the Chief Executive Officer of SNPL. I never asked him how much he earned when I invited him to take up an office position. Only after he had accepted, did I check. As a Minister of State, he would receive only about 70% of what he was earning. I think that is a credit to Mah Bow Tan. I dared not ask him earlier in case I felt sorry for him. I dared not ask him how much he earned. But can you get more people like Mah Bow Tan? We have succeeded this time in getting two or three of them to give up high earnings, but can we continue to succeed? The problem is not peculiar to Singapore. Britain faces the same problem. But there is a difference between Britain and us because Britain can afford to make mistakes. They have got room for error. In our case Singapore rests on a very narrow base. If you make a mistake, the whole ship topples, and that is that. So we have got to make sure we have got the right people in Cabinet, in Parliament, to look ahead, analyse problems, reduce them into simple components and apply the right remedy to each problem. Let me quote you a passage from Sir John Hoskyns who gave a speech in 1983 on "Conservatism is not enough." Sir John was a former head of Mrs Thatcher's Downing Street Policy Unit: 'An MP is not paid much more than half his equivalent in other western countries. If he becomes a Cabinet Minister, one of 23 people, with a top responsibility for managing the affairs of a nation, he may receive as much as a middle-ranked executive, 10 or 15 years his junior, in a large company. He has no job security. The result of all this is predictable. For the purposes of Government, a country of 55 million people is forced to depend on the talent pool which could not sustain a single multi-national company.' If Singapore's Cabinet is not the equal of the Board of a Bank in Singapore, I think Singapore will be in trouble. To succeed, we just got to have an exceptional Cabinet. There is no other alternative. And despite what Mr Chiam said about an alternative party taking over from Singapore should Singapore stumble, I can tell you there is just no alternative. I have been involved in scouring the whole of Singapore for talent for the PAP since 1977. I know most outstanding Singaporeans above the age of 35, either personally or by name. I made it a point to track them, to know who they are. Each time the register on lawyers or accountants or doctors is available, I make it a point to go through and check with people who may know of some outstanding names whom we may have missed out. I also make it a point to know who holds what position in which association. So if there are Singaporeans who have a sense of commitment, with extra energy to work for others, I will know who they are. I look for them in the Society of Accountants, the Law Society, the Medical Association, the Medical Council, the University and many other places. I have a register. I keep tab. Can there be an alternative party to the PAP when even for the PAP we find it so difficult to get people who can serve? We are not just talking about competence. Competent Singaporeans there are many. But for those who are competent we have got to find out who will stand and fight for their convictions and who will run in a moment of crisis. We have got to test them for their dedication, for their sincerity. I find it more and more difficult to spot them. Maybe they are available below the age of 35. In fact, that is the task which BG Lee has got to undertake, reach out to those below 35 and hope that we can get them, convince them, that they should take part in the political process. Up to now we are not doing too badly. George Yeo, he was not very keen to join us this time. But I think I am quite a persuasive person. I have persuaded not only George Yeo but also Richard Hu who was very reluctant to become the Finance Minister. Those who are here will know that I have been quite successful in persuading them. It is my job to persuade those whom I think can serve to serve. Let me tell you how I persuaded George Yeo. His reason for not coming in this term what he told me was that he was about to start a family. We went into all kinds of arguments, about the need to participate, security for the family and so on. His answer was still no. I never knew that he had a problem with his bond. Because to join us he had to pay up a large amount as liquidated damages for breaking his bond. I did not know that and George Yeo never raised it with me. But I think I persuaded him in this way. I told him, "George, do you have any interest in politics?" He said, "Yes." "Would you be considering a political career sooner or later?" He said, "Yes, but not now." I said, "If you are interested, you should come in now because the Prime Minister will be around in Cabinet for a while, to share with you his political experience, his wealth of knowledge, which I cannot share with you. If you come in later on and the Prime Minister is not in Cabinet, you would lose something." Well, I got George Yeo, and I think he is quite an acquisition for us and for the country. You heard him yesterday. Even Mr Chiam complimented him on his speech. He has two degrees, a Double First in Cambridge in Engineering. He went to Harvard, did his Masters in Business Administration, was awarded high distinction. But I did not get to know George Yeo only after he has got his high distinction in Business Administration from Harvard. We spotted him way back in 1980 or thereabouts because of an article he wrote for the Pointer, which is an SAF magazine, talking about the security of small states. He showed a deep understanding of the fundamental problems that Singapore faces, and from then on we began to track him. The Prime Minister was tracking him too; so was I. If there are people who can form an alternative group to take over from PAP should we stumble, please let me know, Mr Chiam. There is no other group. George Yeo, we spotted him when he was in his early 20's and we watch him mature, be sure of his strength of character before we invited him to join the PAP. We have to do this because there is just little or no margin for error. I think Tan Cheng Bock has misunderstood the phrase. He wants this to be banished so that Singaporeans can speak up. No, we are not talking about Singaporeans speaking up and making mistakes. We are talking about making decisions as a group, that you need the best people who can calculate, offer solutions, alternative ideas, and finally reach the right conclusion for Singapore. If you reach the wrong conclusion for Singapore, well, I think that's that. It has nothing to do with fear of speaking up. Get Singaporeans to speak up. They will not get into trouble with us as long as they are not up to mischief. If they are, I think they will feel the firm smack of Government. But if they are not, do not worry. Get them to speak up. Consider this problem about taking decisions. We have promised Singaporeans better housing. Assume that we are under tremendous pressure to build better housing and Singaporeans want land in the catchment area to be released. Assume that because we have not consulted Singaporeans enough, we have implemented some difficult and painful tax measures and we may lose a few seats, or more than a few seats, in a general election; and you have to decide whether to yield to this popular pressure for more land for better housing and thereby reduce the stock of your water in Singapore, or to tell them, "No. We need reservoirs in Singapore." How would you decide? The young Singaporeans can tell you that there is plenty of water which you can import from outside Singapore, that we do not need so many reservoirs in Singapore, that all we need to do is to make available the catchment area of one of the reservoirs and we can have good public housing or middle class housing. Pressure is put on you. How do you decide? What decision do you take? If you make an error in your decision, can Singapore continue as before? Or would not something catastrophic happen all of a sudden? If I may be a little frank. I think most MPs have forgotten, when I listen to their speeches, the fundamental problems that we face. We are not Switzerland surrounded by countries which want Switzerland to be neutral. We are not New Zealand tucked away in some desolate corner of the Pacific. What are your thoughts about our security problems? You know that the US bases may not be around because the Philippines Foreign Minister has said that they would want to convert the bases for civilian use. In other words, the US bases may be taken over by the Filipinos. The US may have to withdraw from the Philippines. What are your thoughts about the implications of this? What are your thoughts of Vietnam joining ASEAN? Today an adversary of Asean, tomorrow a partner of ASEAN, in fact, a partner in ASEAN. What are the implications for Singapore, for ASEAN, for Southeast Asia, for peace and stability, for growth, for survival? These questions were not sufficiently addressed. This overview, this concern, on basic matters was not dealt with by the MPs in depth. In a way, the MPs' speeches compliment the Government because they were dealing with the problems of success, not problems of failure. Foreign maid levy, great debate in this House, that is a problem of success. In the Philippines' House of Representatives, I do not think they discuss the question of the quantum of levy for foreign maids. They discuss minimum wage for the foreign maids working outside Philippines. Diesel tax on taxis that is another example of the problem of our success. Had we failed and we do not have that many cars on the road we will not be talking about diesel tax or measures to control car population. Child care centres, it is also a reflection of our success. Many speeches would have greater impact had they been held back for the Committee of Supply. On the National Ideology, there were good points of view brought out by the MPs. I included this National Ideology as a major subject in the President's Address because I believe we need one to survive as a people. The Chinese are not just Chinese. The Chinese are divided into clans and in the old days the clans looked after themselves, whether it is education, or hospitals. They looked after themselves. And likewise for the Malays. I believe we need something to hold the people together as we speed towards the 21st century. My first question is: what is there to hold us together? Material wealth, the promise of a middle class society for Singaporeans, will these hold us together as a people? Religion - can we have one religion like Buddhism in Thailand to hold the country together? Language a common language to hold Singaporeans together? So we decided that we should formulate an ethos a value system that will bind us together as Singaporeans. The next question, after we have decided to do that: on what basis do we build an identity? Not religion, not any culture, not a melting pot because if we adopt the melting pot approach the major ingredient must be Chinese or Chineseness which would be totally unacceptable to the minority races. Certainly not deculturalizing ourselves because if we do we lose our distinctiveness. Therefore, the basis must be some shared abstract values which all races can accept. Which shared values? The President named four. There has been no disagreement on these four shared values. A few people have suggested additions diligence, honesty, sincerity, trustworthiness and so on but I am not keen because if we have more and more values put into these core values, we dilute the core values. The focus becomes blurred, thereby making the core values less fundamental. Agreeing on these basic points represents significant progress. How do we progress this? As a next step, we will put up a Green Paper to this House for further debate. We can then form a Parliamentary committee to debate the Green Paper, to collect views from members of the public because there are people outside who have contributions to make and we can include Mr Chiam See Tong on the Parliamentary committee. The outcome should be a document crystallizing the consensus. It should include a formal statement perhaps entitled "Shared Values" instead of "National Ideology" which should enshrine the values we want to preserve. It should also suggest ways these values can be strengthened and taught to Singaporeans, especially the young. It can be the basis for evolving our Singaporean identity, the next step in doing so. Dr Lee Siew-Choh said this was a thought-controlled exercise. If I may borrow his vocabulary that is a lot of poppycock, is it not? We send our best students abroad. You have seen the figures given by Dr Tan Cheng Bock over 10,000 students go abroad to study. How do you control the minds of these 10,000 students when they come back? We telecast parliamentary proceedings. We allowed Mr Jeyaretnam, we allow Mr Chiam See Tong and we allow you now to let all Singaporeans share your thoughts. How many countries in the world telecast parliamentary proceedings? We decided to do this way back in 1985. And who took the decision? I can tell you I was the one who had to make the decision and you know that I am not very good as a TV performer. Despite that, I decided that we should telecast parliamentary proceedings and our Backbenchers thought that I have made a mistake because it has worked to the advantage of the Opposition. Is there any attempt to control the thoughts of Singaporeans?

Order. Mr Goh, would you give way to the Leader?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the First Deputy Prime Minister is making a very important speech, outlining and expanding his thoughts, may I have your consent and the general assent of the House to exempt Standing Order 44(8)(a) to enable him to finish his speech. With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the First Deputy Prime Minister be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 44(8)(a). [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let me give another example to illustrate why this idea of thought-control is ridiculous. 500,000 Singaporeans travel overseas and this excludes those who go to Malaysia. When they come back they must have seen different values or they must see different things. This is an open society. We do not control access to information. Anybody who wants to read the Far Eastern Economic Review or the Asian Wall Street Journal can do so. There is no control on access to information. What we are doing is to make it difficult for protagonists in our domestic politics to dabble in our affairs. If they want to do so, we fight them and we make it painful for them and we make sure that we emerge on top. If you want to read any magazine, you can get them in Singapore. There are thousands of foreign magazines in Singapore. I want now to deal with the mission of Members of Parliament your mission and my mission. During this debate, some Members seem to think that an MP's duty is to attack the Government and to repeat the criticisms which they have heard others made. When they hear someone criticizing the Government they come here to repeat it. I think that is a serious mistake because you are now multiplying just one distorted point of view to the whole of Singapore. In other words, I sense that the MPs feel that they should be humble towards the public but truculent towards the Government. If this were so, then we should have no difficulty getting MPs. To be an MP you must have judgment, intelligence, character and conviction and courage. Reflecting public sentiments, yes, it is part of an MP's role. I think we should all reflect public sentiments but it is only a small part. As a Member of Parliament, an MP is a key digit in our political structure. Parliament has the sole power to make or unmake the Government because in our system of government the Prime Minister can only remain as Prime Minister so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament. An MP is there not just as a petition writer for his constituents or a maker of speeches against motions and Bills. He is a powerful person. In a crisis, whether he stands firm or rallies to a common cause or whether he turns tail and shows his lack of conviction, can make all the difference to the fate of the nation. The public knows this and therefore an MP is an influential person. What he says counts. People look up to him. His words do not just reflect public opinion but influence and shape it. He is elected not just to repeat what others say but to exercise his judgment, to think and act as he considers wise on behalf of his constituents, on behalf of Singapore. Dr Hong Hai got it right when he said: 'Singapore has chosen the form of democracy in which the people have relinquished the right to rule themselves, but have placed their trust on their elected representatives to make these decisions for them.' We are the elected representatives. We have got to make decisions for them. Our system is not government by direct rule. It is government through indirect rule. If it were so easy, just consulting people, getting them to decide for us, then I think you can have any government in the world. Each time you face a difficult policy, put it to a vote, and go by majority vote. But that is not our system of government. It will not work. You are the elected representatives. I therefore urge you, both PAP and the Opposition, to remember this speak up for what you believe in, fight against what you know to be wrong, but do so out of conviction and never out of convenience. If a policy is right, argue it, and argue for it even if it will cost you some votes. If the voters overwhelmingly want something which you know in your heart to be unwise, have the courage and integrity to speak up against it, and the leadership to persuade the voters to follow you. Everyone in this House, whether they belong to the Frontbench or the Backbench, is a leader. Make sure you lead from the front and not from the rear. Your mission and mine is to make sure that Singapore survives and flourishes. We are now the successor Parliament to the original Parliament. We have a new Speaker, we have a new generation of Members of Parliament. Only the Prime Minister is from the 1955 batch. I do not know when Dr Lee Siew-Choh first came into Parliament but he now wears a new badge, so he is a new MP. Only five MPs remain from the 1960s Ng Kah Ting (batch of 1963), Ho Kah Leong (1966), Ch'ng Jit Koon, Chua Sian Chin, Lawrence Sia (batch of 1968). Out of the 80 PAP MPs, 56 came in in 1980 or after. So we are the successor Parliament to the earlier Parliament. We have to make Singapore work just as the MPs before us did. The Prime Minister will retire in two years' time. I settled for two years because I want him to complete some unfinished business like negotiations with Malaysia on water and gas. I also want him to look after the external problems or external situation concering Singapore so that I can concentrate on domestic problems and programmes. Two years is a good time. It will allow me to put in place a political programme which will ensure durable leadership for Singapore. But to succeed, to carry on from where the Prime Minister is leaving off, we have to continue to recruit good men and women into Parliament. Not just competent people but people with the strength of character to see Singapore through in any crisis. This is the way I see for Singapore to succeed. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have prepared a text for my speech today but having heard the speech by the First Deputy Prime Minister, I would not say what I was going to say as it has been touched on by a number of Members before me and I need not repeat them. But I think I would like to make two responses, firstly, to what has been said by the First Deputy Prime Minister; and secondly, in response to a comment made by the Member for Kebun Baru, Mr Lim Boon Heng. Firstly, a response to the speech we have just heard. When the First Deputy Prime Minister quoted the Prime Minister's speech in 1977 about how he, the Prime Minister, often contemplated what would happen to Singapore and that he had expressed his thoughts to the First Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Lim Chee Onn, it reminded me of what a union activist once said to me. This activist, I suppose, could have had the opportunity to chat with or meet the Prime Minister. He told me that the Prime Minister often asked how many Singaporeans there were who were always concerned about Singapore's affairs and its future and, the Prime Minister also asked, how many hours per day did Singaporeans spend in thinking about Singapore and its future. This gave me the impression that since the Prime Minister had asked these questions, then pondering over Singapore's affairs and its future must have been a perennial concern in his mind ever since he got involved in politics. But what I would like to say in response is that if the Prime Minister and the few Cabinet Ministers alone are concerned about Singapore and its future, I think this is not enough. We want this concern to be shared by the people. The people need to apply their minds, along the same line of thinking as his, to the question of how Singapore could continue to exist, forever if possible. And if the people of Singapore would not ponder over these basic problems, fundamental problems the problem of survival of Singapore that the First Deputy Prime Minister spoke of, problems like our water supply, our security, the problem of how we can hold together this multi-racial society with its constant potential for danger then this should leave us with very alarmed thoughts about what could happen to us. So, Mr Speaker, I would like to remind the people of Singapore that while we enjoy the prosperity we are now having, while we are comfortable with the life that we are now enjoying, we must remember that they have not come about by themselves. They are the results of years of sweat and mental efforts of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. And I believe the Ministerial team that is taking over from the Prime Minister now would maintain, would continue the tradition of concern for Singapore and its future, not for their own sake but for the prosperity and well-being of ourselves and our children. That is my response to the speech of the First Deputy Prime Minister. Secondly, this is in response to the comments made by the Member for Kebun Baru, Mr Lim Boon Heng. He said, and I quote from the Berita Harian the references he made to a Mendaki advertisement which discriminated on racial or religious grounds: 'I would prefer if employers would specify the skills required, rather than specifying religion or race.' As Mendaki's Executive Secretary, I would like to make some clarification here. I do not deny that there was this advertisement but, lest it mislead the public into thinking that that is the only kind of advertisement issued by Mendaki, I would like to give here four examples to the contrary. First example, an advertisement in the Straits Times in January 1986: Mendaki advertised the post of a clerk - no mention of religion or race. Second, on 7th May 1986, an advertisement for the post of a research assistant. Qualifications required, I quote from the advertisement in English in the Straits Times: "Yayasan Mendaki." (In English) 'Post vacant: Research Assistant. Qualifications: Tertiary level with experience in research work. Proficient in English and Malay.' (In Malay) No mention of race or religion. Third example, 8th August 1986 when the post of a Computer Lecturer was advertised. I quote again from the Straits Times: (In English) 'Mendaki Computer Centre requires Computer Lecturer. Candidates must have experience in teaching computer subjects such as Basic, dBase II/III and Lotus 1-2-3.' (In Malay) Next, an advertisement of 1st August 1987 the post of Executive Officer (Finance). The qualifications, I quote from the advertisement: "Yayasan Mendaki." (In English) 'Post vacant: Executive Officer (Finance) Qualifications: Diploma in Business Studies or ACCA/ ICMA with knowledge in Lotus 1-2-3 and dBase III, preferably bilingual in Malay and English.' (In Malay) And in response to this advertisement, several non-Malay applicants applied. And for general information, I would like to state here that the first officer ever to head the Mendaki Computer Centre in 1985 was a Sikh. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is all I would say in response and since what I wanted to say on the National Ideology and core values have been touched on by the other Members, I would not repeat them.

Mr Abdullah, would you like to wind up the debate? 5.00 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, over these past five days, more than half the Members of this House spoke on the motion which I had the privilege of moving on Monday. All but one supported the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address. I wish to thank Members for their contributions and I would like to particularly acknowledge the contributions of the new Members of the House. I now know why they call "maiden speeches" thus. For they have been, as the adjective implies, fresh, often scintillating, sometimes even provocative. And we can certainly look forward to more exciting debate in this Chamber in future. Sir, it will be very difficult for me to do justice to all the speeches in my summing up and I hope certainly I will be forgiven if I fail to refer to Members individually their signal contributions to the debate. The inadequacy, of course, Sir, is entirely mine. The debate on my motion centred on three main areas: the National Ideology, which is a new topic: multi-racial, multi-religious harmony, an evergreen subject, and our style of government, an increasingly favourite and fashionable theme. The National Ideology drew the most enthusiastic response from Members and Ministers too. I suspect this is not merely because it is new but more so because it is still an elusive subject, both exciting in what it purports to serve for us and in the questions and reservations on what it should indeed be. To be sure, the final word has yet to be said on this subject. Perhaps it is opportune for me at this juncture to put the National Ideology in its proper perspective and context, if at all to clear the mist that has surrounded it when we started on Monday. I certainly cannot and do not want to pre-empt what it would be. But I can perhaps narrow the ground by asserting what it is not. Firstly, as has been indicated by the Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence, it will not have the force of law. And indeed, Sir, it should not be. For how does one compel citizens to imbue something as abstract as values and ethos through fines and jail terms? Rather it should be likened to a doctor's prescription which the patient is not legally bound to follow but nevertheless ignored at the risk of his health and even his survival. Second, it will not be a mechanism to impose the values of the majority community on the minorities, a fear often voiced by many Members in this House. Third, it is not intended to stifle individual freedom, initiative and creativity through the introduction of more communitarian values. And certainly, it is not meant to bury democracy in this country. The Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs had argued eloquently yesterday why it should not and he saw no reason why it should not enhance democratic principles in our society. Neither, Sir, is the National Ideology anti-West, or a total denial of everything western, even those elements which are good for us and for all human beings. Rather it is to insulate us against what the Minister of State also aptly described "as the elevation of self over all societal considerations". Indeed, we should not sell ourselves short by shutting ourselves to good, wholesome values, regardless of where they hail from, so long as everyone here can be comfortable with them. These last two aspects should especially be made clear to, and understood, by younger Singaporeans. We should be mindful of the fears expressed by the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh, on the impact of the National Ideology on our youths. For unless they too accept the National Ideology, it will run the risk of rising and falling within just one generation. There is much to be done. Already Members who spoke had come out with a multitude of values which they deem worthy of inclusion in the National Ideology. Apart from the four proposed by the President in his speech, many more were put forward that I had really lost count. Among them were parliamentary democracy, honesty, community welfare, concern for the poor, the list goes on. There were suggestions for the National Ideology to include values for workers, values in the workplaces, values in the home, values in the family, community, nation. And, Sir, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It occurred to me that we will not be short of suggestions on what values should be entrenched in the National Ideology. On the contrary, our job will be to choose from the array of suggestions, some of which may even conflict with each other, digest and distill them, those which are necessary and sufficient for us. As asserted by the Member for Bedok GRC, the National Ideology should be simple, relevant and practical. And according to the 1DPM just now, it has to be no less fundamental. On multi-racial, multi-religious, harmony, Sir, the clear and unanimous message from Members is that they are crucial to our country. Not only must we retain our record of harmony and co-existence, it will also be beneficial for us to improve such harmony and stability. Understandably, the strongest and most articulate proponents of this harmony are Members from the minority communities. Sir, this is not to imply that Chinese Members are less committed but that it is natural for the former to wish, to reiterate, to restate, these principles. For it is more comforting if these principles are indeed subscribed to by the whole society. So tolerance, understanding, sensitivity, these were the three ingredients mentioned and necessary for us to be able to live peacefully together, no matter what our heritage. Each of us will therefore have to reach out to the other, trust each other more. In the long run, I am of the conviction that we will need to desensitize racial issues and concerns. Sir, there was a suggestion by the Member for Potong Pasir whether it would not be better for us to adopt the melting pot approach rather than for us to aim for an integrated society with each community keeping its own identity but remaining Singaporean in its perception of the country's goals, challenges, priorities and the sharing of a common destiny. To be fair to the Member, the melting pot may well be the utensil which this society ends up in, albeit not by design but by the natural run of things. But then again, the reality indicates that each community wishes to retain its own identity and uniqueness. Our job will be to ensure that this is met and this does not jeopardize the harmony, progress and stability of this nation. Let me now sum up the views on Government's style. The debate on this issue evoked a wide range of responses and stance, from plaintive pleas to more pointed and vociferous demands for people and MPs to have more say in running the country, for less Government control and for alternative, even dissenting views, to be heard without harassment. The civil service too was not spared and this was not the first time; neither will it be the last too. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and also the Member for Changi especially devoted virtually their whole speeches on what should and what should not be done by the civil service. For after all, it was seen by the people as synonymous with government. And rather ominously, the Minister of State for Communications and Information and Trade and Industry declared that there were indications that all was not well in this country; when more and more of our citizens, especially the more educated and talented ones, uproot themselves to settle in more congenial and preferred atmospheres in other countries. The challenge, as he put it, was how individuals could realize their personal aspirations within the constraints that we have. I agree that this will be one of the issues we have to seriously address ourselves to. Sir, the unanimous view was that our population has changed and so too have their aspirations and expectations. We will have to be, according to the Member for Bedok GRC, Dr Hong, "spiritually and psychologically in tune with the people" and that perhaps our macho image needed a bit of restyling. I am glad that the Minister for Communications and Information has assured us that he and his Cabinet colleagues were committed to the spirit of consultation. What we would need to do now is to clearly demonstrate to the public that this commitment will be practised. This is especially important for younger Singaporeans. Again, as the Member for Toa Payoh GRC stated, we must continue to assure younger Singaporeans that we are sincere in wanting more openness and participation from the public. In his own words, there must be a visible interplay of contending forces. In other words, openness, flexibility, a more softer approach to govern should not rest only in commitment but should also be visible to the population. Apart from these three main issues, Sir, Members also brought up many other concerns but impossible for me to mention one by one. There was, however, a continuous thread weaving in and out of the fabric of the debate during these last five days and that is the concern for the low income, less fortunate, the poor of our society. There were calls for attention and help to be extended to them and to ensure that the goods and services that they would have to consume would be available to them and affordable to them, especially in the fields of education, health and housing. Sir, the proceedings in the debate will give us many things to mull over and many will, I am sure, surface again during the Budget debate in March. The President has indeed given us valuable food for thought. All that leaves me now is to close this debate by again thanking Members for their valuable contributions and the effort that they have taken in preparing for this debate. As for me, I cannot forgive myself if I leave this table without thanking you, Sir, for bearing with us and our ubiquitous text of speeches from your side of the Chamber. I know how you must feel and the restraint you must subject yourself to. Sir, you have presided over this 5-day debate with dignity, with firmness and with fairness. Much obliged, Sir. [Applause]

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, 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."

5.15 pm.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be very brief. I beg to move, 'That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- 1. Mr S. Chandra Das 2. Dr Lee Boon Yang 3. Mr Lee Yiok Seng 4. Encik Sidek bin Saniff 5. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 6. Mr Wong Kan Seng 7. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo. Sir, we need to appoint this Committee in order that the other Sessional Committees of Parliament can be appointed. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, 'That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- 1. Mr S. Chandra Das 2. Dr Lee Boon Yang 3. Mr Lee Yiok Seng 4. Encik Sidek bin Saniff 5. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 6. Mr Wong Kan Seng 7. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo.'

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Wednesday, 25th January 1989." [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes past Five o'clock pm to Wednesday, 25th January, 1989. SINGAPORE'S RELATIVE UNIT LABOUR COST AGAINST THE OTHER NICS IN MANUFACTURING, SHARE OF OPERATING SURPLUS IN VALUE ADDED IN MANUFACTURING SECTOR (Cols. 455 - 458)