Hansard, 1990-06-13

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan) - from 13th to 30th June, 1990. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Brickworks GRC), Speaker - from 15th to 18th June, 1990. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill) - from 18th to 29th June, 1990. Dr Ahmad Mattar (Brickworks GRC), Minister for the Environment - from 17th to 20th June, 1990. Encik Yatiman Yusof (Tampines GRC), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 18th to 23rd June, 1990. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 26th February, 1990, I made a Ministerial Statement to Parliament where I announced the details of the vehicle quota system. I indicated then that after the quota system has been introduced, the tenders can be held monthly instead of quarterly to reduce fluctuations in tender premiums. I indicated also that with experience and feedback, we can make minor adjustments to improve the system. Sir, the first tender exercise was held in April 1990. The exercise went very smoothly. Since then, we have received much feedback from our members of the Government Parliamentary Committee on Communications and Information, Members of Parliament, the Feedback Unit and from the media. I want to thank all of them for their feedback which my Ministry has studied very carefully. Sir, today, I want to announce two minor adjustments to improve the quota system. Firstly, beginning July 1990, tenders will be held on a monthly instead of a quarterly basis. This will make it more convenient for prospective vehicle buyers. It will also minimise future fluctuations in premiums in between tenders. As a consequence of this change, the maximum number of certificates of entitlement that will be available for each authorised motor distributor will be reduced from 100 to 30 for each tender. Secondly, the validity period of the temporary certificates of entitlement will be shortened from six months to three months. This reduction will apply to new certificates issued from the first monthly tender onwards. These changes will discourage speculation on the certificates. The first monthly tender will be held in July 1990. The tender will open from 9.00 am on Monday, 2nd July 1990 and will close at 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 11th July, 1990. As a consequential change, the number of vehicle entitlements available for tender would be one-third of that previously projected for the quarter August-October 1990. I have circulated a copy of the figures (Cols. 261 -262) for Members' information. figures - VEHICLE QUOTA SYSTEM (Cols. 261 - 262) The certificates issued from the tender in July will be valid from 1st August to 31st October 1990. This means that these certificates (those derived from the tender in July) will not enjoy the reduced ARF of 160% OMV because that will only be effective beginning 1st November, 1990.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to hear the Minister saying that the transferability period of the certificates will be reduced from six months to three months. I am wondering why the Ministry, in spite of the feedback, is not prepared to consider dropping the idea of transferability completely.

Sir, transferability plays a useful role in the allocation of the scarce resource, namely, the certificate of entitlement to buy a car. It enables this distribution to be made more effectively. Where you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, that is the best way for the free market to work. Hence, I would prefer that we keep transferability. What we have done is to discourage speculation which results when people think they can make large profits from transferability.

"to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act (Chapter 354 of the 1985 revised edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [11th June, 1990], '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 Second Session of this Parliament.".' - [Mr Lew Syn Pau]. Question again proposed. 12.36 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, on Monday, 11th June, 1990, the Straits Times carried a front page news headline on the kitchen that caved in at a flat in Bedok. I was saddened by the news because it is a fear that I had long ago and it came true. It was the pace in which we built flats and I was afraid of the lack of supervision involved, and this actually happened. But what attracted my attention most, and I was very concerned, were the comments made by the HDB's Chief Executive officer, Mr Chuang Kwong Yong who said recently that: 'Spalling concrete and other defects such as tiles popping up from floors were due to poor on-site supervision by the Board during the rush to build flats from 1980 to 1986.' The question in my mind is: how safe are the other flats built during the period 1980-86? Will cave-in likely to occur again? What assurances will the Board give to the owners of the flats built during that period? If poor supervision is the root cause, will HDB conduct a survey of all flats built during that period? With the Hotel New World still fresh in our memory, this fear is a very real one. I hope the HDB will advise on these matters to calm their fears. Reading the comments of the HDB's CEO, I cannot help thinking that his comments may be true in many other areas. Is it not true in years past that we were very concerned or sometimes very obsessed with numbers, quantities or achieving of goals in the shortest time possible? We are rightly proud that we build the greatest number of flats in record time. We are elated that our economic figures shot up in such a short period. We are very happy that so many foreign investments have been committed and, of course, not forgetting our MRT was completed in record time and ahead of schedule. And not forgetting that so many national events have been organised or will be held to celebrate the 25th anniversary. It is like going down the rapids where you have no time to stop to rest, to consolidate, and to review. But the biggest question I have is: granted that the form is impressive, what about the contents? We have been building flats for so many years, and did it not occur to our architects that our void decks are really void - void of activities, unfriendly and, in some blocks, very ghostly in the night? I was wondering to myself what is the purpose of void decks if they are not used daily by the residents. Can we not design a more friendly void deck where residents can interact? Can we not cater for some snacks and refreshment stalls to brighten up the void decks? Yes, I think we have the greatest number of void decks in the world. But is it not better to have void decks which residents can find them useful? Our architects have been designing coffeeshops ever since HDB flats were built. Coffeeshop is our way of life. But I think we should take a look at our coffeeshop. The design of our coffeeshop is such that customers and patrons have got to compete with the heat coming out from the stalls. We all know that we like to sit in the open air to enjoy our food. Can we not design a better and more bearable coffeeshop which can then be our national identity? Just as in Europe, they have the sidewalk cafes as their identity there? I am sure if we stop, consolidate and review the designs, and not just be so caught up with numbers, I think we can come out with better designs. In the field of education, we have been very successful in producing students in great numbers with good results. One observation I have is that many of these students are poor in articulation and in application of their knowledge. Can this be because in our school system students have always been commanded to be quiet, speak only when spoken to, and if a child is outspoken he is labelled as talkative and sometimes penalised? Exposed and disciplined in such an environment for about 10 years in primary and secondary schools, it is possible that our students will graduate as we see them today. Yes, we produce many students, but what about their personal development? In business, we have always been very happy, and rightly so, to see so many big MNCs coming out with their foreign investments in Singapore. And also rightly so, our whole Government machinery is geared to promoting them and hoping that they would establish here to increase the economic pie that we have. But my concern is, in the midst of all this activity for attracting foreign businessmen to Singapore, the increase in foreign investments, what about the local businessmen? The local businessmen have always been advised by Ministers and Government officials to automate and to go for overseas projects. Though the advices were well intended, the realities are that because we are clouded by the high investments of MNCs, we tend to pay relatively small attention to the local businessmen. I think that we should increase our focus to help the local businessmen so that they can be helped to go overseas. Recently, as you can see, there have been many Government-owned companies competing for the local business. These companies can do well because of many reasons. There are two main reasons. Many of these companies have no cash flow problems and their old boys' network is very large, especially among the Ministries. The achievements of these companies have blurred our vision of a possible disaster that can occur in the future. When these Government-owned companies grow in numbers and size, they will be very formidable. The biggest danger is when you have an inefficient government. Things can go very wrong. I have no doubt that this is unlikely for the next 15-20 years. But it will be prudent for us to anticipate such possibility. Touching on the quality of life in Singapore, our lifestyle is very much influenced by three factors, as I can see it, namely, the non-welfare state, productivity and meritocracy. The non-welfare state has unconsciously generated in us a sense of insecurity. We often hear people saying that they must save for rainy days. But there is a very thin line drawn between prudence and insecurity and, as such, it does not augur well for the psychology of our people. Next, productivity. In the area of productivity, usually the companies view it from their point of view. As such, productivity in Singapore has always been correlated very closely with long hours of work. The long hours that a person spends in work has resulted in very little time left for social interaction and recreation. This has created some problems. Finally, we have meritocracy. Although we must achieve excellence, meritocracy has an ugly side. Meritocracy has the danger of producing a very selfish population, in that if one wants to excel, he or she would try to be the best and very often it means keeping information and not helping others. I admit that it is difficult to strike a balance between what we are doing and what I have said earlier. But I would like to suggest maybe one way to mitigate this situation is to create an environment in Singapore so that daily informal social interaction can take place instead of the organised events that we have in Singapore.

Sir, I support the motion. The President has given us a general idea of how Singapore will be governed under the new leadership. Two features stand out in particular - consultative government and the Elected President. Whatever the merits of the Elected President, what impressed me were two vital ingredients which have been endorsed by the Government, ingredients which are vital to administration in any democracy. First, open government and, second, a system of checks and balances. Sir, a government which is detached, impervious and inscrutable can be effective but not indefinitely. It can only work where and for so long as you have people who due to their circumstances are preoccupied with other problems, for example, the need to survive. Our parents found themselves in that situation. They were out to sink roots in Singapore. Their primary concern was to earn a living and to do that, they needed a secure environment. They had come from places and backgrounds which had given them a real sense of insecurity and which encouraged them to play the game according to the rules, as it were. They were not likely to rock the boat or to allow anyone to do that if the result of that exercise were to increase the insecurity in Singapore. They had nothing to gain from challenging, questioning or taking issue with the manner in which government was run if that government was seen to be fair and honest. They had other problems on their mind. In that context, one can understand why in the 50s and the 60s it was not fashionable to demand for the rights which during that time had become cherished by the Americans - democratic ideals, in particular, the need for accountability. But we have come a long way. Due to education and information, we have been brought up to question, to assert our views, to demand respect and to take control of our own destinies. Gone are the days when Singaporeans would do what they are told to do because it is in the interest of themselves and in the interest of Singaporeans. Some of us see this as a degenerative trend which, if left unchecked, would result in a tearing of our social fabric. Measures have been put in place, for example, the reshaping of our educational policies and the encouragement of acquisition of cultural ballast. And in fact we have also been accused of over legislating. These measures have an effect but the effect will be limited. The process of westernisation is an inextricable one. There is no stopping people who have had the benefit of education and information from reaching out for western ideals, especially accountability. There is just too much information flowing into Singapore and the sources of such information will increase over time. Increasing numbers travel and they make up their own minds about the merits of one system over another. Satellite TV, as we all know, is at the doorstep and I personally cannot see how we can keep the door shut. Short of a calamity affecting the standing of the United States in the eyes of the world or affecting our livelihood, it is my view that this empathy for the need for accountability will strengthen with the passage of time. If the system is to survive, we must anticipate and accommodate these ideals of democracy. We must adapt our style and system of government so that we keep in tune with the mood, as it were. Participation in government is one such way and we have been doing that. I applaud that move. But we have to move further afield now. It is time that we changed the stony and sometimes disrespectful face of the public servant and made him accountable for his decisions which affect the lives of the man-in-the-street. Accountability of the public service is, in my respectful view, the safest guarantee for the integrity and survival of the system. Hundreds of Singaporeans interact with public servants everyday and quite a few of them walk away extremely disgruntled for two reasons. One, the nature of the decision which is made in respect of their case and, two, the manner in which they are treated. As things stand today, public servants can make decisions without giving reasons for those decisions. And without reasons, how are we to know whether those decisions have been taken rationally, legally, in good faith and with full access to all relevant information? Most of us believe that the public service in Singapore is well oiled, fair, efficient. But there are many people who feel differently. These are the people who have had their applications rejected without reasons. These are people who have gone for assistance, for answers, to public servants but have been treated very badly, extremely shoddily. And their feelings for the Government must take a turn for the worse and with good reason. This is all very counter productive because, as we know, our Ministers spend a lot of time listening to members of the public, accommodating their views. They do their best to give members of the public as much access to them as is possible. What good is all of this going to do if the representative of the Government, which the man-in-the-street encounters everyday, is rude and is disrespectful? Sir, all of us are accountable. MPs are accountable to constituents. Judges are accountable to Appellate Judges. Ministers are accountable in a way. Public servants may well take the position that they are accountable to their respective Ministers in Parliament. But there is this theory of accountability of Ministers in Parliament which in practical terms works in a very limited way. We all know that in Parliament we debate legislation and we discuss policy matters through the legislative process. It is a very rare occasion when we get down into the nitty-gritty of individual complaints, ie, complaints of constituents in relation to their livelihood. We do not discuss these things in Parliament. It is in our interest, I suggest, that we develop a system of accountability, a system which will assure the man-in-the-street that if he has a grievance, he can take it to a person or a body who has a right or has power to look into it, look into the files of the Ministry, if necessary, or bring a complaint of shoddy treatment up to the superiors. This can be done by appointing a commissioner, or what in other jurisdictions is called an Ombudsman, with powers to look into complaints, with powers to redress grievances about treatment. Alternatively, the terms of reference of the Feedback Unit could be widened. So people with legitimate grievances can come forward and feel and believe that there is someone willing to listen to them and someone willing to take something up. At the same time, I would ask Government to consider changing the entire system about not giving reasons when decisions are made rejecting applications. Reasons should be given as far as possible. If reasons are given, constituents or MPs, on constituents' behalf, can know the reasons why an application is unsuccessful and take steps to address that problem. If more information is required, obtain that information. If guidelines have not been complied with, then the man-in-the-street will know what he has to do to comply with the relevant guidelines. If these steps are put in place, Sir, people will believe that they are being given fair treatment. If that is the case, Sir, there will be very little reason, or at least less reason, for them to be upset with the system. Our system cannot be hurt if we experiment with an exercise to ensure fair play.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I touch on the subject which I intended to speak on, I must say a few words about what the Member for Paya Lebar has said concerning the HDB. Let me declare my interest. I am a member of the Board of Directors of HDB. I think that the CEO of HDB was being frank when he said that during the rush to build so many flats the on-site supervision by the Board was poor and that HDB now has a programme to correct all these defects. An unfortunate event happened in Bedok where in the repair of spalling concrete, the floor caved in. A statement has been made by the HDB on this. We still do not know completely what happened because there are a number of things which could have given cause to this unfortunate accident. The Member for Bedok GRC, Dr Hong Hai, has asked for a full explanation and I think we should await for a full explanation of this incident before we jump to the conclusion that the buildings are unsafe for habitation. I think the last thing that we should do, as responsible Members of Parliament, is to cause panic. We should not cause panic among the people. Members will also recall in the statement of the HDB that with respect to the particular case in the block concerned, HDB has given an assurance that the building is safe and that the fault has not affected the structural integrity of that particular building. So I think we should all sit back and wait for the HDB's full explanation in response to the Member for Bedok GRC before we make any further statements on this. Sir, let me now turn to the subject that I wish to speak on. Here I must first express my support for the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin. The most significant event of this session of Parliament is the impending leadership transition. The preparation has been thorough and we will see a smooth transition. But yet every change must bring with it a different environment and possibly unexpected results. It is said that the style of Government will change to reflect the character and thinking of the new man at the helm. But styles may change to fit the needs of the times. We cannot preclude that there will be no other developments, planned or unplanned, that may be in store as a result of change. The forces of history are not under the control of any one man. A strong personality can influence the cause of history but cannot control totally the course of history. As such, we must be prepared for change, and whatever that may come our way. To cope with change, we must be guided by certain constants. What are these constants? These are fundamental values on which our society is founded. On these values, policies are shaped. These core values are those we share in common. These are values which our multi-racial, multi-religious society hold as fundamental for the maintenance of peace and harmony without which progress and prosperity cannot be achieved. First and foremost, is the principle that every citizen of Singapore has an equal and rightful place, irrespective of race, language or religion. Before 1959, I was in primary school. At that time I could not fully understand what was going on in our island except that the British were the masters and we were not of the same status as them. Singaporeans were not happy over this state of affairs, and demanded the right to manage our own destiny. In 1959, we made the first step to independence, with internal self-government. It was an event of great rejoicing, when all Singaporeans felt that at last we had made one significant step upwards - from being a subject people, towards full nationhood. What followed was merger with Malaysia. It was welcome. At last we attained full independence. The Federation held out great promise. The future was ours to shape. By then, I was in secondary school. It seemed to me then, that the path to the promised land was, to put it mildly, rocky. We were all Malaysian citizens, but why were there differences between bumiputras and non-bumiputras? As a non-bumiputra, I felt a sense of gross injustice that I was less than equal to others as a citizen. A few years later, during my undergraduate days in the United Kingdom, I was to meet Malaysians, mostly Chinese. They felt strongly the sense of injustice that there were no equal opportunities for everyone, that race was first and foremost in most things. I could well understand why some of them even talked of joining Chin Peng in the jungles. For us in Singapore, our union with Malaysia was to be shortlived. We were on our own in August 1965. When our Prime Minister said soon after separation, and I quote: 'We are going to have a multi-racial nation in Singapore. This is not a Malay nation, not a Chinese nation, not an Indian nation.' I could fully share this value. I could fully identify myself with this principle. Having been a minority, I was fully prepared to extend to the minorities in our small country an equal place in our nation as his basic right. This was a principle that the vast majority of Singaporeans could agree upon. Singapore cannot be founded on the superiority of any one race. The only basis is that of equality of all races, with the right to use his own language, and to practise his own faith. The PAP included this as one of its fundamental planks - this has been repeated in its manifestos, and enshrined in its constitution. Today, one of its objectives in its constitution reads as follows, and I quote: 'To forge a nation of Singaporeans; to build a multi-racial society, fair, just and tolerant to all, whatever their race, language and religion; to infuse into Singaporeans a sense of national identity and to bind them together by patriotism and commitment to Singapore.' Because the PAP held this out as a fundamental principle to all, Singaporeans identified with the PAP, and the PAP won the support of the people. It has been because of this fundamental principle that we have enjoyed peace and harmony, in spite of our multi-racial and multi-religious character. Not all multi-racial and multi-religious countries have been so similarly fortunate. This is a fundamental principle on which our nation is based. It must remain so, if we are to continue to enjoy peace and harmony. Therefore, the Government, under a new leader, must continue to abide by this principle. We should take care, when new policies are formulated, that we do not breach this basic principle. I know that equality has been the cornerstone of all Government policies. In the implementation of policies, however, fair play and justice may not be seen to be upheld by our minority races. If this is so, and where this is so, we should correct them. Equality extends not only to consideration of race, language or religion. Each citizen must have equal opportunity in all things, whatever his station in life. This has been also one of the fundamental principles upheld by the PAP. For example, education has been open to all. It has been the policy of the PAP that every child shall have a place in school. He should be given whatever help necessary to achieve the highest level of education that he is capable of. Because of this, whether from rich or poor, a child can rise up in society. For the poor, this is especially important, as it holds up the hope that if they themselves are not able to enjoy the good life, then at least their children can aspire to that. This again is fundamental to peace and harmony in our society. In fact, so important is this principle that it has also been enshrined in the current PAP constitution, and I quote: 'Within the overriding interest of the good of society, to provide equal opportunities for all Singaporeans to strive to fulfil themselves and to achieve their maximum potential through education and training so that there will be a place and a role for every Singaporean, whatever his contribution.' Today, we may take these two fundamental principles for granted. But it bears restating these fundamentals on which the policies of the new administration will be based. Today, we are searching for shared values, to enshrine them as the basis of our nationhood. We must ensure that every citizen shall have an equal and rightful place in our society. Beyond this, we must find values we share in common, values that bind us together. The search, in fact, was commenced much earlier than the past couple of years. It started even just after we attained independence on our own. For example, Mr Lim Kim San said in the 60s that Singapore's most urgent task was to find a common national framework for people of different races, languages, religions and cultures. Mr Rajaratnam said: "It should be our constant and unrelenting purpose to make people aware of, and become emotionally attached to, these commonly shared cultural elements." What are these other elements? The PAP's early constitution holds some. It said: '... to infuse into the people ... a spirit of national unity, self-respect and self-reliance, and to inspire them with a sense of endeavour in the creation of a prosperous, stable and just society.' These are sound values. And I feel one of the more important words is the word "just", and we must at all times strive to ensure that what we do is just. What other values? These can include what Mr Ong Pang Boon said years ago: "... cultivate such simple virtues as obedience, patience, honesty, courage and self-discipline." Mr Speaker, Sir, we await the White Paper on Shared Values. In line with the desire for participatory democracy, I hope that Singaporeans will join in the discussion on our commonly held values that will strengthen our nation. As Mr Rajaratnam once said: "It should be our constant and unrelenting purpose to make people aware of, and become emotionally attached to, these commonly shared cultural elements." Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the motion.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the President's Address to Parliament on 7th June this year. The Presidential Address provides a broad framework for us to analyse our various political, social, educational and health issues. It also brings up the difficulties that we may have to face in our future development and the need to work out strategies to counter these difficulties. Despite all the issues that were raised, I propose to speak only on the issue of shared values. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a multi-racial society. We treasure the fact that since our independence, we have never had divisively considered ourselves as belonging to the "majority group" or the "minority group". Everyone is treated equally, and we all live together in peace and harmony. And this is precisely the very important factor contributing to our vigorous development in the past 25 years. We have no racial discrimination or racial conflicts. On the contrary, we are now working on how to promote further interaction and harmonious relationship among our various races. Not too long ago, some organisations attempted to merge the various cultures together in the hope of speeding up the evolution of a representative Singaporean culture. For instance, different types of drums from different races were put together for a joint performance of drums with the view to producing a musical movement unique to Singapore. Such an undue haste to integrate different traditional cultures and, at the same time, thinking this is mere formality, will get us nowhere. However, from this example, one can appreciate how anxious we are to further build consensus among the various races and to establish a common culture and feeling. To deal with the traditional spirit and culture of different races, in a superfical manner, is bound to fail. The reason lies not only in the attitude in which the problem is tackled but, more importantly, on the lack of understanding that if we want to promote the exchange of thinking and culture among the various races, we must first of all have a deep understanding of the thinking and culture of the respective races. So when we are dealing with the shared values of the various races, the facts that I have just mentioned may serve as a reference. Shared values should not be confined to only one level. We could have the national level and we could also have the racial level. The shared values put forward at the national level must be based on the racial level, in order that they may be strong and relevant. In other words, when we put forward suitable and appropriate shared values which can be accepted by the people of Singapore, apart from those which are made in the national interest, they must also be based on the racial level. As such, it is essential that we thoroughly study and understand the thinking, cultural traditions and history of the various races. In this respect, I must emphasise that although the various races have their respective cultural roots, what is more important is that these people from the various races have been living in Singapore for a long time, and many of these people have been born and brought up here. Their feelings for, their identification with, and loyalty to Singapore, coupled with the influence of the other races and foreign cultures, have resulted in their thinking, habits and customs, and cultural characteristics being significantly different from their original or native cultural traditions. If we probe deeper into the flesh and blood relationship and feelings of the various races with Singapore, we will be able to discover the consensus among the various races and their deep-rooted, latent or manifested common identification with Singapore. From here, we will be able to define the shared values of the people of Singapore. Of course, exchanges of traditional cultures among the various races may help to promote better understanding among the races. And that is why the organisation of cultural months for the various races is very meaningful. To sum up, my view is that there is a need to work out and shape the shared values of the people of Singapore. This will enhance the cohesiveness of our society and strengthen the unity of our people. However, the shapping of shared values must not be treated as a mere formal process. There must be a deep understanding of the thinking and cultural traditions of the various races for the values to be strong, effective and relevant. And this is particularly so if we appreciate how the various races identify themselves with the type of culture peculiar to Singapore. A set of shared values developed and worked out along this line will be more readily acceptable to the various races in Singapore, and will be capable of building up a consensus among our people here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the President's Address at the Opening of the New Session of Parliament. I share the President's confidence that our country's future will be bright and that we will be able to continue to forge ahead so long as we maintain the same spirit and cohesion, not forgetting our vulnerabilities and potential dangers. The action plan outlined by the President will definitely enable our people to enjoy a better quality of life. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Speech has drawn the nation's attention to the task of binding Singaporeans together, despite differences in race and religion. The Government hopes to achieve this objective by the introduction of a National Ideology through which a set of shared values can be crystallised. Sir, I believe this important factor would ensure our continued success in the preservation of racial harmony and cohesion amongst our various ethnic communities. Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the Government's motive in pursuing this objective in the next phase of our nation building. The Government's support for Mendaki and the crystallisation of a set of shared values, so outlined in the President's Address, will strengthen social cohesion and help us to evolve a distinct Singaporean identity. The National Ideology, to be agreed upon by consensus, will give our people a compass with which to steer the future of the nation in the decades ahead. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, in particular the first generation leadership, should be congratulated for setting the right conditions for all our ethnic communities to live and progress together in the spirit of peace and harmony. Due to the foresight of the first generation leadership, the Government has achieved racial harmony through adherence to multi-racialism in all its policies and programmes. Just to give you a few examples. The Government has allowed Singaporeans as a whole to do their part in the defence of Singapore. The Government has introduced measures to preserve a balanced composition in our housing estates and the Government has even enshrined multi-racialism in this House through the GRC scheme. Sir, this is a record of a Government committed to multi-racialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we have achieved so far should be preserved, maintained and improved upon. One key area to preserving and enhancing harmonious inter-ethnic relations and social cohesion must lie in our education system because it is through our young that we can ensure the maintenance of racial harmony. This is one area where I feel the Government can do more. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why I am bringing up this particular point is that I have received feedback, particularly from the minority communities, that our children in the schools have become more racially conscious than in the past. It appears that children nowadays have become keenly aware of their racial differences. Mr Speaker, Sir, my generation and the generation of the Ministers in the Frontbench and most of us in this House grew up in an environment where in our classrooms and at recreation, we mixed with Chinese, Malay and Indian friends alongside each other. This interaction makes all of us feel that we are one and we are members of the same society; racial barriers were eroded, and we did not see each other as anything but fellow Singaporeans. This is important for when we become adults, and are senior civil servants, Members of Parliament, or even Cabinet Ministers, this background and practice we have had in school are carried with us. The question is: will this multi-racial perspective and absence of racial consciousness be assured for future decision-makers in Singapore? Far from feeling self-assured about this, I am afraid our school system tends to hinder the continuation of this beneficial approach. Sir, let me explain. Sir, at various dialogue sessions, parents have related to me a number of stories. One particular case is how his daughter in the kindergarten wanted her name changed because other children did not want to play with her. I have also met many Chinese students in junior colleges who have told me that they did not have friends from other ethnic communities during their primary and secondary education. Mr Speaker, Sir, all this, I believe, is the result of decisions taken for administrative convenience. For example, Sir, schools have grouped their students according to second language taken and this has unwittingly contributed to racial segregation. In many cases, pupils were not streamed according to academic merit but more by second language taken. Some principals of good schools discourage Indian children from joining the school by saying that Tamil will not be available as a second subject during school time. This is another example of administrative expedience. This is not the policy of the Ministry, I must make this point clear. It is individual principals of schools who take such policies. Sir, the point I want to make is that whilst the policy of the Government is sound, it is in the implementation that we have gone wrong and as a result, we will now have to pay a price and will continue to pay a price as far as inter-racial relation is concerned, if nothing is done to correct it. Another area which worries not only minority communities but also some educationists, including school principals, is the promotion of SAP schools, both in primary and secondary schools. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me at the outset make it clear that I understand and accept the objectives behind the establishment of SAP schools, ie, to preserve the teaching of Chinese language, and I have no quarrels on this. Whilst we are able to achieve this one objective, ie, the preservation of Chinese language and culture, we are unwittingly paying another price in terms of inter-racial relations. Children in SAP schools will be doing things, playing and studying in a totally Chinese environment with little or no contact with other ethnic groups. Sir, the Minister for Education has stated in this House and I quote: 'As I explained earlier today, we need the SAP schools in Singapore to foster a core of students who will learn Chinese as a first language and subsequently have enough expertise to transmit the language to other generations. As I said, if there is demand from Malay and Indian children to learn ML1 and TL1, we will also make arrangements to make this possible.' Sir, the point I want to make is that it is not necessary, totally unnecessary, to set up SAP schools for Malay and Indian children. All I am saying is some ways must be found for bright students of all races to be in the same environment. I think the Ministry of Education should apply itself and find ways and means to achieve this. My colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, sometime ago suggested twinning of SAP schools with national schools. We have heard nothing from the Ministry on this subject. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid if something is not done in this direction, we may have a potential problem in our hands at a later date. As I mentioned earlier, the products from the SAP schools will ultimately hold high positions in politics, civil service and business and there could be serious implications in the way Singapore is governed and run. In saying this, let me emphasise once again that I accept the principle behind SAP schools. However, the implementation has to be looked at again from a multi-racial perspective. Sir, education should be used as a tool to foster national consciousness and also multi-racial values in the Singapore context. Educational policies or administrative actions which tend to create racial divisiveness or result in ethnic groups being isolated should be discarded. In this light, I would call upon the Government to review the policy on SAP schools as considerable concern exists within and outside this House on the long term implications of such a policy. In conclusion, let me urge the Government, particularly the new leadership, as my colleague, Mr Lim Boon Heng, has said earlier, to pay some greater attention and see what more can be done to promote and preserve racial harmony and cohesiveness amongst our ethnic communities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as in January 1989, Government on this occasion has again stated that its programme is to "create a better life for all Singaporeans." As I can recall, the PAP Government has been saying this many times over the last 30 years. And it has never failed to claim to have completed this or that part of its programme. But we may well ask: Has the PAP in fact created a better life for all Singaporeans? All Singaporeans? No, Sir. Some people? Yes. There is no doubt that some people have benefited and they do have a much better life under PAP rule. Top civil servants, for example. Our Ministers, for example, who now draw fat salaries that can be said to be the highest in the world. But what of the vast majority of workers in Singapore? According to the Report on the Labour Force Survey of Singapore 1989, more than 65% of our workers, numbering more than 1,260,000 workers, earn less than $1,000 per month, as some other speakers have already touched on. And among them, 20% or 250,000 earn between $600 and $800; 22% or 270,000 earn between $400 and $600; and 12% or 160,000 earn less than $400 per month. Dr Vasoo has updated the last figure to 20%. If we take away the CPF and other contributions, their take-home pay will be much less. With such low incomes, looking after a family of four is no easy matter. These people, as stated by several speakers over the last two days, live from hand to mouth. They certainly do not have a better life under PAP rule. Is it any wonder that many HDB dwellers are in arrears in their payments of lease-loan instalments, rents, PUB and conservancy charges? In 1984, the First Deputy Prime Minister had said that one of the priorities for his new Cabinet was "help for those in the bottom 25% of society, who have missed out on progress and prosperity." Over the last six years, to say nothing of the last 30 years of PAP rule, has the Government done anything to help those in the bottom 25% of society? The answer is: hardly anything. Instead of help, all they get from the PAP are higher and higher taxes, charges and fees imposed on a wide variety of items. Little wonder that, as others have said, the rich-poor gap keeps on widening. Take, for instance, medical charges which have been touched on by quite a few other speakers. As is well known, since 1st April, hospital charges have gone up in restructured hospitals. From 1st August, charges will also go up in all Government hospitals. Government has also promised that there will be yet further increases every year. What is worse, the number of Class C beds in all hospitals has been drastically reduced while the number of Class B2 beds has been correspondingly increased. The NUH and SGH have no Class C beds. Hospitals have been restructured in order to pass the cost of health services on to the sick people themselves. Or to allow greater recovery of cost from consumers, as Dr Wang has put it. For the low and middle income groups who seek hospital treatment, there is no choice but to opt for B2 beds for which they will have to pay much higher charges. Though Government has said that it will reintroduce Class C beds in SGH, that has not come about as yet. This may well take another year or two. Government says it "will always subsidise health services for those in need of treatment who cannot afford to pay for it." How sweet these words sound. But, in actual practice, few Singaporeans will be able to pass the means test, and fewer still are willing to suffer the humiliation of having to subject themselves to all sorts of inquiries into their private lives. It would appear that the PAP has forgotten its duty and responsibility to care for the poor and aged sick and its early Party promise to struggle for a more equal and just society which Mr Lim has just emphasised. Government has introduced MediShield which comes into operation on the 1st of July and which had initially given many people such high hopes when the scheme was first announced. But many people have become very disappointed and disillusioned when all the details of how the scheme actually works are made known. It would appear that with all the "deductibles" incorporated in the scheme, the sick man who is stricken with a catastrophic illness will find that he benefits very little from it. Moreover, coverage ends at age 65, just when the sick most need such coverage. MediShield must therefore be suitably amended to truly help those who are stricken with catastrophic illnesses and are most in need of MediShield help. From all this, it can be seen that far from creating a better life for all the low and middle income workers, (life for them has not been so very good) the Government has caused them more sufferings and hardships instead. Hard experience tells the people that the PAP stands for making people pay and pay. Many now say, "If you are poor, don't get sick." Dr Arthur Beng is right there. Those who have low incomes just cannot afford to get sick. That is the scandalous situation that restructuring of hospitals has brought about. Consumption taxes. Government has stated in the Addendum of the Ministry of Finance that "Legislation on a broad-based consumption tax will be introduced this year." But since "actual implementation will be deferred for as long as the revenue situation permits," is there any reason why legislation has to be introduced this year? Our revenue position is good. We have just had three good years with huge surpluses and our foreign reserves have reached $40 billion early this year. What need then is there for such broad-based consumption taxes? Further, what is meant by "an equitable balance between taxes on income and consumption"? Since the 1980s, the amount of direct taxes on income compared to the indirect taxes on consumption has been progressively reduced. Now it would appear that Government intends to reduce the proportion even further. That would not be an equitable balance between taxes on income and consumption. An equitable balance would be one in which the direct taxes go up and the indirect taxes go down. But if indirect taxes or consumption taxes should instead go up, and direct taxes go down, then that would be an inequitable balance. It would be inequitable because indirect taxes impose heavier burdens on those who can least afford to pay the taxes, and especially the low and middle income groups. The proposed consumption taxes are unfair and regressive. They do not create a better life for Singaporeans and they can only bring them further hardships. Government has already imposed consumption taxes on a wide variety of items. If it should further widen the net, then it only shows that Government is becoming more and more uncaring, and intends to impose heavier and yet heavier burdens on the people. Privatisation - another related issue. We support privatisation of certain Government companies that are strictly commercial and that can be handled by the private sector. But we cannot support privatisation of Singapore Telecom and the PUB. These are state undertakings operated for the common benefit of all the people in the country, and also the industrial sector. When profits or surpluses are made, they go not to private individuals but to the state. And these state funds may generally be used for the general welfare of the people in various ways. Both Singapore Telecom and PUB are at present very efficiently run. Telecom has been toasted as one of the best and most advanced in the world. Moreover, we are not in need of extra funds, as I have already indicated. We therefore do not need to privatise Singapore Telecom and PUB. Privatisation will only mean selling off of Singapore's assets that have been built up over the years by the people and which belong to all the people, to those private individuals who can afford to buy shares, and to the rich and financial institutions, including foreigners. If privatisation in UK should be any guide, privatisation of Telecom will lead to a fall in efficiency and standards and a rise in costs for consumers, "lifeline service" charges notwithstanding. Much of Singapore's land assets and industries have already fallen into the hands of foreigners. Government should not also sell off our family silver, as the saying goes. Let me now comment briefly on our new consultative style of Government, namely, participatory democracy and consensus building. Many speakers have heaped praise on this new style of Government of the First Deputy Prime Minister. But in praising the new style, I wonder if they also realise that they have, at the same time, perhaps inadvertently, in some ways, shown their disapproval of the old style of government under the present Prime Minister. This must certainly cause our Prime Minister some unhappiness and perhaps even make him regret that he had not practised a more consultative style of government in the past. As for the Workers' Party, I must say that we always fully support all policies and styles of government that are truly democratic, fair and just, old or new style. As regards the new style of Government, my question is: how has Government gone about its participatory democracy and consensus building? The First Deputy Prime Minister cites ministerial walkabouts and whatnots. Enlarging on participatory democracy he also said on 8th May, and I quote: 'On big issues, Government will spell out the problem, detail alternatives, solutions, discuss and choose the one that benefits most people and hurt the fewest'. Very well said, Sir. I give my full support if those words are carried out to the letter. But is all this that genuine? Or is it merely another instance of PAP double-talk? Let us see how such praiseworthy policy pronouncements translate into actual practice. On the car quota issue, for instance. The Parliamentary Select Committee Report was published on 3rd January, 1990. In less than one month Government had announced its decision to implement the quota system on 30th January 1990, and on the following day, an interim registration fee was imposed, in spite of talks by the Minister for Trade and Industry, with clear intention to mislead, that it would take some months to decide, and other Ministers also saying the same thing more or less. There were no ministerial walkabouts, no dialogue sessions, no public debates with Government on such a big important issue, an issue which affects the lives of so many people in Singapore before the Government decision was made. Certainly the people did not have any opportunity to choose and decide for themselves since the decision had already been made for them by Government, probably even long before the Parliamentary Select Committee published its report. Moreover, the car quota system benefits only a small section of the people, namely, the well-to-do and the speculators, whereas it "hurts most people, not the fewest". So everything that has been done is just the opposite of what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. I can quite understand why Dr John Chen has put up such a spirited defence of his Party. But most people in Singapore would not be able to agree with what he has said. From the way in which the car quota issue was handled, it can be seen that there has been no true practice of participatory democracy as pronounced by the First Deputy Prime Minister. However, I would like to stress that pari passu with the Government leadership transition and a rapidly changing world, Government should not miss the opportunity to initiate changes similar to those that have taken place and are still taking place in Eastern Europe, and other parts of the world, including South Africa, so that we in Singapore may also develop our society into a truly participatory democracy. What are the steps that are necessary for a participatory democracy in Singapore? A participatory democracy must mean that everyone has an opportunity to freely and without fear express views and take part in the political process of the country. Thus, the first prerequisite is that our society must be truly free and democratic. We must uphold fundamental human rights, justice and civil liberties. The whole world is marching towards democracy. Singapore should not lag behind. It goes without saying therefore that Government must immediately and unconditionally release all political detainees, especially Chia Thye Poh, who has been detained for 23(r) years, and allow them to take part freely in the political affairs of our country. For instance, no restrictions should have been placed on Teo Soh Lung who has been recently released. As regards the release of detainees, I ask: What has Government to fear? Does the Government fear that the release of detainees will bring about a revolution? But today the people will no longer buy stories of communist or Marxist revolutions. There is therefore no justification for further detention of political detainees. If the Government still does not release unconditionally all political detainees, we can only conclude that all talk of participatory democracy is just so much hot-air propaganda and PAP double-talk. A participatory democracy must also mean that elections which are held every four or five years must be free and fair (those are the important words, Sir, which are now currently in use all round the world), free and fair elections, with no intimidation of political opponents, so that the people will feel free to participate in the political affairs of the country without fear. That is the most important thing. It goes without saying that the press must also be free and impartial, and Opposition parties are given adequate air time on radio and TV to present their views to the electorate, as has already been stressed by Mr Chiam. In addition to this, what other concrete steps should be carried out? I suggest that Government should: (1) abolish the requirements for police permits for the holding of rallies, forums and debates that may be carried out by discussion groups, on any national issue that may be of concern to the people. At the present moment, these police permits are an encumbrance, a hindrance, to anybody wishing to take part in such discussions. (2) remove legal restrictions on professional bodies (like the Law Society, the Singapore Medical Association, and so on) from voicing criticism on any legislation or issue that may be of national interest. (3) amend the law recently passed in Parliament to allow peaceful assemblies and demonstrations against any policy of Government. I emphasise, Sir, "peaceful". We are against any form of violence, especially from certain quarters in any way. (4) abolish the ISA's power of detention without trial. Or, if they do not want to do that straightaway, introduce legislation to ensure that the powers of detention will not be exercised against any person or persons voicing grievances peacefully and legitimately, or mustering support for their views on any important issue. These are some of the basic and elementary steps necessary for the implementation of participatory democracy in Singapore. But what Government has done is the very opposite. For instance, opposition parties are harassed in every way possible. Their activities are hamstrung. The press is all one sided. Even our right of reply is denied us in the Forum page of the Straits Times. Right of reply, which is so much emphasised by the Government and fully supported by the Straits Times, has been denied us. If they want me to quote actual instances, I may. The foreign press is restricted. Even the religious bodies are to be muzzled in some ways. (I do not know how yet). Where is the so-called participating democracy that Government talks so much about? Of course, I can appreciate the difficulties that may be encountered in trying to reach consensus in the Government. Because while the First Deputy Prime Minister speaks of participatory democracy, the Minister for Trade and Industry also talks of something different, that if anyone wishes to take part in the political process, then he must join a political party. Or is it a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing? Let me now touch on consensus. The New Collins International Dictionary of the English Language defines "Consensus" as "General or widespread agreement". The Oxford English Dictionary defines "Consensus" as "The collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". Let us take two important issues that have been singled out by Government to be dealt with during this parliamentary session. On the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill, Government has apparently some support. But there is also considerable disagreement from many quarters. Some people believe that the Bill is unnecessary, that the issue has been brought up in a belated attempt to justify the detention of so-called Marxists, that Government fears dissent from a growing number of young Christian converts, who could adversely affect PAP votes in the next elections. But how would Government go about to obtain consensus or widespread agreement on this Bill? We will have to wait and see. On the Elected President proposal, legislation of which will be tabled in Parliament this year, it must be remembered that although most people would agree in principle that our national resources and the integrity of key appointments should be safeguarded, there is also widespread disagreement over how that should be done. Should these national resources and key appointments be safeguarded by an Elected President? Or be left in the hands of elected representatives of the people? Moreover, many people also disagree on the many details that are listed in the Elected President proposal in the White Paper. How then does Government intend to obtain consensus on the matter? By railroading the Bill through the use of its overwhelming majority in Parliament? Or by a democratic national referendum so that every voter in Singapore will be able to freely express his or her views on the matter? Many people have asked: Will Government truly seek consensus through a democratic national referendum? Holding a national referendum is the only way to allow the Government and the people to move as one, as Mr Ng Pock Too should know. In 1988, the First Deputy Prime Minister had said he would let the issue of the Elected President be decided by a national referendum, but now he pretends to have already obtained a mandate from the people in the 1988 elections, and he sings a different tune. On the referendum issue, he sings a different tune, a la some European leader, who had earlier said he would let his new policy be decided in a referendum and now says he will not. The leader apparently has got cold feet, the "kiasu" syndrome. Is our First Deputy Prime Minister also infected with the same "kiasu" syndrome bug? Is it because he suspects that he would not get the support of the people if he should hold a referendum on the Elected President issue? The President's Address is strangely silent on the question of a referendum on this important Elected President issue. Neither has the First Deputy Prime Minister mentioned any possible referendum on the Elected President proposal in his recent press interview with Taiwan journalists. I therefore propose an amendment to the motion before the House. Sir, I beg to move, "That at the end of the words 'this Parliament', to add: but regret that the programme outlined in the Address has made no provisions for seeking the consent of the electorate by means of a national referendum on the Elected President proposal which would mean such a fundamental change to the way we have governed ourselves."

It has been proposed by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, as an amendment to the Question, that at the end of the words 'this Parliament", to add: 'but regret that the programme outlined in the Address has made no provisions for seeking the consent of the electorate by means of a national referendum on the Elected President proposal which would mean such a fundamental change to the way we have governed ourselves.' The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to participate in the debate on the President's Address but, in view of the amendment, permit me to speak on the amendment first. In a way, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite predictable that the NCMP would put some sort of amendment to the motion before the House by the Member for Tanglin. From the outset, Sir, I would like to oppose the amendment and propose that a vote be taken on it so that we can dispose of this amendment and resume debate on the Original motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment merely re-opens an issue. It is not a new issue. The NCMP may not be aware that the proposal for the Elected President was mooted in 1984, and that the Government leaders had deliberated for a long time before coming out with a White Paper, which was debated in this House. As the NCMP mentioned, the White Paper was presented to this House in July 1988 and it was fully debated. It was debated not just in this House, but also outside of this Chamber. There were discussions at constituency level, there were letters, views expressed in the press. Then, of course, in September 1988 at the general elections, the First Deputy Prime Minister put this issue before the people. And I recall him saying that he wanted to seek the mandate of the electorate so that this proposal could be put forward before the people. We all know the results of that general elections. The mandate has been given to the PAP Government to proceed with the Bill. And I am sure the NCMP does not deny that the PAP has the mandate to proceed with this Bill. May I, Mr Speaker, Sir, just recall a few points with regard to this proposal? This proposal for the Elected President gives powers to the person in two main areas, mainly to safeguard our financial assets and reserves and the integrity of our civil servants. The proposal has also stated who can be eligible for candidacy for the Presidency. I recall the White Paper mentioning that such a candidate should be one who has ministerial experience, moral authority and personal integrity. More importantly, Sir, the power of the President is a custodial one, it is not executive. The Elected President, as I recall, does not initiate or make decisions. These are left to the Prime Minister. Another point which one may to recall is that in the event of a dispute between the Elected President and the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister may refer the matter to the people, ie, through a referendum, or make a constitutional amendment. In view of all this, I would think that any right thinking Singaporean would not oppose this proposal. The proposal has been discussed widely in line with our participatory democracy. The Bill will be introduced by the end of the year. The provisions for implementing the principles behind the proposal would be made clear. There will be ample time for the NCMP, the other Opposition Member, and others to debate the Bill. And I am sure that it would be referred to a Select Committee and that there would be widespread public debate on the issue. In view of what I have said, Sir, in my opinion, it would be unnecessary to have a referendum; it would be a waste of expenditure in terms of finance and manpower. And as such, I would propose that this amendment be defeated.

Sir, the Elected President issue is such an important issue that I would support the amendment to the motion, and say that there must be a national referendum on the Elected President. I do not agree with the hon. Member who says that the Elected President has no executive powers. He may have the custodial powers in relation to national savings but in relation to appointment of key civil servants, he will definitely have some say in the selection of the key personnel. Therefore, he would have executive powers. The introduction of an Elected President is really a very fundamental change to our Constitution and to our parliamentary system. At the moment, our Constitution only requires in two areas where a national referendum is required, and that is, the surrender or transfer of our national sovereignty or the relinquishing of our Police or Army powers. When we became independent in 1965, I am certain that our law makers at that time could not foresee that there would be such a drastic change to our parliamentary system. If they could foresee that one day a government could call for the surrender of the sovereignty of Parliament, I am certain provisions would have been included in our Constitution to hold a national referendum in such an event. What the Government effectively is asking now is for the surrender or transfer of part of the power which has been vested in the people to one man. This is akin to asking the surrender of part of Singapore's sovereignty which requires a national referendum. I would submit that it must be implied in our Constitution that should a government want to deprive the power of the people, then a national referendum must be held to ask the people whether or not they are willing to give up that power. In 1988, Sir, the PAP won the general elections but I would say that that mandate did not really include the right to take power away from the people. Therefore, the Government must go back to the people to get their consent, whether or not they are willing to surrender part of their power to one person. This Government has harped on its new consultative style of government, and I agree with Dr Lee that the best way to consult the people on this issue is by holding a national referendum. Any measure short of this is not real consultation. If the Government takes the Constitution seriously, then it must not change it at any time it likes, just to suit its own political ends. In principle, it is not advisable to give so much power to one man without having real measures effectively to check his actions. Let us not have a charade of democracy. If we really believe in democracy, then let us practise it to the letter. In Switzerland, they do really have real democracy there. Over there, issues which are less important than changing the parliamentary system have to be put to a national referendum. As we know, Switzerland is a neutral country and the people really believe in the principle of neutrality. But in recent times, many politicians there thought that it was a good idea for Switzerland to join the United Nations so that they can have an international forum to voice the Swiss national point of view. They put that issue to a national referendum many times. And the proposal to join the UN was rejected at each of the national referendum held. So it goes to show that when the Swiss believe in a principle, they really do not change it so easily, even at a national referendum. Over in Singapore, if we do really cherish the principle of sovereignty of Parliament which really means the sovereignty of the people, then if we really believe in this principle, the Government has no right to change it or to tamper with it without really getting the consent of the people at a national referendum.

Sir, I would like to urge this House to accept Dr Lau Teik Soon's suggestion that this House rejects the amendment proposed by the NCMP. Both Mr Chiam and Dr Lee seem to have very short memories. The question of the Elected President was widely debated. A White Paper was put on and discussed in this House and the Opposition made it an election issue during the last general elections, urging the electorate to deny the PAP two-thirds majority so that a constitutional amendment could not be made. Sir, we all know the election results. The Government has the mandate and I am sure the First Deputy Prime Minister, when introducing the new Bill, will receive further views, maybe even commit it to a Select Committee. But as of now, I think a referendum would, as Dr Lau Teik Soon said, be a waste of not only time but also valuable money.

I will now put the Question on the amendment proposed by Dr Lee Siew-Choh.

Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added", put, and negatived. Original Question again proposed.

Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin. The President, in his Address, stated that we have yet to evolve a national identity. This is an important and crucial task which we have to tackle immediately. We have made so much progress in the political and economic fields, but we have yet to evolve a national identity. If we have a national identity, I am sure it will bind Singaporeans more strongly. In the meantime, more and more of our citizens are emigrating. Did they leave because they did not have a sense of national identity? Can we reduce the flow of Singaporeans out of the country if we do have a clear national identity? So, if we do have a national identity, hopefully it may forge unity and slow down the flow of Singaporeans out of the country. But there is another vital reason why this task should be tackled urgently. It is that nationalism is becoming a more assertive factor in international politics. And to withstand the pressures from outside, Singaporeans must be strong and united. Lately, Sir, Singaporeans are becoming more aware of the need to have a national identity. In my view, towards creating this identity, I would suggest that we adopt a more multi-racial and less inter-racial approach towards various issues. We should emphasise multi-racialism as a vital element of our national ideology. Sir, by multi-racialism, I mean the emphasis on the integration of our various cultures. Whereas inter-racialism recognises the relative strength of the racial groups and allows for the separate development of the different cultures. In my view, multi-racialism will promote our national identity, whereas inter-racialism will slow down the evolution of our national identity. Over the years, I think the inter-racial approach has been a significant factor in decision making by Government. Particularly, it has been a basis for many cultural policies, ie, they have been influenced by the nature of our demographic distribution, especially the relative strength of the three major communities. In my view, it is time to change such an approach: multi-racialism must be a stronger element as a basis for policy making. In politics and public administration, we have managed to reduce the impact of inter-racialism. In politics, the GRCs as well as the Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) provide the opportunity for a truly Singaporean representation based on multi-racialism and meritocracy. In public administration, meritocracy ensures that multi-racialism exists in various statutory and Government departments. But as far as decisions in the cultural field are concerned, I think the Government still regards inter-racialism as an important determinant for policy making. It still relies on inter-racialism, or the relativity of the various communities. I would like to refer to three specific areas where I think multi-racialism should prevail and that policy changes would be necessary in order to forge a national identity. Recently, the Government encouraged the holding of separate Malay, Indian and Chinese cultural months. On this matter, I agree with my colleagues who have said that we should have a Singaporean or multi-cultural month instead of a separate cultural month for each racial group. Why not a Singaporean cultural month, when all items in the programme, whether they be the display of food, traditional dances, cultural artifacts, will all be mixed and multi-racial in character? Personally, I would prefer to see on display multi-racial colours, sounds and faces, and not just those of one community. Another area I would like to touch on is the bilingual policy. My colleague, Mr Chandra Das, has mentioned a very significant impact of this bilingual policy on our children, ie, the awareness of ethnic differences. Sir, I would like to raise this question. Why should children of Singaporeans be forced to opt for a second language not of the parents' choice? If we are truly Singaporeans, does it matter if we opt for one official language besides English? Let the bilingual policy be a flexible one. Let Singaporeans decide what the second language of their children should be: whether it be Malay, Tamil or Chinese. In this connection, I would be very interested to know how many non-Chinese children are studying Mandarin, and how many Chinese children are learning Malay or Tamil. If we are Singaporeans, we should be bilingual, ie, English and one other official language, whether it be Malay, Tamil or Mandarin. The third area concerns the weightage of programmes for different communities drawn up by the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, especially SBC TV. The ques- tions I would like to raise are: Why should there be so much more of Chinese programmes than non-Chinese? Why does SBC have English and Malay programmes over Channel 5 and Chinese and Tamil programmes over Channel 8? Why not mix them all up? On such matters, may I say that the cultural dominance of one community is not a positive contribution to the national identity. Sir, I have stated enough to show that if we want to be Singaporeans, we have to think and act Singaporean, ie, multi-racial, instead of race. We should not play the number game, ie, because we have 76% Chinese, 15% Malays, 8% Indians, then we should have the same ratio of cultural programmes or whatever. This will not promote, in my view, a Singaporean identity. Instead, it will reinforce separate cultural development, as in the case of the bilingual policy being implemented in our schools today. This will not only be detrimental to the evolution of a national identity, ie, if we play the number game, it will also have an unfortunate impact on our relations with our immediate neighbours. Sir, towards the evolution of our national identity, we must take into consideration our external environment. If we develop a national identity which is in stark contrast with that of our neighbours, especially Malaysia, we may be on a collision course with our ASEAN neighbours. To put it bluntly, we cannot be a predominantly Chinese city state. We have to be a Singaporean or multi-racial nation. We have to make sure that Singaporeans of whatever ethnic background will feel that they belong here. As I stated at the beginning, we have made progress in the economic and political fields, but we have yet to evolve a national identity. Policies affecting the various communities are very sensitive matters. But we must tackle the problem head on. Our leaders and all Singaporeans must think multi-racial or Singaporean whenever they formulate policies. In that way, the Singaporean national identity will be achieved earlier. Then national unity will be forged and less Singaporeans will want to leave the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in thanking the President for his Address in this august Chamber. Sir, the President's Address and the Addenda by all the Ministries pointed to one direction, and that is, forward to the future. It is forward looking with the ingredients befitting the challenges that face a city state. For instance, we need leaders who are strong, have character, possess the greatest sense of sympathy and who are fair to all regardless of their race, creed or religion. We have such leaders, namely, our own Prime Minister. I would like to share the sentiments expressed by my colleagues about our Prime Minister. I would like to consider all the speeches made by them about our PM as if it is mine, with one addition at this juncture, and that is, Singaporeans are indeed fortunate and privileged to have a person of his calibre. I also have full confidence in our First Deputy Prime Minister and his consultative style, and of course his colleagues, our colleagues, in Cabinet. Sir, the city state also needs quality people within and without to ensure the dynamism of the city state. A dynamic society or a strong society must strengthen its vital structures, namely, the structure of its faith between men, social, cultural, administration, economic and, of course, politics. This can only be achieved through education and upgrading of education, in fact, constant upgrading of education. And this is exactly what the President said in his very first sentence when he addressed this August Chamber. Sir, permit me to concentrate on this particular area, education, with particular reference to the Malay society. I am indeed privileged to be asked by Dr Ahmad Matter, as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs and Chairman of Yayasan Mendaki's Board of Directors, to be the Chairman of the Mendaki-MOE Joint Committee (MMJC), and more so when he requested the MMJC to study the issues raised by Malay Singaporeans on the fee proposal. Since its establishment in September 1989, the MMJC has worked very hard to find ways to improve the education of Malay pupils. As for the fee proposal, after three months of deliberations with various Malay/Muslim organisations, MMJC had worked out the tertiary fee proposal. A significant feature of the proposal is that Malay students will pay full tertiary fees, if they can afford it. This will allow more financial resources to be channelled to projects which will benefit the needy Malay pupils. I am indeed encouraged by Mendaki's bold decision to accept the proposal as well as the positive and generous gesture of our Government. Critics have contended that the tertiary fee scheme tantamounts to the Government's abandoning of its constitutional duty to safeguard the special position of the Malays as laid down in Article 152. Whether this is so is a matter for constitutional lawyers, not just any lawyers. If need be, they should ascertain whether it is a mandatory one with imperative language which guarantees right or is it an enabling provision, an enabling clause, that allows the Government of the day to pass laws or introduce administrative measures in favour of that particular community, in this case the Malay community, if the Government wants to do so. Sir, this Government is noted for its fair play and it will be unthinkable for it to introduce something which is unconstitutional. The Government has from the time Singapore became independent taken a policy decision to offer free education to members of the Malay community regardless of their means. This is a specific measure which benefits the Malay community alone. Of course, the Chinese and the Indians are given free primary education. It is saved from being in contravention of Article 12 because of Article 152 of the Constitution. Sir, when we discussed the matter, the question at that point of time was whether the Government should continue its policy of providing free education to all members of the Malay community regardless of their means. Whether or not this policy of the Government should continue, to me, must depend obviously on whether the circumstances which led to the introduction of this policy still subsist, still exist, and continue to exist. It should be obvious to anyone who has lived in Singapore that circumstances have changed considerably over the past 25 years. This is especially so for the Malay community and the relationship between the Malay community and the other communities of Singapore. As a result of the policies of the Government, especially the policy of providing free education up to the tertiary level, the Malay community in Singapore has made economic progress. In fact, some of them have made tremendous economic progress, and we are talking about this particular group of Malays, not the ones who are less endowed. But the cynics and the churlish never think so or simply do not want to think so. Sir, the more important point to be made to the Malays is not about Article 152 because it will be there and it is safeguarded. Assurances have been given by none other than our First Prime Minister, and if I am not mistaken, twice already, and in another instance by Minister for Trade and Industry, BG Lee, himself. At this juncture, I think it is worth our while to ponder what the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia said. The DPM of Malaysia twice made a point regarding their version of Article 152. In their case, it is Article 153 of their Constitution with all the imperative language. Mr Ghafar Baba said that the Article is useless, is meaningless, if the Malays in Malaysia do not pursue education seriously and reach the tertiary institutions. Because high calibre people, high calibre individuals, are needed to run the country. Another caption "Bumis should not depend on special rights. (Ghafar)." I quote: 'Bumiputras should try to achieve success without depending on the special rights available to them under the Constitution.' Again, on 5th February, early this year, he said: 'Bumiputras, he stressed, should stop thinking in terms of special treatment accorded to them as the indigenous people of the country so that they could be truly proud of their achievements.' Hence, I think what we should be concerned with and consider as a problem, should there be, is that, if no Malay Singaporean ever graduates, then there is a problem, a very serious problem. Maybe our education programme is a failure. But as it is now, even with stiff competition, with keen competition, they not only survive, but make the grade. Mind you, while we are looking at the cohort, a few managed to get straight As in ten subjects. I do not advocate ordinary students offer more than eight subjects, but some did. And with all the machinery, initiative of the Government, Ministry of education, Mendaki, MMJC and the push and the pull of the society, Insya Allah, we will succeed. Let me give you the figures that I have. In 1979, NUS/NTI, we have only 45 Malay graduates, percentage-wise of all graduates, 2.4%. After 10 years, in 1989, we have 153 graduates, percentage of all graduates is 3.3%. In the Polytechnics, the number of Malay graduates was 70 in 1979, percentage of all graduates, 3.1%. Last year, it was 200, percentage of all graduates, 3.8%. And something quite significant is that the number of Malays reading Honours, we started with four in 1980/81, but in 1989/90, we have 11. In terms of percentage, it is a 175% increase. The details are as follows: 1980/81, 4; 1981/82, 4; 1982/83, 6; 1983/84, 7; 1984/85, 8; 1985/86, 8, 1986/87, 14; 1987/88, 12; 1988/89, 12; and 1989/90, 11. Sir, the fee proposal is a difficult issue. It is a sensitive issue. We believe, however, that a well-thought out implementation plan will receive the Malay community's support. This is why we recommend that the proposal should be implemented gradually so that the community has ample time to prepare for it. The gradual introduction of the scheme will also give Mendaki sufficient lead time to get itself established. To me, this is a turning point in the attitude of the Malays. The concept of the "haves' helping the "have-nots" will be heightened. More and more will be in the mainstream of society, in shorter time. This I have no doubt. As Lord Denning once said: "I may make mistakes, and sometimes am, but I was never in doubt." Of course the Malays must do more than hard work. As Mark McCormak once said in his book "What they do not teach you at Harvard Business School" - "Not enough to work hard or smart, but work hard, long and smart". This I think we should pursue. The Malays should pursue. Pursue excellence to improve our standard of living and continue to strive for excellence - an intrinsically worthwhile goal to pursue. Sir, since Mendaki has accepted the proposal, let it formulate and implement the projects to help those with greater needs. I am confident we will see results in the foreseeable future. In order to achieve this, what should Mendaki do with the Government grant? This is purely my own assessment, my own suggestion. At this stage, I would like to suggest immediate action in three important areas: (1) Provide additional financial assistance to those students at tertiary level with family income less than $2,000 or who are below the poverty line. (2) Provide assistance to Malay pupils who have gained admission into the independent schools so that no bright Malay pupil would be deprived of the opportunity of studying in an independent school due to financial reasons. (3) Work closely and wisely with existing schemes available in schools and outside schools, such as work with established kindergartens, find a good kindergarten, and tuition centres, to improve the academic attainment of Malay pupils. In the final analysis, the Malay's aspirations should be, as far as I am concerned: (1) to further create a well-educated Malay community by having a total and comprehensive programme involving each and every Malay. Every child and every person attains the highest possible level of education in both the secular and spiritual dimension and be part of the national educational effort. (2) to strengthen values consistent with universal and Islamic teachings in order to contribute to wholesome family and social and cultural values. The Malay becomes not only an active participant and contributor but, more importantly, a leading-edge resource in the effort of making Singapore a more dynamic and vibrant multi-racial society. (3) to help identify economic opportunities for the Malay community to take advantage of and aim at creating, say, a pan-community financial base. How are we going to do this? I suggest two approaches. (1) Government, Malay MPs and Mendaki can develop rapport and support by bringing together family, students, professionals, Malay/Muslim, grassroots organisations and outside organisations, including the non-Malays, into an integrated system. (2) Build up the required research, administrative and support services to attain the mission objectives of Yayasan Mendaki, as mentioned by many of my colleagues yesterday. Mr Speaker, Sir, I firmly believe the three-pronged approach, plus the two, will lead more and more Malays into the mainstream of our society - Singapore society. It will also lead to the creation of a sophisticated Malay (Kewujudan Masyarakat Melayu Canggih). Malays that can manage to keep pace with time, with the future - the Singapore future. Because we are moving to a new plane of sophistication, respect and dignity, and these must be earned, cannot be given or taken.

Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.48 pm until 3.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, a point of clarification from the hon. Member for Jalan Besar GRC. Sir, I want to ask the hon. Member whether or not he thinks that Article 152 gives the Malay an educational right.

From the Member's statement, I do not quite understand what he is aiming at.

For a right to free education.

In general, you can say "yes".

Thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we progress economically and socially as a nation, we will continuously be faced with one serious constraint posed by the way we manage our manpower resources. I am speaking both in quantitative and qualitative terms. With regard to the numbers, we can draw a few lessons from our previous attempts to manage our resources for economic development. There have been many debates on how we can meet our needs of labour force by increasing the import of foreign labour, and we all can agree that there is a limit to which we can import these workers, because they have to be balanced against the social cost that we have got to pay. Despite the liberalisation introduced by the Government lately, we are fast reaching a limit. The population policy which the Government promotes is rather long term in nature. It will take another generation before we can see the numbers coming in. There was also a suggestion that we could slow down economic growth to keep pace with the limited manpower resources that we have. But the economic machine cannot be just turned on and off or slow down as we please. Hence, the Government was right that we should progressively and actively move towards higher skilled and more capital-intensive industries. This again introduced a shortage of another kind, that is, skilled manpower shortage. I would like to say a few words about the education of our workforce. In order to meet the needs of these more sophisticated industries, we must train more and more people and impart more and more skills to our workers and managers; in other words, improve their productivity. This can be done at various levels. At the university level, I welcome the Government's intention or decision to set up a second University. It is a right step. My question is whether it is sufficient, given the large number of 'A' level graduates that we have. The Government has said that by increasing enrolment, standards will not be compromised. Given the large number of 'A' level graduates that we have now, are we satisfied that we are providing every place to all students who can qualify? Or is it the case that because we do not have enough places, these 'A' level students are forced to go overseas? This is a subject which I will touch on a bit later. In terms of polytechnic education, again, the number of applicants apparently far exceeds places available. In 1989, 16,000 applicants went for 8,700 places (one in two). This year, I understand, the ratio has increased somewhat, despite the introduction of a third polytechnic. The large number of applications shows that Singaporeans are prepared to acquire more skills if they are given the opportunities. And if we are talking about imparting skills at various levels and different sophistication, I think we should seriously look at whether in fact we should provide more places, without necessarily sacrificing the standards. The third level is VITB. There are enough places made available in VITB but it seems that VITB has an image problem. The general population always tends to think that it is the last resort. If you cannot get into the polytechnics, at the worst you join the VITB. I do not know whether this is a fair assessment of VITB. But perhaps the VITB may need to think how they can convey their services and their standards more effectively to the students. I think providing places is one answer. The more difficult question lies in how we can develop the correct kind of attitude in our population. In spite of all the training that we can give to them, ultimately how people perform in various situations depends on their attitude towards work, whether they are prepared to work hard, strive for excellence, whether they see a stake in nation building and feel that they are part of it and therefore they should contribute to it. Or whether they are prepared to go up and down with the country's performance in good times and in bad. This attitude has to be in inculcated early, not only at the university or at the polytechnic but right from the primary schools and going on to secondary and pre-university. By the time they reach the university when they are given a choice to either stay here or going abroad, it may be a bit too late to impart that kind of attitude. It is quite well known now that there has always been complaint about the generation after ours. They seem to be more cynical and some even bordering on anti-establishment. Why is this so? Is it because of the youthful enthusiasm that they want a better life that they like to argue? Compared to the past generation, the question seems to be "what is in it for me", rather than in "what we have to do". And it is this kind of attitude perhaps that we have got to modify or change for the better. At the end of it all, if we were to develop our manpower resources and to ensure that we have got all the skills available, we must look hard at one key question, ie, whether our people, especially the generation that comes after us, are they prepared to stay in Singapore? I have talked to many people who have emigrated and come back for a visit. Their answer invariably and overwhelmingly is that they migrate because of their children. It could be because they feel that Singapore is not having the right environment for them to develop their children. It could well be that education has been an impediment, that they cannot get to the university or polytechnic, that they have got to go elsewhere. In other words, the key factor of migration would seem to be one of their children, whether it is bringing them up or to ensure that they can prosper and have a career in Singapore. The answer would appear to lie more in whether we can convince them to stay, firstly, by providing a safe and healthy environment for the family as we are doing, good rewarding job careers which we are also assuring, but more important, I think, to provide the kind of education that they can have their children go through, instead of sending them abroad. Once you send them abroad, it is quite likely that few of them will come back. l would like to think that education is not an expenditure per se but is an investment. If we can reorient ourselves in this regard, then perhaps we may be able to convince our population and the children that come after us that it is a worthwhile place to stay and to make a stake. Whatever we say about national identity, ideology, ultimately it boils down to the simple fact whether our people are proud to be part of Singapore and to be part of the system and to work to make it excel. Hence, education, I think, may well be the key answer to our problems. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Tang Guan Seng) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the motion tabled by the Member for Tanglin. The First Deputy Prime Minister will be taking over the Prime Ministership at the end of the year. As the President said in his speech, this will be the watershed in our political development and that we have prepared for this for a long time. Mr Speaker, Sir, the undesirable factors in the old Asian culture have made the leadership transition a painful process. It sometimes results in upheavals. Although we are an Asian nation, the leadership transition has been well-planned and smoothly carried out. This is something that Singaporean should be thankful. In the past few years, our political leaders with Mr Goh as their head has been running the country. They have been involved with major decision making. However, the style of the new Government will be manifested only after the leadership transition is completed. As the President said in his speech, this consultative style of government will be the hallmark of the new leadership. As described by the Member for Fengshan, this 'Big Brother' style of governing the country will be supported by the people. I hope this new spirit will be practised at all levels in the Government departments and statutory boards and eventually this spirit will filter down to the private bodies and civic organisations. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we want to build up is a non adversarial society and that the interest of Singpore should be above everything else. Only then can we achieve greater success in our next stage of nation building. The consultative style of government means that powers will be decentralised. In our initial stage of nation building, powers were centralised in the hands of Ministers. However, in the last few years, with the setting up of the Government Parliamentary Committees, the Feedback Unit and the NCMP system, Government powers have been gradually decentralised so that MPs and professionals and even the man-in-the-street are able to contribute to the process of government. This decentralisation of powers is in keeping with the present world trend and it will help to further stabilise our society. Other examples of decentralisation include the setting up of town councils, school autonomy and restructuring of hospitals. There is social and economic significance in these measures because they mean that the various organisations would develop according to market forces so that they are not hampered by central planning or command type of economy and the consumers can have more options. They can decide what to do according to their means. However, we would like to know the limit of such decentralisation. What will be the functions of the Government? Are there any changes in their functions? What will be the relation between the Government and the people? When power is decentralised and with the autonomy of the various organisations, we should not make economic factor the only factor in any decision making. Otherwise, the relation between the Government and people will be that of monetary relationship. If that happens, the gap between the rich and the poor will widen. This is the anxiety of the lower income group because they fear their expenditure will increase. Their burden will increase and they would not be able to share in the fruits of prosperity. Fortunately, the President assured us that all Singaporeans, whatever his income, will be deprived of their basic medical treatment and the Government will also lighten the burden of the poor people in the upbringing of their children. I think the Government should further clarify these new concepts to win the confidence of the people when these processes of autonomy, restructuring and decentralisation are carried out. I believe such exercises are sound in principle. However, on health care and education, the Government should continue to look after the interest of the people in order to keep the close rapport between the Government and the people. The reason why Singapore could overcome all difficulties and successfully develop into a modern and prosperous nation is that there is a close relationship between the Government and the people. People love the Government and are attached to the Government and therefore have given their wholehearted support to Government policies, and also because of their self-restraint and self-discipline. If such a relationship is weakened or undermined, if we are faced with crises in the future, those who are able to emigrate will leave while those who are not able to emigrate may not give their continued support for the Government.

3.30 pm 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.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, I would like to respond to some of the points raised by Members on the cost of health services. Quite a few Members have touched on this issue and I think it is only proper that I share with them some of my views. Sir, the concerns of the MPs and of the general public on the high cost of hospital services are understandable. The Government is also concerned and that is why we have focused a lot of effort on looking into how hospital operations can be made more efficient and cost effective. Over the last 10 years, the costs of hospital operations have been going up by an average of 10-12% a year. As the hospitals are managed centrally from the Ministry, it is very difficult for them to respond to changing conditions and to innovate. We have therefore moved to provide hospitals with autonomy in management by restructuring them. In this way, they will have a better chance of developing more cost effective systems, and I think they will have a far better chance of keeping the future rate of cost increase to below the 10-12% that has been experienced in the past decade. Sir, the question is, should hospital services be expensive? Is there a way to make them cheaper? The problem is that hospital services are highly labour and skill intensive. We need trained nurses, doctors, therapists - a whole spectrum of skills. As a result, manpower costs make up 70% of the total operational costs. The hospitals also require very expensive medical equipment and products. With improving technology, these products tend to become more expensive over the long term rather than less expensive. Consequently, hospital services are costly to operate anywhere in the world, not just in Singapore. Let me give Members an example. In the USA, basic hospitalization cost for each day of stay in an acute hospital is between S$2,000 and $4,000, and this does not include stays in intensive care units. In Singapore, in the Government hospitals it costs about $400 a day for us to look after a patient in the 'A' class wards and about $210 a day in the 'C' class wards. So in comparison we have managed to keep our services more efficient and also less costly than elsewhere. However, because of the highly labour intensive nature of hospital services, the overall cost will always be very sensitive to the national wage changes in Singapore. If salaries go up, I think it is difficult to tell the hospital staff that they should be earning less than their colleagues, their friends or relatives who are working in other sectors. For example, if the salaries go up by 10%, because manpower costa make up 70% of operational cost, automatically the overall cost of operations will have to go up by 7%. So it is very closely linked to the wage situation in Singapore. The question is, in view of this situation, who should pay for the hospital bills and who should bear the cost increases that occur from one year to the next? It is very easy to say, "Of course, well, let the Government pay." But, unfortunately, there are only finite financial resources available for subsidies to the Ministry of Health. The question is how to distribute the available subsidies. Should we distribute subsidies equally to all patients? That means a patient going to an 'A' class ward will receive the same amount of subsidy as a patient going to a 'C' class ward. We can do that if Members feel that that is equitable. What it means is that 'A' class fees will become lower and that 'C' class fees will have to go up significantly. Or should we focus the available subsidies on the lower income group that uses the 'B2' and class 'C' ward? Sir, the Government policy is that we should focus our available subsidies on the group that requires help, that is, the lower income group who uses the 'B2' and the 'C' class wards. It is only right that the financially better-off who are using the 'A' and 'B1' wards pay for the cost of the services that they use. They should not deprive the lower income group of the available subsidies. If Members do not agree with this approach that we should help the lower income group and let the higher income group pay for what they use, we can debate this if Members move the necessary motion. The Member for Kampong Glam, Mr Loh Meng See, yesterday said that those who can afford should be made to pay more. Sir, I agree with that philosophy. We will therefore be gradually reducing the 'A' and 'B1' subsidies that are still existing at the present moment because the subsidies that are available to them now are at the expense of the lower income earners. We will continue to keep the 'C' class subsidy at about 80% and sustain the 'B2' subsidy. For the poor, those who cannot even afford to pay the highly subsidized 'C' class rate, the waiver system will still be retained. So for the poor, there is 100% subsidy. The NCMP, Dr Lee, again just now criticised the waiver system that it is not workable. I hope he was here yesterday to listen to the Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua, who described how two of his constituents who could not afford were able to obtain waiver for the operations that they required. Our system of subsidizing the lower income group on a differential basis, that means 'B2' having a lower subsidy than 'C', gives Singaporeans an wide range of choices. I think this is a fair system because patients are now able to choose according to what they can best afford. There is no need for anyone to be bankrupted because they only need to go to a 'C' class ward, pay $40 on the average per day. If they cannot afford that, see the hospital authorities for a complete waiver. The other question is how do we deal with the inevitable cost increases that will occur each year. Sir, the subsidies, as I have pointed out in the Budget debate, will increase on a year to year basis in line with inflation. But the incremental subsidies can only cover part of the cost increases. The hospitals must therefore increase the fees to cover the remaining cost, otherwise it will not be possible for them to maintain the workforce and to maintain the quality of care. The question is, how should the incremental subsidy that is available be used? Which class of wards should we be covering? Again, our philosophy is that we should subsidize most of the 'B2' and 'C' class increases. Sir, the last comprehensive fee revision was in 1984, six years ago. As a result of not increasing the ward charges for six years, the recently announced increases are fairly large. But I would like to inform Members that despite the fee increases the subsidies for 'B2' and 'C' class wards and patients will still increase significantly. For example, in 1989 the 'B2' and 'C' subsidies amounted to $159 million. This year, despite the increase in the 'B2' and 'C' charges, the subsidies for these two groups of wards will increase to $172 million, quite a significant increase. Sir, as I have informed the House in the Budget debate and also in our addendum to the President's Speech, the future increases in fees will be made more regularly so that we can keep the increases small. They will be what you can call "ant bite" sizes. You do not like them. They are irritating, but tolerable. Sir, the lower income group will continue to be safeguarded. We believe this is the best approach. We may be wrong because certain Members may prefer that we keep the intervals longer. If we do that, then the fee increases likewise must also be larger. So I think it is a choice which is available and which we are prepared to consider. Dr Arthur Beng had mentioned about the upgrading of wards, an upgraded 'C' class ward, for example. Sir, we will definitely be continuing to upgrade the wards and even within each type of class of ward there will be new wards available that are more comfortable compared to the old wards. For example, in Toa Payoh Hospital and Kandang Kerbau Hospital, they have upgraded and they have offered these choices to patients - old 'B2' and new 'B2' that are available. Similarly, in SGH when the 'C' class wards are available, they will also be of an upgraded nature, as suggested by Dr Arthur Beng. He has suggested that we can charge a little more for the upgraded 'C' class beds. SGH will be offering better 'C' class wards and the fees of course will also be a little bit higher. Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Singaporeans that whilst there are many choices available for them, it is important that they continue to use medical services prudently. They should choose wisely - the type of hospitals to go into, whether it is private or Government, and the sort of wards that they can afford. If they can afford only 'B2', please do not go into 'B1' because it will just deplete their savings very rapidly. It is very important that they conserve their savings in their Medisave funds for the future.

Sir, may I seek one more clarification from the Minister? I made a suggestion about the uncoupling of inpatient class charges and outpatient class charges. Will he consider this?

I will look into that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am encouraged by MPs' support for my consultative and participative style of Government and Government's programme and direction in the coming years. They have raised many useful points. These would be addressed in due course. What I want to do this afternoon is to share with you my priorities over the next few months. Two years ago the Prime Minister indicated that he was ready to step down. I asked him to carry on for two more years. I wanted him to complete his negotiation with Malaysia over water and gas supply to Singapore. The supply of water to Singapore is a very sensitive and complex issue because of its wider political implications. Under the 1962 Water Agreement we are entitled to draw up to 250 million gallons per day, but unfortunately we cannot draw that quantum unless we build dams over certain parts of the Johor River. These dams have to be built but their construction requires the approval of Malaysia. PM is seized with this problem and has dealt with this for two and a half decades. We agreed that it was better for him to settle this with Dr Mahathir than for me to do so. Since then, we have made good progress over our negotiations over water with Malaysia. The Prime Minister and Dr Mahathir signed a Memorandum of Understnding on 28th June 1988. That paved the way for the Mentri Besar of Johor, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, and I to sign an agreement over the compensation to be paid when we build Linggiu Dam and also over the price formula for the treated water which we will be buying from Johor in excess of the 250 million gallons per day. But the formal Agreement has yet to be signed. It should have been signed by 20th April this year. I understand that Kuala Lumpur is still working on the draft. As far as I can see, there are no major obstacles. At any rate, it will not affect the time-table of leadership change in Singapore. Prime Minister will continue to see the Water Agreement through, whether he is Prime Minister or not. I have asked him to settle old accounts as I prefer to open a new era unfettered by old thinking. Once the Water Agreement is signed, it should open up a new chapter of cooperative relationship with Malaysia. At least that is what I hope, and that is what I will work for, not just with Malaysia, but also with Indonesia and our other neighbours - a new era of cooperative relationship with them. We are living in a new world, a world that is turning its back on past unhappy experiences. The Berlin Wall is now a historic relic. The two Germanies are being united. The Warsaw Pact is being dismantled. Gorbachev has met Roh Tae Woo. The Japanese Emperor and Prime Minister have apologised to South Korea for Japan's past misdeeds during the Second World War. The world is marching relentlessly towards peace, greater cooperation and openness. Everywhere, there is movement forward. It is a world that is breaking loose from its past shackles of animosity. In such a world, we too need new attitudes and a new relationship with our neighbours. We must not be handcuffed by history. We have to break free, and play and work together, for a more prosperous ASEAN and a more peaceful world. As I look into the future, I see a prosperous ASEAN, including perhaps the Philippines, provided the Philippines can put its own house in order. Within ASEAN, there will be a smaller region, a growth triangle, a special region that will grow faster than the rest of ASEAN. This triangle comprises Johor, the Riau Islands of Batam and Bintan, and Singapore. I expect Singapore to grow by about 5% or 6% per annum over the next few years. But Johor and the Riau Islands can grow by a much faster rate. This is because both Johor and the Riau Islands are start- ing from a lower base. They also have abundant resources, untapped resources, long stretches of beaches under-used, and also more labour than Singapore. More importantly, Johor and the Riau Islands will be getting a cheap supply of energy. In the case of Johor, gas from Trengganu. In the case of Batam and Bintan, gas from the Natunas. They can supply food to Singapore - pigs, poultry, fruits and vegetables. They can industrialize. In tourism, this area can be the Caribbean of the East. Let me give you an example of how cooperation can make this triangle of growth concept work. Batam and Bintan do not have sufficient water over the longer term to support a bigger population. And Indonesia wants both islands to prosper and grow so that they can support a much bigger population than now. Singapore also needs water. And water is available in Sumatra, but from Sumatra to Singapore the distance is over 250 km, and much further than 250 km to Batam and Bintan. It will not be economical or feasible for both these islands to tap water supply from Sumatra or even to pump water from Pulau Bintan to Batam. But if Singapore comes into the picture and we provide the base for water supply from Sumatra, then Batam and Bintan can tap water off the pipe-line from Singapore from Sumatra. That makes it economical for Batam and Bintan to have water from long distance. Of course, the pipe-line and the costs of development will be astronomical, even for Singapore. But despite the high costs, we will pay for the development and for the pipe-line from Sumatra to Singapore. We will just write off the expenditure the way we have written off the investments in our MRT tunnels. In other words, treat them as infrastructure, pay for them, and hand them over to the PUB. We welcome Indonesia' offer of water to Singapore from Bintan and Sumatra. We will reciprocate by helping Batam and Bintan to develop. That is the least we should do. In exchange for the water from Sumatra, we have to reciprocate, and economic growth, if we can help them to do so, is the best way of reciprocating. Singapore can also help Johor to develop. I see Johor becoming a newly- industrializing state within Malaysia. It has tremendous potential - land, good beaches at Desaru, and also more labour available in Johor than in Singapore. It has also better infrastructure than Batam and Bintan. But Johor lacks capital and managerial expertise and, of course, entrepreneurship which Singapore has. So Singapore can provide capital, entrepreneurship, managerial and, computer programming expertise to Johor. But how fast Johor will grow depends on what signals they give to foreign investors, in particular to Singapore investors. If it signals that it wants cooperation from Singapore, it welcomes investments from Singapore, and also of course when it signals that there is good cooperation with Singapore, I believe investments will pour in into Johor. Let me give you another example of this potential of the growth triangle. Changi Airport is being developed to handle huge volumes of passengers, some 20 million passengers per year. I see droves of these passengers coming to Singapore, and then from Singapore moving outwards to parts of Johor, to Pulau Bintan, to Batam, particularly when the holiday resorts are ready. I see cruise vessels ferrying passengers from Singapore to these areas for those who have time to take a leisurely cruise. For those who are in a hurry to go to their destinations, there will be hydrofoils and hovercraft taking them over quickly to Batam, longer to Bintan, and perhaps a little longer to Desaru. I see this place teeming with tourists because the Japanese will be travelling in a big way; the Germans will be coming too. And as the world develops, other tourists will come to this part, provided we can attract them over here with good facilities. Now, Johor wants to develop Desaru, Pulau Bintan wants to develop its Pasir Panjang. Singapore can help in these developments by having a ferry terminal at Changi Point - a modern ferry terminal which can cater to the ferry boats and the passenger ships. For the next stage of our economic development, Singapore has to go international. We have to think international - beyond Singapore, think of the region and beyond. This is because nowadays manufacturing processes are located in many parts of a region, not necessarily in a country. Investors now do not just evaluate a country by country. They evaluate whole regions, the single European market, for example, Eastern Europe as a region, the Asia-Pacific as a large region, and the triangle of growth as a smaller region. They would have one component manufactured in one country, another component in another country, and another component yet in another country, depending on the comparative advantages these countries offer for particular components. This point came to me vividly when I had dinner recently with a group of investors who participated in the Global Technopolis Exhibition. There were about 10 of them, and I asked whether they have investments in Johor. I was surprised that all 10 have plants already in Johor. And one of the investors also has a plant in Batam, and a few more are thinking of setting up plants in the new industrial park which EDB is jointly developing with Batam. These investors are excited over the triangle of growth concept and they are assessing whether there will be genuine cooperation between the three countries. If they feel that there is, then they are going to further invest in the region, because it is very convenient for them to do so, taking advantage of the resources and labour available in the other parts of the region and using Singapore's organisational ability, its financial attractiveness and transport and communication infrastructure. When the growth triangle takes off, we can link it with other growth points or other regions. We can begin to invest, and encourage investments, in the northern Malaysian states in Penang, Kedah, Langkawi. Sarawak is interested in developing its tourist potential. We can link with Sarawak, invest in Sarawak. Not just Singapore investments but investments from Johor, and investments from other foreign interests. We can link up with Brunei, Sabah, and other parts of Indonesia. And as this concept grows, and as the plan is being realised, we can go further afield, and from bigger triangles or stronger links with other triangles or other developing regions in other parts of the world. As we go international, we need a new breed of Singaporeans, the expatriate Singaporeans or those who are required to work outside Singapore for long periods. Singaporeans are reluctant to work abroad, I think, for very good reasons. One is Singapore is a very attractive place to live in; secondly, education of their children. As good parents they are concerned with the education of their children. So we have got to begin to address the problem and see how we can look after the education of their children, and we will address this problem in due course. Mr Speaker, Sir, this session of Parliament is rather special. It is a changeover session, like a changeover in a relay race. I can sense that there is quiet excitement, although there are no fireworks in this debate, but that is as it should be. It shows that we have dealt with the major problems successfully. MPs do not feel agitated over unsolved major problems. Otherwise they would have raised them over here in this House. Circumstances are as favourable as they can be for the baton to be handed over. But the life of a nation or a society is a never-ending relay race. We may have covered one lap outstandingly. But there is another lap to be covered, and yet another lap and another lap, and by new runners. We are ahead in this lap. Do we have the stamina to stay ahead in the next lap, and the lap after that? There is no guarantee that we will still stay ahead, or that others will not overtake us. How to stay ahead, and give Singaporeans a prosperous, secure life? This is the basic question we must increasingly ask ourselves. The Prime Minister will pass his baton to me later this year. But that does not mean I am running the relay alone. We are all that runner. You are not a spectator or a disinterested outsider. You are on the field, running collectively to keep Singapore ahead. Metaphorically, all Singaporeans are now running that new lap. Political succession cannot be considered successful or completed unless we win the people's support at the next General Elections. How we perform will depend on how we discharge our responsibility to the people, whether we can give a new lift to their lives and whether we have gained their confidence and trust. That is important. We have got to gain their confidence and trust and we have three or four years to prove that we can perform, that we can give them a new meaning to their lives. We have to understand the aspirations of the people. That is important. Unless you understand their aspirations, their hopes and fears, you cannot realise their aspirations for them. Singapore is a middle-class society. So there are new aspirations, middle-class aspirations. These have to be met. At the same time, there are others who are not quite yet middle-class. They too have their aspirations. And in our society, as in any society, there will always be an under-class. They too have their problems and their aspirations and those aspirations too must be met. Talk and rhetoric will not do, not sufficient. You have got to go beyond talk and rhetoric, translate ideas into practical programmes which can benefit the people, and the people must see the benefits of these programmes. The next few months will be busy ones for us. We have a heavy legislative programme - elected President, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and, also as important, a White Paper on shared values. I also have to make several major decisions. I will consult my colleagues but ultimately I have to decide for myself. I have to take these major decisions myself. First, I have to settle the date of changeover. It will be a November date. Next, I have to decide on who would be my Deputy Prime Ministers, and whether I have one or two. I have decided on two Deputy Prime Ministers. Third, though we have decided on Mr Lee's role after he steps down as Prime Minister in the Cabinet - Mr Lee will be a Senior Minister - we will also have to prepare for a role reversal. Fourthly, Cabinet changes. There will be no drastic reshuffle. It will be a Cabinet that reflects continuity rather than radical changes. Lastly, even as we work on the programme of this Parliamentary session, we are simultaneously preparing the programme for the new session, for the next President's Address. It will be a fresh programme to bring us a few steps nearer our Vision of 1999 which we formulated in 1984. The society which we want to bring about will be more refined, more compassionate, kinder and gentler, to borrow President Bush's words. But it will not be a welfare society. The Government will not run a budget deficit. It will continue to revise fees periodically, in line with changes in costs and wage increases. The Government will not flinch from taking critical decisions on issues which are for the national good. It will continue to be hard-headed and tough-minded. It will not govern by popular polls. There will be greater freedom for Singaporeans to make their own choices, and to express themselves, but this freedom is not extended to actions which rock the boat. We will not allow anyone to capsize Singapore. We will not brook interference from foreign newspapers in our domestic affairs. Those that do will be gazetted and have their circulation reduced. Those that have done so will continue to be gazetted unless they acknowledge that they were in the wrong and satisfy us that they will not interfere in our domestic politics again. Mr Speaker, we have a bright future ahead of us. We face it with good cheer and confidence. For that, we owe it primarily to one man - our Prime Minister. [Applause].

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the conclusion in the Presidential Address is that we have reason to be full of confidence for our future. In our new phase, we have to seek new challenges to inspire our people to continue in their work for a better life. A good life does not mean just material life. We have to cross into another dimension, including the art, cultural and recreational activities. For those who have visited the Singapore 2000 Global Technopolis exhibition, they would have an insight into the type of comfortable and convenient way of life in the 21st century and be optimistic about the future of Singapore. I believe the people of Singapore will work harder to promote good economic growth because this would benefit everybody. So long as the free and multi-lateral trade system continues to function, so long as productivity continues to increase, and so long as the management efficiency and organizational ability continue to improve all the time, we have reason to believe that our economy will continue to expand. Of course, we have to closely monitor the advance in technology and the changes in the international market so as to seize the opportunities that come with these changes. In 1992, the unified European Community will be established and it will be a force to be reckoned with alongside the North American and Asia-Pacific region. In late May this year, I went with the Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) and two other colleagues to Brussels and Berlin. We saw the Berlin Wall being knocked down and I picked up a few pieces of stones from the wall as souvenir. I was deeply impressed by the economic dynamism in Europe and the self-confidence of the Germans. We have to strengthen our economic ties with the European Community. In the meantime, we have to cultivate more talented people who speak German and French. The rise of the European economic power does not mean sunset for the Asian-Pacific region. This region is still full of vitality, great potential and has its competitive advantage. Apart from Japan and the four NIEs, we will see Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia taking off one after another. The First Deputy Prime Minister has just mentioned about the triangular economic growth between Singapore, Johor and Batam. That will give us more confidence in the growth of this region. But I want to point out that the cooperation among these three countries is for economic purpose based on certain complementarity of such factors as land, labour, capital, management and water. At the same time, though China is suffering a setback because of the Tiananmen event last year, perhaps there will be another turmoil with the change of leadership. I believe the open door policy of China will not be changed. No one can afford to ignore a US$300 billion economy. If China can maintain Hong Kong as it is after 1997, and if it can come to some economic agreement with Taiwan, then China will play a very important role in the Asia-Pacific region. Singapore is the hub of the Asia-Pacific economy and it has maintained good relations with the United States and the Western European countries. And for this reason, I am full of confidence for our economic future. In the economic arena, there is one problem that has been troubling the Government, ie, the distribution of social services. On the one hand, we have to satisfy our people's demand in the quality and diversity of our social services. On the other hand, we have to look after the lower income families to make sure that they are adequately taken care of in the areas of education, health care and housing. This is a problem of distribution of wealth in economics. In this area, we cannot depend too much on market forces. We must strike a balance between efficiency and equity. At the commencement of this new phase, we should remind ourselves that the PAP still advocates democratic socialism. We must ensure that the children from the lower income families will have an equal opportunity to be educated in independent schools and tertiary institutions. We have to provide adequate subsidies so that the poor will get good medical care. However, I believe the biggest problem that the second generation leaders will have to face is not in the economic area but in culture and politics. The Commonwealth magazine ( ) has described Singapore as follows, and I quote: "The lack of root in culture, the confusion of values and the impact of westernisation are problems that are gradually surfacing in the horizon." Prolonged prosperity and stability have led to complacency. There is no crisis mentality, and the people have developed an illusion that the stability and prosperity that they have enjoyed up to now will automatically go on forever. They have higher aspirations and they become fussy over things. What they ask is: what can the country do for me and not what I can do for the country? Some of them even use their votes to bargain with the Government, and some choose to emigrate for minor excuses. Sometimes in my discussion with my colleagues we often sigh and ask, "Why is it that during the 60s and 70s when we went overseas to study, we were prepared to give up the opportunity of getting higher pay by staying in the foreign country, and chose to come back to Singapore where our careers were not certain, but now that Singapore is much affluent and offers better opportunities, why are some professionals migrating and pledging to be citizens of other countries?" Another problem is brought about by our multi-cultural and multi-religious society. For example, some people question the bilingual policy, and some dispute the celebrations of cultural months by different ethnic groups; there are conflicts between religions and there was controversy about the tertiary education fee of Malay students. On the last issue, Mendaki has made a very bold decision, that is, Malay students who come from well-to-do families will have to pay part or all the fees in the tertiary institutions. This decision will not only benefit Malays in the lower income group, but, more importantly, Mendaki has given a signal that the Malay community is prepared to march together with other communities on equal footing. As stated in the Presidential Address, "it augurs well for the progress of the Malays and the integration of the different races of Singapore." The Chinese community should make an appropriate response and to encourage our Malay compatriots to march forward in this new direction. Chinese companies should give the Malays equal opportunities of employment and to do away with any misconception of racial discrimination in employment. At the appropriate time, the Chinese organisations or enterprises should cooperate with Mendaki by enriching its financial resources so that more Malays stand to benefit. The Member for Sembawang GRC, Mr Charles Chong, mentioned that those who have difficulty in English normally suffer in silence but those who have difficulty in their mother tongue are more vocal in their protest. The bilingual policy is a right policy. In 1989, the President, in his speech, stated that the promotion of mother tongue was to enhance the teaching of traditional core value. In this Presidential Address, the addendum on the Ministry of Education has reiterated that language acquisition is central to learning. The younger Singaporeans should learn their mother tongue so that they can retain their values. The Ministry of Education has decided to give priority to primary education. We should give credit to the Ministry for this decision. At the primary level, inculcation of moral education and core value and learning of mother tongue will be most effective because primary school students are in an impressionable age. Therefore, I suggest that in the first three years of primary education, more time and emphasis should be given to the learning of mother tongue than English language, and that only in primary four should the emphasis be reversed. In fact, if we look at Japan and some of the Western countries, they are using the sequence method, that is, to learn their mother tongue first before they start learning English. This has not affected the progress of the economy or technology in these countries. Although we have been using the parallel method, we could use the experience of these countries for our reference. On the teaching of Chinese, I have spoken a lot about it. Maybe Members are all tired of listening to me. To speak to those who do not understand Chinese about the Chinese language is like playing the harp to the cow ( ). I do not know whether the cow is stupid or because the player could not play well, but it is sad that the player has to go on. I hope that the policy makers in the Ministry of Education will not feel that learning 3,000 characters within 10 years is too much. Let me give some statistics. The Lianhe Zaobao has been using 3,428 words in Chinese and it has a core vocabulary of 11,622 items. But in the curriculum for Secondary 4 students, there are 3,000 single words and 10,509 vocabulary items. So the number of words is still less than that used by Lianhe Zaobao. If we were to reduce this number, then there will be a bigger difference between the curriculum and the words used by Lianhe Zaobao. This will result in our secondary school students being unable to read the Chinese papers and magazines. Then how are we going to encourage them to learn Chinese, so as to acquire the values, and to cultivate their interest in their own culture? When we were talking about the bilingual policy, some Members mentioned that students in SAP schools lack the opportunity to interact with students of other races. First of all, I would like to say that students in SAP schools have opportunities to interact with students of the other races during their ECA or sports activities. From what I know, we have right now the World Conference of Girl Guides in Singapore. The organisers make sure that students from various schools and of various races work together. I know this because my child is studying in one of the SAP schools. Her partner is a Malay student. They have been working happily together. 4.19 pm

Secondly, I must say that school life is not everything to the students. When SAP school students are at home or when they go to the junior colleges, tertiary institutions or doing national service, they have plenty of opportunities to mix around and interact with students from the other communities. Thirdly, and more importantly, we must remember that SAP schools are not established purely for the teaching of CL1 and EL1. Another main objective is to maintain the excellent tradition of the Chinese schools. If parents from the other races are willing to send their children to the SAP schools and to study in an environment of traditional Chinese schools, I believe the SAP schools are ever willing to accept and welcome them. There is one point that I wish to respond. This is about the cultural months. We have listened to Dr Lau Teik Soon just now and I have also read Dr Tay Eng Soon's suggestion that we should have a Singapore Cultural Month among the ethnic groups. Firstly, we must understand one thing: if we do not have a Singapore culture, how are we going to hold a Singapore culture month? How could we have a drama performance if we have not written the scripts? If we merely put the art performances, handicraft, and food stalls of Chinese, Malay, and Indian, can we call this a Singapore culture? I remember I read an article in a book called "Management of Success". There is a formula: S = C + M + I + O. S represents Singapore, C for Chinese, M for Malay, I for Indians and O for others. Are we prepared to accept this formula, ie., S = C + M + I + O? Secondly, if we are not proud of our own cultural heritage, how could we appreciate and respect other people's cultural heritage? From the feedback of some constituents and community leaders, I sense that the majority of them were very happy and proud of their cultures when they visited the activities in the different cultural months organized by the various communities. Thirdly, I have brought up this point before and I will repeat it here - we must not mix "cultural identity" with "national consciousness". After 25 years, we have developed a strong sense of national consciousness. We are proud of the success of Singapore, we are proud of not only the SIA, Changi Airport, and our Prime Minister, but also many of our achievements, but this does not mean that we already have our Singapore culture. Let me give an example: Members of Parliament often go in groups to other countries to represent Singapore. The delegation may comprise MPs from various ethnic groups, and the MPs may deliver speeches to defend the interest of Singapore. We behave like Singaporeans. But when we are having our meals, we have to be conscious of the differences of our religions and the customs of different ethnic groups. Finally, it will take a long time for the Singapore culture to develop. Moreover, this must come about naturally and not be pressure cooked. Some observed that the Americans established their own literature only after Mark Twain published his work. So, we should not be too hasty in the development process towards a Singapore culture. Of course, we have the Singapore dress and things which are Singaporean, for example, hawker food, but this does not necessarily represent the Singapore culture. Given the thinking of some of our highly educated Singaporeans and the inherent problems of our pluralistic society, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and the White Paper on Shared Values are of great significance. This is a clear example of our far-sighted political leaders who are leaving no stones unturned to make sure that there is peace and harmony among our races and religions. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill is a preparation for the rainy days in anticipation of any possible mishap and to reduce any inter-religious friction and to prevent people from making use of religion to attain political objectives. The White Paper on Shared Values is an attempt to seek common ground in diversity. It is to list out the values shared by our people from the various ethnic groups so that the cohesiveness of society can be strengthened and that we could develop our own characteristics. The shared values are not merely a formal statement. They serve as a guidance and code of conduct for Singaporeans and for future generations. If we can always put national interest and collective interest before our own individual interest, then it will help our people to reduce their self-contrednes and individualism, or even to reduce the desire to emigrate. If we place great importance on 'family' then we would not have, as what Mr Eugene Yap has described, people who are unfilial to their parents or couples who are hostile to each other. If we can inculcate mutual tolerance and mutual respect, then we should be able to avoid conflicts between races or religions. If we try to deal with problems in a consultative, and not confrontational manner, then we would be able to build consensus and solve many problems in a harmonious way. When we enter the new phase, we shall face many new problems which are intan- gible and related to emotions and inner thought. For example, how to build up a cohesive society? How to strengthen the sense of identity with our nation? How to encourage people to participate in decision-making? How to strengthen the ties between the people and the leaders? These are new challenges that we have to take. We cannot have something like a cultural revolution to purify the thoughts of our people. We must also not depend on satay or char kway teow or soup kambing to group our people together. We must be frank and sincere and solve our problems together in a consultative manner. We must share with our people our aspirations and concerns. We must accommodate those who oppose us and instil more confidence in our people in the second generation leaders. We must build up new bridges or new channels between the people and the Government so that we can work together for a better future.

Sir, over the last few days of debate, we have heard many fellow Members talk at length about our new style of participatory government - ruling by consensus - and caring for the lower income group, and many other issues, although they are not burning ones. This suggests to me that the various options open to us are an indication that the new leadership has in many ways a more difficult task to perform than our first generation leaders. The options are more varied and highlight the need to strike a balance between effectiveness and style in our government, in our economy, and in our society. Sir, I have in mind three areas - leadership and consensus, market economy and the lower income group, and work ethics and social refinements. First on consensus building and leadership. By and large, the changing style of government and governing by consensus is welcomed by a new generation of better educated Singaporeans. It is agreed that there should also be more participation from the people, but it should not be from a select group but a wider one. Consultation with people should not be seen as mere lip service but be genuine, lest the people think that irrespective of their views, the Government will push through its proposed legislation, whatever is said. However, I would like to add a word of caution in case we get carried away and forget that ultimately the Government must govern, dissenting views notwithstanding. We have to guard against carrying the question of consultation to an extreme. As in the past of hard-headed leadership, if a bitter pill must be swallowed for the good of the country and strong measures implemented despite popular resistance, the Government should not flinch, but should proceed even if consultation with the people shows its unpopularity. In this I applaud our First Deputy Prime Minister when he was quoted as saying that he is not going to count hands in the Cabinet. I am also glad to hear from him just a moment ago that he will not govern by the opinion polls. There is no contradiction in his style of building consensus and putting his foot down. The art of government is indeed the ability to seek a balance between seeking views and opinions and selling a hard decision. It is not to go to the people on each and every single issue. I believe the right mix and balance will come when our next Prime Minister establishes that level of rapport and trust with the people which is enjoyed by the Prime Minister. Many Singaporeans will agree with me that when I say we want participation, we also need strong leadership. On the lower income group and the market economy, Sir, I have spoken out for the lower income group on several occasions in this House. A number of my honourable colleagues have also covered this subject with much passion in the last two days. Despite the burgeoning middle class, the plight of the lower income group is a matter close to the hearts of hon. Members. We can identify with them because most of us come from that very same background. We see in them shades of ourselves and our family. However, at the same time, as rational and thinking people, we also realise, as do many East European populations, that a market economy is the only workable system which will bring the desired benefits to the people. A market economy is efficient, effective and allocates resources with the least wastage. This being so, it seems to be a ruthless weapon and strikes fear in those not accustomed to this effectiveness. This very fear is one which East Germans now face in the union with West Germany -the fear that a market economy tends to penalise those who are less able and privileged. Hence, the question for the Government to address is not whether we should or should not privatise this or that service. The question to ask is how do we do so without pushing our less privileged into an even more disadvantaged position. In this, I am certain the views expressed by my colleagues, Dr Vasoo and Dr Koh Lam Son, are worthy of consideration. Dr Vasoo's call for graded services is in fact the opposite side of the same coin of our progressive tax structure, and that is, the more able should shoulder more without letting this becoming a disincentive. We have always urged our people to be more compassionate and show more concern for the less fortunate in our society. Besides the 25th Anniversary Charity Fund, our people have responded positively in many other ways. As for the Government, this question of the poor has been continually highlighted in each President's Address since I became a Member of this House. It is time therefore that the Government set the example and put into concrete form by adopting some of the suggestions brought up by my colleagues. This will not only send a positive signal to our people, but will go down well with the people. I welcome the First Deputy Prime Minister's undertaking just a moment ago that more practical measures will be put into place in the next few months. Here, indeed it is the real challenge to the Government - of how to balance efficiency of privatisation and, at the same time, easing the burden of those who are most adversely affected. Sir, the last area I want to highlight is social refinements and work ethics. I wish to pose this question to the House and to all Singaporeans. We have reached a high level of economic development which few can deny, but have we arrived? Have we as a nation, and a people, attained that level of maturity and graciousness that marks the great civilisations of the world? We have acquired the trappings of comfortable living, but have we imbibed the nectar of life? My humble submission is that we have yet to acquire the social refinements that mark a long established and mature society. We are more like the nouveau riche. We have the money but we still lack the social graces that mark a great nation. How else do you explain the phenomenon of Singaporeans piling up on their buffet plates with more than they can possibly consume just because the price tag covers all they can eat? I believe, Sir, that we need time to grow, and to arrive in the real sense of the word. What we are is to some extent no fault of our people's. It is just that - like good wine - we also need time to mature. I would, therefore, urge our new leaders to set as our next national goals, superseding even that of economic development, the nurturing of social refinements and our people as a great people. Like the man who strives to get out of his fishing village by succeeding in the big and rough city, and then working day and night so as to have the luxury of going fishing, let us not lose sight of the philosophical and social side of economic development. At the same time, as we go for the softer aspects of life, social refinement, culture, music and the arts, we should not lose sight of what brought us here - our survival instincts and our relentless pursuit of economic growth. Are these two objectives contradictory? Must we lose one to gain the other? My view, Sir, is that we can have both. First, by continuing to emphasise and not lose sight of meritocracy as an important foundation or pillar of our system; and secondly, by working smart. Computers, office automation and the new technologies will give us the additional edge we will need to improve ourselves economically and still have the time for more leisure activities and a more refined life-style. We need not equate a more relaxed life-style as a dent in our work ethics so long as we are better equipped with the new tools and technologies. The real challenge is how to instill in our people the survival instincts of our forefathers and the older generation and, at the same time, pursue the trappings and refinements of a developed society. This, I believe, is a balance which will be struck over time. Sir, the marathon goes on. Some may say the next leaders' task is fine-tuning what has been achieved and passed on to them. I submit that our task is more than this. There are greater heights to scale and we have completed but one leg of our marathon and the end is not in sight. While we identify the goals for the new milieu, I submit we should strive not for the good years - as historically we have not yet had that many - but for better years. Our future development should not be one based preponderantly on economic yardsticks. Instead, it should now be based on social ones as well. To be judged to be successful, the Government has to meet the contradictions I have highlighted. Of even more importance is the ability of the new leadership to establish the kind of rapport and understanding with our people - the understanding that when we reach out to the young, we are not alienating the elderly; that when we cater to the middle class, we have not forgotten the less fortunate; and that when we search for life's refinements, we are not seen to de-emphasise hard work. Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I just want to reply to a point that my friend, Dr Ow Chin Hock, made just now concerning a speech that I made three weeks ago. Sir, I think I was misunderstood by Dr Ow Chin Hock when I listened very carefully to what he said. What I had said on that occasion was that instead of the three cultural months that we have this year, perhaps for the future we could consider having a single cultural festival at which the different cultures could be displayed for all to see. But he misunderstood me and said that this would be a rojak arrangement where all the cultures will somehow be mixed and we will have something which is a messy mixture. This is not at all what I had proposed. What I had suggested was that if there was an occasion when all the cultures of all our different races were to be displayed, and the achievements were to be shown at one place and at one time, then the visitors to this festival would have the opportunity not only to see the achievements of their own culture but also what others have to show. This would lead to greater exposure and understanding of the diverse cultures that we have. Sir, it is all a question of what the objectives are. If the objective of a single cultural month is to teach members of that race what their culture is, then of course having separate cultural months will achieve that. I was told that this year, with our three cultural months, many of the visitors to the Chinese Cultural Month were Chinese; those who visited the Malay Cultural Month were Malays; and those who visited the Indian Cultural Month were Indians. If the objective is to teach the respective races their own culture, of course, that has achieved it. But if we have another objective, which is to expose our people to the cultures of others, and therefore to bring about greater understanding and perhaps even a greater sense of unity as a nation, then my suggestion, I think, has some merit. I just want to make this point.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not misunderstand the Senior Minister of State's speech. From what I have read in the newspaper reports and the official press release of his speech, I know that he did not intend to have a rojak culture. In fact, our exchange just now has already reflected the lingual or cultural difference between the two of us. He did not know exactly what I said because he heard my speech through an interpreter. I agree with him that apart from encouraging various races to be proud of their own cultures, we must also give the other races an opportunity to learn from each other's culture. But I would like to ask a very simple question: In that case, are we not like a three-ring circus in the United States where they have three rings performing at the same time? Next question is, what are we going to have for our opening ceremony? Should it be Malay, Indian or Chinese? Should we have all these performances at the same time? If so, we have already done that in our National Day rally, carnival and other festivals. If we want our people to appreciate the cultures of other races, I think the most effective way is through television. With television, we could introduce the cultures to the other races. A few years ago, I suggested to the then Minister for Culture, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, that we should publish a booklet on the traditions and customs of the various races so that the younger generation could learn about these customs and traditions. Moreover, for the decision maker in the Ministry of Education (MOE), may I suggest that when we are having the cultural months, the MOE should organize the students to visit these activities so that they could understand these cultures.

( In Mandarin): Sir, actually many important points have already been brought up in Parliament by my colleagues and the First Deputy Prime Minister. But I still wish to make use of this opportunity to raise some of my own personal views. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister and his team for what they have done in the past 30 years, bringing Singapore from a backward fishing village to a modernised society, a garden city with luxuriant growth. This achievement cannot be described in a few sentences. They risked their lives, sacrificed their families and their time to work for the Singapore people. I must also thank our last generation for their hard work and cooperation with the Government so that we can enjoy the peace and prosperity of today and have a share in today's economic success. So if we decide to regard our Prime Minister as the Father of Singapore, nothing can be more appropriate than that. We must also welcome our First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh, for what he said just now. We can see that our successors are no opportunists and we will not rule by pleasing the masses by twisting reality or misleading our voters. We will continue to work for the interest of Singaporeans and for the general good. Therefore, when I study the President's Address and various Addenda, I feel that what Singapore has achieved economically and in infrastructure is obvious and there are not many things we can point an accusing finger at. But I feel what we have to stress is how do we raise the quality of Singaporeans and to raise their spiritual development and a sense of national solidarity. In fact, in the past two days, some of my colleagues have raised the issue about some Singaporeans' attitude towards life and they have complained that they are unable to catch up with the economic development of the country. And their mentality remains at the stage of a developing nation. Some of my colleagues have also mentioned that Singaporeans are ugly and they suffer from this "kiasu" syndrome. To me, put simply, all these have to do with what our future leaders, our parents, corporate bodies, our social and cultural activities. More importantly, it has to do with our education system and its implementation in deciding what sort of a society Singapore will become. When I studied the information I received from the Ministry of Education, what moved me was that fact that we have set aside $2 billion in our budget for education. This is more than in New Zealand. Australia has a population seven times our population, but what they spend on is only four times of what we are spending. So we are indeed putting a lot of emphasis on education. What I am talking about is not education in its narrow sense. This not only includes formal education. I will first talk about formal education and then general education. In order to provide parents with more choices and in an effort to raise the general standard of education , what we have done in increasing our universities and higher tertiary institutions is credible. But I feel in order to cultivate a creative society perhaps the Government needs to consider allocating more funds on research. And as for primary and secondary schools, I am happy to see in the Addendum on the Ministry of Education plans are underway to convert secondary and primary schools into full-day schools. And I think this should not be delayed any more. But before we launch the full-day system, during this transitional period, what we should do is to help some schools which have shown a willingness in providing before and after school care. I think the Government should give them the necessary financial and personnel support. Another point that I am happy to see is that the Ministry of Education has also aimed at raising the quality of staff in primary school. But I have on several occasions raised in the House that 90% of our pre-school children attend day care and kindergarten before they enter primary school. So I hope the Ministry of Education, besides putting efforts at improving the quality of primary school staff, they should also help to train pre-school and kindergarten staff as well. As our Prime Minister said in 1974 in the World Teachers' Seminar, no matter how advanced and good the facilities are more important is the relationship between the teachers and the students, as a positive relationship, can help motivate the child to reach his potential in learning. Such relationship also serves to help children in their formative years form a positive attitude towards life. Therefore, in the process of formulating a syllabus for our national values, I think the most important factor is teachers' qualification because they serve as models for our next generation. So I think while improving our teaching aids, we must also work on this teacher/pupil relation and their moral education. This is what I call formal education. The next point which is more important is adult education. The fact that our parents often put pressure on their children is because under the present system formal education is the only way to success and it is only through university education that their children can become a lawyer, engineer, doctor, etc. But we know that in may advanced countries they put a lot of emphasis on adult education, especially in terms of technical training. So a child does not necessarily have to attend university to become a professional engineer. This is especially true in Germany where their vocational training in line with the work a person does. Through opportunities in night school, and open-university and Television school they can become engineers. If we can strengthen this type of remedial education in the adult education project, I can be certain that parents and the society will change their attitude towards education, that is to say, every person in every stage of his life can continue to learn. Therefore, I call on the Ministry of Education that although expenses in this area can be high and cost of per capita investment is high, they should consider it so that those who do not make it in the formal education system may be able to work towards a professional certificate. At the moment, most people's attitude towards VITB is biased and I think this is wrong. They see VITB students as naughty kids. But lately from what the VITB has done in raising charity fund. I can see they are concerned members of the society. They have raised $400,000. For these children, our objective should be how to tailor courses for these students to suit their work, so they can continue to attend night class and eventually get that professional qualification. Only this way will parents change their attitude towards VITB. Perhaps this has to do with the negative attitude our society has towards those who work with their hands. What Germany and Japan have achieve today, I believe, stem from the importance and respect they place on technical personnel. Although I believe a name may not be that important, psychologically, many may still be bogged by the negative image on VITB. Therefore, I suggest changing VITB's image into a vocational training board may be more appropriate, thus changing parents' concept towards VITB. Another area of training is on the workers. Japan's leading role today comes from many factors. I trust the minister knows more than I do. When we visited the various factories in various countries, training for workers in Japan is continuous and it is not based on individual stages of production but according to the 5-year or 10-year plan of the company. And I know that when some companies in Singapore undergo restructuring or the production procedures, they push all their failures onto the workers, saying that the workers' standard is only that of Primary 6 and that they cannot be trained. With the change in production procedure, they are retrenched. This is a very negative way indeed. A more positive way would be for the company to raise its competitiveness. the company should carry out total restructuring in workers' training. I read in the NPB's report that they are to get companies to spend 4% of their salaries on retraining of their workers. This indeed is good news. Perhaps this figure should be reviewed every year to see whether they are coping with the needs. Through such complete training programme, I am convinced that our 20% of the lower income workers, ie, those who are unable to catch up with our economic growth, will also have a chance to improve themselves and their lifestyle subsequently. What I have touched on has to do with a certain aspect of human quality and it involves the way they earn a living and their training. The other aspects are the moral attitudes and spiritual development and what we were debating about - a national identity. This needs more time. Personally, what I feel is the most important factor or an indirect means is not through talk or through celebrations. More important, every one should serve as an example. What we believe and what we do will effect our next generation. Our political leaders are chosen by us and we choose them because we have our aspirations and expectations on them. But we cannot say that they must comply with the wishes of the people in every way. Let us say, everyone may aspire for a car. Sometimes an individual's aspirations may come into conflict with our national interest, then there must be control. Take our second language requirement, for example, if parents were given a choice, although they can appreciate the advan- tage of learning the mother tongue, for obvious benefits and to lighten their children's load, they would drop it. Given a choice, children may not even want to study it at all. So I am happy to hear the First Prime Minister say that he will not rule by the count of hands and that he will not mislead the people to win popular votes. I am happy to see that our successors have this firm stand and we fully support them in continuing to bring Singaporeans a better life.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Tanglin to express our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of the Second Session of the Seventh Parliament on 7th June. Sir, the President's brief Address is Singapore's response to the challenges of the future. It reflects our aspirations and desires for the future, to create a Singapore of excellence and distinction, developed, mature, existing in an atmosphere of stability and peace. It is not a statement of unfulfilled desires, as claimed by the Member for Potong Pasir, but is in continuation and an enhancement of the real and concrete efforts we have taken so far. The President's Address was delivered at a very significant moment for Singapore. It was delivered while we are celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Singapore's independence. We are now at the threshold between two different generations, moving from a generation meeting the demands of independence to a generation evolving a society of excellence, from a generation seeking to fulfil basic needs, ie, food, clothing, housing, jobs, education and health, to a generation living comfortably, cultured, artistic and strong in human compassion, from a generation sufficient in physical requirements to one that has its inner and spiritual needs satisfied. We are now in the phase of a society approaching maturity. In this sense, we are entering a more difficult and complicated arena, one that will challenge our capability. We are moving from the state in which every step, every action taken, every programme, are readily measured and gauged, into a state in which a common yardstick can no longer apply. This is because we are no longer faced with the responsibility of meeting just the needs of the masses, but also of satisfying the diverse and often arbitrary desires of the individual. In the past, we could come up with statistics to show what percentage of the population owned flats, how much they earned a month, what their qualifications were. Today, flat ownership is no longer the consideration. The question now is how meaningful it is and how satisfied one is with one's flat. The same applies to monthly income. It is no longer a question of just how much one earns, but what one can do with it. It is no longer a question of what one's educational qualifications are but what discipline is preferred, what purpose will the qualification serve and what satisfaction can one gain from it, having achieved it through such stiff competition in school. Sir, we are moving from tangible considerations to abstract considerations, from the objective to the subjective world. Another point I would like to make is that as a society achieves maturity, social stratification will appear, with all its attendant features and effects. Social stratification manifests itself not only in terms of income, social status and education, but also in terms of lifestyles and perception of life and a slower social mobility. As long as there are ample opportunities to climb the social ladder and social mobility is fast, we have little problems. But when we are faced with the situation now prevalent in the United States and Europe, where social mobility is so slow, we will have to do something before society falls apart. Mr Deputy Speaker, the higher our economic advancement and the more complex our infrastructure, the more specialisation would be required. This will mean more diverse tasks and roles for our citizens, leading in turn to differences in social perception. If these different perceptions are not homogenised through a set of shared values, we will encounter fresh problems. Signs in this direction began to surface some time ago in the commonly-held ideas, particularly among parents, of the difference between white collar and blue collar jobs. As a result of public prejudice, parents became reluctant to send their children who are not performing well academically to vocational institutes. This puts us in double disadvantage. Firstly, our children gain only limited education or, indeed, are uneducated or unskilled at all. Secondly, while the country thirsts for skilled workers, we cannot rely on our unskilled young people and have to import foreign skilled labour, thus adding to our social ills. To address this problem, VITB must bridge the information gap through publicity in schools to highlight the achievements of VITB trainees. Members of the public who are unsure about the functions of VITB should be encouraged to approach its institutes whenever they hold their open houses. We have to change our attitudes toward blue collar workers because they too have a not insignificant contribution to the economy. Imagine the situation if, for some unavoidable reason, the blue collar workers we had brought in leave us en masse. Production will stop, factories will close down. The managers and the white collar workers in the organisations affected would lose their jobs, too. Mr Deputy Speaker, I cite the example of VITB trainees and graduates just to emphasise the importance of adopting and maintaining a positive attitude and social perception in our society. It is because of the need to evolve and uphold a set of shared values that the President dealt with the National Ideology in his Address. The thrust of his message is that we need to reach a consensus in our social attitudes towards and perceptions of each other regardless of race, religion, profession or income. Everyone of us has a role to play and a contribution to make and these form an inseparable part and, indeed, a guarantee, of our existence and well-being. Sir, we are now in the process of leadership transition. This is not a transition in the usual sense, but a transition in continuity. The Hon. Prime Minister will be relinquishing his post by the end of the year. To the people of Singapore, he is the man who built, developed and moulded the independent Singapore that exists today. I agree with the Member for Yuhua that Prime Minister Lee is the Father of Singapore, the man who was prepared to make sacrifices and devoted himself to the realisation of the vision of a modern Singapore rising in the midst of the many failures among newly-independent countries. In the eyes of the world, Prime Minister Lee is a pearl set in an uncertain and chaotic world. He knew what Singapore wanted. Many foreign leaders welcome his opinion, even as the Western media, while admiring him, deplore the unique way he has ruled the country. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have our own philosophy and culture, and they are not the same as the West's. As for the Malay community of Singapore, they feel secure while Singapore is under the leadership of Prime Minister Lee. This is an important consideration to them. Now the leadership is to be handed over to Mr Goh Chok Tong. Will the Malay citizens of Singapore continue to feel secure? The answer is yes. The Malays of Singapore, I am confident, will continue to feel secure and will stand firm behind Mr Goh. Indeed, some quarters have even accused Mr Goh of being too concerned about the affairs of the Malays. They say Mr Goh is pro-Malay. They also charge Mr Goh with giving too much to the Malays and cite as evidence the $10 million that has been granted to Mendaki to administer. But if we were to ask the Malay community the same question, they will say Mr Goh is not pro-Malay. Sir, I think, to quote a scholar, the truth must be somewhere in between. This must be so. Mr Goh is concerned about the affairs of the Malays not because the Malays are Malays but because they are Singaporeans. He is just as concerned about the affairs of Chinese Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans and Eurasian Singaporeans, because they are all citizens of Singapore. For the same reason, the people of Singapore as a whole should appreciate and accept the short-term, medium-term and long-term measures Mr Goh and his colleagues in the Cabinet have taken. In the short-term, certain measures might appear painful and difficult to accept, but we have to view their long-term results on the stability and progress of Singapore and its population. No less important is the need to build mutual trust among us regardless of religion or descent. Indeed, this mutual trust is the prerequisite of the total involvement of every citizen of Singapore. In this connection, may I now, with your indulgence, speak on Mendaki and the tuition fees scheme for university and polytechnic students. I fully agree with the views of my fellow Malay MPs on this issue. I am aware that in the one year since the issue was first mooted and debated, there have been signs of growing schism within the Malay community over this issue. This arose from differences of opinion, perception and understanding. Such things are bound to happen in every process towards consensus through dialogue and discussion. But the decision has now been made, through consultations, and the Malay community must now put aside the past and look ahead. We must now take maximum advantage of the scheme. I believe Mendaki, in the spirit of consensus, with its clear objectives and with all the wisdom and resources available to it, will be able to put the scheme to its maximum advantage. If effective handling requires outside contribution, including expertise from our non-Malay brethren, I am sure the Government would be willing to help. I say this because, in the final analysis, we have to look in terms of seven or ten years ahead. The scheme will show its results. Would the paddy we plant this time produce large, solid, quality rice, or would there be no harvest to reap? Or would weeds grow instead? We are the ones who will answer these questions and bear the consequences. Let us ensure that an empty harvest it will not be. 5.13 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the last three days, more than 40 Members have spoken on the Motion of Thanks to the President which I had the honour and privilege of moving on Monday. All who spoke supported the motion except Mr Chiam See Tong, the Member for Potong Pasir, and Dr Lee Siew-Choh, the NCMP. In fact, even Mr Chiam supported the Motion when he first spoke yesterday. However, he decided to change horses mid-stream. This indecisiveness or fickle mindedness only reflects on himself. Before I sum up the debate, I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not correct an allegation by Mr Chiam See Tong yesterday and Dr Lee Siew-Choh today when they said that the average worker's life has not improved. Mr Chiam did not support this with any data, but merely talked about fees going up - school fees in independent schools, hospital fees, the cost of private cars and long working hours. Dr Lee used labour statistics to claim that Singaporean workers are not better off today. In so doing, he has not given the entire picture. The data I have from the same sources, however, have shown otherwise. Between 1980 and 1989, a period of nine years, the median monthly income of workers almost doubled from $409 to $764. The source is the Labour Force Survey of Singapore, 1989. The average pay per worker more than doubled over the same period, from $692 to $1,427. The source: the Yearbook of Statistics 1989. Inflation rate was low during the entire decade, having risen only 17.7% over the same period. Hence, workers enjoyed a real increase in income, and this real increase in income is a proper measure of purchasing power and, hence, living standards. Therefore, our workers and our people are certainly better off today than 10 years ago. The debate we had just last year after the Opening of the First Session of the Seventh Parliament by the President centred on three main areas: the National Ideology, multi-racial and multi-religious harmony, and our style of government. The debate which has just concluded today focused on many issues, mainly leadership transition, a consultative government and consensus building, education, shared values, a compassionate society, economic growth, and emigration. On the issue of leadership transition, all Members agree that this would be a watershed year in our political development as the Prime Minister hands over the reins of leadership to Mr Goh Chok Tong, First Deputy Prime Minister, before the end of the year. The fact that it was planned for a long time speaks well of the incumbent, of his far-sightedness, and his selflessness. I think I would not be too far wrong if I were to say that most Members view the Prime Minister's departure with regret, but are happy that he would stay on in the Cabinet as a Senior Minister. The younger MPs, like myself, from the last batch in 1988 have not had the same privilege as our older parliamentary colleagues of listening to him in Parliament and learning from him the cut and thrust that sharpen debating skills. However, we have learned in other ways from his speeches elsewhere and other informal contacts. And I am sure we will continue to learn from him in the future. At the same time, Members are greeting Mr Goh Chok Tong's assumption of leadership with confidence - confidence in the knowledge that he will maintain his open, participative and consensual style of leadership but at the same time remain decisive and firm. Members have also expressed support to rally behind him and his new team. This brings me to the next issue of a consultative government and consensus building, which many MPs spoke on. Many Members saw the consultative and consensus building mechanisms established so far, such as the Feedback Unit, Select Committees, and GPCs, as a genuine attempt by the Government to be open and receptive. Unfortunately, some members of the public are still sceptical. More public relations exercises will therefore be necessary to get the remaining sceptics on board. Many of my parliamentary colleagues also dealt with the subject of education. Recognising that in land-scarce Singapore, developing our manpower resources to their fullest potential was the only way to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity, Members urged the Government to improve the quantity and quality of education so that none who qualify would be denied a place here. At the same time, our graduating children will not only be good at examinations but also become creative and more enterprising. Further investments in educational institutions were urged so that people would have much more flexibility and choice in the system. A few Members also spoke on the issue of shared values. Although it was felt that there was a need now to forge a Singaporean identity to unite the people despite differences in race, culture and religion, not all MPs thought that a formal statement on shared values would do the job. Much more will probably be said on this subject when this House debates the White Paper on shared values later on this year. Sir, let me now sum up the views on a compassionate society. It was felt that in our search for excellence and economic progress, we should not become intolerant and soulless. We should still remember the less fortunate financially or physically and make special attempts to pull them on board not only with aid or subsidies but also with training and education. The Government was also asked to be more forgiving of those who have erred or failed in the past and to give them a second chance to start anew. This tolerance of failures or mistakes will encourage greater creativity and risk-taking and help to build entrepreneurship in our people. On the economic front, MPs talked on a wide range of topics ranging from calls for development of local MNCs to forming strategic business alliances, and the formation of a northern growth triangle with Hongkong and Taiwan, in addition to the Johor-Batam-Singapore triangle for business and leisure. Others, however, felt that Singapore should go regional rather than plug in with certain countries so as to avoid misunderstanding with our neighbours. Ultimately, however, it seems to boil down to the issue of how we can exploit our critical success factors of loca- tion, political stability and our people in order to remain competitive and attractive to investors, of how we can increase our GNP further so that our workers, our people will have more good years ahead. This brings me to the old but difficult subject of how the Government can meet the challenge of making Singapore attractive to our people so that they will stay and help build a nation. Apart from meeting the basic economic needs, Members also urged the Government to meet the people's higher needs by giving them more choices in their life and their work, and in their leisure. Retention of seemingly little things in life, such as small traditions and shared experiences, was also suggested to help Singaporeans call Singapore home, and perhaps even to lure those who have gone away to come back to Singapore. Sir, apart from these main issues, Members also expressed their views and concerns, together with exhortations, on many other subjects which are equally good food for thought. For example, both Malay and non-Malay MPs alike have called on the Malay community to rally behind Yayasan Mendaki and help to get it going. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to mention them all here without giving you all indigestion. I am sure we will discuss some of these issues again in the future. Let me conclude by thanking all Members again for their contributions and support of the motion. I must also thank the Speaker, and you too, Mr Deputy Speaker, for presiding over this debate with great patience. Thank you. [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 Second Session of this Parliament."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name. The motion speaks for itself and I need not say more. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection: Mr S. Chandra Das Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lee Yiok Seng Encik Sidek bin Saniff Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam Mr Wong Kan Seng BG George Yong-Boon Yeo.

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:- Mr S. Chandra Das Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lee Yiok Seng Encik Sidek bin Saniff Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam Mr Wong Kan Seng BG George Yong-Boon Yeo.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. figures - VEHICLE QUOTA SYSTEM (Cols. 261 - 262)