Hansard, 1991-02-27

PERMISSION TO MEMBERS TO BE ABSENT Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Lee Kuan Yew - on 27th February, 1991. Mr Lim Chee Onn - on 1st March and from 6th to 9th March, 1991. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed - from 6th to 9th March and from 17th to 31st March, 1991. Dr Lee Boon Yang - from 7th to 10th March, 1991. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

BILL INTRODUCED - LAND SURVEYORS BILL "to establish the Land Surveyors Board, to provide for the registration of land surveyors, to regulate the qualifications and practice of land surveyors, to regulate corporations which engage in title survey work in Singapore and to repeal the Land Surveyors Act (Chapter 156 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Peter Sung) (on behalf of the Minister for Law), read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [26th February, 1991], '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 Third Session of this Parliament.".' -[Mr Davinder Singh]. Question again proposed.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Address given in this House last week. It was an inspiring speech, bold in vision and comprehensive in scope which, when implemented, will bring this country to a new and higher phase of development. Sir, the following statements, to my mind, encapsulate the ideals and aspirations contained in the agenda: 'In the next lap, we must strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans. We want to change attitudes and develop civic pride. Every citizen should treat Singapore as he would treat his own home. ... We must work together to build, expand, and upgrade it.' In one sense, we have arrived. We are, by most standards, rich materially. There are few things that we cannot find here that are found elsewhere in the world. We devour new products and fashion with ferocity. Objects have become to be assessed by the status or prestige in their ownership rather than their intrinsic value or necessity. In other words, we have become rather blase, about our material comforts and begin to take them for granted. Things work in this country. Our garbage is cleared every day, our streets are swept clean. Water and electricity flow as if they are free and unlimited in supply. Our system of rewards favours the capable, the daring, the high achiever. People are measured by the kind and amount of rewards that they can amass for themselves. In sum, Sir, we risk ending up a country with a lot of glitter, like a well-appointed hotel, but with little soul; with many travellers, but no owners who are emotionally attached to this place and to call it home. Someone I know, Sir, who has since migrated, once told me that he was merely treated and felt like a tenant here in Singapore. He was judged by his economic worth and contribution, by what he could pay. So, as a tenant, he argued, he expected good and proper service and good facilities to be provided by the Government. It was purely an economic arrangement that he did not feel compelled to harbour any feeling or attachment to this place. While we may disagree with his sentiments, I cannot but feel uncomfortable by the symptoms that he and perhaps many others like him have begun to show on their relationship with Singapore. While Government has good and valid reasons for emphasising excellence and achievement, we may not be totally guiltless in creating the kind of environment which has led to such feelings among some Singaporeans here. So we have to change attitudes, as the President has asserted. We have to create an environment where Singaporeans would be inclined to have deep attachments to this country. The methods outlined in the Presidential Address would help us create this environment. Government has to set the tone. But apart from the methods and measures mentioned, Sir, we could perhaps do more in creating a softer and gentler environment for those who do not excel, those who are less capable and those who do not make the grade at the first try, either in school or at the workplace. The slow developers or the disinterested school leavers who later realise the error of their ways have little opportunities to re-enter into the education mainstream. Then, we appear to be too unforgiving to those who have erred, but later repented. We are rather reluctant to give them a second chance, to redeem themselves and be given the opportunity to contribute to society later in life. If Singapore is to be a place for everybody, then we cannot ignore the aspirations and hopes of these people. If we want them to feel at home in Singapore and feel attached to this place, then we must not make them feel unwanted and discounted. The avenues and opportunities to be recognised must therefore be widened. The emphasis on paper qualification is understandable, but not when it becomes all-consuming and all-determining. We often blame parents for pushing their children and ask them to exert less pressure when we ourselves have stressed the primacy of a good paper qualification in the assessment of a person's ability and potential and in rewarding him or her. Then there are those who had erred some time in the past. It appears that their transgressions follow them well into their future, blocking further opportunities for them to lead a normal and useful life. Our attitude seems to be that if one has muddied one's feet, he or she should forever be banned from entering into the house even when those feet have been wiped clean. But, Sir, to do so would leave them little or no choice but to remain in the mud outside the house. We must create as wide an environment as possible to include as many of our citizens as possible, so long as we do not compromise our ideals and fundamentals. We need to bring as many of our citizens as possible on board for unless we do so there may be more and more who will find it difficult to identify emotionally with Singapore. Let me now come to racial and religious harmony. I agree with the Member for Serangoon Gardens yesterday when he mentioned that these fundamental issues had not been dealt with in the Presidential Address. Granted that the issues had been dealt with before, it bears repeating and discussion, if not, review. What do we expect 25 years from now? What do we see happening in terms of inter-racial, inter-religious relations in time to come? How do we retain our differences and yet remain united? While these will have to be discussed more openly, it will have to be done more dispassionately. We will still have to tread carefully and unhastily, always cognisant of the sensitivities involved and the readiness of our people to do so. Just yesterday, Sir, in this House, two MPs lost no time in responding to Dr Lau Teik Soon when the latter expressed his views on how the different cultures should evolve and should be presented. I would suggest that this issue be addressed and an agreement as to how we would proceed be reached. The defensiveness and the enthusiasm with which Messrs Goh Choon Kang and Peh Chin Hua pushed their arguments went to show that the issue evoked strong and deep feelings which we in this House cannot ignore. If MPs can display such feelings, imagine the emotions that could be evoked in a free-for-all discussion in the market-place. So while a freer and open discussion of issues is laudable and even inevitable, sensitive issues which touch the heart will have to be consciously dealt with, and with care. In this connection, I would also like to inquire the progress in implementing the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act which we passed last year, more specifically, on the setting up of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Sir, let me conclude by hailing the President's Address as a significant milestone in the history of this country as it attempts to bring us into a new era in Government-citizen relationship and a qualitative change in our non-material environment. We have reason to be expectant but before we become too euphoric of the exciting prospects that lie ahead of us, we should always remind ourselves of the constraints that we have to face and the fundamentals that have brought us to where we are today, and to make the vision laid out in the President's Address possible in the first place.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, while so many newly independent countries are still struggling to give substance to their independence by providing basic facilities for their people, Singapore has succeeded well in this area and, indeed, has achieved way beyond providing basic necessities for almost all its people. No doubt, an honest, dedicated and farsighted leadership and a hardworking citizenry, along with pragmatic policies, have brought results in terms of prosperity and progress. Our people have achieved a high standard of living and we are now poised to run the next lap with a new agenda for action. The Presidential Address clearly outlines the objectives we have to achieve. We are seeking not only to keep up the success we have achieved, but also to build stronger foundations for our people to attain even better progress and higher distinction. Mr Speaker, I would like to focus my attention on one aspect, building a new socio-cultural environment, something which has recently aroused heated discussion and even led to the debate we saw yesterday and today. We need to look into this aspect because, firstly, we are shifting our style and approach to resolving problems and issues, through open participation by the people. We are emphasising consultation, the readiness to listen to public views and consider their proposals in formulating our national policies. Secondly, realising the aspirations and desires of our younger generation and the trend towards evolving a new political culture, we want more young people to come forward and join us in building and shaping our future. Thirdly, the new phase that we are moving into makes new demands on us, requiring far more than economic pragmatism, social discipline, political stability and hard work. It requires a spiritual strength capable of lifting and transforming us into a society of even higher distinction. Mr Speaker, we are now on a new path. Unless we act wisely, this path could lead to bigger problems for us. What we are seeking now, Sir, is a new strength that could propel us effectively into a new era of progress. I call this new element a 'new propellant', something capable of sparking a new dynamism and at the same time keep us on a steady course. We want to find the formula for this 'new propellant' in the wealth that we possess, the wealth I am sure still exists in the treasury of our cultures. If the American spirit of free enterprise was launched by Calvinism; if the Japanese could overtake United States through a new perspective on Shintoism; if the Koreans could give new meaning to their culture of survival; if the Swiss could formulate their own unique philosophy, we must find our inner strength in the elements existing in our own multi-racial culture. Why our culture? Why not Western culture, when we have committed ourselves to making English our administrative language, our language of learning, technology and progress? Mr Speaker, natural order does not allow this in Singapore. Western culture puts priority on the individual. And this idea has been sown, nurtured and nourished in a socio-cultural environment alien to us. While it has successfully brought Western societies to their glory, this culture now runs into problems in carrying the West into a new phase. People might see it as natural for a culture to grow and mature and then decline before dying out, but this theory of civilisation cycle has certain elements of fatalism. Every culture and civilisation really contains the seeds for a new civilisation, which must be identified, nurtured and developed scientifically in order that they could bring forth a new, even more glorious civilisation. Singapore is fortunate in having cultures originating from some great civilisations, spanning hundreds, even thousands of years. I am of course refering to the Chinese, Indian, Malay and Western cultures that, individually, possess such enormous potentials. We must seek the strength for our 'new propellant' in the meeting of these cultures and civilisations. Promoting consciousness of our Malay, Indian, Chinese or other roots is the right start. However, Mr Speaker, we should not limit ourselves to only the external aspects of our cultures, such as the ceremonies and the celebrations. More important is selecting and developing the mental and intellectual aspects of these cultures. These are like the roots of a tree, that spread through the soil seeking minerals and nourishment so that the tree could grow strong and flourish. The ceremonies, celebrations and artistic aspects of each culture are but the leaves and the flowers, the manifestations of the flourishing of the plant. We must look into the mental and intellectual aspects existing in the cultures of Singapore and identify elements that we can turn into the foundations of an even more dynamic, potent future. Would we by doing so become more conscious of our differences and thus create stumbling blocks in the way of a cohesive society? More to the point, Mr Speaker, would the concern about this approach result in divisions among us? I think no new undertaking or endeavour can be free of problems. If we emphasise the differences, of course, division would be the result. But if we try our level best to seek this new dynamism by stressing the similarities existing in our various cultures, we would overcome the initial problems that might arise as a result and continue to use this new discovery for our common objectives and benefit. Efforts in this direction will necessarily be a long process and must be handled carefully and sensitively. I think the hon. Member for Siglap has just emphasised the importance of handling this issue with circumspection. We must realise that every culture possesses enormous latent strength. Simply pushing it into the ground will not eliminate it, for it would re-surface the moment the situation changes. Just look at developments in Europe and other parts of the world. The recent resurgence of racial differences in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, Northern Mediterranean, even Canada, and some African countries, is a reality we cannot ignore. For centuries, race and ethnicity have been de-emphasised in the interest of ideology and the policy of assimilation, yet the menace of racial difference has now reappeared to threaten the integrity of the nations concerned. This does not mean, however, Mr Speaker, that there is no formula we can look for. We can still identify existing similarities. To me, it is better to take a hard look at our various cultures and try to find elements of similarities among them, than try to de-emphasise them or assimilate them or otherwise let the different cultures grow untendedly along their own separate paths, for there remain a lot of common grounds that we can identify in our multi-cultural society, that we can develop to create a new synthesis for Singapore. These elements can then be a source of strength for all of us. I support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC, thanking the President for his Address to this Parliament last Friday evening. Building on the Foundation Singaporeans have every reason to be hopeful and confident of the future. The change in the Prime Ministership has been smooth and orderly. Though the future is uncertain, our foundations are strong, secure and sound. We have worked hard. We have been thrifty. We have managed our public funds well. We have accumulated our savings and wealth from the surpluses of the years of high economic growth. The Government's commitment has always been to invest in the future for the long-term benefit of our citizens. It is only right that all Singaporeans share in Singapore's prosperity. However, all benefits cannot be distributed and shared equally. The manner in which resources are being allocated reflects our priority. The question is whether we agree with the priorities set in this country. There might be distortions with inequities created by market forces. Then intervention and assistance from the Government is needed to smooth out the edges, especially in the subjective and less quantifiable areas. Participation and Involvement Sir, I am all for wider participation and free and open consultation. The difficulty is when people look from their narrow individual perspective and they do not give regard to others. They only want their interests to be served and met. These people could not accept decisions and policies that do not meet with their own desires and expectations. There is no doubt that the Government should pay heed to all shades of opinions and views. But if the Government whose intentions and objectives have been noble and sincere, Singaporeans must support the Government in carrying out these policies. Singaporeans need to understand the process involved in decision-making rather than just looking at the policy alone. 40% with Tertiary Education The aim of having 40% of each age group qualifying for polytechnic and university is to be welcomed. Having more graduates is better than having less. They will only improve our national averages in knowledge and skills. I hope that with more graduates from the polytechnic and the university, we would be able to groom more Singaporean entrepreneurs in the process. I think the dearth of Singaporean entrepreneurs may be the result of fewer graduates than needed in Singapore to provide the competition and the impetus for them to succeed rather than just in the profession and in salaried careers. However, parents and students ought to understand that with a larger pool of university and polytechnic graduates, the rewards and remuneration will not be comparable to earlier days when the number of graduates in employment were not as many. Higher education is not for higher career achievement and reward alone. It brings with it intrinsic value that makes for better individuals. Rather than just focusing the young and those who are coming out from schools, the Government should also consider providing opportunities to many working adults who have missed the polytechnic and university education. For those who are able to continue to further their studies, every effort and opportunity should be given to allow these working adults to pursue their diplomas and degrees in adult life. Ageing Population and Retirement Age I feel strongly that we should not hesitate any longer to extend the retirement age of the Singaporean workers. We should immediately make it compulsory to extend the retirement age to 60 and, maybe, sometime in the future, to 65. Our population is ageing. Many retire from working when they are still able to continue employment. We also see many foreign workers being employed. We have to make the necessary internal adjustments in the employing organisations to employ our Singaporean staff for as long as possible. Our people have the education and experience to contribute to our economy. We should all recognise that foreign workers are not the long-term solution for Singapore. Learning the Mother Tongue I am glad that there is no let-up in the teaching and learning of the mother tongue in schools, particularly the Chinese language. I am pleased that the Government has recognised and accommodated this difficulty experienced by some Chinese children. Because of the differing linguistic ability, some may need many more years learning the language, even into adult life. What is needed is to encourage and not deter the learning of the mother tongue. What the Ministry of Education is doing is laudable. Poor Families Owning HDB Apartments Sir, the plan to help many of the poorer families to own their own homes is welcomed. Many of such families live in the 1-room and 2-room rented flats. They have been paying rent all this while that they have been staying in the rented flats. They do not benefit from the appreciation of property value of these HDB flats even though they have been staying in them for many years and, most probably, the Government will benefit much by tearing these old HDB rented flats down and build new ones in its place and sell them at higher prices. As a concession, I wonder if the Government could favourably consider allowing the rents that have been previously paid by these tenants to be treated as mortgage payments and to be credited to the HDB flats that they would be buying later on. Maybe the Government would like to clarify the schemes that they wish to introduce. I wish to support the suggestion by the Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua, that if the parents could not pay in full the mortgage for the HDB flats, they could allow the children to continue with the payments subsequently. Account ought also to be taken into the location and convenience to these poor families who certainly could not afford to spend more money on transportation. And maybe that is the reason why many of the rented flats are concentrated in the city area. These are also people who do not have CPF savings to pay for the flat on a long-term basis. Maybe something could be done to encourage them to have CPF accounts and to have savings not only for the HDB flats but also for Medisave. Singaporeans Working Overseas We have spoken much about the need for Singaporeans to diversify overseas and, particularly, in the international arena and we also want to encourage more Singaporeans to take up job postings overseas. But there are real practical difficulties faced by our executives working and based overseas. We know that there are more two-income families, with both husband and wife working. The children of school-going age are of concern to parents, especially when the posting requires the children to resume their studies back in Singapore after the posting. We should have schools in Singapore catering to children of such families where the parents are working and based abroad. The older executives whose children have grown up and are independent of the parents, they are the ones who ought to offer their services to work overseas and the employers should give them the opportunities and chance to do so. We seem to have more younger and less older ones working overseas. Employers should recognise the seniority and status of overseas offices so that the older executives do not deem that they are "being sent to Siberia" when they are posted overseas. It is important that the vision spelt out in "The Next Lap" be disseminated to all segments of our population to enthuse them of our common goals for the future. Let our citizens have no doubt that they are co-owners of these objectives and aspirations. With the unity of purpose, I am sure that all Singaporeans will rally together to bring Singapore forward to the next phase of our growth and development. Like the generation before us who has accomplished much, this generation can take similar pride with their success and achievements and hand over to the succeeding generation of Singaporeans with value-added what we have received from the previous generation.