Hansard, 1991-02-28

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:- Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe -from 5th to 9th March, 1991. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 6th to 9th March, 1991. Mr Mah Bow Tan - from 7th to 8th March, 1991. Mr Ng Pock Too - from 5th to 10th March, 1991. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a new chapter in Singapore's young history started when Mr Goh Chok Tong took office as Prime Minister on 28th November last year. He and his younger generation of leaders took over the reins of Government from the old guard led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, now Senior Minister in his Cabinet. I am one of those privileged to be able to witness such a smooth and uneventful transition of political power. For me, it was an event that could only occur as a result of pragmatic and unselfish readiness on the part of the old guard to want to ensure that Singapore continues to be governed by another group of younger, abler and committed men and women who would see to the well-being of the people and country. As we are all aware of how the team came about, I shall not belabour the point. In the past two days, many of my younger Parliamentary colleagues have made their contributions. I do not intend to make any reference to nor comment on the speeches they have made. Instead, I would like to refer hon. Members to a very important paragraph of the President's Speech of 22nd February made in this House. He said: 'The Independence generation of Singaporeans created the prosperous and secure nation that we know. They started with precious little, but have handed on to us many valuable assets. The creation of an Elected Presidency to safeguard our accumulated savings and national reserves symbolises this transformation. Today we can plan ahead for the next 25 years and marshall the resources needed to turn bold ideas into reality.' It is in this context that I shall make my observations. I do not intend to cover too long a period but suffice to trace it from 1984, which was just some six to seven years ago, to highlight what changes have taken place. The House will recall that in the 1984 General Elections, the PAP Election Manifesto was "Vision 1999" and the attainment of a standard of living comparable to that of the Swiss of 1984. At that time, the period was some 15 years down the road. Many questions were asked. "What about it? Can you really achieve it? What's Switzerland like?" And then there was the 1988 General Elections Manifesto captioned "More Good Years" and now 1991 - "The Next Lap" in the form of a book. Again many questions have been asked by the sceptics. Political opponents of the PAP described all these as vote-catching and merely empty promises that could not be met. Well, the answers to all the questions can best be found if one cares to look around for himself. I dare say the goods have been duly delivered on time simply because these plans have been implemented successfully over time. If that is not the case, then let us take a look at some of them. In the public housing scheme where home ownership is the priority, more than 87% of our people live in the new towns built by the HDB and that some 80% of them are owners of 3-rooms, 4-rooms, 5-rooms and maisonettes. The remaining 13% live in private housing estates comprising condominiums, terrace houses, semi-detached and detached houses and most of them are the owners. As for public land transport, the MRT trains run from the North to South and from the East to West interchanging at City Hall and Raffles Place. It serves hundreds of thousands of commuters each day. The MRT has enhanced the quality of life. Although it has yet to come to Punggol through the north eastern line and though I may be a bit disappointed, I can understand the priorities. Being optimistic, I still hope it will come in the not too distant future. The buses and taxis are providing an efficient service too. In this respect, the numerous expressways and trunk roads, linking other road networks, provide a smoother flow of traffic most of the time. The Singapore Changi Airport is second to none and has a second passenger terminal in operation since November last year whilst the third and fourth terminals are being planned to meet the ever increasing air traffic in the next 20-30 years. So is the Port of Singapore Authority developing and expanding to meet the demand for increase in container and port facilities. So too the Telecom. It is very common nowadays to see people carrying pagers and handphones around. This has become the lifestyle of many Singaporeans. A clear sign of affluence and success. No doubt, Singapore has become a little larger in terms of land size and area. This is largely due to land reclamation. As a result, there will be further infrastructural development to meet the needs of commercial and industrial usage. Take Marina South, as an example. There are plans for a commercial and business district to be built in the area. I recall that when I was shown the conceptual plans of this area through little blocks of miniature building models, I could imagine that the Singapore skyline would be changing quite rapidly over the years, as it has been so in the last 25 years. I was a little amazed when some people remarked that the book "The Next Lap" has more pictures than it ought to. They pointed out that if it was to set out what the next lap would be, then there should be more details spelling out the setting. On the other hand, there were some who said that they found the pictures more telling and that they could understand what it was all about. I would agree to both perceptions. On the one hand, a serious reader looks at the written words, whereas on the other hand, another looks at the pictorial side of it and tries to visualise and understand it from the pictorial aspect. However, looking at the pictures and reading the book do give one a much clearer understanding of the Next Lap. I think the book captures both the imagination as well as in spelling out what the goals are for the next 25 to 30 years. In my view, the book emphasises continuity and change with everyone having a place, role and stake in the future of Singapore. The President clearly spells out what the Goh Chok Tong Government hopes to do in the Next Lap. It is to strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans who would then treat Singapore as their own home. Such is the common bond that would help build and strengthen both the social and political fabric. Seen from this perspective, my highlighting of some of the achievements is merely to put in sharp focus that in order to transform ideas and visions into reality, which have been the case in the last 25 years, or so, the PAP leadership has been bold, imaginative and realistic enough as to face up to the challenges by marshalling the people to work hand-in-hand. They have been unflinching and, in fact, relentless in carrying out what needs to be done for the good of the people and Singapore. No one can deny that. I would like to conclude by echoing the call of Prime Minster Mr Goh Chok Tong to fellow Singaporeans to run the Next Lap together, the answer of which will be a resounding yes. This will secure Singapore's future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. It has been said that the long term goal of the Singapore Government is to make sure that Singapore survives. In the President's Address he said that his Government is planning ahead for the next 25 years. In the book titled "The Next Lap", projections of population are taken up to the year 2030. So the Government is talking about a time-frame of between 25 and 40 years from now. That is a long time in Singapore's context. Nevertheless, I agree that we should be taking certain steps now to get us to be in the right direction for if we travel in the wrong direction time will not be on our side. The Government has presented its long-term plans and its proposals which are contained in both the President's Address and the book "The Next Lap". The Member for Punggol has commented on the book. He has given his views. In my case, when I picked up the book and tried to read it, my attention was distracted by the many photographs that were in the book. I note that more than one-third of the book was filled with full-pages of coloured photographs and every page has a photograph in it, either half-page or a small photograph. Why the need for such a glossy presentation? It does not look like a book containing serious matters. If the Government wants Singaporeans to take its plans seriously, I would suggest that it presents the book in a less commercialised way. It does also reflect on the present leadership in the way the book is presented. It does reflect on the attitude and thinking of the leaders. It would appear to me they look more for the form than the substance. They appear to be extravagant and spendthrift. The book could easily be presented within 50 pages. You could put in a few photographs and I think that should be enough. They must have spent quite a lot of money putting out a hard-cover book with so many photographs. For the long-term goals of Singapore, what are my views? In my view, the Government should be taking note of four areas, other than defence. Firstly, expansion of our market. For this, I would suggest the formation of an economic union with Malaysia. This is not a new concept but I believe it is important for Singapore's long-term survival. Secondly, there is a need to establish a truly democratic way of life. Thirdly, allow Singaporeans to forge a Singapore identity and, fourthly, give priority to building a world-class education system. Singapore has a land area of about 626 sq km. It is so small that it appears only as a dot on the world map. Demographers tell us that this island can take comfortably up to 4 million people. With a population of 2.62 million currently, businessmen say that the local market is too small. I would say that even when Singapore is expanded up to a population of 4 million, our local market still cannot sustain many of our local products. We certainly lack the size, and we do not have a viable local market. It is true we are reclaiming land. But if a short person puts on high heels, there is a limit to it. So the Government says its policy is to go international. There is really no choice. Singapore businessmen are encouraged to go abroad to look for markets. But I say, as time goes on, the effort to seek more markets internationally will be more difficult and not easier. There is a fierce competition with other exporting countries and the world trend today is towards building more economic blocs. In Europe, the economic union of countries there has come into being. In fact, they are going one step further. By 1992 they hope to have a political union. And what is the talk in America? They want to form a Common Market with Canada and Mexico. When that happens, the Americans can get plenty of cheap labour in Mexico and they need not come to the Far East to set up their factories. And when that happens, Singapore will be in a difficult position. At the moment, the Government is encouraging the Golden Triangle at Johor, Riau and - Some hon. Members: Growth Triangle!

I beg your pardon. The Government is encouraging the Growth Triangle comprising Johor, Riau and Singapore. [Interruption]. Well, we hope one day that it will be a "Golden Triangle", "Golden" in the sense that it will shine and make more money. That is an economic measure, in Singapore's case, to take away labour-intensive industries from its shores. But if we take away labour-intensive industries to the neighbouring countries, how will it help us? We still lack the market to export our goods. In the long term, should the Growth Triangle turn out to be a success, it may be a disadvantage to us. When the Indonesians and Malaysians have learned to be just as efficient as ourselves, then I think we will be in a bit of a spot. A better solution would be to approach the Malaysians now to negotiate with them for an economic union. Members of the House may like to know that the SDP was formed in 1980 and one of its objectives was to strive for the establishment of an economic union, first, with Malaysia, and eventually with the other ASEAN countries. I know, at this juncture, when anyone makes this suggestion, there will be many Singaporeans who will be objecting, because they say that Singapore is now so prosperous and economically ahead of Malaysia and also our currency is so strong compared to that of Malaysia. Of course I am not saying that the path will be easy. There will be many difficult problems and I think over time we can overcome those problems. I believe that if we went into negotiations this year, perhaps we could get results in five to 10 years' time, because the Malaysians themselves are already thinking of economic blocs when they suggested the East Asian Economic Group. In the long run - we are talking about long term - the union with Malaysia will definitely be good for Singapore. Our manufacturers will then have access to a market of nearly 10-million strong. All the arguments put forward to show that Singapore will benefit economically when it merged with Malaysia in 1963 still hold good today. So this is one of the priorities which Singaporeans should work towards too if we want to have ourselves still economically viable in the long term. The second point I would touch on is that we must establish a truly democratic way of life. This, the Singapore people demand it. I believe that the Singapore people in their hearts want a democratic way of life not so much to satisfy their ego and in wanting to come forward and have a say in the affairs of the State. Singaporeans know that in the long term, there must be established institutions, especially the Opposition, to check and balance the powers of the Government. This is very important. We cannot allow one government, however honest it is, to remain in power for a long time. There must be institutions built into our system which can continually watch over, scrutinize the functions of the Government, its bureaucracy and the authorities. The Government must recognise for the sake of the long-term survival of Singapore that it should not hinder the establishment of an effective Opposition. The PAP must not be selfish and small-minded and try to remain in power forever. This is what it appears to do. For the long term good of Singapore, I would say that if there is only a single party, or one group of persons, who can wield unfettered powers, however good its intentions, there will be trouble one day. Once the people drop their guard and allow only one group, or one person, or one party, to carry on ruling the country, sooner or later the government will become corrupt. History has shown it, and Singapore is no exception. This is perhaps Singapore's greatest fear. In the long term, Singapore's survival, if it ever were to be threatened, it will not be from an external aggression but rather from an internal degeneration through corruption. We have to be ever vigilant against the natural instincts and tendencies of man for power and greed. In this respect, for the sake of Singapore's long-term survival, we must truly have a democratic system with effective checks on the people in power. The Government was quick to take advantage of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on 2nd August. A big power invaded and by force annexed a small power. Singapore is a small country and it is only right that we should draw attention to the invasion of Kuwait. That is one lesson we can learn. But the other lesson which the Government forgets to tell the people of Singapore is, in the first place, how did Kuwait get invaded and annexed and conquered? It is because of Iraq not having a democratic system, allowing one man to wield so much power that he has become a dictator and his ambition for conquest was not checked. So the other lesson for Singapore is that we must not allow one person to amass so much power. In Singapore's case, I do not think that we will have a Saddam Hussein. But we will probably have a man who will not have expansionist aims but who will perhaps slowly siphon Singapore's reserves. I think that is the danger. So what I am saying is that we should have a good democratic system and make sure that there is a check to prevent one person or one group of persons amassing too much powers, and in Singapore's case, probably bring Singapore to ruin economically and financially. The third point which I consider is important is that if we want to make Singapore our home then we must through time forge a Singapore identity. It is certainly a wrong policy to compartmentalise Singaporeans. I hope that in 20 years' time, people of Singapore do not want to hear their children say that they are Malay Singaporeans, or Chinese Singaporeans, or Indian Singaporeans, and not just Singaporeans. Each of us must be part of a whole and cannot be part of a part of a nation. If our intention is to build a Singapore nation, then we must first build a Singapore identity. This, I believe, many do realise that it is being eroded today, and we have to make a check against people who do not want to make sure that we have a Singapore identity. My last point is that it is important for Singapore's long-term survival that we must build an education system which is the best or near the best in the world. Our present education system falls far short of this aim. The Government has the means, and there is an urgent need, for a better educational system. And we should begin to construct it now and not just make future plans, and give excuses and delay in implementing an excellent or world-class education system. I would like to cite the following needs. I would call upon the Government to study and build a third university. There is a need for a third university. We have about 12,500 Singapore students studying abroad. It shows that there is a need for a third university. There is no need for them to go abroad. Many of them, in fact, have gone abroad involuntarily because they cannot get a place here. And the second point is that the Government can now establish neighbourhood libraries in all housing estates. The purpose of these neighbourhood libraries is not to duplicate the present libraries, but to make sure that our children, our younger Singaporeans have easy access to books. I have made this point before and I hope it will not fall on deaf ears this time. The other point which I have brought up before is a better teacher-pupil ratio, which I read also the Government has taken note, but it has not given a commitment to make sure that this policy is implemented now. I hope the Government will not make any more excuses and get on with it. The other problem in Singapore is the widespread use of private tutors. This is not a healthy sign for the education system. What does it show? It shows that our schools are not teaching our pupils effectively. It has been heard - even the teachers themselves admit it - that they advise the pupils: "If you want to pass Primary 6, you better get a tutor." If we have reached such a situation, I think it is very bad for Singapore. It is a well-known fact that private tutors are needed at Primary 6 level and at 'O' levels. Almost every child has a private tutor. Why the need for private tutors? It shows that the schools are not doing their jobs. And I hope the relevant Minister will take note and correct the anomaly in our education system. The other point in regard to education that is lacking in our schools is the promotion of sports and culture. This is an area which has not been given enough attention to. There seems to be a belief that to promote academicism is good in our schools. But this kind of policy is lopsided. How do Western nations become so advanced? It is because I believe they have got a good programme to promote character, to promote leadership, to promote initiative and to promote go-getters. This type of character can be promoted at the playing field, and even it has been said that the Battle of Waterloo was won at the playing field of Eton. It is due to the promotion of character-building in the English school students that make them win wars. I think Singapore should learn a lesson there. The other point which I want to bring up is not directly connected with education. But I believe that the Government should be looking into district schools rather than the student having to travel through two or three schools before he reaches his own school. The Government should encourage the students to go to the schools nearest their home. This will not cause further traffic congestion and it will be, in fact, easier for the pupils.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam is a very amusing speaker but, of course, not as amusing as Dr Lee Siew-Choh.

May I make a clarification, please?

Are you giving way, Mr Yap?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I was trying to amuse the House at all. I was never more serious. We are talking about the long-term survival of Singapore and the Member for Mountbatten is trying to make a joke out of this whole thing. I think it is not proper that he should be starting his speech in this manner.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find Mr Chiam very amusing although, as I have said, not as amusing as Dr Lee Siew-Choh.

Are you making a ruling, Sir?

I think it is not necessary to make a ruling. The Member is entitled to his views about your speech, just as you are entitled to your own views. You may continue, Mr Yap.

Mr Chiam calls the PAP "selfish" and wants the PAP or the Government to help him to become the Government. In fact, to me, if anybody should be disappointed at all, I think it should be me who is disappointed with the Party leadership, and not Mr Chiam. And I will tell you why, Sir. If you look at the number of Select Committees that Mr Chiam has been included on the various Bills and the trips that he had been taken out, he should not for any moment think that the Government is selfish. But, poor me, Sir, I have been left out of the Select Committees ---

Point of clarification, Sir. Can the Member for Mountbatten cite the number of trips I had taken, please?

I do not know how many, but I know that he was supposed to be on the China trip but, by act of nature, he ended up with chicken pox. An hon. Member: Act of God!

Act of God. So the way I look at it, Sir, he should not in any way be complaining at all. It should be me who should be complaining. As I said, I have been left out of the Select Committees, I have not been taken out overseas last year.

Can I have some clarification, Sir?

Sir, I think he has enough of his say.

The Member is not giving way, Mr Chiam.

Sir, I think my sickness should not be brought up in the august House like this. It is very personal.

Mr Yap, I would advise you to refrain from indulging in personal remarks about the Member of the Opposition.

I am sorry, Sir. But I just could not take it that he calls the Party I belong to "selfish". And as I have said, I thought that I should be the one who should be more disappointed than he is. But on second thought, I do not think, for one moment, that the leadership is unfair to me because I think they are considerate in the sense that they feel that maybe I do not have the time, maybe I need all the time to make money, and that is the reason why I have not been over-involved. I am very surprised that being a very busy lawyer, Mr Chiam can spend so much time on Parliament work, although he normally comes late.

Sir, I think he should refrain from these insinuations.

Mr Yap, would you like to continue your speech?

It is of bad taste, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to speak on a more important topic, and that is, on the President's Speech. First, I would like to say that I am very happy that the President has delivered such an important message in this Parliament and one of the topics he covered was on GPCs. He said that GPCs would have to play a more prominent role here in Parliament. This is his wish. It is also the Government's wish. I am in total agreement with the President. However, quite disappointingly, I was not able to locate a chapter devoted to politics. Even more disappointing is that there was no mention of the future development of GPCs in the book, which is called "The Next Lap". But incidentally this book "The Next Lap" very aptly defeats the saying: A picture is worth more than one thousand words. Sir, we are moving into the 1990s and consensus will be the hallmark of the way we are going to carry things through. I think because of that, it is important that the book should at least have had a chapter touching on politics and how we intend to build up consensual Government through the GPCs. For myself, I believe that the GPCs should be able to contribute more in Parliament and, like what the President said, they should be in a position to carry through the significant amendments to improve legislation. I am confident that they can. The GPCs are evolving. However, they have reached a point of time when they need more solid food, befitting adults, in order to further develop. To follow the President's wish, I urge the Government first to give the GPCs more tools to deliver a little more clout. Hurry the building of a new extension to Parliament, but right now, give the GPCs a venue to house the staff and facilities. Otherwise, how can they discuss matters at a level that can match up to a well-established machinery comprising one of the world's best civil service. I think my fellow Backbenchers will agree with me that we should be able to match the Minister, or even at least come very close to him, if we are given more tools. Without more tools, even the views from the members of the public, who may be experts in their own fields, the GPCs will be hard put to come up with some alternative solutions worth considering. I think this situation could well be like the war between the American-led allied forces and Saddam Hussein. But please do not get me wrong. I am not, for one moment, suggesting that there should be war in Parliament, or that there should be confrontational politics or debate here in Parliament. Neither am I extending my sympathies to Saddam Hussein. But luckily for us we have no wicked Saddam Hussein in our midst, although there may be one look-alike. The point I am trying to arrive at, Sir, is that if we do not have more tools for the GPCs, then debate from this side of the Chamber will probably be like scud missiles falling miserably and ridiculously short of target, or Patriot missiles fired from the Minister's end, exploding them into smithereens, with fragments falling on this floor of Parliament and of course in the process causing some casualties. But I am glad that up till now, since the formation of the GPCs, and with clever strategy, the PAP MPs have been able to perform well enough to avoid such Patriot missiles. But I think we can do more for Singaporeans. To help the GPCs to develop, we should work towards a win-win situation between the Government frontbench and the Government backbench. If we can achieve this, then debate between the Government frontbench and backbench can generate new and better ideas to take Singapore successfully through the next lap. I hope that the GPCs will evolve to bring about a more balanced, effective and constructive debate in Parliament and demonstrating to the people of Singapore that the PAP MPs are earnest in striving to do their best for them and for the country. If we succeed, then we will demonstrate to all Singaporeans that the PAP MPs are capable of an even better level of debate and we keep improving all the time. I believe that the PAP MPs have up till today contributed much more and more constructively in Parliament to bring about a better Singapore for all, and I am sure that Singaporeans have discovered this too. But doing our best alone would not be good enough. There will have to be some con siderable backing of some kind. I suggest the following: (a) recognition and stature; (b) some financial support; and (c) more data and information. Recognition and stature As the President has mentioned that he wishes to see GPCs play a more important role, I take it that the Government will eventually think of all kinds of ways to accord recognition and improve the stature of GPCs. I will not further elaborate. Financial support This can be quite a tricky matter knowing what Ministers for Finance are capable of. But I certainly hope that the Prime Minister who is today synonymous with consensual politics will be able to find a way to support the growth of GPCs. I think we want to bear in mind that the resource panel every GPC has attached to it is made up of voluntary workers. PAP MPs are also part-time workers. Compare this with PAP Ministers who are full time having the backing of a whole host of first-class civil servants working full-time for him. If PAP MPs are to discuss matters on par or at a level as high as the Ministers are capable of, then they must have sufficient staff to support them. I think it is about time to persuade all Singaporeans to view Parliament proceedings in this light. If we can take ourselves a little higher and discuss issues with logic and facts, then the days of stone-throwing debates in Parliament, as we had the opportunity to witness sometime ago, will be put into history and we start a new chapter of logical discussions here in Parliament. Here, I must of course reiterate that as PAP MPs we have been doing quite well in the past. We are only seeking to do better. I therefore hope to see every GPC given two or three full-time research workers to back up the GPC, either through research in libraries, at Ministries or tap the full potential of all our resource panel members. The Government is in the best position to help the growth and development of Government Parliamentary Committees, rather than to leave it to the aid of, say, certain commercial institutions, as it would just invite unnecessary pressure lobbying. Data and information I again presume here that if it is the Government's intention that the GPCs play a more prominent role, then each Ministry should, where Government MPs are concerned, be able to share data and information with the relevant GPC. Access to relevant data and information is the key to a more evenly matched debate here in this Chamber. We should strive for debate on a more equal footing. Right now, as long as data and information is selectively given to PAP MPs, then the debate will always be between a heavyweight and a lightweight in terms of information. And if we want Singapore to go through the next lap successfully, then PAP MPs and Ministers should be able to work together to improve the work of each Ministry. Sir, should we not see our Parliament evolving into an entirely different Parliament from the English Parliament or similar Parliaments elsewhere in the world? If we do not get out of this mind block, then forever consensual politics here in Singapore will not bloom well. Sir, I join my colleagues in thanking the President and congratulating him for his message. His Speech is indeed a reflection of his and the Government's concern for all Singaporeans, rich or poor. I would like to take this opportunity to call upon all Singaporeans to rally behind our President and Government to ensure a bright and prosperous Singapore in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an unusual debate. Most of the points raised are points already raised, either in the Presidential Address, in the book "The Next Lap" or in the various Addenda. Members are not pressing Ministers for specific answers and Ministers feel little pressure to respond or defend particular policies. What we are engaged in is a conversation, a conversation about our future as Singaporeans. No Member, no Minister wants to pretend that he has a monopoly of wisdom. This is more like a philosophical discussion about how we should govern ourselves. We are in broad agreement, even Dr Lee Siew-Choh, who showed it by complaining that "The Next Lap" is an election manifesto. How can it be when so many Singaporeans, most of them non-party members, were involved? Many years ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew acknowledged very starkly that the men who ran Singapore could fill only one jumbo jet. So very thin was the Establishment. It is a much thicker layer now and one increasingly held together by certain common instincts about what we have to do to compete in a very competitive world. Whether we are in the public sector or in the private sector, whether we are in our 60s or in our 30s, whether we are men or women, in uniform or in mufti, CL1 or EL1, we share quite similar ideas about what we have to do, first, to make a living, then to look after our security. I am not talking about details, about whether there are too many photographs in the book, about which there is bound to be disagreement among honest men, but about the basic principles underlying our multi-racial society, about our economy, about our education system, about our foreign relations and about our national defence. Take the publication of "The Next Lap" for example. As a Parliamentary document, we intended to have only an English edition. It is the main Addendum to the Presidential Address. The Presidential Address is in English, so the Addendum should be in English. When I briefed our local press less than two months ago, I gave them an advance copy so that they would have more time to translate the parts they wanted for publication in their newspapers. At that meeting which I thought was a routine one, the Chinese press said they would like to translate the whole book. They would pool resources, give it top priority and produce a Chinese edition. When the Chinese press said that, the Malay press and the Tamil press said they too would do the same. They had no more than two or three weeks, but they said they would do it. I was quite taken aback by their enthusiasm but agreed that if they wanted to do it, we should help. So I checked with Times Publishers. They said, yes, it was very tight but it could be done. They would facilitate the effort. So it was not MITA, but our local press who took the lead, because they feel deeply for this country and for our multi-racial ideal. They said this document is a seminal document, far too important not to have in all the official languages. I think this is the reason why we must always make a distinction between our domestic press and the foreign press. The domestic press is part of our Establishment. They are shareholders of Singapore. We cannot expect the foreign press, however friendly they are, to be as passionately committed to Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must separate commitment to Singapore from commitment to the PAP. Yes, it was the PAP Government which created much of the Establishment that we have today, but the Establishment is not the PAP. And if the PAP wants to remain in Government, it must work closely and reflect the views of the Establishment. In the long-term, there could be other Establishment parties. Maybe the SDP could become an Establishment party. When that happens, it would not matter very much whether it is the PAP or some other Establishment party that governs Singapore, because whether it is one or the other the essential conditions to safeguard our economy, our prosperity and our security will be met. It will take time, of course. The Chinese who make up 76% of Singaporeans are more used to being governed than to governing themselves. This is why it will take a long time for China to achieve democracy, because democracy is not in the great tradition of Chinese civilization. In this regard, Taiwan which is having a very interesting experiment right now is ahead of China and we are ahead of Taiwan. The more we are self-governing as a people, the more stable our democratic institutions will be. Then we do not ask what Government is doing. We ask what we ourselves are doing. A strong sense of common ownership and collective responsibility is absolutely necessary for such a public spirit to develop. Take the problem of censorship. It falls on my laps because MITA has oversight responsibilities, but I do not think MITA should appoint itself as a guardian of public morals. Yes, it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that there are minimum standards, that we do not allow pornography, excessive violence or themes that inflame racial or religious hatred. That is, I think, the general view of Singaporeans. But it should not be the Government's or MITA's responsibility to set, let us say, the moral tone of some of our women's magazines, for example. I cannot even agree with my wife. How can anyone in MITA pretend to decide on such issues, and even if they can decide, why should members of the public accept their decisions? Mr Davinder Singh alluded to a certain newspaper trivialising its reporting of the Gulf War. Whose responsibility is it to maintain standards? I am not saying that there should be no standards. There should be standards, but often it is better for the community to decide what these standards should be. I hope that there will be more Davinder Singhs speaking up to put moral pressure on our different institutions, so that standards will be kept, and in this way we have a much more stable and much more agreeable situation than one where Government departments pontificate. After a while, a pattern will settle. I remember as a student in England that when you go to the barber shop you find girlie magazines as standard fare. You get them in barber shops, but you would not find them in the waiting rooms of clinics or in lawyer's offices. You would not find "The Sun" in a city bank. And this is the way it should be. A community decides what its key value institutions are, and these institutions put up the pressure on maintaining standards. Then Government can take a more detached role. Indeed, among our local newspapers, a pattern is already setting. So some are self-consciously high-brow Establishment, maybe not as high brow as Mr Shanmugam would like, and others would move down market to capture mass circulation. On the issue of censorship, I will ask Prof. Tommy Koh to chair a committee to advise MITA, on the way we censor videos, publications and performances. On film censorship, MITA has already decided that we would proceed to introduce a system of classification later this year. It has been on the boil for many years now. Prof. Koh is the right person. He is very well respected, both in Singapore and overseas. He is happily married, with two sons, and neither too young nor too old. He has already agreed to chair the National Arts Council when it is formed. In fact, he is helping me now draft the Bill to be presented to Parliament. We have to update our censorship rules if we want the arts to flourish in Singapore. Prof. Koh will need a committee of wise men and women drawn from a wide cross-section of our community to help him, and they can be a kind of a jury to advise the Government. In most cases I think Government will accept their advice. Sir, we need a whole array of such committees and civic organisations, at home and abroad, to help Singaporeans govern themselves, so that Singapore can be governed with a light touch and not a heavy hand. This was the way the book "The Next Lap" was put together. I remember meeting a few of our newspaper editors not long after they had read the book. They complained, "Look, no headline material. Nothing dramatically new. Why is that?" They forgot that they themselves helped to produce the book, that they themselves were part of the process of consultation. This is the general approach Mr Goh Chok Tong's Government will continue to take: to involve as many Singaporeans as possible so that as many as possible feel they are in charge of their own lives. Sir, we are a small but remarkable country. Kuwaitis, despite gleaming skyscrapers, did not fully appreciate what it meant to have a country, until they lost it. Now, amidst the rubble and the ruins, they weep tears of joy. They are lucky. We hope we will never be subject to such terrible trials. We may not be as lucky. But the stronger our instinct to stick together and look after each other, the less likely will we be put to such a test. I support the motion, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, almost exactly 40 nights after the expiry of the Security Council's deadline for Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from occupied Kuwait, and following intense air bombardment, a massive Allied land campaign was launched early this week. Within three days, the Iraqi occupation army crumbled. Each day of this conflict has cost more than a billion US dollars, and hundreds and thousands of lives. This enormous cost was borne not merely to liberate Kuwait, but to help free all sovereign nations from the threat and temptation of wars of aggression. I salute our small team of medical support personnel who exposed themselves to great danger in defence of an important principle. Their efforts must not be undermined by our self-doubt. If the Scud missile which killed more than 30 American soldiers in Dhahran had killed 30 Singaporean medics in Riyadh instead, our doubts would have demeaned their commitment. The challenge of the post-war period is to win a lasting peace in the Gulf, so that ordinary Kuwaitis and Iraqis, poor Arabs and rich Arabs, Jews and Palestinians, have a chance to rebuild and enrich their lives, their countries and their cultures. Closer home, Sir, the President's Address, in scope and sentiments, captures closely the mind and mood of Singaporeans who are eager and ready to climb the next phase of national and social development. One of the traits of social maturity is the manner in which society responds to its weak. My concern today is with the elderly. In youth, the future stretches forever; in the aged, the next lap is the final lap. For the elderly, peace, health and happiness become far more important than ambition, power and wealth. As they near the hour, the elderly must make peace with their past and with life itself. The most fortunate do this while enjoying health and happiness, with their daily needs met, in the company of family and friends. Sadly, for many, this may not be so. In Singapore, the number of elderly aged 60 years or more is expected to increase from 8% now, to 11% by the year 2000, and 26% by year 2030. These quiet statistics have staggering implications. Countries which today have just about 15% elderly, such as those in Western Europe, are already having to adjust to the realities of a grey society. In stark numbers, in 1988, one aged Singaporean dependant was supported by 8.2 economically active persons aged 15-59 years. This will drop dramatically to 2.2 in year 2030. If we do not prepare, the lap after the next will be a piggy-back race. Increased longevity and low total fertility means our society nearing 2030 will have far less workers and soldiers, and far greater need for welfare facilities and services. This is a nightmare scenario threatening our national competitiveness, our economic life, our security and our social harmony. The old will compete with the young for scantier resources; the young may desert the old or, worse, the society they find increasingly effete and burdensome. We must see that this is a challenge of immense dimensions, and that the solutions must be worked out and worked on now. Our solutions must bear the marks of a civilised and compassionate society. In some primitive societies, when the time came, the old were left in the snow, or walked out into the desert. Bizarre solutions such as Soylent Green have been imagined. Our solutions must ensure that growing old will not be a wretched time. In the main, the elderly fear loneliness, loss of respect, and illness. In a 1980 survey in Britain, 52% of the elderly lived with their spouses in two-person households, and 34% lived alone. Only 11% lived with children or relatives, and 3% lived in residential or hospital accommodation. Unless our family ties are strengthened, the ageing Singaporean can expect the same. The best way for an elderly person to retain respect is to have meaningful work. Yet in Singapore, in the younger old aged 55 to 74 years, 55% of men and 88% of women do not work. Unless our work environment is prepared to accommodate the different needs of the older worker, we will not be able to retain the services of our ageing citizens for as long as they are able and willing. If the elderly can remain providers longer, even for themselves, they will become dependants later, and the dependency ratio will improve. More than anything, most elderly people fear illness which may bring pain, disruption, uncertainty and, worse of all, permanent disability and dependency. Our preventive health services should promote healthy and vigorous lifestyles in the elderly. Medical care for the elderly, who often have limited finances, should be appropriate, adequate, affordable, and audited to ensure all these. About 60% of Singaporeans, mostly the old, will suffer and die from cancer, heart diseases and stroke. These are chronic and expensive diseases. Many families have been totally disrupted when a member if afflicted. Often, hospital care is expensive, intermediate care is inadequate, and home care is difficult. We need to put together a spectrum of intermediate care home-based services, involving district clinics, day-care centres, family physicians, home nursing, and social service providers who can arrange hot meals, laundry, home help and visitation. Many of the specific steps to deal with loneliness, dispiritedness and illness in the elderly are in the Report of the Advisory Council on the Aged, and the National Council on Ageing must be empowered to devise ways to meet the needs and tap the potential of an increasingly greater proportion of elderly in our society. Finally, a few words about proportional representation. Sir, proportional representation implies disproportional represen- tation is its antithesis. The first-past-the-post system undoubtedly leads to disproportional representation. However, its great merit is that it amplifies the rule of the majority and facilitates strong effective government during its tenure. The great merit of proportional representation is that wider views and interests can be promoted. Its recognised failings are that Government may be fragmented, a pivotal minority may exert disproportionate influence, and sectorial behaviour may become overly accentuated. Clearly, proportional representation can be, and has been, applied when circumstances are favourable. It need not be rejected out of hand, or accepted blindly, based on extreme arguments, but can be retained as a future option by this or another government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Mr Davinder Singh's motion.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh, the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, to thank the President for his Speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address clearly shows that the Government is marshalling all resources to pay attention to education and training. This is very praiseworthy. The attention to be given by the Government to bilingualism and the teaching of the mother tongue is also encouraging. At the same time, the Government also says that it will pay attention to the moral and civics education of our children so that when they grow up, they will be growing up in the atmosphere of common shared values. These shared values will determine not only the economic growth and our competitiveness but also the strength of our national unity. This is a very wise move indeed. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address has reminded me of the revival, emergence and the present leading economic position in the world of Japan and Germany. This is a very important reminder because we can appreciate the reason for their success, and that is, the revival of a nation does not only depend on the possession of strong gunboats but also on the spiritual software which includes the quality of the people, their cultural ballast, their planning capability, their dedication to, the respect of work, team spirit, education, the rule of law, and institutions. We must use Japan and Germany as our model and do our very best to shape and nurture a new generation of Singaporeans so that everyone of them will have the proper cultural ballast, character, and confidence. To achieve these, we must have a proper environment to nurture, an education system to cultivate, and a good social system to encourage the growth of this software. We must lay the foundation. We must do our very best to lay a good and strong foundation. "When a child is brought up uneducated, it is the fault of the father." So if we want to have cultural heritage and values, then the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Information and the Arts must study the various backgrounds, ie, the cultural background and historical background of the various communities in Singapore in accordance with the needs of our people. What we do not need is a cultural melting pot, a rojak. I cannot understand Mr Chiam. I do not know what kind of Singapore society he wants, what kind of Singapore he wants. I do not know. He wants a monolingual Singaporean. I want to ask him. Why is he unhappy about a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual Singapore? How is he going to reconcile the differences among the various ethnic groups? What kind of religion is he advocating? What kind of food is he advocating? What kind of attire is he advocating? Unfortunately, Mr Chiam was not with us on the visit to China. Mr Davinder Singh and I had visited China. We were there for about two weeks. We could see very clearly that he is still what he is. He is a Sikh. I am a Chinese by our ethnicity. We have differences in our way of living. But I do not believe that Mr Chiam would like to be like Mr Singh, to wear a turban in the morning or to miss the curry that his wife cooks for him. Mr Chiam is a believer of a cultural melting pot. So if Singapore is to be ruled by him, then Singapore will become topsy-turvy. It will be neither fish nor fowl. There will be no future for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we need is a place for every group, a cultural heritage for every community. We must have mutual tolerance and acceptance. We must have common cohesion. Only then will our country have vitality and the ability to forge ahead. Here I would like to propose that the Government set up a small unit to specially study and do research on how Germany and Japan have achieved their present leading positions and to study their future, how they take up the challenge of the future. If we have such a study group, then we will have a mirror to show us how we look like and to show us how we may be better able to weather through the storm. On education, Sir, I personally feel that streaming at primary four is certainly better than streaming at primary three. It is a wise move. But if the Government can consider streaming only in primary six, I think that will be even better. I have heard from parents that the development of children varies in pace and in degree. Young children, especially boys, may be naughty when they are young. They may be too active to sit down for a long time, desk-bound to do their reading and study in the early stage. So I hope that the Government can consider this point that after experimenting with streaming at primary four, consider postponing streaming only at primary six (if streaming at primary four does not achieve the desired results). Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress that there should be joint monitoring of our school children at the streaming of primary four to decide whether they should go into secondary school or vocational school. On vocational schools, I hope that the Government will inject more funds and pay more attention to vocational schools. There should be more comprehensive vocational schools so that our children will graduate from such schools with good skills. Our schools should also teach our children from young, that all jobs are equally respectable and all jobs have their own elite. In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Presidential statement we can see that the present Government is a very unselfish one. As BG George Yeo has said, in future it may not be a PAP government, it may be Mr Chiam See Tong's party which comes into power. But whatever that is given in the Presidential Address is all for the good of the future, all for the good and happiness of Singapore according to their aspirations. The Singapore Government has got the new Singapore spirit and we want to bring Singapore to a higher level to give a better life for our people. Singaporeans seem to be paying too much attention to what is going on in the Gulf. I think they must also learn from the experience of Sri Lanka and look forward to the future.

Sir, I have got two points to bring up with the hon. Member who last spoke. He said that an uneducated child is the fault of the parents. If we had compulsory education, then it would not be entirely their fault. Does he agree with me? Would he like to clarify on this? The other point he said was that we should have our ethnic cultural heritage and preserve them. In other words, the Chinese will preserve their language, their culture; the Sikhs will continue to wear their turbans and eat their curry. He wants to preserve that, and yet in the next sentence he says we must have "common cohesion". I would like to ask him: Is it not a contradiction, when you compartmentalise everybody, and then you want to have common cohesion?

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot blame Mr Chiam because his Chinese standard is not high enough to understand what I have said. If he has got a certain standard in Chinese Language, he will understand what I am trying to say.

I am not ashamed of not knowing Chinese. I am a Singaporean.

Mr Chiam, could you please allow Mr Choo to finish?

( In Mandarin): "When the child is brought up without education, it is the fault of the father." So if I equate the Government as the father or as the parent in charge of a country like a parent is in charge of a family, then what I am trying to say is that if our children grow up without proper education, then it is the fault of the Government. He does not understand the meaning of what I said in Chinese. I hope that Mr Chiam will sit down quietly and try to reflect what I have said just now. Just now, the Member for Mountbatten said something which upsets him. So I hope he will understand the true meaning of the words when I said that if the child is uneducated, it is the fault of the father. He refers to my comment that each ethnic group must have its own cultural heritage. As a Chinese from a Chinese cultural background, the traditional culture and heritage of the Chinese encourages and exhorts people to love each other, to help others, to look after the old and the young, and to look after other people's old and young. So this is Chinese traditional culture and heritage for unity, for mutual help and for cooperation. I believe that in the traditions of the Indians and the Malays, you may or may not find all these kinds of cultural heritage. The people may have different cultural backgrounds or cultural heritage but they can have shared common values, shared common cultural concept and ballast. As it is said, "All routes lead to Rome". So again Mr Chiam does not seem to understand me. What kind of Singaporean does he want? What does he expect Singaporeans to do? To put all into a melting pot, to create a new Singapore culture? Can he explain?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC. The last chapter in "The Next Lap" is appropriately entitled "Singapore International". It is forward looking and signifies that our continued growth and success must come from moving into the international arena - not only to make a living, but to continue to build more international linkages. To do this successfully, we must provide the appropriate incentives to push Singapore enterprises to set up overseas and at the same time maximise our efforts to encourage our talented to locate and work beyond our shores. I intend to focus on this latter problem and suggest that until our internal structure is changed, the vast problems suffered or faced by returning expatriates will deter increasing numbers of Singaporeans from working abroad. To counter the brain drain from Singapore, the Government has, in recent years, made vigorous efforts to attract immigrants from a number of countries. The relatively small number of foreigners that we have attracted - professional, skilled, white and blue collar workers - are received with open arms. Indeed at present, we appear to bend over backwards to help them relocate here and ease their assimilation into our society. Unfortunately, scant attention is paid, in comparison, to our returning Singaporeans. While rolling out the red carpet for the immigrants, we appear to be pulling the rug from under the feet of our returned expatriates. Returning expatriates face problems in jobs, children's education and bureaucratic neglect. Even our press is caught up with reports on how immigrants are settling in in Singapore. Perhaps they should look at this other issue for the benefit of the Government and the bureaucrats to point out to show up the problems that they are facing. The number of these people may now be small but, I believe, this is a growing problem. It is indeed ironic that we have no welcome back or relocation programme for our citizens who have returned to Singapore from overseas posting or studies. Allow me to cite two examples. A family I am personally acquainted with returned recently after a three-year foreign posting. Both husband and wife are professionally qualified - the kind of talent we say we want. Locating a fairly good school to accept their children was itself no mean feat as school principals are generally lukewarm. Imagine their frustration when, despite vigorous efforts and many rounds of letter writing, appeals and intercession, they were unable to place their children in the appropriate grades in the school, despite satisfactory entrance assessment results. In exasperation, they applied to place their children in one of the international schools. At the same time, out of desperation, the head of the family pressed for his company to offer him another foreign posting, having just returned from overseas. Needless to say, the family is naturally angry, frustrated and disappointed over a seeming injustice when they compare the warm treatment we extend to foreign blue collar workers. I am told of another case which concerns a Singaporean woman with a Masters degree in Economics from a reputable American University. Like other students abroad, she was invited to a talk by Singapore's foreign mission in the US and promised good job prospects and other benefits if she returned to Singapore. The picture painted was rosy. I am told she decided to return instead of pursuing a PhD programme. Back in Singapore, none of the promises came true. She even had problems securing an interview with the relevant Government departments and all because she did not have Honours for her first degree from the University of Singapore. This, despite her having given up offers of fellowships from top institutions in the US. Needless to say, this lady feels alienated and bitter. Sir, the establishment of a Singapore International Foundation is a move in the right direction. In building Singapore International and exhorting our people to venture overseas, we must give them the confidence that their children's welfare and their re-assimilation into our society does not become a nightmare. Setting up of the Singapore school in Hong Kong is a very small step in the right direction. Meanwhile, we have executives located in several other parts of the world and their needs must be met with a great deal of flexibility and understanding. Our Government should spare no efforts to maintain our ties with these expatriate citizens of ours and to bring home our brains. This campaign should take precedence over our efforts to attract foreigners, eg, those workers from Hong Kong. There should be a programme to welcome them when they return and ease their re-assimilation into their home community. Going by the examples I have quoted, one can conclude that although we exhort Singaporeans to go international, our internal structure is not sufficiently flexible or ready to accommodate these people. Red carpet welcome should not be extended only to those we are on the verge of losing but also to returning Singaporeans who might never have had emigration on their minds. More attention should also be paid to keeping our citizens at home, and immigrants already here from leaving. Government ministries and departments should be more sympathetic to the needs, even special ones, of these Singaporeans who return with their families and, in some cases, their foreign spouses as well. Indeed, these spouses of some returned Singaporeans have been treated like undesirable immigrants! We sometimes hear of cases where a valuable Singaporean emigrates because of the hassle he or she has to go through to renew the permit of the spouse just to remain here. Until recently, too, we have not taken kindly to Singaporeans who have taken up foreign citizenship, or had to give up their Singapore passports because they had acquired foreign ones. Not surprisingly, we may have even treated them as traitors! With the exception of those who have left our shores to escape national service or other national obligations, such an attitude might have been an over-reaction. Emigration and the crossing of national boundaries in search of one's calling or fortune is not a new thing, nor need it be detrimental to a country, as we are now recognising. Many transients do return after their international meanderings to enrich their home countries. Now that we are paying more attention to the arts, I would refer to writers such as Rudyard Kipling and George Orwell. They worked and even settled abroad, but continued to write and enrich English prose. They were never ostracised by their home countries. The world was their stage. Our citizens should also be assisted to become international players on a world stage. Surely this is also the aim of the Singapore International Foundation. Our bureaucrats should also be enlightened on the fact that a valuable Singaporean need not be only those good in scientific formulas or one who can design bridges or perform heart transplants. Artists, writers - even qualified motor mechanics - should be included in our list of desirable persons. Based on reported figures on the numbers who have physically settled here, our immigration programme has achieved only limited success, as most immigrants from Asia have chosen instead to go to countries such as Canada, the US and Australia. Hence, it is one good reason for us to focus more of our efforts on retaining and bringing home our existing talents. Finally, Sir, losing Singaporeans from our shores need not mean a permanent loss of people or their talents. With more Singapore corporations venturing overseas, these ex-Singaporeans could be recruited in their new countries of domicile to run our foreign subsidiaries. Instead of recruiting locals in those countries, or training someone here to relocate abroad, we can make use of these Singaporean expatriates already there. They would bring to the job a wealth of talent deep in the Singapore culture plus local knowledge and an affinity to Singapore. As Singapore corporations venture increasingly abroad, our Government should assist businesses to identify and attract such ex-nationals to their ranks. And in keeping with the globalisation and internationalisation of our country and people, we should attune ourselves to having a new breed of Singaporeans: an international citizen who remains loyal to Singapore wherever he may be. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to add my comments to the debate on the President's Address. I shall try to make them brief. But first, Sir, I would like to comment on the views of the Member for Potong Pasir on the economic union with Malaysia. It is a good idea but I just could not believe my ears when he said that there may be many Singaporeans objecting to such a union. As a matter of fact, I have to check with the Member for Yio Chu Kang to confirm what I heard. Contrary to the Member for Potong Pasir's belief that many Singaporeans would object, I think that if Mr Chiam can help Singapore achieve some form of economic union with Malaysia, he would be widely applauded and acclaimed a hero. Sir, the President, besides covering the Government's plans for the immediate future, also covers the long-term direction of the Government for the next 25 years. This is mainly in the book "The Next Lap". And in this respect, Sir, it is not surprising that the Member for Potong Pasir objects to the form of the book, using the excuse of too many pictures. The book, Sir, should be read by all Singaporeans. This means that its presentation and its readability are extremely important factors to ensure maximum readership. I guess that he is not really objecting to the book itself, but really to the ability of the book to attract a wide readership. From his partisan viewpoint, I guess it is a legitimate concern but not necessarily of national concern. Sir, I must add that after reading "The Next Lap", I lamented that I was born too early. Normally, we lament about being born too late as a convenient excuse to cover a multitude of sins, misfortunes and failures. But this time, it is really the misfortune of being born too early; born too early to truly enjoy the life a young Singaporean would have in the Singapore of the Next Lap. I do not wish to take up too much time singling out any area of the President's Address and "The Next Lap" for special mention. Suffice to say, there is something for everybody; be it in young Singaporeans obtaining an education which would bring out their maximum potential; or working Singaporeans having fulfilling, rewarding and productive careers; or all Singaporeans enjoying the fruits of a gracious and culturally vibrant society. That the depth and breadth and scope of this vision is breathtaking is not surprising. After all, Sir, this vision is the result of the work and efforts put in by many Singaporeans over the years. That it is a manifestation of the consultative and participative consensus style of the Goh Chok Tong Government is also to be expected. After all, we have heard many times the Prime Minister's views on this. Sir, what is exciting is the genesis of the vision of The Next Lap. The manner in which it was conceived and the long period of gestation in order to accommodate wide participation means that The Next Lap is a vision of Singaporeans, by Singaporeans, for Singaporeans. It sets goals and a mission for all Singaporeans to strive for. It is ours, our dreams, our goals, our challenges. Because of this collective ownership, I have little doubt that we will rally to the call by the President to "be united and look after one another, work hard and invest, stay vigilant and seize opportunities." But then, Sir, paradise is not without its serpent, no matter how tiny. The Next Lap can become only a reality if we can maintain economic growth. The best things in life may be free but, unfortunately, not the cost of realising the vision in the Next Lap. For such economic growth to be sustained, we need people and talent, both commodities in short supply. We therefore have to work harder and smarter, searching new niches and new ways to be more enterprising, more productive. How then can we have the time and the leisure to enjoy the sports, arts, culture and the gracious living promised in the Next Lap. The pressure cooker in Singapore is currently already set on high. How much higher would it be in the Next Lap? That surely must be the major concern of many young Singaporeans reading the book. It's a dilemma, isn't it? Take time to stand and stare, the Next Lap will not be run. Run the Next Lap with all your strength, you may have little time and energy left to enjoy its fruits. I do not think the answer can be discovered in this debate, but I do think that it is a problem which warrants deeper study by the Government. Perhaps this is one major reason why some of our best people emigrate despite all the goodies that Singapore has to offer to its citizens. While understanding such sentiments, nevertheless, I am saddened by such decisions. Worse is that their decision to go also denies their children of their birth rights. With many foreigners wanting to get in, surely to deny their children of their inheritance cannot be too right. Why make them strangers in a strange land when Singapore offers so much? Why not think again? Better still, these people should be urged to read "The Next Lap". They owe themselves and their children and their descendants this much. To take one step further, Sir, what about those who have already emigrated? Why do we not encourage their friends and relatives here to buy copies of "The Next Lap" to send to them with this message: 'You have made your choice! All this could be yours! But by giving up your citizenship, you have rejected this future. What about your children? Is it right of you to deprive them of this inheritance which is theirs by right, by birth? Have you done the right thing for them? Think again for their sake!' Sir, if as a result of this, even if one family is persuaded to stay back in Singapore to run the next lap with us, even if one family overseas decides to return, then I think "The Next Lap" is worth the effort and the dedication put in by all those who have contributed to its publication. And in this respect, I would like to appeal to the Government to reconsider its current stringent laws regarding the return of former Singaporeans, especially the children who may have little choice in their parents' earlier decision to emigrate. The Singapore International Foundation is obviously an idea whose time has come. It is a step in the right direction. We need friends all over the world. But like many speakers before me, I also think that it is not enough. We should not ignore former Singaporeans. We should not be too harsh on them if they want to return. If they are brave enough to admit their earlier mistake of emigrating and are now prepared to return, we should not make it almost impossible for them to do so. Our laws were originally framed at different times. The Next Lap calls for new thinking, a new outlook and different laws. I am optimistic these will come. That is why I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC. We, together with all Singaporeans, shall run the Next Lap together.

Sir, I wish to seek clarifications from the Member for Cheng San GRC. He said he could not believe his ears when I said that some Singaporeans would object to us forming an economic union with Malaysia. I believe he has not quoted me in full. I have given the reasons as to why some Singaporeans may object. The first reason is that there is a disparity of standard of living and economic progress between the two countries. Some of these people may fear that if we join Malaysia in an economic union, our standard of living might drop. For this reason, they may object. The other reason is that there is a big difference in our exchange rate. These people may also fear that if we join Malaysia economically, then our money might also become smaller. Sir, I would ask the Member for Cheng San GRC, after having heard these two reasons more clearly, whether or not he would change his position. I would plead that when I ask for a clarification, the Member will answer directly and not make a counter speech. Sir, the other clarification I would like is in regard -

You seem to be making a very long clarification, Mr Chiam.

Yes, Sir. I want to clarify. After hearing my reasons, he may want to change his position.

All right. Could you make your second clarification?

I want to make myself clear so that he understands me.

I am sure he does.

Does he not agree that how a man dresses or what car a man drives, it does in a way reflect on his character, his attitude? My point is that this book "The Next Lap" is so extravagantly published, it is like a commercial glossy magazine. Does it not reflect also on the leadership? My point is that it does. I hope the Member for Cheng San GRC would clarify and agree with me on these two points.

Sir, on the second point first. I think of all the accusations made -

It is an observation.

Sir, I would appreciate it if the Member will let me finish my speech. It would not be a counter speech. Sir, I think of all the accusations ever made at the PAP Government, extravagance probably is very seldom heard. In fact, I would say it is the other way round, that this Government has a history of making sure that every cent spent is worth its expenditure. And I find it very difficult to believe that this book is simply extravagant and that this extravagance reflects the philosophy of the Government. On the first point, I would wish that the Member for Potong Pasir is involved in business activities like some of us here. Then he will realise that there are many obstacles and tremendous difficulties of trying to get into Malaysia to do business. Singapore is a free economy and has an open market. We will welcome any opportunity to set up various types of economic ties as well as any form of union with any country where we can get our goods and our business into their economies, provided of course it does not impede our basic objective of maintaining an open market and a free economy. So despite what he said - I am speaking from experience - I am very sure those of us here in this House who are businessmen have experienced such difficulties of going into Malaysia.

I am sad to say that my friend from Cheng San GRC has not answered the questions that I have put to him. Does he not agree with my statement now that some Singaporeans would object if Singapore forms an economic union with Malaysia? He has not answered it. He is talking about businessmen.

Some will agree, some will disagree.

Therefore, he would agree with me then. He should not say that he cannot believe his ears.

Sir, I do not really wish to go into a debate with him.

Just clarify.

If he meant "some Singaporeans" as two Singaporeans, I suppose he and his supporter can object to this.

I have proposed this. How can I object?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank all Members who spoke on the motion. They have all contributed to a very lively and interesting session. This debate has not been about whether the Government's programme in the President's Address is worthy of support. It is. I think we are all on common ground. There has been consensus amongst Members that the Next Lap is our masterplan for the future. This debate has not been about whether the Government will achieve what it has set out to do. It will. There is no dispute about that. The Government's 30-year record speaks for itself. This debate has not been about the gloss on the book "The Next Lap" or the number of pictures in that book. We are here to discuss, to brainstorm ideas, which this debate has been all about. It has been about our ideas of how we can make Singapore a better society, about how we can together achieve our collective vision, about how we can stand tall as a responsible member in the family of nations and about how we can meet the hopes and aspirations of Singaporeans of all ages and walks of life. Everyone in Singapore has an interest in the aims and objectives set out in the President's Address and in the book "The Next Lap". Members have taken painstaking efforts to think about and to present their views on how these aims can be achieved in a manner beneficial to the majority of Singaporeans. It is impossible for me, Sir, in this brief overview of the debate to do justice to all the speeches which Members have made. But I think it is fair to say that in those speeches there were a number of major themes which ran through them. First, the style of government. We have heard Members speak about how happy we are that this present Government has kept its promise to involve people in national issues. But we want more. Bearing in mind the limitations of a Parliamentary democracy, we want Government to continue and expand this process and to give people the opportunity to say what they think about our policies. We may or may not agree with what they say. We may or may not take them into account finally when we do consider what policies we have to formulate and implement. But the point is they must be given an opportunity to say what they think, about how this place is run, and what they would like this society to be in 20 years from today. I was very happy to hear the speech of BG George Yeo. It augurs very well for us that a Member of this Government has affirmed in this House Mr Goh Chok Tong's promise of participation and has also encouraged Singaporeans to come forward to contribute because, after all, it is their contribution which will determine where we go and how far we go. The other major theme that has run through this debate is our quality of life. Members have given support to the Government's intention to upgrade our quality of life, but with a caveat. Members have asked and reminded the Government to continually bear in mind that there is a small group of Singaporeans who are not so fortunate, that group of Singaporeans which requires assistance, because despite their honest efforts, they are not just making it. They may well be slow learners, slow starters, or people who just do not achieve for various reasons. We have to find the place for them in our society. If they are born in this country and they are citizens here, they deserve as much respect as you and I get. In fact, they deserve a bit of help that you and I do not get. That opportunity to have access to basic services, basic needs, education, health and the like, so that even if they do not make it, then their children get an opportunity to reverse that difficulty. This debate has also been spiced up by a very vigorous exchange of views about which route we ought to take in connection with our national identity. Should we promote our separate cultures? Should we mix them all together in a "melting pot", which, I believe, is the phrase that was used. Both views have, in their own way, received support in this House. It is not the answer that we are seeking in this House. It is the ideas that we want to encourage Members to throw up because, whether it is a cultural policy, whether it is a medical policy, whether it is an educational policy, it does not really matter that Government has decided to take a certain course. Because any policy deserves to be reviewed from time to time. It can only be reviewed if we come back here and talk about it, and encourage others outside the House to do likewise. There is no right or wrong. It is an experiment. So we have taken the route where we promote our respective cultures. It is an exercise. It is an experiment we will know the result a few years down the road, maybe more. But it does not mean that the other view which has been expressed, which is that we should all get together and mesh our respective backgrounds, is wrong. It is a view which deserves consideration, and a view which may yet hold water subsequently, if things do not work out the way we plan them to. Sir, what, however, has emerged over the last few days is the recognition by Members of this House that whatever we do, there are certain fundamentals that we should not tamper with - defence, industrial peace but, most importantly, and most prominent in this debate is our multi-racial accommodation. For a change, Members have been pointing the finger at Government and saying, "You have forgotten to remind us in your Address that we have to maintain our multi-racial harmony." I do not think, to be fair, that the Government has forgotten about it or underestimated it. Because the manner in which this country is run is evidence of the fact that this Government is not likely to treat the subject of multi-racial, multi-religious harmony as blase. It is an important subject and it will continue to be important. But we have, I believe, reached that stage in our political development where we can sit in this House and delineate between serious discussion and frivolous argument, where we can talk about issues that are really going to affect us in the long term: participation, people's rights, the role of the media, multi-racial harmony, defence, etc, and accept that all of us have different views about them. We have reached that stage in our development where we are now saying, and I am very happy to hear that, that Singaporeans ought to begin to think and believe that they will have a say in the way our institutions are built up, established, formed, and that they will ultimately have to take responsibility for the kind of institutions that are ultimately established. It is not good bleating about a lack of say. If the opportunity is given, it must be grasped. And if it is taken, then so goes along with it the responsibility of the end result. It is a direction that I think is worth moving, and it is a good start that the book "The Next Lap" has been the product of the efforts of various Singaporeans outside the Government. Finally, the last major theme that has arisen in the course of this debate is Singapore's international profile, and that is also interesting in itself. Because, once again, it reflects where we are. Economically, I think, most of us are very comfortable, and because of that, we certainly have the time to think about all these ideas and to suggest that they be implemented. Now, we are not comfortable, we are not satisfied with thinking about what we ought to do within this country, we want to project ourselves overseas. That is going to take a long time. But this is the start. We want our businessmen to go out of this country. We want entrepreneurs to venture overseas. We have sent a medical team to the Gulf. We have sent relief to the Philippines and we want more of that. Because we have benefited from international society, so in a way it is a debt that we repay. But more than that, I think, more selfishly, we want to be known for what we are doing. We are achievement-oriented. We have achieved, we want people to know it. Not many people around the world know about Singapore, maybe more than it used to be. But we want more to know about us. And we figure that the only way that can be done is if we move outside the country, we extend our hearts and our minds and our money beyond our shores. There is nothing wrong with that, because someone outside Singapore will necessarily benefit by that exercise. One day, hundred years from now, maybe the history books will record the fact that there was this small country with a big heart. I think that itself is reason to be proud. Sir, this Government will certainly deliver the goods. It is not a wish. It is a promise. But we would like to see that promise fulfilled in a way which enjoys the support of the majority of Singaporeans. We would like to see that promise fulfilled in a way which will attract the best of Singapore and keep Singaporeans in Singapore. We would like to see that promise fulfilled in a way which will ultimately make us a better people and a better society. Sir, on that note, I thank all Members for their contribution, for their support, and I thank you, Sir, for your patience. [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 Third Session of this Parliament."

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 Mr Goh Choon Kang Dr Lee Boon Yang Dr Seet Ai Mee Encik Sidek bin Saniff Dr Tony Tan Mr Wong Kan Seng - [Mr Wong Kan Seng.]

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to tomorrow, 1st March, 1991, at 3.30 pm." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes to Three o'clock pm.