Mr Speaker, Sir, I am most happy to support the motion of thanks to the President standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See, Member for Kampong Glam GRC. The Government has, since the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament in January 1992, spent much time in tackling the many hot issues of the day. Ministerial, parliamentary and professional committees were formed to study and make recommendations to solve or, at least, to alleviate the problems - health cost, cost of living, etc. I totally agree with the President when he said that, and I quote, "Our short term issues are well in hand." Of course, the Government will need to consistently monitor all developments concerning the people's day-to-day well-being. Circumstances may change, adjustments and modifications will have to be made, and I believe this Government has the wisdom to make these changes. However, the Government and all of us, Singaporeans, should not be drawn into just spending time on short-term issues. I am glad that the Government will now focus more on the bigger issues that are confronting us, issues that affect our very survival. Whilst we are doing well, so it seems, the world at large is not doing that well. Europe and Japan are still in recessions, deep ones, and signs are that they have not bottomed out. The US economy is still very uncertain. The former Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc have more than just economic woes. Border, ethnic and racial problems are on the increase. A new balance of power is taking place after the collapse of the Cold War. And according to Prof. Thurow - he was quoted by BG Lee in the last session - he wrote an article in the Asian Wall Street Journal recently that the growth of China and, for that matter, this region cannot be enough to carry the world. And if the giant economies continue to be weak, the four "tigers" and all the other emerging NIEs will surely suffer. We cannot remain unscathed. So, yes, there is jubilation in the successful conclusion of the GATT talks on 15th December last year. Yet, the developments between and among these big players, the big blocs of US and NAFTA, the European Union, Japan and China, do not seem to be very encouraging. Squabbles and frictions are taking place. Therefore, let us not be too carried away with our present success, and let us be sober and down-to-earth all the time. The President rightly said that, and I quote, "Sooner or later we will face a recession like the short one we had in 1985, or like the prolonged current recessions in Europe and Japan." In the last few days, the share market has collapsed and I do not know whether it is the first indication. The President has outlined the Government's programmes to tackle our present and future problems. In fact, almost, if not all, the programmes outlined are already in their various stages of development. Let us all be good citizens - Opposition, critics, cynics, one and all. Let us study the President's Speech and all the addenda on the Ministries. Let us all play a part to ensure success and then to enjoy in the success of the programmes. We may like to ask ourselves questions like these: Are we in agreement with the problems identified? Are we convinced that the programmes put forward will solve all the problems? Are we uncomfortable with any of the programmes, or do we have better alternatives or suggestions for the Government? I believe in the Government's sincerity in wanting to enhance the well-being of each and every Singaporean. The enhancement, however, has got to be earned and we have got to compete with the world to survive and prosper. And yet we cannot, as a country, leave it simply to the survival of the fittest and, therefore, we talk about compassion and for those who are better endowed to carry the less blessed. The designers of our long-term programmes are always well-intentioned. However, sometimes, policies may backfire and certain results may be achieved with unexpected cost - negative, social and political consequences - whilst we may succeed economically. Sir, may I indulge in citing one sensitive example that has pretty devastating consequences? This, of course, is done with hindsight wisdom now. Faced with double digit unemployment and uncertainty in the horizon in the 1960s, the "Stop at Two" policy was implemented. The campaign to ensure success was fired with many ingenious incentives, disincentives and schemes to go for an all-out population control. Abortion was legalised, ligation was coerced, if not forced. Couples with more than two children were stigmatised and penalised. Family tensions mounted, the family fabric was strained. Gratefully, the policy is now changed. Faced with a non-replacement problem and, now, a fast aging problem, the Government is encouraging more births. The slogan now reads "Three or more, if you can afford it." Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, the Minister for Health until last month, was jubilant when he said that the number of births reached 50,000 last year. Thanks must go to all the parents and fathers, including our new Health Minister here. Congratulations to him and his wife for having their fourth baby! Since the introduction of this new policy, the last few years had seen a good harvest of over 40,000 births, reaching 50,000 last year. However, as mentioned in the President's Address, the number is still not good enough. Our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, has, in his New Year's message, said that we are aging faster than other countries. But if we take it positively, we can similarly correct the situation just as fast. We should go for numbers. The baby boom years in the 1960s saw over 60,000 births per year. It dropped to under 40,000 and if we should have some 10-15 years of 55,000-60,000 births, then I reckon a big part of the problem would have been solved, ie, depending on a few to feed the old. Our present policy encourages birth if you can afford it. That rekindles my thoughts back to the great debate and controversy on nature versus nurture. Whilst there may be much truth, how much and how certain, God only knows. There may be some truth in the nature theory but no one dares challenge the equal importance of nurture which plays a part. And this Government, I am proud to say, is very sensitive and has treaded the issue solely on the ability of the parents to nurture their offsprings. Incentives have been introduced to get the better educated and the richer breed more babies. Some success has been reported. But from the tone of the then Minister for Health, those who are supposed to have more babies still fall far short of the target, albeit there is some improvement. And the other group, those who cannot afford, is having more babies than it can cope. Sir, do we need to stop these people from having more babies? Is it wise to cut down such births, I ask myself, because I am troubled. If we so need the numbers that badly, can the Government and all of us Singaporeans not help in nurturing the babies? Allow all those who love children to have more babies. We can help them. The slogan can be changed to "Three or More if you Love and are Prepared to Sacrifice for your Children." Will it be too irresponsible to ask the State or society at large to help nurture all these children born to poorer families? The President stated clearly in his Address that, and I agree, subsidies must be justified by desirable objectives of improving the self-reliance for long-term economic independence, not dependence, of those helped by subsidies. Is there a case to justify going all out to nurture our children, sons and daughters of Singapore? Yes, maybe not many of them will become leaders, not many of them will enter this House. But I think even if they become our construction workers, they are still contributing and can be counted upon to defend Singapore. Can SINDA, MENDAKI, CDAC and all other welfare bodies help shoulder a bigger load? Our SDU has done a good job in getting more people to get married and to raise families. Can there be a unit to help promote probably a Godparents Scheme? There may be many Singaporeans who can be matched to become godparents of such babies. The joy can be shared. Another issue that is very sensitive is abortion. I remember the outcry when abortion was legalised. I am not raising a public issue or public debate on this, but I am purely looking at the numbers. Surely, the lesser the abortions, the more babies we will end up with. How can we reduce the number of abortions? Have we done enough to counsel and talk people out of abortion? Can we help foster the unwanted babies for whatever reasons? Can we make the option for abortions as a last resort, ie, make it more difficult? These are issues that we can tackle if we are just purely looking at numbers. And if we do get the increase in numbers, I think a lot of the problems could have been solved. We have, I think, over 300,000 foreign workers here. Let me now turn to another issue. A policy that was of much concern in the last debate on the motion of thanks to the President in January 1992 was the sudden emphasis on the ethnic self-help groups with the formation of SINDA, CDAC along the lines of MENDAKI. Clan associations, Eurasian body and all similar ones were given lifts to help look after their kind. The hon. Member, Mr Chandra Das, had said then and I quote him: 'The line between one's pride and one's culture and chauvinism is indeed very fine.' Many had voiced caution including the then Opposition leader, Mr Chiam See Tong. Whilst accepting the policy to be logical and worth pursuing, many were concerned. After two years now, the policy appears to be progressing fine. However, one cannot be too sure. Should the bodies stick strictly to only helping their kind? Our leaders in these various bodies, I am happy to note, are very good and sensible people. In fact, there are already some forms of cooperation and collaborations between and amongst them. The leaders, however, have their problems. I checked with some of them and one thing for sure, they told me, the contributors or donors along ethnic lines will not want to see their money being used to help other ethnic groups. So there is a problem as to how much they can do. Look at the various ethnic based Chambers of Commerce. They played a most useful role, a most meaningful role, in our earlier years of development. Today, I think they are struggling to find their relevance. The Singapore Manufacturers Association and many other industry-based trade associations actually were formed and became more meaningful and they helped develop their own cause. But now, again, a new development is taking place because they are now looking at the big umbrella, a confederation of all these Chambers that can speak in one solitary voice. So along the line, the needs may be satisfied or new needs may appear and I hope the Government will monitor the situation closely, as I believe this is still a point of concern. The Government is absolutely correct to see the need for continuous training and retraining and I agree with the union Member, Mr Tong Kok Yeo, who said that the younger workers have to be trained. But I like to take up the older workers' position first. As regards the older workers, as emphasised, why are they not coming forward for training? The National Productivity Board told me that there are lots and lots of places for training and yet they are not coming forward. The President's concern about the older workers makes sense and he said that the older workers will need retraining to learn new skills and fit into new jobs. Therefore, it is not a question of retraining or upgrading. How much can an old driver or delivery worker learn? How far can he be upgraded? Sir, not long ago, Pusan, South Korea, was the place where the world's best athletics and sports shoes were made. Over two years, they have disappeared. All the companies have relocated in China and Indonesia. All the companies are all right, but the workers were left high and dry. Pusan has over 30% unemployment now. Our mature economy is now undergoing painful structural changes. Our older workers with absolutely no skills need to master new skills to serve new masters. I think they have got to get out of their present jobs and go into full-time learning and be counted upon to man our new investments, the new value added investments that the EDB and the Government are pursuing. Also, there are many opportunities in existing industries that may need them. So how can we take those older workers who are interested to start afresh, to learn a new skill and to have a second chance? These older workers, in their late 30s and 40s, will need an income to support their families and pay for their financial commitments. But yet they have got to resign from their existing jobs and go into full-time learning. Companies have a problem releasing them. Everyone is looking at cost and is short of workers. Can we turn to a scheme where we actually give these older workers an income when they come out to learn a new skill? Can we draw on the foreign workers levy? It is not a subsidy that will go to waste, because we are training these people to learn new skills, new jobs, that we are bringing into Singapore. Many of the older workers cannot attend night courses because they are also moonlighting. Many have other family commitments and responsibilities. So they are stuck. Unless we are prepared to take them out from what they are doing now and give them a chance to learn a new skill, I do not see how we can solve the problem. On balance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Government has grasped our problems well. The Government's philosophies and strategies are generally sound. It is for us all Singaporeans to rally behind the Government to achieve success. It is also our job to give feedback to the Government the minute we notice negative side effects. I trust that the Government will listen. Sir, I support the motion. 2.10 pm