Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. 1993 turned out better than expected. Singapore has progressed to become a model city-state. In fact, we read daily that there are so many countries inviting us to start townships in their countries. We would soon find many, many "Singapores" around the world. I salute the Government last year and I do it this year again for a job well done. Many things happened last year and most noticeably is the thrust for our second wing. The seeds have been sowed. Our Government leaders, in fact, our Prime Minister, Senior Minister and many of the other Ministers have just returned, and they have been working very hard to go for this second wing. Our private sector has also responded. If we take the budget incentives announced last year and this year (it is correct that the private sector is unhappy) and if we digest a bit and look at the two years' incentives, probably it is fair to let the incentives run. The Government is listening. Last year, there were a lot of incentives given to corporations, and this year, the attention is switched to the individuals, even for individuals who are working overseas, things like the CPF reduction, the tax incentives, and so on. Maybe the Minister would like to explain the rationale behind the individual ceiling tax of 30% versus the corporate tax of 27%. The other interesting point is the Government returning the dividends to the people, particularly the CPF Share Ownership Top-up Scheme (SOTUS). Last year, there was this $200 offer, but there were still over 10% of people not benefiting from the $200. I do not know whether he has found out the reason. This year, with the 18-month period to top up $750 to enjoy the $300, could we find a way out to help these people who did not respond? Could not the $200 the last time, and $300 this time, be credited to them straightaway, into their Special Account for use at old age? There must be reasons why they are not responding to benefit from the $200? I am glad the Government is paying higher interest rates for the CPF Retirement Account. Could the individuals who do not want to get into share investments actually keep the money straight into the CPF old age account? That means, top up the $40,000 if they can afford to, and enjoy the higher interest, instead of going to invest outside. GST and business cost are of big concern. Many, including the Government departments, have raised their prices, not in the name of GST, but giving reasons that they have not increased for the last few years and they are asking the people to buy their reasoning. But the way people are fearing about the price increases, I think it shows that they are not accepting those reasons. It is good that the Government has come out to give the assurance that they would smack hard on profiteers. But our worry is that inflation would not be what the Minister had said last year, that is, a one-time 3% increase. It would look like maybe 5-7%. And what would happen then? Will there be a contingency plan to help out because cost of business will rise? Unions will be asking for higher wages and I think it is justified if inflation shoots up way above the 5-7%. I declare my interest as a retailer. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong has said about the ALS and the retail business. I think it is real that the retail business is bad, and probably the Minister could look at the report and the survey submitted by the SRA and see how we could go about helping them. Our assets seem to be inflated. We tell our people that the living cost has not really risen that much. But when they measure it against the things that they want to buy, such as houses and cars, it seems to be a case of asset inflation. I also understand that there are a lot of loans taken to buy houses. Also, the credit card loans. At any one time in a month, I understand that credit card holders are owing $500 million. So is that an indication that our people are having a higher gearing than they should? Of course, employers look at cost and reacted to the 1 1/2% increase on the employer's CPF contribution. I think there is no quarrel. It is only fair that we pay up to the workers who have sacrificed during the recession years. The only concern and worry is actually the cost in business. If inflation goes up by 5-7%, together with the implementation cost of GST, etc., would we be pricing ourselves out of the market? Would we fall into the trap of Japan that suddenly went into a position where they are now just finding out what had actually gone wrong? Our leaders are actually trying very hard to help Singaporeans cope. As our economy matures, we cannot expect the same kind of growth in Singapore. Our Senior Minister and our Prime Minister have told us that if we want quick growth we should go overseas. I think a lot of things have not been accepted by our people. I am rather worried, and I am not alone in this worry, to observe that all is not well beneath the good budget numbers. People seem to be afraid. There are many changes that have not been well digested and that may result in discontentment and resentment. The fact that we are so successful has a lot to do with being a cohesive and harmonious society. Our Prime Minister has recently cautioned the people not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. According to the Prime Minister, the golden goose is of course the Government. Kill it, and that is it. I think no one can quarrel with him that much of our success has a lot to do with our Government, good government. And, granted, investors often cite our political stability, integrity and honesty of the Government as key reasons for investing in Singapore. But, on the other hand, we all also know, agree and accept that Singapore's success cannot be due to one midwife alone. No man is an island, and no government functions in isolation. There are some key pillars or social institutions that provide the superglue to our well-being and to our staying cohesive and harmonious. We have (a) tripartism - the equal role, cooperation and trust amongst the Government, employers and unions; (b) the very important ethnic and religious leadership. Their importance and influence cannot be under-estimated. Mutual tolerance, respect and understanding prevail. All have to live, work, compete and progress side by side. Chauvinism is not allowed. And the other key pillar is meritocracy. There is no nepotism here. Everyone has an equal opportunity, everyone progresses according to his talents, ability and willingness to work. And, at the same time, the talented are asked to show compassion. The better educated are asked to come out and lead and look after the less fortunate. We need good social community workers too, in addition to the good Government workers, bosses of industries, union workers. Therefore, for Singapore to succeed, we have to have good leaders all round in all these key institutions. Our success has shifted a lot of our values, as Dr Michael Lim has said earlier. We have become too materialistic. Our aspirations and expectations have multiplied manifold. Sir, personally, I think there is nothing really wrong with wanting to be rich, to live in a big house, drive a big car, dine in the best restaurant, so long as we continue to honestly work for our improvements and have a heart for the less fortunate. We have to play our part as good and loyal citizens. We cannot envy or be jealous of our brothers and sisters who do better than us. Directly, or indirectly, we all benefit from the contributions of one another. We have to be grateful to the many leaders in the various bodies that lead and sacrifice for the well-being of our fellow men. So, therefore, we have to give them decent competitive compensations; otherwise they will not be motivated. So by and large, the rationale of paying market rates to attract the right talents works. However, there are many jobs - some very, very important jobs, thankless jobs - that money alone cannot buy. Worse still, money may buy the wrong candidates. Examples are politics, religious, charitable, social workers. (a) Let us take the religious workers. I believe religions all over the world today are finding it more and more difficult to attract people to serve their religions. Full-time people in the various orders are shrinking - priests, monks, nuns, imams, rabbis, pastors, and so on. These holy people answer the call of their God and they serve, believing that they will be rewarded in the next life when they are united with their God. Hindus who believe in reincarnation believe they will move up the social order if they do good now. While there are others who simply serve because that itself is satisfaction, that is reward enough. It is in our well-being that we have amongst us good and responsible religious leaders. They are very powerful and influential amongst their followers. Under our multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society, all our religious leaders and ethnic-based leaders have a very important earthly role to play. It is most fortunate that we have good and responsible leaders amongst us now, and it is also good that our Government provides assistance to ethnic-based self-help groups and religious bodies. And, in fact, I would suggest that the Government increase the grants to them to help them do an even better job. Some ask me, just how much should we pay to save our souls? How much should we pay to have a peace of mind? I think that peace of mind is worth it. (b) Is politics simply a job? Ancient Greeks described politics as a supreme science of philosophy. Politics is about ethics, morals, ideals, and mankind itself. Politicians were well revered and respected then. They provided leadership and vision. They were people of character, integrity, virtue, dedication and commitment. They led the people towards a better future, a better tomorrow. Those were the days, so sighed many people around the world. Politics has become a joke. We hear of dirty politics, money politics. Thankfully, by the grace of God, probably the blessings of our multi-religious society, Singapore politics has not deteriorated to such a sad state. We still treat our Ministers with love and respect. Yet this high social standing is not enough to lure good people into politics. Our leaders have repeatedly expressed their concern. They conclude that much has to do with opportunities to make money outside. Therefore, they propose a market package to compensate these great sons of the soil to come forward and serve Singapore. I check around and I ask former leaders. None has any disagreement in wanting to pay our Ministers decently. The unknown factor is whether this market pay will draw us the right kind of candidates. But many still believe - I hope they are not wrong - that politics is more than just a job. It is a vocation, and it is dangerous to use money as the motivating factor. People who love money should not be allowed into politics. It is just too dangerous. The recent stepping down of so many of our heavy-weight Ministers worries many of us. However, none of us believe that they were stepping down simply because of pay. Some went so far as to ask whether there were leadership differences in the top hierarchy. Will we ever know? My question here, Sir, is what can we do if (a) with the best of pay, we still cannot attract public-spirited people to serve the country; and (b) worse still, the wrong people are attracted? Do we have a better plan then? (c) The third group (the community leaders, the social workers, the grassroots leaders) - they play a very important role too in our social fabric. They are the unsung heroes. They spend their precious times, and often dig deep into their pockets, to serve the less fortunate countrymen. They see their MPs and Ministers sacrificing for the good of all, so they come forward to serve. With full market pay now, many commented whether it is still necessary for them to serve - what more to serve free? These men come from all walks of life, and we have to admit that many of them are not less qualified than our politicians. What about the social, charitable organisations? Are they going to be able to attract volunteer workers in future? Surely our values cannot simply be measured by dollars and cents. Parents often pin their hope on their children. Some hope their child will grow up to become a doctor, a High Court judge, a Permanent Secretary, or even a Minister. So this hope cannot be pay-motivated. I think it could be probably due to the respect the parents have for a particular honourable job. The civil service in the tripartism, where the Government was mentioned as one of the three legs, makes up the second component. And the recently proposed change in the medical benefits had angered quite a lot of them, if not all of them, and some cried foul, some cried a breach of trust, a breach of contract. So why was the outcry? Thankfully, the Prime Minister himself had come out to assure the civil servants that they are actually part of Government, and why should the politicians upset them. Some said, with all the changes, if they really would not be worse off, then, why change in the first place? I think the Government has done the right thing in setting aside in the pension fund a sum estimated to be equivalent to our outstanding pension liability. Can the Government do the same? If we look at the civil servants' medical cost with our huge surpluses, we can set aside a sum for those who are already enjoying the current life-time free medical service, whilst new entrants come in with a new scheme, like the way we did away with the pension scheme. There is another point. On the one side, we raise expectations, but on the other side, we cannot deliver, and that often upsets the citizens. We are talking about moving into the next phase where all the more the people have got to rally behind the Government. There is this particular landed property sale. The Government has raised the hopes of private individuals when it announced the sale of small plots of land for individuals and small-timers to build their own dream homes. Nobody feels upset when lands were tendered out in large parcels. But when hopes were raised and not satisfied, frustrations and anger set in. Small-timers and individuals felt let down. Of course, the Government is right; the Minister is right to say, "Save our sympathies for the 3-roomers." But here we are talking about having raised their hopes, and we tell them, too bad, you have got to compete. There are many, many more instances of unhappiness here, Sir. I shall not take more time to raise them. But I am trying to drive home the point that beneath the budget numbers, we have to look at the cohesiveness of our society. As we plunge into the next lap, the rulers and the subjects have to work even more closely. Everyone has a role to play. Every role has a dignity. Do not be mistaken that only the brains count. With your permission, Sir, I would like to share a somewhat crude, but more apt, story - the body anatomy. The brain, the eyes, the mouth, the nose, the legs and hands were all arguing as to who is the most important part of the whole body. Every part has a very strong reason, and each cannot accept the other to be the more important. In that heated argument and commotion came a sudden squeak from the anus. Yes, the anus hole claimed it is equally important - it was modest enough not to claim to be the most important. All laughed. But after shutting the hole for a few days, a week, maybe two, the entire body parts blurred, sweat, shook, and they voted the anus hole to be the most important. They learned their lesson. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.