Hansard, 1997-06-03

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [2nd June, 1997], `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 First Session of this Parliament.".' - [Dr Wang Kai Yuen]. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address highlighted one issue which is very much in the news of late. The buzzword in the message is competition. Sir, when industrial enterprises compete, they compete for market share, profitability and, of course, long-term well-being. In other words, companies compete with each other in the same industry to have the largest market share. This will ensure profitability and long-term survival. But when we say nations compete against each other, what is the nature of this competition? Do we compete with other nations to be on the top of the class in terms of per capita GDP? Does Singapore compete with her neighbours for a larger share of the market? If this is so, this begs the question: what market are we talking about? Sir, in the simplest form, the market in question is Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). In other words, countries compete with each other to attract the most investor dollars to their shores. This is the competition that has heated up in the last decade. As more and more emerging economies are beginning to realise that the fastest way to generate economic growth is foreign direct investments, the competition in that sense is becoming aggressive. FDI creates jobs, helps to transfer technology and know-how and enables the host countries to improve their balance of trade. The failure of command economies like those in Russia and China has, of course, helped accentuate this flow of foreign capital. Sir, the World Economic Forum's 1997 report on the competitiveness of nations has placed Singapore on the top of the league. Other Asian countries in the top ten positions are Hong Kong in second place, Taiwan in eighth place and Malaysia, which was placed tenth position last year, is now ninth in the ranking. Herein perhaps lies the underlying reason for the manner in which Malaysia has treated the current controversy. As Malaysia improves economically, it is flexing its muscles and aims to overwhelm Singapore in diverting investments and trade. Multi-million dollar mega-projects, such as the multi-media super corridor (MSC), the new sea port and the airport are aimed directly at Singapore. Their belief is that success in these projects will see lower investments in technology businesses into Singapore and, of course, decreasing the business done by our ports. I think such a vision is, of course, made on the assumption that other countries and economies are at a standstill. However, we know this cannot be so. Even as Malaysia is building its infrastructure, both legal and physical, the stock of inward FDI into East Asia is, as at 1995, a staggering US$350 billion. For Singapore, we need only to attract about 1% of that level of investments a year and that is a high level of investment for Singapore. Malaysia perhaps may need to attract two to three times that level of investments of Singapore. Hence, the point I am making here is that the pie is too vast for any country to dominate. Only China, through its sheer size and stage of economic development, attracts about 37% of all FDI into East Asia. Even as Malaysia makes attempts to divert freight to their own ports, the continuing growth of trade in near double digit figures in the region will mean that our port will continue to grow as long as we have a competitive edge. Even as Malaysia hopes to divert traffic to her new international airport, the growth in air traffic for both cargo and air passengers will see Singapore continuing to be an important air traffic centre if we are up to par on the job. Even with Malaysia's multi-media super corridor, the double digit growth in the information technology business will see Singapore willy-nilly being a niche player as long as our manpower is well trained and our Singapore One infrastructure is in place. In short, Mr Speaker, the tremendous growth experienced by Asian economies and the even more impressive growth in new technologies business will ensure an ever growing economic pie which will benefit all newly emerging countries. As countries in the region prosper, they feed into the economic growth of each other. What is good for Malaysia is not only good for Singapore, but all neighbouring countries. Conversely, a setback, as we saw in Thailand recently, will equally have the opposite effect. The days of "beggar thy neighbour" policy is long gone and our neighbour, Malaysia, must come to realise that economic competition is not a zero-sum game where there is a vanquished and a victor. Hence, the continuing daily reports of Singaporeans being held up and delayed at Johor, unscheduled checks on Singapore investors in Johor and calls to boycott Singapore ports is not the way to encourage Singaporeans to visit and invest in Malaysia. Sir, despite the fact that Singapore is a major investor in Malaysia, I have been told that inspection checks are being conducted on Singapore businesses in Johor. Two businessmen told me that the manner of the checking process tantamounts to harassment. I cannot see how this will not hurt Johor's image in attracting further investments into Johor. I must add, however, that this is probably the handiwork of over zealous officers, but it does not help. Nevertheless, such action cannot have a positive impact on Malaysia's tourism and investment drives. I therefore take this opportunity to urge Malaysian politicians to heed the words of the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohammed, who on 9th May 1997, in an interview with Asiaweek has stated categorically that Malaysia/Singapore relation is back to normal. Sir, let me move on to another aspect of competitiveness. Of late, Singaporeans have been treated to a splendid example of what competition can do. I am referring to the advent of Mobile One (M1). It has indeed got Singaporeans talking. Telephone charges started to fall like ten-pins in a bowling alley. In other words, before M1, Singaporeans were paying uncompetitive rates despite the rebuttals and denials in the past. When Singaporeans compared, sometime ago, about mobile phone charges and prices with those in other countries, SingTel was always ready and quick with a reply. No question now that consumers were right. Sir, another unseen and more important aspect of M1 is that SingTel has got no alternative but to improve productivity and technical expertise. It has no other option. This is good for Singapore. As long as SingTel was a monopoly, we cannot keep up with the technological age. Now, they have no choice. Sir, the SingTel and M1 episode is a positive example of what the Government must do to improve our internal competitiveness. Every service in Government must be looked into with the view of privatising that service. Every policy should be looked into with the view of deregulating the policy. Sir, the United Kingdom has gone to the extent of privatising its prison services and I see no reason why more Government services in Singapore cannot go the same route. Privatisation and deregulation of Government services and policies will bring about efficiencies and, more importantly, hone our competitive skills. Sir, it is not sufficient for the Government to urge Singaporeans to be more competitive in the face of external threats and pressures. The Government can and is capable of doing much more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion of thanks by Dr Wang Kai Yuen for the President's Address. On 20th May this year, the World Economic Forum published its annual ranking of the world's most competitive economies. For the second year running, we have earned the honour of being in the top rank. Singapore's success in the eyes of the global community is testimony to the foresight, wisdom and grit of our founding fathers and their successors. They had the courage to implement pragmatic policies, and today, we reap the benefits. Investors come to take advantage of our open and free economy. We are highly competitive because our workers have good skills and are hardworking. Our defence capabilities give us peace and security. We have good schools, excellent healthcare, affordable homes. We live happy and productive lives. Yes, Mr Low Thia Khiang, we have souls. Underlying our successful policies was a core value and principle: that every citizen would be given the opportunity to develop and to excel, each according to his or her ability. There was no discrimination by gender, or race, or religion. The inherent fairness of a meritocratic system motivated all to work hard, in the knowledge that their sacrifice would be rewarded, and their children and grandchildren would know a better life. They succeeded, and today all Singaporeans enjoy a higher standard of living in Singapore, our best home. Mr Speaker, Sir, today, other countries in the region have implemented similar policies. Their economic programmes and principles of governance may not entirely be the same as ours, but in their own way, they too have made progress. And increasingly, they compete with us for investments and for jobs. At the same time, the end of the cold war has brought about a realignment of the world order. Centrally planned economies are opening up their markets and shifting their policies towards open market operations. This, too, will create competition for us. Such competition will spur us on. It is not a zero-sum game. Growth in the region and beyond will create opportunities for all countries to raise their standard of living. And, as our economies become increasingly interdependent, there will be many occasions when we will collaborate rather than compete for profit and growth. But, whether we collaborate or compete, we must ensure that the goods we produce and the services we provide will be value for money. To do this, we need a systematic and comprehensive approach. We have to invest in infrastructure, upgrade worker skills, and retool Government policies to keep the economy humming and we have to watch our costs. But fundamentally, we must continue to improve the use of our human resource. It is our people who, in the final analysis, will make the difference. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to address three issues in our continuing quest to make the most of our people's potential. The key to unlocking value in our people is education and training. I am therefore glad that the Government has already announced a number of new initiatives in education. The introduction of National Education in our schools is both timely and welcome. National Education will imbue in each successive generation an empathy with our history and our roots. It will give our children a sense of belonging, and bonding with each other. As they grow up, they will understand how events in the past continue to shape our actions in the present and to influence our outlook and strategies for the future. They will know that to be sovereign is to be free, but to be free entails choices, commitment and sacrifice. I am also glad that the Minister for Education has launched a bold and decisive plan to apply information technology to our schools. Putting computers in every classroom, and on every teacher's desk is but a first step. The challenge ahead is to make use of this enabling technology to create a more stimulating learning environment, to make learning enjoyable, so that children look forward each day to going to school. We should start the process of stimulation early. Recent research presents increasing evidence that if children are exposed at an early age to music and language, their learning abilities later in life are enhanced. Children who listen and speak with adults in two languages from birth seem to have little difficulty in coping with and picking up these languages as they grow older. Research also suggests that children exposed to music before the age of two turn out to be better in mathematics later on in life, even if they may not become accomplished musicians. If all this is correct, then investing in the very young will enable us to further push the limits of our human resources. We should therefore invest even more resources to bring out the best in every child in Singapore. In the education of the very young, the goal is not to make toddlers read at the age of two, but rather to stimulate their minds. It is a bit like marinating the meat before you barbecue it - adding the wine later adds flavour, but only by putting it in early can you bring out its full yummy taste. But the idea here, I hasten to add, is not to fry the brains of our young, but to nourish its healthy development. Educating the very young will require the full cooperation and participation of parents. We must therefore also pay attention to how we can help parents do their part in the full development of their children. Parents naturally want what is best for their child, but not all are aware of how to go about doing it. In education, more is not necessarily better, and rushing young children from one tuition class to another may provide more stress than stimulation. We should therefore provide assistance and aids to young parents on bringing up baby. By involving parents when their children are very young, we can also begin a process of involving parents in their children's development right through to adulthood. As our Prime Minister has said, learning is a life-long skill. Learning does not begin at primary one. It does not even begin at nursery. But it begins from the very day our senses come alive, and it only ends when those senses shut down. We should therefore rethink our approach to learning, and begin the process from the very beginning. I would therefore like to suggest that we give priority and emphasis to the education of the very young, and formulate new learning programmes at pre-primary levels. We should also involve parents, to train and equip them with the skills they need to share the responsibility of educating our young. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the education of young minds, I now turn to the movement of our people into the region. Since the early 1990s, the Government has encouraged more businesses to venture into the region. This is correct, because the growth in the region and the inter-dependency of our economies makes it both necessary and unavoidable for us to link up with the region. Trade and investment patterns have shifted, and an important part of Singapore's economic future lies in the region. The future leaders of our business enterprises and economic institutions must have first-hand and in-depth knowledge of the region. Getting good people out there is therefore essential for Singapore's future success. But finding people to go into the region is not always easy, as many businessmen have told me. The people who are most in demand are also those who face the greatest difficulties. They are in their 30s and their 40s. They have the skills, the acumen and the energy. But their spouses have good jobs in Singapore, and their children are still in school. The problems they face range from obtaining no-pay leave for their spouses to finding schools for their children. Likewise, coming home a few years later can be problematic, as children have to readjust to a different pace in school, and spouses may have to start from scratch to look for jobs. These and other problems of living and working in the region need to be looked into. The problems do not belong to any one Ministry, but span across many departments. This makes it all the more important that a concerted effort is mounted not only to work out comprehensive solutions to these problems, but also to encourage more Singaporeans to take up overseas postings. For a start, the Government can be a role model, by encouraging its best and brightest to undertake key assignments in our regional flagship projects. Those who work in the region should not lose out in seniority when they come home, but instead the invaluable experience they have picked up should be recognised. Where they have done well, they should be promoted quickly. This will send a clear signal to others that overseas experience is both challenging and rewarding. We should also look into distance learning for children who follow their parents to cities where there are no Singapore schools. Even when our kids can find places in other international schools overseas, it would still be worthwhile for them to have linkages with schools back home, so that they will not lose touch with what their friends are up to at home. Special attention should also be given to the learning of a second language, which often would not be available in the international schools. For the children overseas, the involvement of their parents in their educational development is even more crucial. We should therefore also prepare kits for parents, to help them in their role of temporary teacher while their children are overseas. Finally, Singapore's consular offices overseas can be beefed up to provide more information to help new families settle into unfamiliar neighbourhoods, and to help budding businesses find their way around local rules and regulations. We can also find better ways to keep them connected to developments back home. And this is not just the news, but also a sense of continuing involvement. Perhaps by the next general election, eligible voters abroad can also be allowed to post in their votes. By these and other measures, we can help to build up a regional network of Singaporeans who work overseas, but continue to retain strong business links and family ties to Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I now turn to my final subject matter, which is the importance of maintaining a strong community spirit of caring and of sharing. This is both a social issue and an economic one. Singapore survived in the 60s and 70s and prospered through the 80s and 90s because we have such a spirit. It united us in our cause to build a nation and gave us fortitude to face seemingly insurmountable odds. But today's young generation will grow up facing a whole new set of challenges. We will feel the pressure to work harder from a faster pace of technological changes. We will face ethical questions, as science and medical advances equip us with powers both to create and to destroy. The globalisation of industry will throw up new jobs but, at the same time, displace out-dated industries and dislodge workers. More people all over the world will become better educated, and lay their claims alongside ours for a better life. Life will be exciting, but turbulent. This turbulence will put pressure on our lives, and give rise to undesirable side effects. Some of this shows up in selfish actions. Examples are vandalism, killer litter and indiscriminate dumping of old and unwanted possessions. It also shows up in our families, in broken homes and delinquent children. At this time, the incidence of such problems is still low. By and large, our traditional values of family ties and community obligations are still strong. But we should pay attention to these warning signals. Left unattended, selfish actions can grow to become selfish, self-centred and uncaring lives. While the problem is still small, we should inculcate good habits to bind us strongly as a community, and to help us cushion the pressures which a more complex world brings to our lives. In the past, we used to have many gotong royong projects. Today, we depend on the Town Councils or the HDB or the PWD to spruce up the neighbourhood. But while we may no longer need to contribute sweat and toil, we must keep alive the spirit of hu xiang ban zhu, ie, mutual help and community care. We can do this by volunteering ourselves to community service and by encouraging one another. Last year, TCS ran a series entitled "Extraordinary People". It was an extraordinary programme, and I think it lifted the spirits of those who watched it. Our media should continue to focus on such ordinary people and their extraordinary deeds. They are role models who do much to keep our spirits alive by their simple acts of care and love. Perhaps the recounting of such deeds can become a regular column in some of the daily papers. Our grassroots organisations can also play an active role. They can organise activities to bring neighbours together to get to know each other and to create mutual care groups. They can also link up with schools in their neighbourhood, and help out with children who are facing difficulties in school or at home. Our goal is for each Singaporean to live active, rich and balanced lives. Lives which reach out to help those who have stumbled along the way so that we do not just make a living, but we also leave behind a legacy of care. This is where the CDCs can provide the leadership, and I hope that they will make the nuturing of community spirit their top priority. Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has presented us with an inspiring vision of a better future. Singaporeans are ready to make this vision into a reality. Some will snigger at such forecast. They say that Singaporeans are motivated by fear. They are wrong. We are a people motivated by fairness. Others claim that we are motivated by greed. We are not. We are driven by our collective will to succeed, and to care for each other. The future holds no guarantee of success. But we are spurred on by the knowledge that together we will achieve, and see even better days for our children and our grandchildren here in our best home. Sir, I support the motion of thanks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah in thanking the President for his Address at the Opening of this Parliament. I think the President's Speech focuses on our need to remain economically competitive and to ensure that all Singaporeans benefit from the nation's economic strides. How this is to be achieved raises some very interesting questions for us to reflect and debate upon. As noted by the President, Singapore's basic challenge in the years ahead will be to upgrade the economy into higher productivity, higher skill and higher value added activities as other countries around the region develop and economic competition intensifies. While competition with other countries may not be a zero sum game, as has been mentioned by other Members here in this House, we must persevere to stay ahead and remain a key economic player both regionally and internationally. We must not only continue to work hard but smarter to ensure that growth is maintained at levels which are high enough to provide all Singaporeans with a higher standard of living. The key to accomplishing this, Sir, is to improve the technological and creative innovation capacity of the nation. Singapore must become a centre of learning and creativity attracting talent from within and outside the region. This is the only way we can stay ahead. The US, for example, is still ahead of other countries despite not being the leading producers of personal computers. That claim belongs to Taiwan. But American companies such as Intel and Microsoft own the technological know-how needed to produce the personal computers. To attain the economic productivity and sophistication of a fully industrialised nation, we must invest in our young, encourage our industries and institutions of higher learning to carry out research and development work in key areas. The Government in fact has done a lot to promote R&D and creative innovation. The first National Technology Plan (NTP) did indeed achieve some of the targets it had set for the five years from 1991 to 1995. The Member for Bukit Timah has reiterated some of these figures. I will repeat some of those that he has mentioned. For example, the private sector contribution to National Gross Expenditure on R&D was a high of 64.7% in 1995. In the same year, we had 46 research scientists and engineers per 10,000 workforce surpassing the target of 40 set by the NTP. This ratio was in fact only 28 in 1990. So I am confident that the second technology plan which will pump $4 billion into R&D work from 1996 to the year 2000 will achieve its targets. With the right environment and the necessary manpower, companies here can actively pursue creative and innovative work along the entire value chain of business. In addition, the Government has undertaken international manpower recruitment and local talent development efforts to support its R&D drive. To cope with the manpower demands of a maturing economy, the Government also needs to look into ways of making Singaporeans better problem solvers, innovators and learners. I am therefore glad to note that the Minister for Education in his Addendum to the President's Speech has indicated that one of the missions of his Ministry is to develop creative and independent learners among our young. This is a step in the right direction. Independent learners are those who are imbibed with the spirit of inquiry. They will pursue life long learning and will invariably probe and ponder over new things. They will retrain themselves without any prodding. This move towards creating a thinking and learning society has in fact been endorsed by none other than the Prime Minister himself when he opened the International Conference on Thinking here in Singapore yesterday. Societies which have a long tradition of learning, reflection and thinking are those societies which have bequeathed to mankind new ideas, innovations, great works of art and literature and scientific discoveries. If thinking and learning become one of our core values, we will be better able to contribute to the storehouse of human knowledge and ideas. At the tertiary education level, we may also want to consider some other options. The universities have served the country well for the past 30 years. To continue to serve into the next phase, we need to change the way we manage and develop the growth of our universities. Again, as mentioned in his Addendum, the Minister for Education has set out to make both NUS and NTU world class universities. To do so requires a new approach altogether. If we are to allow new ideas and technologies to emerge from the universities, I would like to suggest here that the Government might consider giving the Faculty of Engineering, for example, greater autonomy. I think we cannot look at two faculties alike. The management of faculties must be done differently with respect to their roles. Here, Sir, I would like to declare my interest in this matter as I am a staff member of the NUS. Competition is still the best motivator for progress and new ideas. If the faculty is allowed to be on its own but the Ministry determines what its output should be, then the faculty would have to strive to achieve those targets. The faculty should be given some flexibility in deciding the manner in which it wants to achieve those targets. This is sometimes what we call control chaos. The boundaries are defined but within that boundary a certain amount of free play exists. This flexibility also, to my mind, Sir, must extend to other aspects of university research. Is it possible for us to find an arrangement where a professor, perhaps through his consulting company, can obtain research funds from the industry to hire graduate students to do leading edge research? Obviously, the arrangement would have to serve the industry's aim of staying ahead of the competition. The long term effect of a flexible arrangement is that the universities become a source of new ideas and manpower which can then be channeled into the industry. Ultimately, this will be good for the country. Apart from emphasising economic competitiveness concerns, the President has highlighted the need to maintain social cohesion to stay ahead. I agree wholeheartedly with the President. In this regard, I am happy again to note that the Minister for Education in his Addendum has outlined National Education (NE) as one of his Ministry's missions. Along these lines, the efforts of the Ministry of Community Development in forming the CDCs to foster community bonding should also be applauded. The notion of a people or a nation is central to NE. After all, the objective of NE is to develop in the people a sense of belonging to one nation. In order to achieve this, we will invariably have to talk about our shared history and how the different races interact in Singapore. NE, therefore, must be responsive to all groupings. We need to understand why Singapore works. How did we manage to motivate different groups of people to work side by side? Research would help shed some light on how the different races accommodate and interact with one another. To facilitate this process, I would like to suggest that the Government might consider sponsoring a Singapore Studies Programme at the university. The aim of such a programme would be to promote inter-cultural understanding and open the consciousness of all groups to the vast array of experiences within our society. This programme would be able to draw upon the resources and research already available in the university, such as Political Science, History, Chinese Studies and Malay Studies Departments. Hence, the proposed programme would take an inter-disciplinary approach towards understanding Singapore society. It would serve as a focal point for discussions, forums and research which will help to preserve and document the Singapore story. The recent launch of NE also showed that teachers are weary of conducting discussions in class on race, language and religion. It seems that we have not developed the expertise or know-how to deal with such sensitive issues. I think we need to find a way to discuss such issues in a way that does not arouse feelings of ill-will or negative sentiments. Our schools must provide students with an opportunity to develop the skills to understand and appreciate the richness of our differences and the value of what we share in common as Singaporeans. This is important not only for the preservation of our racial harmony but for the enhancement of our economic competitiveness. Given the Government's push towards regionalisation and globalisation, Singaporeans are finding themselves operating in totally different environments. Success in such environments demands cross-cultural communication skills, sensitivity to diverse perspectives and understanding, and the flexibility to deal creatively with differences. The Government hence might consider setting up a department or unit within the Ministry. Perhaps the NE unit in the Education Ministry can be the nucleus to facilitate greater cross-cultural dialogues and communications. In doing so, the Government will send the signal that while it is important for the different races to preserve their own cultural heritage, it is equally important for all Singaporeans to find more common ground that will lead to greater understanding and rapport. While official efforts are needed, we must also look towards private initiatives by groups and individuals. I am happy to note that several schools have on their own started programmes which will lead to an appreciation of other cultures in Singapore. For example, I came across an instance in the Straits Times where in one school the principal encouraged the students to dress according to one cultural tradition on a particular day. Similarly, individuals have also stepped outside their communities to contribute to the less well-off in other communities. Again, as an example, I recently came across an Indian doctor who has volunteered her services to a free clinic run by a Muslim organisation for the past 10 years. She is not a Muslim. We also saw examples of non-Malays contributing to a Muslim old aged home during the recent Hari Raya celebrations. These efforts, to my mind, Sir, will invariably contribute to inter-ethnic goodwill. We must build upon these private efforts. The launching of NE will have far-reaching implications for the country for many years to come. It is an attempt to pass down memories and world views to succeeding generations. However, in so doing, we have to discuss, among other things, our history and our notions of nationhood. These are not easy matters to discuss. But I am confident that we as a people and a nation will be able to do so since the country's survival depends upon our ability to motivate succeeding generations and help them feel for the country. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of the Member for Bukit Timah in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Address, particularly with regard to National Education. In 1965, because of political differences, we left Malaysia and became an independent country. In the early days of nation building, our situation was very dangerous. That was something that happened 32 years ago. People's memory is short. After some time, many things have been forgotten. Yesterday, the Member for Potong Pasir suggested that we build an economic union with Malaysia. In the Lianhe Zaobao today there is a commentary that says that Chiam See Tong's idea sounds like not just a wishful thinking but very naive indeed. I agree with this comment. This episode further enhanced my belief that we ought to learn more about history. As I said, in the early days of nation building our situation was very dangerous. Fortunately, our first generation leaders were undaunted. They led the people of Singapore to fight against all odds. They had good foresight and were able to seize the right opportunities. They worked very hard to develop our economy. They eventually made Singapore a good home for everyone. This is a historical fact. But "good" is not enough. In the recent general election, the PAP set a higher target for itself and for the people of Singapore, ie, to make Singapore our "best" home. The election results showed that the people are supportive of our political platform. It is our vision to make Singapore our best home. It is the target that we have set for ourselves in the 21st century. Singapore's success is due to a number of factors. In my view, one of the most important factors is that the older generation of Singaporeans was concerned about our country's hardship. However, in recent years, our living conditions have been good and the people have been enjoying peace and harmony. Our economy continues to grow. HDB flats continue to be upgraded. Many people have already forgotten what is hardship. Some people even think that to have hardship consciousness is worrying about troubles of one's own imagination or entertaining groundless fears. The recent developments in the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia have dealt a head-on blow on these complacent Singaporeans, enabling them to face reality, showing them that the environment for our survival is very harsh. If we do not take good care of ourselves, all the progress and prosperity we have achieved through years of hard work will disappear into thin air. Using this basic fact as a starting point, I feel that if we want to realise our vision of the 21st century, we cannot just depend on our future economic development. I work in the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Of course, I know the importance of economic growth. However, our future success will depend more on our unique Singapore spirit. I shall call this spirit the Singapore National Soul. What is Singapore National Soul? This is not just an abstract general patriotism. It refers to the spirit under which Singaporeans are prepared to work hard and fight to attain their ideal and the determination not to submit to pressure from others. This spirit has been built up in the process of 32 years of nation-building. This kind of spirit was brought into full play by the older generation of Singaporeans. Because they had suffered, they had been downgraded to second class citizens. That is why they treasure very much the happiness of being first class citizens. They take pride in being the masters of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we want to continue to enjoy success, we must consolidate and put into full play the Singapore National Soul in the younger generation of Singaporeans. I believe that cultivating the Singapore National Soul is the quintessence of our National Education. The Ministry of Education has drawn up a plan to implement systematic national education for our students. This is the beginning of a project of vital and lasting importance. It is excellent indeed. Since the Government is determined to promote National Education, I hope that it is an everlasting endeavour. I feel that apart from the students, the target of National Education should also include adult Singaporeans as well, particularly those who grew up after Singapore had attained its independence. This is because they lack the personal experience of the older generation of Singaporeans. In implementing National Education, we must take note of the following: Firstly, let Singaporeans have a full understanding of the problems and challenges facing the nation. In other words, these problems and challenges should not be shouldered by the Government leaders alone. We should communalise the problems of the nation. We should educate the younger generation of Singaporeans to put the national problems and challenges first and their personal interests second. We have plans to share our wealth. We should also have plans for our Singaporeans to share the problems and challenges of our country. We can go through various channels to share information with grassroots leaders and the leaders in the private sector. Of course, our situation is unique. Not every problem can be discussed openly in the press, particularly the sensitive ones. But through these channels, I believe, with continuous effort, we will be able to pass the message to all Singaporeans. Secondly, I think we should put the community power into full play. When Singaporeans realise that survival of the nation is closely related to their personal interests, then the Singapore National Soul will be strengthened. We want to build up a tacit understanding. When our nation is being humiliated by others, when our leaders are being insulted by others, we must be united in heart and soul to fight the common enemy. When others threaten to cut off our water supply, we will spontaneously value and save every drop of water. If we coordinate this type of spiritual armour with our armed forces, we will become an indestructible wall of steel. Thirdly, we have to deepen and consolidate national education with the cultural strength of the various races. In the development of Singapore, we need mechanical engineers, electronic engineers, civil engineers. But I believe we also need to have the spiritual engineers. I am referring not only to the teachers. I am taking the broader sense of the expression to include workers in the cultural, arts, journalism fields. The Singapore National Soul can be manifested through the cultures, arts, music, dances and writings of the various races to express the feelings and ideals in our hearts. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore used just 32 years to transform a politically unstable and economically poor and backward island into a sparkling pearl in the world. Every Singaporean has a share in everything on this 650 sq m of land. We have a duty to defend and protect it. So long as the Singapore National Soul is alive, Singapore will not be just a beautiful legend but an eternal reality. I support the motion.

Sir, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he shares the views of the editorial of the Lianhe Zaobao when it says that my proposal of an economic union with Malaysia is naive thinking.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I quoted the comment to emphasise the point I wanted to make with regard to National Education. National Education is to educate our people, for our students to know how our nation was built up. So when I read the commentary that Mr Chiam's idea was not only a wishful thinking but was very naive indeed, I agree with him. In fact, he said many other things about Mr Chiam which I agree. He said that if a person who has been in Parliament for many years, a veteran Opposition leader, Mr Chiam See Tong, has not fully understood the history of Singapore and what we had faced when we were in Malaysia, then all the more we should educate our students on the history of Singapore.

Sir, I would ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether or not he knows that when the PAP was canvassing to get into Malaysia, one of the PAP's high officials had said that an independent Singapore was a political joke. That was the thinking at that time. But now it has been proven that he was wrong and, in fact, Singapore is a prosperous independent country. So, at that time, it was even thought that an independent Singapore was a political joke. Now, do you still maintain that there is no possibility of Singapore forming an economic union with Malaysia?

( In Mandarin): In the present circumstances, I agree with the author that to build up an economic union with Malaysia is a naive thinking. This is my opinion.

Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not know that, in fact, nothing is static in life, especially political events and the relations between nations? We have seen in Europe, France and Germany were bitter enemies. They had fought several wars. Thousands of their citizens had been killed. And yet today, they are members of a common economic union. Singapore and Malaysia have not fought any war and we have not killed each other yet. So the situation is much, much better than between France and Germany. So why is it not possible? Is it still a naive thinking?

( In Mandarin): Of course, history is evolving all the time. The situation is changing all the time. But we are talking about foreign relations, we are talking about the situation at this moment and also our understanding of our own history. So we have to look at these two perspectives. We have to learn from history and be inspired by that.

If the Senior Parliamentary Secretary holds the view that trying to teach our young children the prospect of forming an economic union with Malaysia is naive thinking, I am afraid that they will teach the wrong things to our youngsters.

( In Mandarin): This is just to show that the Member for Potong Pasir has not learned from history.

I think, on the contrary, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not learned from history. It is not me. Because history has shown that nothing is static. So the prospect is a good prospect if we can have an economic union with Malaysia. Does he not agree with me? I did not say in my speech yesterday that it was going to be easy. To climb Mount Everest is never easy. But even then, Singaporeans are trying to do so. I think we should not brush aside that because the prospect is difficult, that we should tell our youngsters not to attempt it at all. Then we better not attempt Mount Everest.

When the Member for Potong Pasir asks a question about the economic union, the point that we want to make here is that we make a distinction between what is perception and what is reality. In yesterday's debate we were dealing with reality and figures showed that there were no investors coming to Singapore in 1964. Our economic growth was negative. Those were the realities. Mr Chiam deals with perception. It is his perception. He is entitled to perceive that in future, this economic union could be a reality. He can cite Europe. We can also cite what happened to North and South Korea. Those are the realities versus perception. So I think if you want to continue with this debate, it is better for us to understand the psychology of what made the reality in 1965 and what are the expectations now. We had tried through ASEAN, working through our ASEAN economic project. It did not take off, because the ground, the climate was not fertile for such an idea. Perhaps Mr Chiam's idea could be a reality in 30 years' time. But we are talking about now.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from Mr Chiam See Tong. I fully agree with the views of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Tang Guan Seng. Mr Chiam See Tong is proposing a union with Malaysia. May I ask him, as the Secretary-General of SPP, does he think that there is a possibility of a union between SPP and the PAP? If he thinks so, will it not be just a wishful thinking of his own?

Sir, is he asking me this question about a union between the SPP and the PAP? Which party is he referring to? SPP or SDP? An hon. Member: What is your party now?

Anybody could make a suggestion to have a union between SPP and PAP but he must give very good reasons for that. I am not saying that it cannot be possible. But he must give his reasons and not just come up with a suggestion that may or may not work. But as regards an economic union with Malaysia, I am saying in fact, we should all work for it. And as regards Mr Yatiman's point of perception and reality, how do you distinguish perception and reality? Today, it is perception. Tomorrow, it is reality. So perception can become a reality very quickly. I was in Iran in August 1974. At that time, the Shah of Iran was all powerful. Everywhere you went in town, you could see his photograph. And there was no inkling at all if anybody said that he would be overthrown within two years' time. So the reality at that time was the Shah was the absolute ruler. And yet, within two years' time, he was overthrown. Nobody could see that. If you say that to have an economic union with Malaysia is only a perception, I do not agree with you. It can become a reality maybe in a few years' time or maybe longer. I do not know. But the fact is that we must pursue it because I believe that Singapore's position, in the long-term, must be with Malaysia as an economic entity. Whether we can do it sooner or later, I think we should try. That we are stuck together in a geographical unit and the alternative to unity and cooperation, I do not like to think about it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a vast gulf between what is reality and what is perception and the bridge to reality from perception is time and effort. When the Member spoke about the situation in Iran, it was naive of him not to sense things going on in Iran moving towards the anti-Shah movement. So information is important. And it is also inaccurate for the Member to say that the Government here did not strive and did not make an effort. When the Prime Minister introduced the concept of interlocking relationship, what does it mean deeply inside? We were sincerely, honestly and vigorously pursuing this kind of cooperative relationship. But there is a need to have mutuality in this, and that is the factor which is absent. That is the one that creates the gulf which Mr Chiam did not see it. And what led us to view his view as rather naive was that he did not see the indications that things are not moving towards that direction.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans are lucky to have a Prime Minister and his Cabinet who are open-minded, rational, firm and positive in their attitude. The charisma of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet has brought about the same characteristics among Singaporeans to be rational, open-minded, positive and also calm in their reaction. Therefore, all the demonstrations and speeches that have been made against our leaders in Singapore, we also feel the painful reaction. We are angry. We are unhappy but we are still open-minded, rational and positive in our attitude. And we did not pick it like small children. This is one of the examples of the charisma of our Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers which has been emulated by the people of Singapore. Therefore, we are always calm and we will always think over it before giving our response. I would like to congratulate the people of Singapore who have not reacted according to their whims and fancies against the action that has been taken by our neighbour. I hope this orderly way will continue in the future and it will be followed by the next generation, with God's grace. In this way, we should also be careful because Singapore has a multi-racial community. In this dispute with our neighbour, there is a possibility of some roughs who will inflame and stir the feelings of the races who are not successful and escalate it into a racial issue. This will affect the peace and harmony of living in Singapore. I hope every community should continue with the present characteristic by living together in harmony and respecting each other. In this way, any rough who would like to inflame any race into reacting will not be successful and will not affect Singaporeans of different races, religions and languages. Mr Speaker, after the general election, I was given a lot of congratulatory speeches but in a sinister way some said that there were many things that would happen, especially the increases in prices. The perception of these voters is that once the PAP has won, we will hear about increasing prices eventually. This perception may be true. We have heard about the increases in bus fares and there will be many more that are coming. Therefore, the perception of the voters is quite true and I hope we should think over this in future and all the statistics given by the voters should be reviewed or scrutinised. If we are able to space out these statistics and give them out, maybe they will not have such a perception about things. Otherwise, the increases in prices will continue to be in their mind. I hope, as I have said previously, we should follow the Telecom pricing, that is, from $50, it was reduced to $40, because of competition. But despite that, they have a multi-billion dollar profit. I hope the success of SingTel could be emulated by other Government departments or agencies so that it will not directly affect the people or save the expenditure of the people as a whole. Mr Speaker, I agree with the Ministry of Education's effort to inculcate in our students, especially from primary schools to tertiary level, the National Education programme. But I hope the Ministry of Education will look into the question of whether the teachers have been given a wide perception of the issues which have been raised by the adult students, especially those from the colleges or universities, and may be difficult to give a rational answer. I hope this should be considered and intensively thought over by the Ministry of Education so that it will not raise unsatisfactory response from the adult students. In this connection, I also hope that MUIS will take this opportunity of using what has been provided by the Ministry of Education in the area of National Education and promote it among the full-time Madrasah students so that they will be inculcated with the national spirit of Singapore. I hope the Ministry of Education should provide such facilities if they are required by the Madrasah schools in future. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I have found from the speeches of our leaders that we hope those who are poor will become rich and those who are unfortunate will become fortunate, and that the living standard of all Singaporeans will be comfortable. Previously, the Ministry of the Environment has given opportunities to those who are old, handicapped and the unfortunate so that they could run hawker stalls. But now the opportunities are not there, they are required to put up their tenders. I feel that those who participate in such tenders are those who have the money. Therefore, how could we assist those who are unfortunate, who are unable to get employment, who are unable to obtain their stalls so that they could carry on with their living and have a better life. I would like to support the motion by the Member for Bukit Timah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate to thank the President for his Address. The President said that "we will build a nation where everyone has a stake in Singapore's success, feels a sense of belonging and ownership. The HDB home ownership scheme has been an important means of doing this .". I find this section of the President's Speech very meaningful. Everyone has a stake in Singapore's success. For most people, this stake is his ownership of a flat or a house. Home ownership has become a cornerstone of Singapore's success. It is also a measure of the wealth of the average Singaporean. Earlier, many Members have spoken about rising expectations, especially material expectations of the people. I would like to speak on rising expectations of the people on housing. If we look back, public housing has undergone fundamental changes over the last 40 years. In the 60s, it was a social objective of putting roofs over the heads of our people. In the 70s, it was promoting home ownership. In the 80s, we saw affluence and the expansion of suburban housing estates. In the 90s, nowadays, it has become asset enhancement, lifestyle changes and upgrading to better flats. There was a dramatic shift, from a flat being seen as a basic housing need for everyone in the 60s to an investment asset in the 90s. Our public housing programme, by any measure, is a resounding success. The flats are affordable. They are large and well-designed. It is an envy of many other countries. Yet, now, it is ironical that it has become, to some extent, a burden to the Government, because of an almost insatiable demand for more. Currently, there are about 150,000 applicants on the HDB housing queue. At a building rate of about 35,000-40,000 units a year, the queue means a 4-year wait. I think the basic reason why Singaporeans are keen to get their HDB flats as soon as possible is because of the prospect of a substantial investment gain. This is the basic cause of the rising expectations in public housing. As a result, to meet this demand, the Government wants to build more and faster, and some very innovative schemes were introduced. These are the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP), the In-fill development and Selective En-bloc Redevelopment (SER). These programmes cost the Government over $1 billion dollars a year. Yet, despite these measures, the queue got even longer. Expectations are just too high. People just want more. Two bites of the cherry have become a birth right of a Singaporean. I feel the answer is not just how to give more, but how to meet our people's expectations. Let me make some comparisons. The average size of living space in public housing in Singapore is much better than our neighbours. The comparison of the average flat size per person in the major Asian cities is as follows. In Singapore, the average flat size per person is about 23 square metres. In Tokyo, about 15 square metres. In Seoul, about 13 square metres. Both about half of Singapore. In the case of Beijing, it is about 9 square metres, and Hong Kong, it is only 7 square metres. In these two cases, it is about one-third of Singapore. This comparison means that an equivalent 4-room HDB flat in Singapore which can house four persons in a family, actually can house 6 people in Tokyo, 7 people in Seoul, 10 people in Beijing and 13 people in Hong Kong. I was told that a typical Singapore flat can actually house four Hong Kong families. In comparison, a Singaporean flat owner wants to upgrade to a bigger flat. I was told as a joke that sometimes, when a family plays mahjong in Hong Kong in the living room, only one person can actually stay in the living room. The other three players, one will be in the dining room, one in the bedroom and the other in the kitchen. This is only a contrast, but it is a very graphic comparison of living standards in Singapore and Hong Kong. In Singapore, 77% of the people own their HDB flats and another 9% rent their flats. In comparison, in Hong Kong, only 10% own their public housing flats and 41% actually live in public rental flats. Even Hong Kong's Chief Executive designate, Mr Tung Chee Hwa, has praised Singapore for its success in public housing, and he wants Hong Kong to learn from Singapore. The Minister for National Development has recently announced measures to fine-tune the HDB flat allocation policies. It appears that there was no major resentment to these changes, but many who were affected one way or another have written to the press or approached their MPs to ask for review of their cases. They say, "The rules are a little unfair. My case is a bit different." Or they say, "I have my needs. Why can't they just make an exception of my case?" As MPs, we duly convey support of our constituents' requests to the Minister. But let us be rational and realistic, especially in our expectations on public housing. The rules set by HDB are meant to achieve certain effects. Otherwise, why make the changes. We have to understand that it is extremely difficult to govern a country by exception, or by catering to every individual's needs. The point we must not forget is that whatever are the effects, the Government has succeeded in giving almost every family an affordable home. So I feel that besides making policy changes or policy adjustments, the Government has also to manage the people's expectations by more explanations, persuasion and education. In view of the visible trend towards materialism, many Members have spoken on the need to promote social cohesion or community bonding of Singaporeans. I feel that social cohesion can be achieved by many measures, but there are two major methods. One is through education which many Members have spoken about, and the other one is by housing. In my view, education is a mental form of promoting social cohesion. Housing, in contrast, is a physical form of community bonding. Sir, allow me to explain how I feel social cohesion can be achieved through housing. I would like to urge the Ministry of National Development - the Minister is here - to do a comprehensive study on how the housing estates can be designed to allow for more social interaction. For new estates, the new blocks can be designed to encourage more neighbourly interaction. Bring back the old common corridors which in the past had helped to foster more neighbourliness or the kampong spirit. Or provide a residents' coffee corner on every floor in a block for them to gather. The HDB can also provide more common areas like community halls, activity centres, residents' committee premises, parks, playgrounds, pavilions or senior citizens' corners, or even provide areas for karaoke clubs, which Mr Chiam seemed to object yesterday about using karaoke activities to promote community bonding. These are avenues for the community to mix; a means to draw residents to come out of their flats and meet their neighbours. For old housing estates, the HDB can also use the Upgrading Programmes, In-fill developments and SERS to provide more of such facilities and promote social cohesion. In conclusion, Sir, Singapore's successful housing programme is our hallmark. Many countries, including Hong Kong, have openly praised our achievements and want to learn from us. Singaporeans should be proud. As the President has said in his Address, "Provided we stay competitive and the economy continues to prosper, Singaporeans will share in the nation's success ...". We Singaporeans have to first put in the effort, then we can enjoy the fruits of our labour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, 1997 promises to be an eventful year indeed. In just a matter of days, Britain will be handing over Hong Kong back to the People's Republic of China. This handover symbolically marks the end of an epoch, the last gasp, if I may say so, of the British Empire and the British lion. We are on the threshold of change, the dawn of a new era, of a new world order in the 21st century. A revitalised China after Deng Xiao Peng, with a resurgent market economy, will pose both opportunities as well as challenges for the region. Plugged into this is the complex triangle relationship between the PRC, the United States of America and Japan, with the attendant issue of Taiwan. There are claims and counter claims for the disputed islands like the Spratly Islands, the Daoyutai, the Paracels and the latest of all, the Scarborough Shoal, which appears in the newspaper today. There is uncertainty over North Korea where few know what is happening there, while trials and demonstrations in South Korea have captured the headlines worldwide. In Thailand, the Baht was under siege. In Indonesia, the recent elections were marred by violence, while speculations continue on who would succeed President Suharto. Nearer home, need we say, we have difficulties with Malaysia. It is an uncertain world, a changing and changeable world. The only certainty are change and competition. Sir, if history teaches us anything, it is that we have to expect the unexpected. In this uncertain world, therefore, we must never neglect our national defence. The SAF is the foundation of our State. Without a strong SAF, potential adversaries will just walk in, sit in the Istana and rule over us. We then have to kowtow and ask permission for everything that we want to do. Is that what we want in Singapore? I am sure all Singaporeans will agree with me, we definitely would not want to have such a situation. We want to be ourselves and to protect, defend and preserve our national interests and our way of life. Mr Speaker, Sir, defence is not just about fighter aircraft, artillery, tanks or warships. It is about people. It is about will power. It is about total defence. At the end of the day, the people must support the defence budget and national service, and rally behind the Government in a crisis. I am therefore glad that the Government has announced a comprehensive plan for National Education. I must say, as a historian, that it is a bit late, but better late than never. We must, through National Education, inculcate in our young a sense of history and understanding of our vulnerabilities and potentials, and an abiding love for our country. We must anchor ourselves in our historical roots, and be like a banyan tree, standing tall and strong as a nation. This National Education message must go beyond the schools, to the workforce, to the trade unions, to the professions and to those in the coffeeshops, and even to the housewives. And ways and means must be found to reach all sectors of the population till the message permeates the air, and we speak as Singapore united, in one voice. In Singapore, we hold dear our multi-racial heritage and the common opportunities for advancement for all with talents, drive and commitment. This is indeed our Singaporean way of life. We do not seek to impose it on others. And we hope others will leave us alone, to pursue our own way of life and happiness. Sir, in the context of the recent Malaysian criticisms of Singapore, we want the Malaysians to know this: do not take us for granted or make us the whipping boy. It cannot go on like this. Enough is enough. We want to let them know that there is quiet anger in Singapore over this Singapore-bashing, and the perennial threat of cutting off our water supply. Sir, we should not be held ransom by such threats. I urge the Government to redouble our efforts to secure alternative supplies of water from other sources and other countries, and embark fully on the conversion of sea water. Besides raising the price of water to reflect its increasing cost, we should have water saving campaigns, which we used to have years ago, and rationing from time to time, to drive home the message and ensure that every drop of water counts. We also want Malaysia to know that it is not a zero-sum game. With goodwill on both sides, both countries can mutually benefit from cooperation and joint projects. It can be a win-win situation. With increasing regionalisation and globalisation, both can cooperate together to compete more effectively overseas. There can be synergy and symbiosis. The choice is clear. Let not the wrong choice be made. For young Singaporeans, who have not been through merger, the riots, the separation and early days of independence, this episode serves as an eye-opener. It is a lesson in history, an unforgettable lesson indeed in national interest and national bonding. We have through this, I believe, a new sense of national purpose, of renewed determination and of national cohesion and identification. We have turned adversity to advantage, and emerged stronger for it. Let us move on from here. Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen to thank the President for his Address. 2.02 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion by the Member for Bukit Timah thanking the President for his Address. The President in his Address reminded us that failure to stay competitive will dim the otherwise bright prospects that we face. With your kind permission, Sir, I would like to ask Members to, just for a few moments, look at this reminder through the eyes of a 14-year-old. What does this all mean to a 14-year-old who may be preoccupied more with his pair of faded blue jeans than with intensifying competition for foreign investments? Is competitiveness an alien concept to him? In short, how do we raise awareness, among our young, of the need to stay competitive? Allow me now to go on to applaud the efforts that the Government has made and will be making which are directed at ensuring that Singapore remains competitive. Sir, I think I can safely say that by now competitiveness or the c-word has been very much discussed, especially among those in the regional business community. At the same time, the Ministry of Education is sparing no effort at strengthening National Education "to ensure the next generation remains resilient and cohesive." Sir, we all know that motivation spurs performance but motivation must be predicated on knowledge and identification with the challenge. It is about bringing both emotion and intellect to bear on our actions. It is a challenge enough already to rally all adult Singaporeans to work towards tapping the growth opportunities that abound in the Asian region, and in the face of intensifying competition. But can we go beyond the acquisition of pure head-knowledge for our future generation such that there is a meaningful appreciation of where Singapore stands on the world competitive map? How do we internalise the survival instinct as an emotion? When it comes to the crunch, will the spirit be found wanting? Hence, Sir, my reference to the 14-year-old, who is typically more ignorant and unaware than disinterested. He has been born into an era of general well-being and relative comfort. He is energetic and has the zest for life. He may, however, think the phrase "nine to five" refers to working hours when it could be referring to the number of people required by a department after downsizing or further automation. Sir, I am not deriding the various goals that we are trying to achieve through the National Education initiatives In fact, based on the feedback that I have gathered thus far, there is no doubt that National Education is seen as crucial to fostering a national identity and to ensuring our survival. However, reservations have been raised over the possibility of its becoming yet another subject in school, thereby adding to the burden on both teachers and pupils. In many other countries, the younger generation frequently has personal encounters with real economic challenges, such as having to work part-time to supplement household income, or helping out a parent who has been laid off his job. In contrast, the going has been for us, to a large extent, good. Jobs and opportunities are not lacking. The strong economic growth rate has underpinned the rise in real income for all Singaporeans. Given the Ministry of Trade and Industry's projection of a 5-7% growth rate for the next decade, the going remains promising. How then do we create a fire in the bellies of our young? How do we get them to grab the oars and row with a purpose? What I would like, therefore, to propose is the inclusion of a practical component in our quest to raising this awareness and nurturing an emotional response in our school-going generation. This is intended to complement the various lessons on vulnerabilities and constraints that students would be taught about. In this regard, Sir, I would like to suggest two possibilities of injecting some sense of reality into the education process. Firstly, I believe if a teenager could sample the real life experiences of a working adult, the lessons would be tremendous. For example, a stint as an office boy for a few weeks would increase his appreciation of work in general and even of menial tasks like faxing and photocopying. He will then, hopefully, not despise any form of economic contribution. I am not advocating an acquisition of lower value-added skills but more an appreciation of the value of work. Interaction with working adults also offers a valuable insight into possible inter-personal conflicts and office politics. The importance of a "give-and-take" attitude can also take on more meaning. Work immersion, I believe, is currently undertaken on an ad hoc basis and by some schools only. I recommend that the Ministry of Education seriously consider devoting resources to helping pupils gain some work experience, especially at the post-secondary level. For this to work, we must not be daunted by the lack of short-term economic benefits. Having said that, we should understand that companies would be hard put to accommodate these pupils without assistance, especially in the administration of the scheme, and would also need moral support as well. Hence, the need to allocate specific resources by the Government. The scheme should ideally be publicised to all companies, especially those experiencing tight labour for the slightly lower value-added services. The first six to eight weeks of the junior college or pre-university one year could be devoted to gaining real life experiences. My second recommendation revolves around making direct comparisons with other countries so as to impress upon our younger generation the relative strengths and weaknesses of Singapore. A subtle way is to encourage the parents among us to capitalise on overseas trips as learning opportunities. It is, admittedly, very tempting to book a comfortable holiday overseas for our somewhat overworked children which involves commuting between a modern shopping mall or a theme park and a good class hotel. If we can, however, automatically get into the mindset of observing the similarities and differences between Singapore and the countries we are visiting of, say, the quality of service, cultural habits, hygiene standards, or the beauty of natural landscape, then our children would be more aware of our constraints. For example, our size, our smallness, is only an academic concept but if we have to actually travel miles to get from one city to another in a bigger country, that fact immediately becomes very real. Sir, schools do organise study trips these days and students benefit, albeit selectively. My proposal is that we should ensure that our top 10%, if not 20%, is given a subsidised learning trip during the secondary school years. This could be built around a thematic study of, say, different modes of transportation by going to Hong Kong to look at the airport, seaports and bus systems. The aim is to increase the appreciation of where our own services stand relative to others and what it would take for us to maintain the lead, or to match up. These students should then be encouraged to share their experiences and comparative views with the rest as well as their thoughts about the implications of falling behind. The benefits of investing around an estimated $10 million per annum would serve us well in terms of providing the necessary motivation for our younger generation. Sir, I began by asking Members to imagine themselves as 14-year-olds. My sincere wish is that we would not get to the stage where the young complain that it is not easy being young because it is difficult finding clothes to match their carrot-coloured hair. This would be pure decadence. Instead, my wish is that when times do become trying, the survival instinct would manifest itself passionately and prominently. Our ultimate challenge will be the uniting of both adult and young Singaporeans in intellect and emotion with regard to our future. On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I too support the motion moved by Dr Wang Kai Yuen to thank the President for his Address. Among the most heart-warming words in the President's Address are the words that declare "we will foster a gracious society." It is a society in which Singaporeans are courteous to one another and considerate of one another's needs. The President has also called upon the nation to work together in order to strive for greater cohesiveness and to create an outstanding living environment for our families. As a small country, we must stand a better chance than any other to build that gracious and cohesive society. Singapore is a small country with a small population. But we do have some big talents. If we do not, we would not have been what we are today. Yet, however big our talents, we have only a small pool from which to draw. We have been quick to draw on key personnel in the private sector and members of the public to help us formulate policies. The most recent appointment of the Committee of Singapore's Competitiveness is a case in point. No fewer than 13 of the 17 members are from the private sector. That makes very good sense. We do not have the luxury of an abundance of natural or human resource. Whatever we have, we have to use wisely and fully. There are some who complain that this Government is so inclusive that it has hogged all the talents. How unfair it is that 81 out of the 84 hon. Members of this House are from the PAP. But it is neither unfair nor surprising. The 81 hon. Members of this House are with the PAP because of what the Party stands for and indeed what the country stands for. A party that occupies such a dominant position carries with it an extraordinary burden of responsibility. The overwhelmingly dominant position of the PAP brings with it an even greater responsibility to listen. I believe that it has lived up to this responsibility most creditably. The willingness to listen is clearly visible in the numerous feedback channels in place. We have the Feedback Unit, the Service Improvement Unit, the Government Parliamentary Committees, Ministers' walk-abouts, dialogue sessions and the grassroots organisations. These channels are becoming increasingly important. The last 30 years had been a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. We see a new generation of Singaporeans who are better educated, healthier, more sophisticated, travel more extensively and more exposed. Most of all, they have higher expectations. They demand to be heard and demand for more participation in major decisions that affect their lives. And yet, despite all these channels for feedback, we still sometimes hear the complaint that the Government is not listening. There is sometimes a sense of frustration. Some would say, "No use. Government already decided." I know that is not true. Collecting feedback is not merely a public relations exercise. Neither is it a window-dressing ritual. But we should realise that although feedback is heard, not all feedback can be adopted. No policy can satisfy and please everyone. Some choices will have to be made and some choices involve trade-offs. But people are still sometimes frustrated when they do not perceive their feedback as having been considered or even heard. What I am saying is that feedback is a two-way process. Whilst we are already quite good in receiving feedback, we could do better in acknowledging feedback. When I say "acknowledge", I do not mean we simply send a reply saying, "Thank you for bringing this to our attention." I mean a lot more than that. We should develop a culture of acknowledgment. It is no different from a culture of courtesy when we acknowledge a gift from someone. Some of you may have received gifts from westerners. And when you receive a gift from them, they stand there staring at you, waiting for you to open the gift, so that they can see the expression on your face and they can detect the sign of acknowledgment, whether you are pleased with it or not pleased with it. So I say acknowledgment is more than simply acknowledgment because we have to tell the person how you have used his suggestion or feedback. What is even more difficult, you are expected to tell him why you have not used his gift or his feedback. That is difficult. But people who offer you feedback would like to have in return a sense of how their feedback was eventually taken in or, conversely, the reason why it was not adopted. Mr Speaker, Sir, please do not get me wrong. This is not to say that the Government does not acknowledge feedback at all. In fact, the Government has made a very good job of it, especially in major issues. With the help of the Select Committee, it systematically obtains feedback, incorporates it into policy, and fully acknowledges all feedback. Take, for example, the vehicle quota system. When the issue of curbing traffic congestion was first raised by the then Minister for Communications, Dr Yeo Ning Hong, at the March 1988 debate, it resulted in much discussion. The then Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee called for a public hearing on land transport policy. The Government responded positively to that. It invited the people to submit questions, suggestions and views on land transport policy at the dialogue session, and this led to the creation of a 8-member Select Committee. At this public hearing, the Committee received many recommendations from individuals, academic institutions, professional organisations, taxi organisations. At the end of the consultation process, the Committee made its own list of recommendations. It also explained why some of the feedback and recommendations received were not taken in. Most of the Select Committee's recommendations were incorporated into a Bill which was then passed in this House. Subsequently, a number of adjustments were made in response to further feedback from the public. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not saying that we should respond to every individual suggestion. That would simply not be practical. It would also be incoherent. Out of the hundreds of feedback, we could try to identify the broad strands of argument and to explain why they were adopted or not adopted. This requires time and patience. It is not an easy task. But the business of government is not an easy task. If we do this well, the hundreds of people who have given feedback can perhaps identify their own suggestion with one or more of these broad strands. They may not always agree with the decision but they will know that they have been heard and considered. The public should not only be heard but must know that they have been heard. It is a sad situation where feedback are heard and taken seriously by the Government and yet the public does not always share that perception. It is because we have as yet to acquire the culture of acknowledgment. A culture of acknowledgment is a habit and a frame of mind that acknowledgment is a desirable value. We cannot afford a Select Committee on every issue. Each of us will often have to find our own expression of that culture. But we must first believe that it is a right thing to do. Not only must we actually explain why we did or did not accept a feedback. Our sincerity would also be judged by how we say it, by our tone of voice and by our body language. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have described feedback as a two-way process. Let me hasten to add that responsibility for feedback is not a one-way street either. The Government should acknowledge feedback but it is also incumbent on the public to give responsible feedback. Feedback from the people should be made in good faith, motivated not by some selfish end but by a desire that it should achieve a greater good. It should be constructive and objective. It should not be a litany of "whining" and "griping". Even well-intentioned feedback are often laced with a personal or vested interest. This is not always avoidable as people see things from their own perspective or that they represent a specific interest group. It is my belief that the willingness to listen and a culture of acknowledgment will beget trust and encourage responsible feedback from the people. The President has called upon the nation to foster a gracious society and to strive for greater cohesiveness. Both the Government and the people each have their part to play. Mr Speaker, Sir, with that, I fully support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.26 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

Debate resumed.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address has once again shown the determination of the Singapore Government to build the best home for Singaporeans. Apart from helping the people to have good food to eat, it is also helping the people to raise the standard of living and the quality of life. It has provided a good environment for living, convenient public transport and good schools and teachers for the students. The Government is also going to help students to master information technology and to provide recreation centres for senior citizens. I think it is good that the Government is taking care of the people. But sometimes, it may become counter-productive if too much care resulted in over-dependence on the Government. As a result of this over-dependence, people sometimes blame the Government whenever they have any frustrations or problems. Now National Education is a very important matter of concern to the nation. The young people of Singapore do not really know the history of Singapore and they take what they have for granted. National Education is important for Singaporeans, especially the younger ones. It enables them to understand the hardship and suffering that we encountered during the Japanese occupation. Our young people should also learn about the hardship we endured during the colonial days. They should also learn about how Singapore was forced to leave Malaysia and became an independent nation in 1965, how we have, through self-reliance and struggle, developed Singapore from a small country into a modern country today. Today, many developing countries have chosen to come to learn from Singapore, our experiences which we are happy to share with them. Mr Speaker, Sir, any country which is developed culturally and economically has to go through the process of struggle and hardship, and every country that has shaken off poverty to become affluent from backwardness to an advanced country must come with a pioneering spirit. Singapore is no exception. The achievement of Singapore today is because of the solidarity of the people, the team work and the determination of our people and the patriotic spirit of our people. We must ensure that Singapore can always stand strong and firm. We are a small country with a small population, and without natural resources. We are a multi-racial, multi-lingual society. So any issue concerning race and language is always very sensitive. We are a poorly endowed country. So we must openly discuss with Singaporeans the limitations and vulnerability of Singapore to inculcate in them a sense of crisis. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore and Malaysia relation has come into some difficulty recently and many people do not understand. People in my constituency used to find it easy to go to Johor Baru. In the past, every weekend or school holiday, they would all flock to Johor Baru. But now, they are a bit worried. The Residents' Committee's organisation of day trips to Johor Baru to visit the temples used to be very popular among the senior citizens, but now we cannot get enough participants to form a group. When I went to coffeeshops to meet our people, they asked me, "What is actually happening?" They said that the affairs of state concerned the interest of both countries. So the politicians of both countries should sort out the matters and try to seek a settlement on the negotiation table. Why should you allow all kinds of people, any Tom, Dick and Harry, to come and shout at us and scold us? These residents also said that the politicians are being influenced by their own people. They are intelligent and educated people. They should not behave like ordinary citizens, shouting and yelling at one another after a few rounds of beer. Mr Speaker, Sir, the views of these ordinary citizens are true. I have asked some of my members of the National Transport Workers' Union, that is, the bus workers operating between Singapore and Johor Baru, to buy some Malaysian newspapers for me. When I read the newspapers, I was very shocked. There are so many people creating trouble in the newspapers, smearing at the leaders of Singapore and painting a very ugly picture of Singaporeans. I feel very sad about this. But on the other hand, I also feel proud of the fact that our statesmen and politicians are very well-behaved and full of constraint. Singaporeans are very law abiding. Having heard the speeches of Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Mr Maidin, I believe that our citizens would begin to understand why Malaysia is behaving in this way against Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time I have entered Parliament. I have been listening to my senior Members very intently. I am a full-fledged Chinese-educated student. So when I listened to the Member for Hougang speaking in Mandarin, I was able to understand his speech very well. Mr Low Thia Khiang accused the Government of dividing the people with different kinds of inducements and threats. I think he is wrong. In the Yazhou Zhoukan of 12th May, there was an article on the interview with Mayor Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan. He is the leader of the opposition People's Progressive Party. His view on voting is this, "This time the voters support you, it does not mean that they will support you the next time." He further said that those who did not support you in the last election does not necessarily mean that they will not support you in future. In other words, if you have a majority supporting you, you are the winner. But you cannot get 100% support. People have different views, you cannot do anything about it. So voters vote for their Members of Parliament according to their choice and they support the party of their choice. This does not amount to dividing the people. I have been listening very closely to Mr Low Thia Khiang reading out a letter by a reader and I want to quote: "PAP has full control over the people. Government departments and quasi-government departments have become tools of the PAP to control the people, and the people are living under the intimidating tactics of the PAP Government." I think this sounds very familiar, and similar to what I heard in the 60s of what the Barisan Sosialis had said in the past. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked us not to neglect the feelings of this anonymous writer. He accused the Government of staying put in the past, in the 60s. Who is actually in the 60s and not moving forward? I have also read the article by Bai Shi De, "Where Lies the National Soul?" I have a different feeling. I feel that he is a good patriotic journalist, with a sense of mission. The Dean of the NUS Faculty of Business Administration, Prof. Wee Chow Hou, said that compared to the Malaysians who are very united, Singaporeans are not so united. In the case of Malaysia, whether it is a ruling party, or the opposition party, or the media, or the people, they all take a united stand against the outside world. I think Prof. Wee has given thought to what he said. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1961, when I was still in Chung Cheng High School, I used to sing the song entitled "I love my Malaya." I remember that, at that time, when I sang this chorus, I was full of zeal and passion for my motherland. We should have someone writing another song "I love my Singapore." I am sure I will learn to sing it. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Pasir Ris raised the question of training of our workers. I would like to thank him for raising this issue because this is the issue that the NTUC has always been concerned with. The NTUC this year has asked all the companies to take part in the "Renew Your Skills" programme for workers who are lowly-educated and above the age of 30. That is to help them to upgrade their skills and to enhance their employability so as to ensure they have security in their job and the ability to earn higher salaries and to improve their standard of living. At the same time, the NTUC, in order to attract workers to join the scheme, has given them subsidy of 80% to be funded by the Skills Development Fund (SDF). EDB will also give them some subsidies during the period of training. Right now, we have 3,100 workers from 27 companies taking part in this training programme. These companies include MNCs and globally-linked industrial companies and manufacturing companies. After this training, they will be able to get the ITF certificate which is recognised by their country. Workers with the ITF certificate will have a higher employability and that will benefit them for life. This programme has the support of EDB and SDF and also the support of NWC and the Government. The idea is to turn this programme into a nation wide programme so that all the companies, big and small, can benefit from it. This will help our workers to enhance their skills. I hope the Government will grant more subsidies to help in this training programme. Of course, the workers themselves must have the strong will power to undergo training. With this kind of cooperation, we can ensure that our workers can remain No. 1 in the world. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to seek clarification from the Member?

Yes.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Nee Soon Central referred to two matters I raised yesterday. One, he referred to the report of Yazhou Zhoukan on Mayor Chen Shui-bian of Taipei. Secondly, he referred to Prime Minister Goh's introduction of vote counting by precinct to divide the people. Mayor Chen Shui-bian said, "Some people may not support you this time and they may support you the next time." There is no direct relation between this statement and what I said about Prime Minister Goh. Secondly, Prime Minister Goh said during the election that those who are in the PAP wards, if the results show more people in a particular precinct voted for the opposition parties, that precinct will not get priority in upgrading. In other words, in the same constituency, you are using the votes cast for the opposition or the PAP to decide the priority of upgrading. In other words, those who support PAP will be upgraded first. Those who do not support PAP will not get upgrading. Is that not divisive? With regard to the letter I quoted, he said that I was staying put in the 1960s. Mr Ong has also visited and talked to voters in the coffeeshops. I do not know whether he has got this kind of feedback. The stallholders and the residents know that if they support the opposition, it would be very difficult for them to make a living. I do not know whether he has heard this or not. I would now suggest to him to go and ask people outside this House. The PAP should ask themselves the same question whether there is any fear among the people.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in any election, the promises made by a party to the people do not constitute threats to them. I have quoted the words of Mayor Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to show that in any election, voters can vote for you today and they can vote for others the next time. Just like in my constituency, last time, they voted for Cheo Chai Chen, now they have voted for the PAP. In 1991, the same group of people, the same community, shifted from one side to the other side. Today, Hougang belongs to the opposition, but by the year 2001, it may not be your ward. So I feel that in an election, the mobility of votes from party A to party B is not related to any threat. Under a democratic system, support for the PAP and support for the opposition are both support for the country. If one day the Workers' Party should come to power, you will also hope that you have more voters and more supporters. As to what I said about him staying in the 1960s, this is because he accused the PAP of staying in the 60s by using that kind of tactics. The Member for Hougang should agree that the letter he quoted is full of slogans of the leftists of the 60s - "exploitation" and such words. I ask him, who is staying in the 60s? I hope that he can go back and look at the letter again. But I have already said, when I heard him reading this letter, it sounded as if I was going back to the mass rallies of the 60s - same kind of slogans, same kind of words. Maybe I am older, I had the opportunity to hear what the Barisan Sosialis said at the mass rallies. All that kind of expressions sounds very familiar, the words of the leftists. Maybe I can lend him some old magazines for his reference.

( In Mandarin): I have not heard the mass rally speeches of the 60s. But take a look at this letter, there is no such word as "exploitation" in the letter. I think it is just the impression of Mr Ong Ah Heng. But the question here is we must reflect whether Singaporeans are living in fear. If Singaporeans are living in fear, then it is no good for the cohesiveness of the country. Mr Ong Ah Heng also referred to promises made by parties in elections. Threats and promises are two different things. A political party can present its platform to the electorate. If the people support a party and vote it into power, then the party's programmes should benefit the whole country. They cannot say that this is their platform. So if you do not vote for me and you live in a specific precinct where the support for me is less, you will not get the benefits from this platform. I think that is wrong. This is divisive. This deviates from a democratic system where people can vote for a party or another according to their own political will. If I feel that I should support the PAP or the opposition, then it is not for the ruling party to say that you must support us before you can get the benefits. These are different things altogether. The end result is that when I choose a government or if I do not choose a government, I will be penalised if I do not vote for the government. I think in the minds of the people, they have some fear in their heart which is not conducive to the cohesion of our people.

( In Mandarin): I cannot accept what the Member said that the result of the election has caused two camps in the electorate. I have already told him that it was impossible. Today, the people support you. Tomorrow, they may not support you. So there is mobility in votes and the results cannot mean that there is a division in the community. You said that the PAP's platform was used in the election to constitute a threat to the people. What kind of platform did the Workers' Party have? The PAP has never said that it did not want to take care of all Singaporeans. What we have said is that those who have supported the PAP will have priority in receiving care. Those who do not support the PAP, they must wait for our care to be given to the supporters first before they can be given the care they want. It is the same thing with the Workers' Party. They will look after their members first. Do they want to look after the PAP members first? So let us be realistic by looking at things this way. The Government has the responsibility to look after every Singaporean, but it is a question of priority.

( In Mandarin): Mr Ong Ah Heng asked whether the Workers' Party will look after all the people of Singapore. Of course, we will. We have to separate between the party and the government. The Government has to take care of every citizen of Singapore and not just Singaporeans who support the party. But at the general election, the impression given by the PAP is that they are only going to look after those who support the PAP. Of course, the result of the election does not represent the division of the electorate into two camps. But in the process of the election, what happened? If the PAP says that you must support the PAP and only if you have the PAP in power, the PAP Government will look after Singapore, then I would not say that it is a division of the people. But at the last election, what the PAP had brought up was that you must support the PAP and only then you will get the benefit. It is a direct personal benefit. So it is a question of personal benefit. The result is that if you do not vote for the PAP, then you would not get the benefit. Your flat will not be upgraded and so your asset will not be enhanced. So there is a problem here. Just now he also mentioned that the PAP had never said that it would not look after the people of Singapore. But at the election, the Prime Minister had said that when Singapore is progressing rapidly, those constituencies which support the opposition will be lagging behind and be degraded into slums. So I do not know what is Mr Ong's understanding of this expression.

( In Mandarin): We have more than 80 constituencies in Singapore, as Mr Low Thia Khiang knows. All the supporters of the PAP will enjoy the benefit of the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) and Main Upgrading Programme (MUP). The opposition wards will have to wait for a few years for their turn to come to them. If the opposition Members do not look after their wards well, then their areas will turn into slums. The PAP has made promises to the electorate and it has got the responsibility to fulfill them. When you talk about divisive tactics, I think you are referring to language, culture, that will really be divisive. If today the Chinese educated are like those in the 60s suffering the way they did, I think from the racial and religious point of view, it will easily become divided. I feel that the promises made by the PAP do not constitute any division in the community. I do not think we need to debate further on this. Perhaps, we can exchange views privately. But, finally, by the year 2002, your standpoint and my views can be judged by the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Bukit Timah, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, thanking our President for his Address at the Opening of the Ninth Parliament. Sir, our President in his Address spoke of focusing on National Education, and of getting our people to learn how we became a nation, how we are different from other countries and why we must always make a special effort to stay ahead of others. With these sentiments in mind, the launch of National Education by DPM BG Lee could not have been more timely. I speak in support of it.

3.27 pm Sir, we became independent more than 30 years ago. Since then, a new generation of Singaporeans have grown up. Many of them have little or no recollection of the upheavals that marked our struggle as a nation, of the communal riots, the separation from Malaysia and the withdrawal of the British forces which brought a most uncertain future. For the post-65 generation of Singaporeans, a majority of them only know of a Singapore that is successful. Our economy prospered and has grown beyond expectations. Our Government found employment for the people, housed and provided them with a system of health care that few can reasonably complain of. Providence spared the post-65 generation from having to deal with the worst possible nightmares that haunted our leaders at the threshold of independence. Yet, those who lived through the 50s and the 60s know the pain of having your neighbour turn against you because you are of a different colour, and of living with the uncertainty of not knowing if you still have a job before the year is over. Because of those trying times, our people and our leaders are determined to ensure that Singaporeans will never have to live with those uncertainties again. Sir, our nation was conceived out of the struggle against colonial rule, of disparate migrant groupings of race and persuasion thrown into a crucible forged out of a necessity to survive, and of a belief that all men are equal and that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of his colour or his creed. The ebb and flow of time tends to wash away memories of the past. For Singapore, it is imperative that the roots of history grow deep in the psyche of its people. Unless we have deep roots, Singapore as a nation will not have the ability or the strength to weather the storms. Let us not forget that we are essentially a migrant people. Our forebears came to these shores in search of opportunities and of a better life. A migrant people with a migrant mindset will not sink roots naturally in a new country. For them to have emotional attachments, there must be a sense of national identity and pride. Sir, we stand at a very crucial time of our history. Ours is the Parliament which will usher this nation into the next millennium. Ours is also the Parliament which must deal effectively with the issue of how best to pass our values and all that this nation stands for to a generation that has only known stability and material abundance. How can we sink deep roots in nation building in the hearts of young Singaporeans? These concerns underscore the importance of nation building and hence National Education. An absence of a single minded purpose of who we are and what we stand for as a nation will not give Singaporeans and, in particular, young Singaporeans a sense of loyalty and commitment. It will weaken our social cohesion. When the crunch comes, will our people stay and close ranks together or will they take flight to safety? That issue must surely arise someday. When it does arise, will we be there to stand up for Singapore? I therefore agree that this Government and this Parliament must concentrate its efforts on National Education. This is a necessary part of nation building, an exercise which continues to make a nation rather than a state out of Singapore. Sir, it is against the backdrop of our discussion on nation building and National Education on the future generations of Singaporeans that I would like to focus my subsequent comments on. These comments are attempts to reflect the views of the post-65 generation, a generation that I would identify more readily with since I was no more than eight years old when we became independent. First, in our approach to nation building, we should treat our Constitution as a living document. Every nation has its distinct and particular experience that is appropriate to its circumstance. Our Constitution, as with any other constitution, attempts to set out, among other things, the institutions of Government, and the balance between individual rights and the rights of the community. However, what gives our Constitution meaning are the values which we attach to it. This defines our Constitution and what Singapore stands for. Why do we have Article 152 which entrenches the special position of the Malays in Singapore? Or what do the fundamental liberties mean to us? Or why do we have the institution of the Elected President? For us to have a consensus in nation building, these issues must be understood and accepted by all Singaporeans. More than just understanding the Constitution, we should imbibe these values in our lives as well. Secondly, our recent history must be made relevant and alive to the young Singaporeans who are trying to relate to it. Our young students must have an effective appreciation of our past to develop a certain passion for our country. They must imbibe our core values as a nation and our sense of history. The Government has rightly pointed out that this is not achieved by the teaching of National Education in the classrooms alone. I support the proposal that we must organise regular tours to the various civic institutions in the country such as Parliament House, the Supreme Court, SAFTI MI, the Stock Exchange and our water treatment plants. Teachers and properly trained tour guides should be on hand to give a detailed and lively explanation of the significance of the places visited. We should make every effort to fly our flag more readily and not confine the practice to the time of the year when we celebrate National Day. No child should leave school without an understanding of who our political pioneers are, what our ideology is, what we stand for as a nation and what our constraints and vulnerabilities are. Sir, in this regard, we can learn from the Americans who have put in much effort in preserving the past and in inculcating the right social and political values in their children. At Capitol Hill, where I was recently, visitors are shown huge paintings that line the walls. The scenes in the paintings depict the milestones of their struggle as a nation. These are carefully explained to the visitors by trained volunteers. The imposing high vault and the massive rotunda give an air of grandeur and importance to the visitor. The visit to Capitol Hill no doubt leaves a distinct impression on the visitor with a sense of history and an understanding of the pride an American has for his country. In the streets of the city, I noticed how readily the Americans fly their flag. All civic institutions, as far as I could see, display the flag. The flag is, to the Americans, a symbol of freedom, democracy and civil rights. Together with the Constitution, the American flag is in essence the soul of the nation. The Americans have ensured that memories of the past are carried from one generation to another generation. Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address, it was stated by the Minister for Education that LaSalle-SIA College of the Arts and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) will upgrade their courses, with LaSalle developing a Centre for Visual and Performing Arts with emphasis on Western and South-East Asian cultures, and NAFA concentrating on Fine Arts and Design, focusing particularly on Oriental cultures. I understand that the Government will assist the two institutions by expanding them, financing them, improving the administration and helping them defray their annual operating expenses. I welcome such a move by the Government and I hope that the Government will also use the expanded role of these two institutions as part of the nation-building exercise; for nothing is more powerful, nothing is more forceful than to use the visual arts in the drive to create a certain passion amongst future generations of Singapore, a passion that we want them to have for this great country. Thirdly, nation building for young Singaporeans is more than just National Education alone. It is a two-way process. Besides teaching the values of our nation to the next generation of Singaporeans, we should allow young Singaporeans to have more say in the policies of this country. To do this, we need to understand what issues are important to them. At the moment, I believe two major issues relate to material security and individual space for expression. An ability to address these issues will enable us to strengthen the foundations of our nation. Let me explain. The typical young Singaporean today wants a more secure future for himself and his family. Security in this context includes a better material life. The debates on the cost of living, health care, transportation, housing and education are but a manifestation of this deep and understandable desire of young Singaporeans for security. As Singapore becomes a more developed economy and society, the Government's ability to address these concerns becomes even more challenging. For the young adult stepping out into the world, the prospect is daunting. At present, any couple wishing to apply for a HDB flat for the first time will have to wait at least three years. The waiting period would have been longer had the Government not intervened. Cars are not likely to get cheaper and will continue to be a heavy expenditure item for most people. Medical costs will continue to rise. The pressures of our education system on the young will continue as we strive to maintain our edge as the most competitive nation in the world. We must continue to address these concerns and give Singaporeans as much opportunity as possible to participate in the process of policy making, especially in areas that affect their lives. Singaporeans want to have a say. Otherwise, they may feel alienated and dispossessed and they will find it difficult to relate to a country where their dream is only a pipe dream and no more. Besides concerns for material security, many young Singaporeans, I believe, want more space to express themselves. The desire for more space is shaped to some extent by the outside world which Singaporeans have access to in the last 30 years, an access which no doubt is hastened by improvements in telecommunication and information technology. And the reality of our modern world is the invasion of western ideals, led no doubt by the Americans whose dominance in the world stage today in most fields of politics, economics, the arts and sciences has touched most aspects of Singaporean lives today. This invasion has influenced to some extent the way Singaporeans think and behave. Sir, I believe that this country and this Government give Singaporeans sufficient space to express themselves. Over the last 30 years, Singaporeans have become more vocal and strident in expressing their views. A survey of the letters to the Forum page of the Straits Times will support this view. Privately, discussion groups have also emerged. These groups are free to discuss issues on Government policy without any fear or favour. Singaporeans do accept that any public discussion must observe the basic rules of engagement. These being making sure that the remarks are not defamatory or calculated to incite any civil unrest or rebellion in Singapore through the stirring up of racial or religious sentiments. The desire for greater freedom of expression as a political end cannot be ignored by any Government seeking to preserve its legitimate right to rule. However, the context in which freedom is defined may vary. The leadership and its followers may each have different understanding of what the freedom is and what it means. If Singaporeans perceive that they do not have enough space to express themselves in this country or have their voices heard, it would be difficult to involve those who suffer from this view in the process of nation building. We have to manage or even change such perceptions. This requirement is one that is necessary for us to strengthen the foundation of our nation. Sir, our nation will continue to survive if the people are prepared to pass on from one generation to the next, the message of our history, our constraints and our vulnerabilities. This process of passing the torch to the next generation is not a one-way process. It involves engaging future generations and giving them a stake in the civil process. We must spare no effort in making future generations of Singaporeans feel they are part of this nation, otherwise we may end up like the foolish man in the Bible who built his house upon the sand, which washed away when the rains came. Sir, I beg to support the motion of the hon. Member for Bukit Timah.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a clarification. Sir, I noted that Mr Sin Boon Ann has said that space is needed for Singaporeans to express themselves. I agree with what he said. I would like to know from him what he thinks is the correct space which would allow Singaporeans to express and thereby foster a closer bond. What is his views on OB markers and whether we should set OB markers and what sort of OB markers we should set?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did in my speech mention that I think there is a certain desire on the part of some Singaporeans for greater space for expression and I also did say that this Parliament and this Government will have to manage the extent of which the space is to be created. However I do not think this is the right occasion for us to talk about these markers. Perhaps at a later debate or engagement we can look at what these markers are.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first I would like to thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I have listened to the comments from the Member for Tampines with much interest. I think there is a lot of value in what he has said, particularly with regard to the need for National Education, which is a very important but very difficult subject, which the Ministry of Education will have to tackle within these few years. It is important to give our children a sense of history, some knowledge of the values which we hold and why we have come to hold such values. Without such knowledge of National Education, which should not only be transmitted at the school level but also at the university level, we cannot say that our education system is complete and we have given our children the necessary ballast, knowledge, foundation, which would enable them to grow up to be responsible citizens. Sir, National Education is a very big subject. I do not think that today is the right occasion for me to talk about it at length. I will speak on it on another occasion. What I would like to do this afternoon is to talk a little bit about the subject which Mr Sin has raised, ie, the upgrading of the LaSalle-SIA College of the Arts and of the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts. Sir, in the next stage of Singapore's development, we would need to nurture a stronger spirit of creativity and innovation in Singaporeans to achieve greater competitiveness and to create a better future for our people. In this knowledge and information age, this spirit of creativity will be a key factor which will sharpen Singapore's competitive edge. It will make a difference in determining who will emerge winners in this race of global economic competition which will rely more and more today on brain resources rather than on possessing large amounts of natural resources like land or large populations. How creative we are as a nation is strongly linked to the capabilities of our people and the environment in which we grow up. Already, we are transforming our education system to encourage the creative potential of our students. We are encouraging more innovation as the cornerstone of our economic strategy to bring our country up to a higher level. Creativity and the arts must invariably thrive alongside each other, and we therefore need to look more closely into how we can encourage the arts to flourish in Singapore. The artistic fields, both the visual arts and the performing arts, offer accessible means by which creativity can be expressed and developed in our children, in our people. The arts challenge the mind in many ways. They force the individual to think beyond traditional confines. In so doing, they open up new vistas, new possibilities and new creations. These activities can give new vitality to our nation, they can nourish our culture, refine our society, and ultimately improve the quality of life for all Singaporeans. In addition, we must appreciate, I believe, more fully the economic value of artistic capabilities which up to now have not been emphasised sufficiently. As we move into the next millennium, the economic relevance of such capabilities will become even greater. Even in Singapore today, there are already many industries which require such people, for example, in industrial design, graphic design, entertainment, media, just to name a few. And the demand for such people with such talents can only increase, and we must realise the full potential of our human resources by facilitating the development of these skills for Singaporeans who have such endowment and inclination. It is in recognition of the importance of the arts, both to Singapore as a nation and to the competitiveness of our economy, that the Government has decided to re-position the LaSalle-SIA College of the Arts (LaSalle) and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) as institutions which can play a central role in the development of our creative and artistic manpower. We need to redefine the purpose and role of LaSalle and NAFA to make them even more relevant as we move into the next phase of our development. LaSalle will be developed as a centre for the Visual and Performing Arts with an emphasis on Western and South-East Asian cultures, and NAFA will concentrate on developing Fine Arts and Design, focusing particularly on Asian and Oriental cultures. With support from the Government and the public, LaSalle and NAFA can develop, I believe, into centres of excellence which will attract staff and students from Singapore and the region and even beyond, and participate in a renaissance of the arts and learning which will make Singapore a vital hub in the New Asia. Support from Government can include financial support for buildings and equipment as well as an annual operating grant. And this move will help to develop Singapore into a creative nation, a renaissance city with considerable artistic skills which will complement our achievements in technology and economic progress. To upgrade LaSalle and NAFA, I have, on the recommendation of Mr Liu Thai Ker, Chairman of the National Arts Council, appointed Mr Tan Chin Nam, Chief Executive Officer of Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, to chair a Committee to put up appropriate recommendations to Government. Also in consultation with BG George Yeo, Minister for Information and the Arts, and RAdm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education, I have appointed Mr Peter Chen, Senior Minister of State for Education, to be the adviser to the Committee. The Committee will comprise, among others, representatives from the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Information and the Arts, National Arts Council, National Heritage Board, LaSalle, NAFA, Singapore Arts Centre and, of course, members of the business and arts communities in Singapore. The Committee will complete its deliberation and submit its recommendations to Government by the first quarter of next year. Secretariat support will be provided by the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Information and the Arts and the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. Sir, I believe that the setting up of this Committee is a timely move. It will help to enhance considerably the status of the arts in Singapore. It will provide the manpower which is necessary to realise the full potential of developments which we are creating in Singapore, for example, the Theatre by the Bay. I think it will make Singapore not only a more competitive nation but also a more lively and interesting place for all Singaporeans to live in in the coming years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, water is an important commodity and a shortage of it would affect the quality of life and the economic development of Singapore. Our own water resources could support up to half of the current water consumption. The rest has to be dependent on the water supply from Malaysia, based on two water agreements. The first agreement will expire by the year 2011 and the other by 2061. The recent result of a survey reported by the Straits Times on 11th May 1997 showed that 96% of Singapore citizens would like the Government to look into other alternative water supply, and 79% said that we should do it now. I am glad to note that in the Addendum of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, it is mentioned that the PUB will expand its water production capacity and also build a desalination plant. The long-term supply of water to Singapore should depend either on opening up more water supply sources or desalination. The exploration of new fresh water resources in this region is not an easy task. Even in a situation which has the endorsement of a foreign government, many of their own domestic matters need to be resolved and they are beyond our control. It will take a long time before water could be delivered to Singapore. Despite the difficulty and uncertainty, it is still worthwhile for us to further explore the possibility of alternative fresh water supply as long as it is cheaper than desalination. Desalination is a very established technology and is a viable means of supplying water to Singapore because we have an unlimited supply of unpolluted sea water as raw material for the desalination process. Countries like Kuwait and Malta depend heavily on desalination for their fresh water supply. The recent report by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California on large scale desalination plants shows that it is possible to produce water at a cost of about 70 Singapore cents per cubic metre, which is three times the cost of water produced currently, and the construction cost is $3.60 per gallon per day. In other words, the construction cost of a desalination plant supplying half of our water demand at 150 million gallons per day will be $540 million for a life time of 30 years. Judging from the cost, it is very affordable to us. For Singapore, the issue that holds us up for not entering into desalination is the cost of water production. As long as we can safely secure sufficient fresh water supply, why should we pay more for adopting desalination? However, even if the water agreements were signed and filed in the United Nations, we are still constantly threatened by the cutting off of our water supply. The renewal of the agreement after the present one expires will still be kept in uncertainty. The possible supply from other sources in the region still remains uncertain. In order to safeguard our water supply in meeting the future demand, we have no other alternative but to invest in desalination plants. The capacity of desalination could be gradually built up to meet the quantity as stated in the first water agreement when it expires by the year 2011. By doing so, it ensures that the water supply will not be disrupted by the expiry of the first water agreement and, at the same time, we will stand a better chance in securing the renewal of the agreement under reasonable terms. Sir, while producing water from desalination, we should also look into other measures which would help us lessen our dependence on fresh water supply. These measures include water reuse or recycling, water conservation and our policy on water charges. The percentage of water reuse in Singapore at the moment is very low. There is great potential for us to look into the possibility of enhancing the level of water reuse. The recycled water could be used for industrial cleaning, cooling of systems, cement and concrete mixing for the construction industry, watering of plants by the National Parks Board, irrigation for our agrotechnology industry and recreational facilities like golf courses. The reuse of water could also be extended to household applications, like flushing of toilets, cleaning of floors or even cleaning of cars. This is a good time for us to promote further water conservation and the use of recycled water because people are now concerned about the future water supply. We should also seriously consider the installation of water recycling facilities and a dual water supply system which allows recycled water to be piped into industrial and new housing estates. The success in promoting water reuse could help in a big way in reducing our reliance on fresh water supply from another country. The water conservation campaign has been successful. Many of the water conservation devices have already been installed for both public and domestic applications, for example, installation of orifice for the reduction of water pressure and the push button water tap to overcome the problem of not turning off the tap after use. Sir, these water conservation equipment have no doubt been installed. However, the performance of the equipment is, in fact, still not optimally tuned. The water supply from these equipment, in most cases, is more than what is actually needed to prevent people from complaining. I feel that the authority should conduct some studies and come out with specifications in guiding the import and installation of such water conservation equipment. We should also encourage people to reuse the relatively clean water from home as one of the ways of water conservation. Take, for example, the reusing of water from the washing machine for the cleaning of floors or even for the flushing of toilets. Just by selling this simple and painless water conservation concept, we could easily save up to 10 million gallons of water per day, which is a substantial portion of our total domestic water consumption. We should continue our effort in water conservation. I hope more innovative ideas could be introduced to further conserve our water. For domestic usage, the charges are about 50 cents per cubic metre for the first 10 cubic metres per month, and subsequently 80 cents per cubic metre for additional consumption. The pricing system is based on the concept of paying a higher rate if one should consume more. However, it does not help much in encouraging people to use less water because the penalty in consuming more water is not significant in this particular pricing system. Sir, now that we are going to produce water by a relatively expensive way - desalination - we should be more concerned about conservation of water. In order to do this, in the future pricing of water, it should build in two important factors. First, the people should be constantly reminded to use less water. Every additional bit of water we consume will have a significant effect on the total water bill. Second, for those people with a higher water consumption, the cost of water for desalination must be properly reflected in their water bills. With an appropriate pricing for water, we could eventually arrive at a point where people use what is actually needed, no wastage and adopt every feasible measure in water conservation. Ultimately, it helps to reduce our dependence on foreign water supply. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah expressing Parliament's thanks to the President for his Speech. In his Speech, the President talked about the fierce competition that Singapore is facing. In my opinion, the challenges facing Singapore today are as pronounced as those faced by the governments immediately after independence. The problems at that time were of infrastructure, national security and those faced by a nation at birth. We are grateful to the founding leaders like Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew for making Singapore what it is today. Today, we are successful, and managed to put our small island nation in the world stage and progressing well towards being a developed nation. We the younger generation saw success in the country all around, being No. 1 in many areas like our airline, airport and seaport. While this is good for our country, we need to watch for issues that come along with this success and some of these are, first, complacency and taking the success we have for granted, as the Member for Cheng San, Dr Michael Lim, rightly identified yesterday. Second, lack of similar survival instinct among the younger Singaporeans as it existed during my father's generation. Third, the effect of affluence of society and wanting the finer things in life at the expense of wanting to achieve stretched goals. With the many challenges facing Singapore, the Singapore 21 programme is indeed very timely and I am confident, if we implement the programme successfully, Singapore will come out stronger than before. There are a number of issues related to the Singapore 21 programme that I would like to touch on and many Members in this House have also touched on it, and that is the competitiveness of Singapore. Sir, creating wealth ultimately means having a strong and growing economy with better paid jobs leading to better standards of living. The Government's goal of 5-7% annual growth into the 21st century is indeed a reasonable target as our economy approaches developed status. I believe the single biggest problem in sustaining a healthy economic growth is the competitiveness of Singapore compared to our fast progressing neighbours. Our competitiveness is being threatened in two ways. There are both external and internal threats. While in the past, we had very strong competition from other NIEs like Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong, we had no close social ties with them. Wanting to beat the competition was thus relatively easy. But now, we have to compete with our close neighbours and, in particular, Malaysia is like trying to compete and beat a close relative. This is a difficult thing to do, but it has to be done since we are now competing for the same type of investments. When asked to comment on how he thought the Malaysian multimedia super corridor would compete with Singapore's IT plan, Dr Mahathir, the Malaysian Prime Minister, said that Malaysia would do better in attracting more investors because Malaysia is bigger than Singapore in physical size. And from the reactions of the Malaysian leaders recently, I hope Singaporeans realise that our close neighbour is all out to beat us as we compete. We therefore must be mindful of this at all times and have a winning spirit. We have many strengths and a good lead to stay ahead of our competition despite our small size. In addition to the IT drive, our neighbours are also pursuing investments in the high-tech semiconductor industry. The one area of threat I see for Singapore is a large pool of talented professionals from Malaysia who chose Singapore as a place to work because of certain push factors in their country some time ago. We must not underestimate the latent nationalist feelings that may exist among these professionals. A similar trend happened among the Taiwanese and South Koreans some time ago and 20 years later, they returned to their countries and fueled the tremendous growth of the electronics and semiconductor industries in their countries. If conditions become favourable in our neighbouring countries, we have a potential danger of a reverse brain drain of professionals. We must be constantly aware of this and ensure that Singapore remains an attractive place to work and live in for those who have made it their home. The American economist Paul Krugman created quite a stir recently when he published his article called "The Myth of the Asian Miracle". In it, he concluded that there was nothing spectacular about the booming economies of the Asian Tigers because the governments pumped in a lot of input factors like capital, labour and government spending. He concluded that such growth cannot be sustained without technological and productivity improvements which he said did not really exist in the Asian economies. Although there are many flaws in his argument, I would like to highlight that we may start to see a trend of more `Americanisation' of companies who are starting to believe that, in the long term, it would be more productive to put their investments in their own country. The Member for Bukit Timah, Dr Wang, talked about this yesterday. I believe this is a distinct threat to countries like Singapore who have depended heavily on multinational investments to grow their economies. The lesson for Singapore here of course is to have our locally grown multinationals with a high level of technological development who can compete in the world economies. Sir, while we have to be mindful of the external threats that challenge Singapore's competitiveness, we also have to focus on a number of internal threats that, if not checked, could stifle our growth. The first is the cost of doing business in Singapore and in particular the high land and property cost. The steep rise of property prices in the last few years has made us less attractive compared to other Asian countries. In a recent survey, and reported in the February issue of the Singapore Bulletin, Singapore was the 3rd most expensive city in the world in terms of office rentals, behind Tokyo and Hong Kong. London and New York were cheaper than Singapore. While the Government has been very successful in controlling consumer price inflation, asset price inflation was not well controlled which has affected residential, commercial and industrial properties. Collectively, the steep increases of all three types of properties have impacted the cost of living for Singaporeans and also the cost of doing business in Singapore. I strongly believe that the runaway property prices in the past few years did have a negative impact when we tried attracting certain investors into Singapore. I feel that the Government could have intervened a little earlier to avoid the ballooning property prices in which many speculators gained. This, of course, needs to be done carefully to avoid the balloon bursting on us suddenly. The second factor affecting Singapore's competitiveness is the cost of labour. Over the years, real wages have increased. As long as productivity growth remains strong, high wage increases are acceptable. Unfortunately, as foreign investors see it, a strengthening Singapore dollar further amplifies the increases in wages. From 1992 to 1995, in US$ terms, wages increased by around 18% per year, making labour cost a negative factor for new and existing investors. I believe this is one of the main reasons why we lost big investors like Microsoft and Packard Bell to our neighbour. We therefore need to ensure wage rise is in line with productivity improvements and, at the same time, the Government should consider moderating any steep increases in exchange rates to keep labour cost more predictable and affordable. Sir, our workers in Singapore are among the best in the world. This has been shown by many competitiveness reports. However, I was disturbed, though not surprised, to read the recent PERC report on 12th May 1997 where Singapore workers were ranked almost at the bottom (10 out of 12 Asian countries) in the category of loyalty. I am not surprised because there is a trend of job hopping among our younger workers, professionals included. Although I am not suggesting outright legislation to avoid job hopping at this stage, I do feel we may need to introduce some doses of disincentives so that employers are not too heavily burdened with constant hiring and training of workers as a result of job hopping. The fact that our workers are being ranked low in this area in a global report is cause for concern. Worker shortage is another problem and I am glad that the Ministries of Labour and Trade and Industry are aggressively working on programmes at encouraging housewives and retirees to join the workforce. To help ease the labour shortage in the manufacturing and service sectors, I hope the Government will consider allowing more workers from non-traditional sources to be brought into Singapore. As our economy progresses, we have to engage in higher value-added activities and more high-tech industries. There is an urgent need for us to retrain many of our workers who may not have very much of a formal education. The responsibility of upgrading their skills needs to be shared by the workers, the employers and the Government. As pointed out by the Member for Pasir Ris, Mr Ahmad Magad, some of the older workers may not be sufficiently motivated to upgrade their skills on their own initiative. Instead of disincentives, I would like to propose we offer them some incentives or rewards that would entice them to take on some vital skills that will be important for our targeted industries and the economy of the future. I would like to suggest that NTUC put in some effort to identify the type of workers we will need for the future. They will have to work with the Ministry of Trade and Industry to align as to the type of industries and businesses we are targeting in the long term. Only after this is done, can we identify the type of skills our workers need to have and hence the right type of training programmes that have to be developed. I feel that the BEST and WISE programmes, although useful in the past, are now a little outdated and require revamp in order to remain relevant for the future. In addition to the programmes identified in the Addendum of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, I would like to add a number of suggestions that may help improve our competitiveness. One observation I have of the electronics industry in Taiwan is that there are many technopreneurs who have contributed valuably to the growth of the industry and the economy there. I would like to suggest that the Economic Development Board (EDB) play a more active role in identifying true home grown technopreneurs who have the ideas, but may not have the financial resources to start up the company. Unlike Taiwan, Singapore does not have an aggressive network of cash rich investors who are willing to invest in the high risk/high return technological start-ups. I am hoping that EDB can take on this role until we develop our own network of `technovestors'. The current focus for EDB seems to be in attracting big investors and in helping the already successful local companies through programmes like the Promising Local Enterprise Scheme. In USA, some years ago, the Government facilitated the formation of a consortium of large local companies to enable them to pool their resources together so that they could rebuild their strength and lead in many areas of technology and manufacturing where the Japanese overtook them in the 1980s. This consortium is called SEMATECH. It has been very useful through synergy of efforts, in allowing many American companies to regain their lead in a number of areas. I would like to suggest that we form a similar consortium of local-based multinationals, purely run by the private sector and funded jointly by the Government and the private sector. The objective of this consortium should be to develop strategies and technologies that will allow locally grown multinationals to become major players in the world arena. I am sure many of our local companies, on their own, will not be able to compete effectively but, as a team, we will have a good chance to succeed. This is especially important in our regionalisation drive as we export our expertise. I stated earlier of the disincentives for investors because of the high land cost. I would like to suggest that the Government find ways to reduce industrial land cost, not purely by subsidising it, but rather by looking at how industrial land can be used more efficiently and effectively like improving the plot ratios allowed and also to allow multiple uses in the same site. We may also have to develop a policy of strategic land pricing to offer attractive industrial land prices to attract certain sectors of industries to invest in Singapore, as has been done in Taiwan. We can be sure that our neighbours will use the lure of cheaper land and labour to attract the same investors that we are interested in. In order for Singapore to continue to succeed in this environment of competition, we will need certain success factors like being able to adapt to changes very fast, constant innovation and continued investment in R&D, a hardworking and highly skilled workforce working as a team, and a strong partnership among workers, employers and the Government. Above all, we must have a desire to fight and win. Sir, before I end, I would like to shift my topic away from the issue of competitiveness. I am very concerned about the rising discipline problem among our teenagers. In my opinion, if we do not do anything about it now, it will reach alarming levels in the near future. In a report released by the Police Force on 16th February this year, it was shown that the trend of teen gangs being arrested for gang-related activities grew very steeply. From 1993 to 1995, it grew by 64% and I believe it is worse than this because many incidents go unreported. On 8th May this year, all the major Malaysian newspapers prominently reported this problem, in response to a Reuters report earlier. This was indeed very shameful for us and could create a negative image for our country in the long term. A prominent Taiwanese industrialist I spoke to recently concluded that the serious crime and gangster problem in his country is the result of a school system where young teenagers started going wayward in their secondary schools where the teachers do not have much authority to discipline them. I strongly feel that our teenage gang problems are also starting in our secondary schools. I have seen many such cases during my meet-the-people sessions and also after speaking to a number of teachers, and I believe this is true. I urge the Education Ministry to spend more time to look into this issue. The Education Ministry's programmes for the next five years are very impressive, but I feel the "software" or the human aspects of school life are not sufficiently addressed. One of the problems I see is that our teachers, just like in Taiwan, do not have enough leeway to discipline their students. And there is a general lack of respect for them in some schools. I worry that the crime problem we are seeing in Taiwan today may become something we may have to deal with in 10-15 years from now. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope Singaporeans do realise that we are going to face stiff competition ahead. Singaporeans must develop a strong sense of competition and they must have the fighting spirit to want to do better than their competitors. If every Singaporean strives to be better than his or her counterpart of our competitors, like our neighbours, I am sure we will succeed. It is of vital importance that our leaders motivate the nation to have a shared vision of what we want to be in the future if we want to succeed. Every Singaporean must participate so that we have one common direction and that is to be the best and to make Singapore our best home. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of the hon. Member for Bukit Timah. His Excellency, the President, spoke of giving everyone a stake in Singapore's success, a sense of belonging and ownership; of a meritocratic society offering equal opportunities and instilling in everyone a desire to contribute to the making of Singapore as "our best home". Sir, giving every Singaporean a stake and a sense of belonging may not always need a materialistic solution. An over-reliance on material rewards as a means of promoting and measuring worth will create a society where it will be very difficult to encourage people to give up their time, effort, money and resources to help those who have no family or commercial relationship with them. Besides, a sense of belonging to Singapore cannot be inculcated from the possession of a few shares in Singapore Telecom or Singapore Power. Many beautiful paintings and beautiful poems have been produced, not of share certificates, but of "tanah tumpah darah ku", "jia xiang", "zu guo", "thaai nadu", the old home town, the fatherland. Ultimately, the Singaporean who truly belongs to Singapore will not pine for the salary he earned or the shares he owned in the Lion City, but the crispy roti prata in Jalan Kayu and the friends and family he used to eat out with. What motivates the Singaporean to give of himself, to step forward and volunteer, should not be the promise of more money or even high praise. The motivator will be a sense that this is his land, his people; and what he is doing is what he ought to do because of the sacrifices and contributions of those who have gone on before him. In a market economy such as ours, where wealth is seen as an indicator of having "arrived", great pressure is put on all of us to make quick profits through easy schemes, by cutting corners and by outsmarting the competition, using any means fair or foul. A gracious society must temper these avaricious ways and show unequivocal disapproval of such conduct. In addition, the market economy employs meritocracy as the fairest means of bringing out the talents of the capable, but meritocracy must not unwittingly deny equal opportunities to the poor, the disabled, the under-privileged and those who suffer disadvantages not of their own making. Therefore, there is a need to emphasise, as the President did, the importance of maintaining a healthy balance between material and non-material pursuits and to realise that the more successful have a responsibility to help the less successful. In practice, Sir, what this means is that as a nation, we must build up in our young a sense of moral values and ethics and imbue in them a deep knowledge of our history and our traditions. The former will be the salt that keeps our society from moral decay, and the latter will be the light which will guide us on a course towards national pride and identity. We will then understand why we must come forth to protect the way of life we know and we love and, as one Member has said, the passion to defend our country. It is also critical that as we hurtle towards becoming a developed economy that our people do not lose the sense of tenderness and compassion, of right and wrong, of justice and equity. Then only will they look beyond themselves to the world around them, to make it a better place to live in, to make Singapore the best home we have. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how we bring about these things may be a function of National Education, even National Service. Parents and national leaders must also teach by example. In the short time I have today, I cannot elaborate on the programmes that are required. Let me just leave some food for thought. Firstly, we have to use the latest technologies to make our economy more productive, but we must ever bear in mind that systems are designed to serve people, and not as ends in themselves. We must not design systems which exclude the disabled merely because their presence would lead to inefficiencies or to more expense. Secondly, the Government and the civil service must remind themselves constantly that they are not dealing with one amorphous blob of commonality, but with individuals who have needs and feelings. Greater attention ought to be paid to those who fall in between the cracks of the system. Thus, while the new HDB financing rules, for example, are a sensible way of ensuring fairness in allocating highly subsidised flats, they can bring hardship on elderly persons who may need to purchase their own flats. We must not ignore such persons but find ways to help them. Thirdly, we must give Singaporeans, especially students and young children, room to play and be children; time to ruminate and appreciate the finer things in life. As the poet W.H. Davies said, "A poor life this if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare." With the shelf-life of information and degrees being so short nowadays due to the rapid advance of technology, do we need students to study more and more things, deeper and earlier than the year before? To paraphrase Mr Lawrence Sia, President of the Singapore Teachers' Union, could we not drop something from the curriculum if we see new subjects that need to be added, for there is a limit to what students can absorb? While we are at it, could we not reconsider the proposal for a five-day week and see that as a way of increasing, rather than decreasing, the productivity of workers? If nothing else, it would boost the dwindling profits of the retail and leisure sectors. Fourthly, market capitalism cannot be left totally unmanaged. Loathe as we are to subsidise consumption, there is perhaps a case to argue for subsidies for the capital and infrastructure investments for basic bus services, just as we have subsidised these costs for the MRT. Rebates can also be worked out for those in the lower income groups so that high transportation costs would not eat into their meagre incomes. The high cost of living, real or perceived, serves to demoralise these groups and would thus affect their productivity. In reality, therefore, these apparent subsidies would serve to make the market economy more effective. Fifthly, market capitalism cannot be left to run wild. Much as we dislike to interfere legislatively with the mechanism of market capitalism, there is obviously a case for laws which ensure that businesses deal with each other and with consumers fairly and in conscionable ways. In recent months, for example, the Consumers Association of Singapore had highlighted incidents of businesses which trick or exploit customers through misleading conduct and advertisements, hard pressure selling and deceptive labelling of products. Other deceptive conduct includes instalment credit schemes which do not state the number of payments; car financing schemes which quote deceptively low interest rates and periodic payments which are low; sham discounts and sales in the watch, jewellery and retail sectors; renovation contractors who send out circulars created to give the appearance of official notices from the HDB. The list goes on, Mr Deputy Speaker, ad nauseam. It is time we enacted a Fair Trading Act, a Consumer Credit Act and similar laws to curb these unsavoury practices. Lest some quarters should deliberately distort what I have said today to "prove" that Singapore is an unjust, ungracious and greedy society, let me say that this is not what I intend to do, because I have not been prescribing a cure for a disease but preventive measures. I am confident the good doctor up north will fully understand this. In conclusion, we must strive to remove the things that will make Singapore a less caring and compassionate society, and endeavour to build a people with a strong sense of equity, ethics and adequate spiritual ballast to make Singapore a gracious society and "our best home". Hence, I am happy to support the motion.

We have one minute left. Do I have the assent of Members that we adjourn the debate now? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Debate to be resumed when, Dr Wang?

Tomorrow, Sir.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Nine minutes past Four o'clock pm.