Hansard, 1997-06-05

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From To 1997 1997 Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap 6 June 24 June Mr S. Iswaran 6 June 12 June Mr Lim Swee Say 7 June 18 June 24 June 27 June Mr Ong Kian Min 8 June 22 June Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 9 June 11 June Dr Toh See Kiat 9 June 11 June Mr Tan Soo Khoon 12 June 15 June 17 June 24 June Dr Ho Tat Kin 13 June 22 June Mr Peter Chen 16 June 18 June Mr Koo Tsai Kee 21 June 30 June Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 22 June 24 June Dr Lee Boon Yang 29 June 2 July TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

I wish to inform honourable Members that under paragraphs (2) and (3) of Standing Order 96, I have appointed Mr Bernard Chen to be Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and Mr Chew Heng Ching to be Chairman of the Estimates Committee for the First Session.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will inform the House of the provisions of the law under which the Immigration Department and other Government departments are empowered to impound valid passports of citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Question 1. But before that is answered, may I say, before any accusation is made, that I have no pecuniary interest in this question. I have, of course, written on behalf of a person, need I say who, to ask under what powers her passport was impounded. But I have no pecuniary interest at all.

Sir, the Passports Regulation 15(1)(a), read with section 3(1)(g) of the Passports Act, empowers the Controller of Immigration to cancel a Singapore passport. The passport would be impounded after cancellation.

May I know under what conditions the Singapore passport may be cancelled? Are there any conditions set out?

Sir, under regulation 15(1)(a), the Minister for Home Affairs can give instructions to the Controller of Immigration to cancel the passport. He exercises his discretion in matters where public law and order is concerned. He can issue this instruction.

May I know for what reasons or conditions that the restricted passport of Mrs Tang was impounded by the Immigration Department?

Sir, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) had informed the Minister for Home Affairs that they were investigating the tax matters of Mr Tang Liang Hong, and that Mrs Tang Liang Hong (Madam Teo Siew Har) was involved in removing some tax files from Mr Tang's office to the home. And that she also may be of assistance in answering questions on the administration of Mr Tang's tax matters. The Comptroller of Income Tax was of the view that her passport should be cancelled and impounded. The Minister for Home Affairs considered these grounds and, considering them to be valid, exercised his powers under regulation 15.

May I ask whether the Minister is aware that under section 87 of the Income Tax Act the power is given to the Comptroller of Income Tax to direct that any person leaving Singapore should be stopped or prevented if he has not paid taxes assessed upon him? Is it under this section that the decision was taken or was it under any other section?

Sir, obviously, Mr Jeyaretnam has not listened to my answer carefully. I stated that it was under the Passports Act and the Passports Regulations wherein the powers have been exercised, not the Income Tax Act.

I understood the Minister to say that it was because some files were removed from Mr Tang's office by the income tax officer that it was deemed necessary to prevent Mrs Tang leaving. Was it because of that or not?

Sir, again, the Member has not listened to my answer carefully. She was involved herself in the removal of some files from Mr Tang's office. And as IRAS was investigating his tax matters, the Comptroller was of the view that she would be of assistance in answering and furnishing information to the Comptroller on Mr Tang's tax matters.

Would the Minister say whether any taxes were due from Mrs Tang at the time that her passport was impounded?

Sir, that was not the issue. That was not the purpose for impounding her passport. IRAS was very carefully investigating a person's tax matters, in this case, Mr Tang Liang Hong. They have to do their job judiciously and thoroughly. And if a person is deemed to be able to assist in these investigations, and in this case it is not just that, but she was seen to be involved in removing some of the files from Mr Tang's office, the Comptroller in carrying out his duties would want to be thorough and therefore made a request to the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel and impound her passport, so that she can help in the investigations.

Will the Minister then confirm that it did not come under section 87 at all? Assoc Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I have said it before, no.

Thank you. I have no supplementary question, Sir. But may I raise with you, for further clarification, the reasons advanced on your behalf for disallowing my other Question to the Prime Minister that was submitted, asking why Parliament could not sit in March.

Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, your question has not been admitted on grounds which were, in fact, conveyed to you. The inadmissibility of a Question for Oral Answer is not a ground for debate in this House. I believe the reasons for disallowing your Question have been communicated to you and you should let the matter rest at that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the grounds that were advanced were that it had been dealt with.

Mr Jeyaretnam, as I pointed out to you, inadmissibility of a Question cannot be the subject of a debate in the Chamber. That is provided for under the Standing Orders.

If it pleases you, Sir.

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]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I caught your eye, and I will not exhaust the 30 minutes that have been allocated to me. I would be short. Sir, I would like to bring up two major issues which are critical to Singapore's long-term social and economic stability. These two issues need to be pondered carefully and we need to manage them effectively. First, we must pay particular attention to the lurking danger in the resurgence of fanatical groups and individuals within and outside Singapore. We cannot take Singapore's racial, religious and language harmony for granted. Sir, as you know, many countries which have long progressive developments are now plagued by various types of fanatics. The first type, as you are aware of, is the religious fanatics who push for one religion over all others. The second type is the racial fanatics who demand for the dominance of one race over all others. The third type is the language fanatics who assert the supremacy of one language over others. Sir, you can see what has happened to countries such as Lebanon, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Cyprus and Northern Ireland. Many of these countries have long histories and today they are all broken. They are plagued by conflicts, issues and problems between people of various persuasions. They were thriving economies and culturally vibrant places, but if we examine and assess them they have become fractured by racial, religious and language conflicts. Sir, young Singaporeans must learn from the sad lessons of these places and take steps to ensure that various types of fanatics are deterred to take root in Singapore. And history is obviously a good lesson and by examining the various episodes and problems faced by these countries, they are very important lessons that we all need to draw, appreciate and understand, so that in Singapore we can take pre-emptive steps to deal with these critical and crucial issues. Sir, our social institutions providing education, housing and employment must take proactive steps to enable our young to respect and appreciate one another, irrespective of their language, race or religion. We must continue to actively immunise our younger generations to socially integrate through economic, educational and community activities. In short, we have to socialise our young to think, feel and be Singaporeans. I say it is not just sufficient for Singaporeans to feel and to think, but to behave and to act as Singaporeans. I feel that this is most critical and most important. I am sure that all our social institutions will strive to achieve this objective by taking various conscious steps and different ways to encourage more multi-racial participation of people in various social and economic activities. I am of the opinion that it must be a conscious effort whether we like it or not because Singapore is a multi-racial society. We have peoples of various persuasions and this must remain an important and crucial thing within the backdrop of our minds. Sir, we can further strengthen our bonds among our ethnic groups. The first place to start with is in the pre-schools in our neighbourhoods where effective integration and steps need to be taken, so that the very young, having to socialise with various ethnic groups, can participate in various activities which can help us build stronger bonds. On a more serious note, my grave concern is on the potential danger of the rise of fanatical individuals and groups outside Singapore who can do harm to Singapore and Singaporeans. Worse still from a fanatical leader that we may have no control. In the face of this potential threat, Singaporeans must be alert and be street-wise to band together to deal with such problems which can arise. We live in an uncertain world, and anything can hit us at any time, but we must be prepared to deal with it graciously. And this I am sure Singaporeans will be able to respond. We hope that there will continue to be rational and cooperative leaders in the region who will work for the common good of all peoples in ASEAN and other regions. It is through this common bond of brotherhood in international relations, mutual support and understanding that we can build a better regional community, a better world. Sir, I feel that Singaporeans and Malaysians all want to live and work as best friends and we have over the years cultivated very good relationship and we all want to maintain this positive relationship. We have good people-to-people relationship over the years and I hope that we can continue to build on this and strengthen better mutual understanding and support of one another. Sir, the second issue that we need to pay closer attention, I must say, is to enable the less better off to improve their stations in life. In our strive for material pursuits, we must not forget that we have social obligations to help those who are less better off and less socially endowed. In a social and economic marathon, there will always be people who are going to do less better and we want to ensure that they participate in the race and we should find ways to enable these people to achieve and to be in the race. We cannot afford to ignore them. To do so would make our society cold and uncaring. I look forward for more governmental contributions and together with community and voluntary efforts and corporate support, we can do more and help the less privileged and the less endowed. More Edusave scholarships and bursaries could be given to a larger number of families. I think the criteria need to be reviewed so that families that are outside the boundary can be included for help and education can be an inroad to assist them to achieve better lives. Sir, for the common man, basic services such as health care, housing, education and transportation should remain affordable. As you are aware, more public services are to be restructured or corporatised. It is necessary for the Government to set up a body to monitor and check the charges so that we can ensure that the prices that are charged by these institutions are fair and accessible for the common man. Sir, in conclusion, to make Singapore more versatile, we must work together as a team and promote the best of relationship with Malaysians and other peoples of ASEAN. On that note, I support the motion

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of the Ninth Parliament. The President has given a very comprehensive speech anchored on five pillars which will usher Singapore into the 21st century. These five pillars: create wealth, share success, invest in the young, look after the old, and build ties will be the guiding principles for all Singaporeans to work together for a better future. As we move into the next millennium, Singapore will face two main challenges: intense competition and rising expectations of people. With greater liberalisation of trade and open economy, competition will be more intense both locally and in the global market. The rising expectations of people will also pose immense challenges to Singapore to improve our performance and provide better quality services. To cope with these challenges, we need to focus on improving the quality of our environment, services, products and, at the same time, increase the productivity of our workforce. Quality and productivity must be the main thrust to make Singapore a world-class city. I am very pleased to note that the President has emphasised the need to upgrade the physical environment and build Singapore into a city of excellence. In line with the President's call, I would like to focus on "How to develop Singapore into a world-class city". I will highlight three areas of concern: (1) Planning, (2) Design, and (3) Construction. Sir, I will first discuss on the area of planning. We must adopt an integrated planning approach to make Singapore a world-class city. First of all, integrated planning. Singapore has gained a world reputation for its forward and far-sighted planning of the city. Over the last 32 years, we have developed excellent infrastructure, buildings and amenities to make Singapore a city for business, living and recreation. The recent Development Guide Plans have also incorporated a variety of urban forms to make Singapore a vibrant and interesting city to work and live in. The creation of the New Downtown at Marina South is an example of how integrated planning can help to provide Singaporeans with a vibrant and exciting environment. I understand that the relevant authorities have been working closely to ensure that the plans meet the country's needs at the strategic level. I hope that more coordination and cooperation could be achieved at the operational level as well to facilitate developments in both the public and private sectors. With the advent of information technology, more planning information can be made known to developers, consultants and contractors to avoid unnecessary delays in development and wastage of resources in abortive or corrective works. We should consider developing web sites for all Development Guide Plans so that all developments could be instantly updated. This would help developers, consultants and contractors to plan their projects more effectively and efficiently. Secondly, our planners. Credit must be given to our planners who had taken bold initiative to develop Singapore into a city of excellence over the last 32 years. In the face of growing competition, our planners must strive to make Singapore a more attractive place for business and investment. We should continue to attract and retain good planners so that plans could be implemented and fine-tuned to make Singapore a world-class city. Sir, I will now move on to the second area: Design. We must encourage more innovative and creative designs for our built environment. First of all, innovate design. More creative and innovative designs are needed so as to meet the rising expectations and aspirations of the people. In the next century, we will have more elderly people, and users will be more knowledgeable and demanding. More user friendly, functional and maintainable designs must be adopted so as to achieve more comfort, higher productivity and better quality of life. In addition, buildings must be designed to be easily accessible and well-integrated with the transportation system and other amenities to meet the users' needs. Secondly, private sector participation in HDB housing. The private sector should be further encouraged to participate in our public housing programmes to provide more variety and options to Singaporeans. At present, about 10-15% of HDB new flats are built using the design-and-build or design-plus methods whereby private architects are involved. With more private sector involvement, more new ideas can be introduced to make HDB living more interesting and pleasant. However, HDB should continue to conduct quality audit so as to ensure that designs of HDB flats remain buildable, functional, practical and maintainable. The combination of expertise from both the HDB and private sector will produce a new breed of public housing that will better meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans in the 21st century. Thirdly, designs for enhancing community bonding. The HDB precinct concept should be further expanded so that communal spaces are specifically designed to promote social cohesion and community bonding of the people. We should adopt the condominium concept whereby social centre or communal space is created for residents to interact and develop bonding. Eventually, more autonomy should be accorded to residents to take responsibility in maintaining their living environment. This joint responsibility will further strengthen the bond of the people, thus leading to a stronger community. Fourthly, HDB upgrading programmes. The HDB upgrading programme has been a great success. Many Singaporeans have gained or are aware of the immense benefits of the programme. The Estate Renewal Strategy, Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes have successfully rejuvenated older estates and enchanced the quality of life of many residents. A recent survey was conducted by the NUS School of Building and Real Estate to determine the impact of the Main Upgrading Programme on the quality of life of residents. The majority of residents surveyed (more than 70% of them) from eight upgraded precincts felt that upgrading has improved the quality of their lives. Certain design features were specifically highlighted as having enhanced their quality of living. These included lifts at every floor, covered walkways, new lift interior and landscaped gardens. I hope the Government could consider giving an additional grant to incorporate these design features as standard items in future upgrading programmes. Sir, I will now move on to the third area of concern: Construction. We must upgrade the construction industry. First of all, build a quality construction workforce. In order to develop Singapore into a world-class city, we need to upgrade the capability of our construction industry. The construction industry plays a significant role in contributing to the GDP of Singapore. In 1996, it contributed 8.5% to the National Economy. Despite this, the industry is plagued with problems of low productivity and labour shortages. These shortcomings have adversely affected the quality of construction services and inhibited regionalisation efforts of the industry. We need to build a quality construction workforce comprising multi-skilled tradesmen, supervisory and professional staff in Singapore. The construction industry encounters much difficulty in attracting Singaporeans to work in the industry. This is attributed to the tough and dangerous working conditions at construction sites. Many young Singaporeans shun the industry, thus leaving many construction firms with no choice but to rely on foreign workers. This situation is not desirable and construction firms are unable to maintain a stable pool of skilled construction personnel. I hope the Government could provide more support to improve the image of the industry and encourage more Singaporeans to pursue a career in the construction industry. More incentives such as tax rebates could be given to construction firms which employ Singaporeans. Incentives should be provided to encourage staff to stay with the same employers for a number of years. This will help firms to maintain a stable workforce, thus improving their productivity and quality of work. Secondly, maintaining construction workload. To maintain a stable workforce, construction firms must procure adequate contracts. The fluctuating workload of construction firms is one factor which has prevented firms from employing more direct staff. More support and encouragement such as tender premiums should be given to firms with good track record and direct workforce. If possible, more design and build or negotiation contracts from the public sector could be awarded to these firms. In Japan, many of the large construction firms are able to maintain a large pool of direct workers (between 10,000 and 15,000 staff) due to their ability to obtain work through design and build and negotiation procurement methods. These contractual arrangements have enabled Japanese firms to achieve higher productivity and quality of work, thus winning their clients' confidence for future contracts. Thirdly, safe working environment. We need to provide a safe and conducive working environment at construction sites. Statistics from the Labour Ministry revealed that the construction industry has the highest number of fatal accidents (43 cases) in 1995 as compared to other industries. These figures clearly show that more must be done to develop a safety culture in the construction industry. The provision of a safe and conducive working environment should be the joint responsibility of the authorities, developers, consultants and contractors. I am glad to know that steps have been taken to set aside certain sums of money in accordance with the size of the contract to ensure that proper safety measures are taken and housekeeping is carried out to make our construction sites safe and tidy. The Labour Ministry has been conducting safety training courses to address this problem. To succeed, we need the collective efforts of all parties involved in a construction project. Fourthly, help construction firms to grow. To date, we have a total of 121 G8 construction firms registered in general building, civil engineering and piling works. These firms can undertake projects of unlimited contract value. However, not many of them have annual turnover of more than $100 million. In 1996, only $1.5 billion out of $16 billion value of contracts in the construction industry was from overseas market. This accounts for a mere 10% of construction services being exported to other countries. Many of our local construction firms are family based businesses which have limited resources to grow into big construction firms of international standing. Despite much encouragement, the growth of construction firms is slow. I hope the Government will initiate the pooling of resources in the construction industry. Firms with high growth potentials should be given more financial incentives to upgrade and expand their operations. Incentives must be given to encourage partnership between construction firms, development firms and financial institutions to undertake overseas projects. To be able to seize the immense opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region, we must build a core group of contractors which have the financial capability and construction expertise to compete in the global market. Fifthly, buildable designs and precast technology. I am pleased to note that the National Development Minister has recently re-emphasised and encouraged architects to use more simple-to-build designs and precast technology. These measures have proved to be very successful in Europe and Japan in increasing productivity and quality. In Singapore, HDB has achieved excellent results in adopting buildable designs and precast technology. There is an urgent need to spearhead the use of these techniques in our industry. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, to develop Singapore into a World-class City is a daunting task. We have the will, expertise and resources to achieve this goal. But, we need to focus on the three areas which I have mentioned: Planning, Design and Construction. With the support of a good Government, both the public and private sectors will be able to make Singapore a better home for all of us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak at this session. I rise in support of the motion by the hon. Member for Bukit Timah. Sir, to my mind, the gist of the President's Address highlights the need for us to stand tall, to stand proud of and to stand up for Singapore. However, these are also areas where if we are not careful, we can be misinterpreted as being conceited, arrogant and insensitive. No, I am not saying that we should offer our other cheek, but instead let us put our shoulders to the wheel and stand together, graciously. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed on this point, allow me first to share with the House some of my thoughts about Parliament and I. When I first took my seat here last week, I must confess that I felt not a little over-awed by the imposing stateliness and the dignity of the House, and the presence of some of the strongest pillars, some of the most important people in the history of modern Singapore and its success. Almost before that feeling passed, I was struck by the realisation that I was now a member of this body charged with looking after and securing the future of our country and our people. Together with the privilege of service comes the responsibility - no, the obligation - to give of our best to justify the people's trust in us. As elected MPs, it is our sacred duty to strive to satisfy as many as possible the people's wants and needs - social, economic and political. To help them meet and overcome their problems, to examine and explore their views and ideas, and to help them achieve their aspirations and goals. In the multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural dynamics of Singapore, these are perforce, diverse and ever-changing and not always easy to handle. But we must try anyway. We are the voice of the people and a vital link between them and the Government. If we do not speak up for them, who would. Though, of course, we must always be careful of the many different sensitivities at play. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this House, I intend to speak my mind, though I shall also mind what I say. Honestly and sincerely, no man can do more, and the people of Singapore deserve no less. We must not run away from our responsibilities just because issues raised or policies adopted may be unpleasant or unpopular. We are Singaporeans, pragmatic and realistic. Our leaders have brought us thus far, that we can walk with our heads held high in any company, not by sweeping the dust under the carpet but facing adversity down and turning obstacles into opportunities. Against all odds, Singapore has not only survived but also succeeded beyond expectations. We are eternally grateful to the early leaders for all they have done, for all their personal sacrifices. But we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. If conditions were difficult in the early years, they promise to be even tougher in the future. Domestically, the people have higher expectations and demands. Ironically, this has come about because of the country's success. With the attendant higher standard of living and education, the electorate has become more demanding and critical. However, our society is still scored with sensitive cracks and fissures. In this context, Sir, efforts by the Ministry of Education to make a success of our National Education Programme deserve all the support. It goes without saying that the teaching of modern history is not easy, especially when it is recent, when memories are still fresh and when it is filled with many controversies. All the more when it involved different racial groups which may have different perspectives to it. Facts are clear but not necessarily their interpretations. In other words, there are minefields. We need to go about it with care, which I am sure the Minister for Education and his capable team are aware of. We wish them well, for this is a formidable task. By all means, focus on modern history, but do not also forget the early history where our roots are also planted. If I may add, since the purpose of us learning history is to draw lessons for the future, the Minister for Education may want to consider incorporating elements of our vision for the future in the NE programme. Understanding the pillars of Singapore 21, NTUC 21 and/or other agendas for action, will also be useful. Externally, Sir, the competition for trade and investments, for talent and technology has become ruthless. We can hope to continue the Singapore success story only if the people are united, pulling in one common direction for the common goal. For this great cause, I hope even the hon. Members of the opposition would join in. When it comes to the crunch, we should put aside personal interests and conflicts and stand up for Singapore. This does not mean that we do not entertain different views and opinions, as long as they stay objective and constructive. After all, we are all Singaporeans and we all have a stake in this country. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir, this reminds me of the early hours of 3rd January this year when soon after the result of the election at Cheng San GRC were announced, I found myself reminding supporters of the defeated opposition candidates that we were all Singaporeans. They have been heckling loudly and trying to prevent my colleagues and I from addressing our supporters in Cheng San and, through the medium of live television, fellow Singaporeans who had stayed up all night for the result. What I said to the opposition supporters in that tense moment, I said spontaneously. It was one of the first thoughts to have come to my mind. I have since been told that my plaintive cry - that in victory or in defeat, we ought to remember we are still one people - had not only calmed down those vociferous opposition supporters but also struck a sympathetic chord in many fellow citizens. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad. Yes, we are one people. And I say that in the full knowledge that there are substantial numbers of Cheng San residents, indeed many Singaporeans in other wards, who did not, and still do not, agree with much of what PAP says and does. This ability to accept that there can be differences between fellow citizens over political and other beliefs, differences honestly held - this tolerance, if you will - is critical to our staying united as one people. The call from our national leaders for Singaporeans to forge closer bonds with one another, to feel as one nation, would ring hollow if significant numbers are made to feel ignored, sidelined or alienated. Thus, I shall dedicate myself to doing whatever I can to help foster this sense of solidarity. Thus, I shall serve, to the best of my ability, even those who did not vote for our team. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe today, as we prepare for the 21st century, is an opportune time to reaffirm our belief in wanting to stay as one people, whatever our political and other differences. The role of the CDCs in community bonding cannot be over-emphasised. Neither should we underestimate the role of self-help groups, even the religious organisations. And collectively, they can help us make that difference. It is also an opportune time because in the white heat of global economic competition, Singapore needs every of its citizen to pull together in the same direction in order to stay ahead. This is not rhetoric. In the economic race between nations, no one country can afford to have less than total effort and total commitment from its people to do what it takes to produce goods and services which can sell in the global market place. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that we Singaporeans can rise to the challenge. Yes, present times are unlike those early years when the very survival of Singapore was a question mark and people were ready to throw their support behind the Government unquestioningly. Yes, it would be much harder now to galvanise the nation. Today's generations have to be won over differently. That is our task, in fact, our test. We have to think of creative ways to win them over. In that thinking mode, Sir, allow me to say that I am in full support of the MOE's effort at inculcating creative thinking in our students, towards achieving what Prime Minister Goh called a thinking school and a learning nation. Let us also encourage creative thinking, and equally important is the need for us to teach our students and our young constructive thinking. In my mind, critical thinking is incomplete without constructive thinking. I consider it a worthwhile challenge to do my bit to help win hearts and minds for the larger Singapore cause. I am here to serve and I shall. And it is my conviction, my firm conviction, Sir, that in the trying times ahead, we cannot afford to be divided. As Gladstone put it: `We must hang together, or most assuredly, we shall hang separately.' Finally, Sir, briefly, on Singapore-Malaysia relations. Without doubt, relations between Singapore and Malaysia carry a lot of historical baggage. There was much bad blood too. The recent row, although it may have opened up old wounds, surely cannot be as bad as the ones experienced by our founding fathers of modern Singapore. They literally went through blood, sweat and tears to merge with Malaysia, and after having achieved that, only to find the two odd years nightmarish, what with race politics, communalism and communism as the harsh realities of the day. To some, it was even a matter of life and death. Perhaps influenced by the spirit of amity in Asean then, the two neighbours were able to rise above the acrimony and the din, to benefit from cooperation. Singapore could not have invested so much in Malaysia if not for good faith and optimism in bilateral relations. Not that there was no competition. As the President said in his Address, we will have to compete while we cooperate. It is not a zero-sum game. It should be a win-win situation. We all know the interdependence of both countries in many areas. And it is in appreciating that complementation that we had brought about mutual benefits. We all know, even blood ties flow both ways. What is it compared with the flow of water. Let us face it, we are two civilised, independent and sovereign states. Let us show the world we understand what that means and let us move on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues in rising to thank the President for his Address which was succinct and yet all encompassing, spelling out the ingredients necessary to make Singapore our best home. Yes, competition will get tougher by the day with our competitors building up capabilities in areas of our traditional strengths and moving into niches which we used to occupy. But their progress will also mean that there will be more opportunities for us and our companies to trade with them, invest in them and provide them with support and services. Therefore, Sir, keener competition is not without gains to our people provided we continue to upgrade ourselves, improve our productivity, persevere and be always united purposefully for a common destiny. I am glad that the priorities of the Government in the next five years are to continually invest in our people, fine-tune our education system and plan ahead to catch the market tide. But, Sir, economic achievement alone is not enough. We must also know our roots and our history in order to be proud of our own brand of Singapore culture and tradition. Sir, pride for one's home, country and tradition is a unifying force never too early to imbue one with. I note with pride that we not only thrive economically, but we are also a thinking people and refused to be dragged into silly mud-slinging. Recently, Singaporeans have shown their mettle yet again in the face of a tirade onslaught by some members of our closest neighbour, Malaysia. Their ferocity and outburst were calculated to agitate, annoy and stir emotions. But Singaporeans remained level-headed and unfazed. They closed ranks and kept their cool. Sir, it was an eye opener. To me, it is like a blessing in disguise. It makes Singaporeans, particularly our younger ones, more aware of our vulnerabilities and the need, despite our economic progress, to also know Singapore's history in greater details, the trials and tribulations that came before our success today. That it was never a breezy stroll, but a meandering path that was arduous and sometimes treacherous. Only then would younger Singaporeans look at each achievement with pride, gratitude and appreciation. Sir, the National Education Programme (NEP) should come timely for all Singaporeans. Recently, I had the opportunity to attend, on behalf of the Government, the National Day Celebration of a very friendly developed country, the Netherlands. What I witnessed at the celebration deeply moved and impressed me. The guests at the celebration were mostly Singaporeans and many Dutchmen too. When the Singapore National Anthem was played, the audience was generally attentive but very few Singaporeans were heard singing `Majullah Singapura'. In contrast, as soon as the first beat of the Netherlands National Anthem came on the air, the Dutch sang spontaneously, in thunderous unison and their faces beaming with pride and joy. Obviously, they love their country and are always ready to show it expressively. Sir, we could learn from the Netherlands. I would like to suggest that the NEP include urging all Singaporeans to sing aloud our National Anthem wherever and whenever it is played, be it in the schools, community halls or at other public or private functions. Sir, I would also like to suggest that the deeds of yesteryear heroes of Singapore be made an integral part of the NEP. It could feature philanthropists like Tan Kah Khee, Lee Kong Chian, anti-Japanese occupation hero like Major Lim Bo Seng, and even the retired "Tiger Hong" and the "Samsudin" of SAFTI who not only instilled discipline and patriotism in their charges, but helped mould the early batches of NSmen and lay a solid foundation for National Service. Our home-grown entrepreneurs and industrialists too should find a place in Singapore's history. What is most important of all is the struggles and success stories of our first generation of political leaders before, during and after independence. Sir, the NEP should not be confined only to schools. The mass media should play their part by running articles and stories on these great men, in particular, honouring their deeds and sacrifices. The real benefit would come with time when the young Singaporeans are imbued with the right values and are seen to emulate our true heroes. Sir, the President has outlined the five pillars of excellence. I think our adequate hardware and sound infrastructure built over the years augmented by consistent upgrading and restructuring to meet market demands, should keep us in competition. I am not too worried about that. However, like my many colleagues in this House, I am concerned with the "software" aspect of nation building. How do we improve our social behaviour, nurture our young, care for the aged and build family ties? This aspect of growth has become increasingly important as we move to become a developed nation by the turn of the century. Sir, eating at buffets is a common past-time for Singaporeans. Sometimes, it helps to bring a family and friends together and that is good. But the sight of kids piling up their plates, spilling food on the way back to their tables and not finishing them, all these sometimes under the eyes of their doting parents is, indeed, saddening. These people feel that since it is a buffet and they have paid for it, they have every right to the food including wasting them. Educating the parents as much as the children against such thinking is necessary, and I have no qualms that restaurants enforce the rule of charging wasted food strictly. Peer group pressure would also help. And in schools, teachers could promote etiquette awareness by discussing good social habits and chiding all forms of kiasuism. Sir, affluence, the result of our forefathers and ourselves working hard, our frugality, determination and honest and able Government, has unfortunately given many young Singaporeans today the notion that life is blessed with opulence and abundance. That money is to be found in an ATM machine, and all you need is an ATM card or a credit card. Some parents prefer to spend all their time at work, with friends and entertainment. Instead of giving time to their children, they give them ATM cards or credit cards. So their children become free-spenders, and with substantial amounts of money at their disposal, they are attracted to branded goods and become brand conscious. The net result, trendy youth who indulges in vain pursuits of materialism and with scant respect for money. Sir, we can conveniently blame social ills to society, to economic affluence. We look at the developed West and we console ourselves that they are no different. Yes, but we can be different. Recognising that these are weaknesses in our system brings us one step closer to a solution. I am therefore glad that the Government has planned family get-together programmes, such as the National Family week in June, where wholesome activities will be organised with the family in mind. It is now for Singaporeans to respond positively to these activities, which hopefully will jump-start them into holding their own family gatherings and interactions on a regular basis. Sir, good dramas and plays will also help strengthen family ties. I remember the movie Julie Andrews' "The Sound of Music" was a hit. It has a beautiful story line. A father who ruled over his children regimentally discovered true love and rapport with his children through the children's nanny, who herself had to first contend with and win over defiant children. I hope this move will still be a hit today. Otherwise, I would be worried. Another good drama is the local "Under One Roof" which again centres on the family ties and neighbourliness. Its jokes are funny, sometimes exaggerated, but never need to be vulgar. It goes to show that we can still have good plays and dramas without having to spice them with gore, violence or sex. Sir, care for the aged. The Government has in place various safety nets for healthcare protection. I would urge the Government to monitor closely the adequacy of each safety net, enhance and improve on them according to the needs of the people, lest they become irrelevant. There should also be more efforts made by National Sports Associations to promote sporting activities specially tailored for the elderly for greater awareness. Sir, as GPC Chairman for MITA, I cannot end my speech without responding to DPM Dr Tony Tan's announcement two days ago that the Government has given art a big boost with the formation of a Committee to recommend how creative and artistic manpower in Singapore can be developed and with promise of financial support for the LaSalle College of Arts and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts. My GPC Members and I give our whole-hearted support to this move. Sir, as our economy matures and before the pursuit of materialism and wealth becomes an obsession, it is timely that we make space for the arts to ventilate, to flourish. It is accepted that arts is soothing, that it makes people more gentle and patient. It helps to remind ourselves that there is beauty in being a gracious people, in being appreciative of nature and the sublime. Sir, everyone has a part to play in promoting art awareness. I would like to suggest that at the constituency level, the Government consider designating a place or places as Arts Corner where residents are free to show and display their artistic talents, whether in the form of paintings, poems, handicrafts, or even dancing. Grassroots organisations could help on a bigger scale by holding performances, operas or dances for budding artists, talents, from within the constituency on a regular basis. Artistes should be encouraged and given room and access for expression. Only then will Singapore not become a concrete jungle for the spiritual bankrupt, but a people of varied talents appreciative of the true meaning of life and living. With that, Sir, I would like to thank the President once again for reminding us that it is not enough just to have handsome buildings and a world-class infrastructure. We also need to be gracious, caring and considerate people as we enter the next millennium, thereby making Singapore our best home!

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the speeches of more than 40 colleagues in this House, I think they have covered almost every relevant topic. All I can say is that "great minds think alike". However, as it is said, "The wise man may have considered a thousand things, yet he is bound to make a slip one day. On the other hand, even a foolish man may occasionally hit a good idea." It is in this light that I am presenting my humble view to this House today. First of all, I would like to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bukit Timah thanking the President for his Address at the Opening of this Parliament. This Government is a cross-century government, because it will lead Singapore from the 20th century into the 21st century. Different ages and different times face different questions, problems and challenges. Every country, at different stages of development and different times in history, also has to face different kinds of problems and challenges. As such, the key to survival is to be able to overcome all the problems and meet all the challenges. In the ever-turning wheel of history, we have seen countless ups and downs, successes and failures. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to face the future challenges, as a citizen, I think there are two things we have to bear in mind. Firstly, it is to learn from the past for the sense of crisis which would motivate us to struggle for our survival. Secondly, we must make every effort to enhance our awareness for competitiveness. At the time of separation from Malaysia, we were really desperate and everybody thought we had no chance of survival. But we made it. We actually found a way out against all odds. I think in this context, the sense of crisis played a very important role. That generation of Singaporeans all had a very strong sense of crisis or "crisis consciousness". Since separation from Malaysia, we worked very hard for more than 30 years. Today, with all the success and prosperity, Singaporeans seem to have lost their sense of crisis. Long periods of stability and development have brought to our people security and confidence. Is it good or bad? I think it can be both. Good in the sense that we have confidence and the courage to face our future positively. Bad in the sense that some of our people have become complacent and arrogant. It is generally known in military strategy that, "An army burning with righteous indignation is bound to win, and an army puffed up with pride is bound to lose." This is precisely the reason why the hare lost its race against the slow-moving tortoise, in the famous fable. In the 60s and 70s, we were an army of righteous indignation. We had no other options. We had to bei shui yi zhan ( : fight with one's back to the river) that is, fight to win or die, and pofu chenzhou ( : break the cauldrons and sink the boats after crossing) that is, cut off all means of retreat and be absolutely resolute to win or die. Now, what we must do is to prevent our people from an army which is puffed with pride, or like the conceited hare in the fable. Otherwise, we may end up "surviving the turbulent times yet succumbing in times of peace and happiness". Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible for us to recreate artificially the sense of crisis to stimulate the fighting spirit of our citizens, because the sense of crisis is a product of circumstances. So, I think what we should do is to try and enhance the competitive awareness among our people. Why do I say we have to enhance our competitive awareness? This is because, I believe, basically, all our citizens do have the competitive awareness with them. However, I notice also that the competitive awareness of some of our people is either not correctly oriented or simply inadequate. For example, some people may ask: why should we want to be No. 1 in every field? Why must Singapore be fighting to be the first in everything? Some people say that Singapore is very small, competition is very intense and the pressure is getting more and more heavy all the time. I think this sort of thinking exists because these people have inadequate competitive awareness or they have failed to understand the real meaning of competitive awareness. They should understand that apart from internal competition, the greater competition actually comes from outside, or the external environment for survival. Some people do not fully understand that keeping our advantage or edge in the competition is our means for survival. That is why I believe that competitive awareness is one key component we must include in our proposed National Education. Mr Speaker, Sir, to enhance competitive awareness, first of all, we must know the various crises that we have gone through in all these years of our nation building. This is history. There was an ancient Chinese saying, "Taking history as an object lesson, we can tell the rise and fall of a nation." We must always be prepared for danger in times of peace. We must realize that although there is no great crisis or threat to us in the foreseeable future, the very keen global competition may well affect our survival and our future prosperity. Today, we have a very good life, much better than that of 20-30 years ago. But the world today has also changed. We must make our people realize that world competition is becoming keener and keener. Our economic competitors are no longer the tortoises, because there are no more tortoises. We are now competing with hares. Take the case of Malaysia. It is now a hare which can run very fast and they have always been using the slogan Malaysia Boleh to encourage their people to be competitive. In certain areas like ports, airports, information technology, they are actually in direct competition with Singapore. So I feel that it is very important for us to enhance the competitive awareness among our people. Sir, let me deal with two recent events which are very important in urging our people to reflect on our future. The first event is the kidnap and murder of Pai Hsiao-Yen, the only daughter of the famous Taiwanese television artiste Pai Ping Ping. The second event is the recent storm in the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, which we have all been talking about. The case of Pai Hsiao-Yen shocked the entire Taiwan society. But it was just one of the many cases of chaos in Taiwan. We learnt from the newspapers that soon after the funeral of Pai Hsiao-Yen, there was news of yet another innocent young boy who was kidnapped and murdered. Not long ago, there were the case of rape and murder involving a feminist leader, Peng Wan-Ru, and the murder of the Magistrate of Tao Yuan County, Taiwan. All these cases remain unsolved. These are samples of the kind of social disorder in Taiwan which make the people there feel that they are living in fear and danger all the time, and these are real fears! We all know that Taiwan is one of the four little dragons of Asia. Taiwan's development started earlier than Singapore, and at a faster pace too. In my opinion, the experiences of Taiwan provides us with a lot of lessons to learn from. Not too long ago, Taiwan was also a very orderly society, but in just a short period of time, everything has changed. On television, we can see thousands and thousands of demonstrators taking to the streets, calling on the government to resign, because they could not solve all these crimes. We have also seen from TV the cries and appeals of Pai Ping Ping calling on President Lee Teng Hui to devote some time to look into law and order in Taiwan, and to provide the women-folk in Taiwan a reasonable space for survival, while paying attention to the international arena. Sir, as it is said, "worms will hatch only from things which are rotten". Taiwan today has all the chaos that caused a lot of anxiety, and this is something that we need to study and learn from. The Taiwanese experience tells us that to move from order to disorder is easy, but to restore law and order from chaos is very difficult. It is just like a jigsaw puzzle. You need to spend a lot of time to put all the pieces together. But if you want to break them, it is just so easy. You can do instantaneously. In English, they use the expression: "to open up the Pandora's box". The consequences are unthinkable. It is beyond control. Once social order is in jeopardy, it will affect not only the confidence of the people, but the confidence of the investors as well. This will be detrimental to the competitiveness of a country. Now the Taiwanese are saying that they should resort to heavy punishment to deal with the social disorder. But we know that when politics and the underworld are tied up together, as in the case of Taiwan, to move from disorder to order is not easy. Here, I would like to refer to one article in the New News Weekly which says: " The ill fate of Taiwan is like a heavy object dropping into the water. It sinks deeper and deeper. In less than 10 years' time, Taiwan has deteriorated from a society of chaos to a society of avarice, and from an avaricious society into a cruel society. 1996 was the watershed. The number of serious crimes of violence suddenly jumped from 917 cases to more than 1,400 cases. Kidnapping and extortion cases rose from 92 to more than 150 cases. Taiwan is full of violence. It is no longer a country of petty thieves and small-time robbers. It is now a new barbaric country which is full of violence and gruesome crimes. This article is entitled "Who can save Taiwan?" Mr Speaker, Sir, in the 60s, Singapore was also a country infested with kidnappers and gangsters. But because the Government had taken effective measures to curb the influence of the underworld, we are able to enjoy social order today. We should never allow the underworld the opportunity to raise its ugly head again to jeopardize our social security. Therefore, the Government must make all efforts to deal with criminals, to maintain good social order and security, to ensure that our people enjoy safety and freedom without any fear, or interference, kidnapping or blackmailing by the underworld. I believe this is a prerequisite for us to continue in our development. The next point I would like to raise is the recent hiccup in the relations between Singapore and Malaysia. On the face of it, this storm stems from a sentence in the affidavit of Senior Minister Lee. But the actual development of the events shows that this is only the tip of the iceberg. From the accusations, insults, humiliation and threats hurled on our leaders by the Malaysian leaders and the mass media, and the way they go about rattling on endlessly, we can see that they are acting beyond reason and rationality. Since March this year when the trouble first started, we read in the newspapers every day of their abuses at us. Yes, we are being scolded every day. In addition to all these abuses, some politicians are even calling upon their people to boycott the Singapore port, and to cut off water supply to Singapore. We all know that cutting off our water supply is not an ordinary threat. Those who issued this threat know that they are actually threatening the survival of Singaporeans. In other words, they are giving the warning to us that our survival is in their hands. So long as they cut our water supply, we cannot live anymore. As a Singaporean, my feeling is that we have not been treated as an independent, sovereign country. Yet, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, still said that it would be very difficult to maintain bilateral relations with Singapore. I think his true meaning is that it is difficult to have bilateral relations with Singapore according to his wishes. Of course, if he wants everything to be conducted according to his wishes, on his terms, then it will be very difficult indeed. If two sovereign states want to build up bilateral relations between them on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, then surely there will not be any difficulty. Singapore has established bilateral relations with more than 100 countries in the world, and nobody has ever said that there is any difficulty in maintaining these relations. So, if you want to adopt the attitude of abang adik or the "big brother" attitude, or to take advantage of others, then you cannot blame others for being difficult. Notwithstanding all these, I think our reaction is very rational. We are very firm and restrained in our reaction. We have already practised the Confucian teaching of "being resolute in the face of enmity". We do not repay resentment with resentment. In other words, we look at the facts as they are, and reason out what is before us. So long as we continue to adopt the attitude of not being arrogant, we will be able to calmly handle the challenges and provocation thrown at us (however unreasonable they may be) in a peaceful manner. Recently, there was an article in the Nanyang Siang Pau of Malaysia which suggested that the Malaysian leaders should make use of this durian season to unfreeze our relations. In other words, the writer is saying that during this durian season, Singapore leaders can be invited to durian parties in Malaysia to enjoy the fruit and thereby untying the knots in the relations between Singapore and Malaysia. I do not know whether our Government leaders have received such an invitation. If the invitation is sincere, our leaders should consider accepting it. There is a Chinese saying: "Let he who tie the bell on the tiger take it off", meaning whoever started the trouble should end it. The important thing is that they should give up the abang adik ideological baggage and treat us with equality and respect. This is the basis on which the relations between two countries can remain good and cordial. As other Members of the PAP have already pointed out, this event is a lesson for us to learn and study. This is the ideal type of material for inclusion in our National Education. Finally, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen thanking the President for his Address at the Opening of this Parliament. In his Address, the President said that we must imbue in our people a sense of history and identity. We must pass on to them the same discipline, the same drive to achieve, the same indomitable will to overcome problems that the first generation of Singaporean leaders had, the qualities that have brought Singapore so far. Our first generation leaders lived through the tumultuous events, before and after independence. The post-independence generation grew up in a different environment - peaceful, stable and prosperous. Their experiences in life are different. Nevertheless, they must 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 in order to thrive. The President pointed out that our schools will focus more on National Education. We will also get our students to understand the realities of living in this region, to realize that although our prospects can be bright, failure to stay competitive will dim them. At the same time, he indicated that we should be confident of our competitive advantages and we can face tougher competitions from neighbouring countries and the world over, without being daunted. In fact, the prospect of Singapore is better compared to any time in the past. We will upgrade our housing environment and improve our public transport system. We will safeguard our fair and open meritocracy system which is one of the core values we should uphold and protect. We will build Singapore into a gracious society. We will build a nation where everyone has a stake in Singapore's success, feels a sense of belonging and ownership. We should encourage talented people with strong ability to lead and drive ahead of our competitors. Of course, the successful Singaporeans should come forward and help the less successful. We have to foster greater social cohesion and resilience in the next generation. In this way, we will be able to realize our ideal and fulfill our wish to make Singapore our best home. During the Address, the President has specially stressed the importance of education. He said our aim is not just to improve a few schools, but to raise the quality of education across the board. These include attracting more talented people to become teachers and to instill in our students the importance of lifelong learning, flexibility and creativity. RAdm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education, mentioned in his Addendum to the President's Address that there will be a pilot scheme to identify and help underachievers and slow learners at the lower primary schools. I fully support this idea. I also welcome his plan of raising the intake of students into engineering and science to 60% of total intake. This will meet the needs of a more technology-driven economy and to survive in the fiercely competitive world. During the launch of the Seventh International Conference on Thinking at Suntec City on 2nd June, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong called on all Singaporeans to make learning a part of their everyday lives and said the country's future will hinge on the people's ability to do this. He mentioned that we should bring about a change in the mindset of Singaporeans. We must get away from the idea that it is only the people at the management level who should be thinking and the job of the ordinary folk is just to do what he is being told to do. There are many students who score "As" in their studies but do not have the desire to continue discovering new knowledge after they leave school. Therefore, 10 or 20 years down the road, their knowledge becomes obsolete and very limited in their horizon. This is indeed a great pity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I found that my analytical skills have grown through continuous learning from society, as I grow and mature. I was not one of those top students who always scored many "As" in my school days. Many top students who did very well in school turned out to be very ordinary after they had stepped into society. On the other hand, there are students who might not have done well in their academic results, but achieved great success later on in life. Therefore, it is important that those who are academically poor should be given the opportunity and appropriately guided to re-join the mainstream later on. "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" is indeed very important. Eminent Harvard Professor Howard Gardner advised that using a uniform method to teach all the students, review and assess them, is unfair. The approach of education should be to assist every student to develop their talents and maximize their potentialities. Each student has his own different kind of intelligence and talents such as linguistic, logic and reasoning, mathematical, musical, artistic, ballet, and interpersonal skills. For example, I am not inclined to learning music, ballet or foreign language. But I seem to have the aptitude for logic, mathematics, and interpersonal relations. If we can make use of traditional education, traditional courses and traditional assessments during the 10 years of basic education, I think it should be adequate. Because our students will be able to learn some basic knowledge. However, when they enter junior college, polytechnic or university, we should consider adopting a more flexible "multiple intelligence" education system so that they could express their potentialities freely. Let me quote my own example, my life experience. I found that I had an interest in politics, economics, culture and the arts when I was in Primary Five. I can still remember when I was 11 years old, I used to walk from Chin Swee Road to Hong Lim Park with my neighbours, carrying along with me a wooden stool to listen to the mass rally speeches made by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew or other politicians. I was quite impressed with their speeches. Today, my skill in making election campaign speeches was cultivated from the time I attended such rallies. When I was in Primary Five, I learned to help my parents to do business by selling books and stationery to my school mates to supplement our household income. I love to write, to paint, and to read. This was something I learnt when I was small, from my family background. I brought up this example to make the point that every student has his own talents and potentialities. The key point is how to help them to maximise their potentialities with our current education system, so as to ensure that every child will be able to maximize his or her potential. If we can find out their potentialities, we can provide them with the right opportunities, I think this will be a good thing to the nation. It will help us to face the fierce competition ahead. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said, when moving into the next millennium, the future of one country depends to a great extent on its people's learning abilities. I believe and support his view. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Addendum of the Ministry of National Development said that we would build better homes for the people. Singapore's economic growth is a visible fact and this has brought about a booming property market (which is a good thing). Because of the property boom, all properties, inclusive of HDB flats, HUDC, terrace houses and bungalows, have increased in value. However, my worry is - will the property market be a "bubble economy" like that of Japan? According to a report in "Asia Week" 1997 May Issue, the property prices in Japan were much higher than Hong Kong and Singapore in the past. However, owing to a big drop in prices, the property prices in Tokyo are now lower than Hong Kong, even lower than that of Singapore. Take a look at the Tokyo property price index. The Asians have a traditional belief that working as an employee does not get you anywhere, just as in the Chinese character gong ( : the working class ), where the vertical stroke in the centre does not stick out at the top. No breakthrough! If you want to stand out among others, to make a lot of money, you would have to invest in tu ( : land). That is why, like the Singaporeans, the Japanese and the Hong Kongers strongly believe that investment in property is a safe hedge against inflation and the means to make quick profits. Therefore, to make money, you must buy properties, buy land. Taking a job and working day in and day out is no good, it gets you nowhere! Yet, many people fail to realize that buying property is an investment, and often a speculation where a lot of risks are involved. Ever since the burst of "bubble economy" in Japan, property prices have been dropping continuously for six years, to the extent of more than 60%. The property prices now are just 40% of what they were in 1990. For example, a new 70 m2 apartment unit valued at 104.8 million yen (approximately S$1.22 million) in 1990 was worth only 40.53 million yen (approximately S$470,000) in March this year. In just six years, the value dropped by 64.27 million yen (approximately S$750,000). In other words, when the owner eventually had to sell away the property at a great loss, all his life-long savings were wiped out. At the moment, the entire residential property market in Japan is facing a situation of over supply. Now, properties in even the prime districts of Ginza and Shinju-ku are cheaper than those in Districts 9 and 10 of Singapore. Please refer to "Tokyo District 23 Special Issue May 1997 - Information on Residential Properties Weekly Issue". My question is: our property prices have been going up rapidly over the past 10 years, will it one day be like the "bubble economy" of Japan? From the 1960s to the 1970s and the 1980s, there was always a cyclical curve of ups and downs in the Singapore property prices, every 9 to 12 years. However, from 1985 to now, during the past 12 years, our property prices were bullish all the way, and show no sign of down trend even today. Is this not a cause for concern? Let me quote a few examples to show the trend in our property transactions: In 1965, a freehold, semi-detached house in District 10 was valued at $45,000. Today, it is worth $2.5 million, appreciation of 55 times in 32 years. In 1976, a freehold, semi-detached house in District 21 was valued at $180,000. Today, it has appreciated to $2.2 million, an increase of 12 times in 21 years. In 1985, a freehold, luxurious condominium in District 9 was valued at $400,000. Today, it is worth $2.2 million, appreciation of 5.5 times in 12 years In 1989, a freehold, semi-detached house in District 10 was valued at $880,000. Now, it is worth $2.8 million. In a short period of eight years, it has appreciated by 3.1 times. Mr Speaker, Sir, when our nation is politically stable, society is peaceful and settled, economy is prosperous, property prices will certainly go up. This is natural and there is nothing wrong about it. However, what worries me is that even with the cooling measures adopted by the Government in May last year, it does not seem to have any checking effect on the property prices. Will the property market of Singapore collapse one day, like what happened to Japan? In the event of the kind of "bubble economy" appearing in Singapore, the property invested by Singaporeans with their CPF money will depreciate, and the savings for their old-age will be affected. I would like to know whether the Ministry of National Development has any measures to prevent this kind of "bubble economy" from occurring in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Trade and Industry mentioned in his Addendum to the President's Address that the Public Utilities Board would open up a competitive market for the power supply industry, and plans to build a pilot desalination plant. I fully agree with this idea. This is the time that we should carefully consider setting up a desalination plant. We should not forever rely on our neighbouring country for water supply, especially when our neighbour is always threatening to cut off our water supply, wanting us to submit to them. Such bullying tactics have disgusted the Singaporeans. The recent incident between Singapore and Malaysia had made me flabbergasted with the politicians in Malaysia. If Malaysia intends to have friendly relations with Singapore, then their political leaders should restrain themselves before they make any speeches. They should not demand that we must be sensitive to their feelings, while they do not care about our sensitivities at all. I hope the Malaysian political leaders will take note of this: whenever you point one finger at others, there are always three fingers pointing back at yourself. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am proud of the way our Singaporeans have behaved in the face of all these provocations. We were cool, rational and united. We did not stage any protest or demonstration. We just avoid going to Malaysia. That is the right thing to do! Since they do not welcome us, why should we go there and incur their displeasure? Mr Speaker, Sir, I am proud and happy with our people for registering our protest in such a rational and silent way. We should inculcate in the mind of every Singaporean that we should be united and spontaneously rally behind our leaders in any similar incident in future. I believe the Malaysian politicians will understand. We have given them a clear signal. We should be vigilant all the time. Our water supply can be cut off any time. Even if we can source water from another neighbouring country, for the long-term interest of the people of Singapore, the setting up of a desalination plant is necessary. Therefore, I support the recommendation of the Member of Parliament for Chua Chu Kang to build a desalination plant. At the same time, we should make everyone in Singapore deeply understand that "water is precious" and that any wastage of water should be regarded as a serious offence. Besides educating our people to learn to save water, we should also raise water tariffs to drive home the message that water is precious. If we can make everybody feel that drinking a cup of water is just as valuable as drinking a cup of Coca-cola or a cup of mineral water, and realize that water does not come easy in Singapore, then we can convince Singaporeans to treasure every drop of water, at all times. Raising water tariffs is necessary. But I hope that when raising water tariffs, the Government will take into account the predicament of the low income families. As mentioned by DPM Lee, the Government may consider giving these families a once-off rebate at the end of the year to lighten their burden . Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Sir, clarification from Mr Peh. I do not know whether I was mistaken. He said that Malaysia can cut off the water any time. I believe this is not a very true statement. It is alarmist and I do not think it is being fair to our neighbour who is, in fact, very friendly to us and we have close ties with them. I do not think that the position is true that Malaysia can cut off water supply at any time. We have got two agreements, one expiring in, I believe, 2011, and the other is 2061. The matter could be brought up to the international court to be resolved if they attempt to cut off water. I believe that they will abide by the international court's decision. So I do not think it would be good to play up on this line and being alarmist and say that they can cut off water at any time. It will only flame and make the situation worse in the relationship between Malaysia and ourselves. I think we should encourage and try to cool the matter down, instead of trying to increase the flames by making statements that are not true.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Chiam that perhaps, legally, he may be correct. But is he not aware that Malaysians have threatened to cut off our water on several occasions and even in the recent past?

I am really surprised that Mr Chng, a very senior Member of Parliament, should be saying that. He knows that all these threats come from, as the Malay calls it, kucing kurap, and none from their leaders at all. I think we should be responsible in what we say.

In referring to the kucing kurap, are some of them Members of Parliament in Malaysia, Sir?

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe Mr Chiam must have been very busy with his law practice that he probably did not have the time to read the Lianhe Zaobao. In Lianhe Zaobao, every day there are reports of people talking about this matter. Yet, he thinks it is not possible. With regard to the cutting off of water supply, it is not my speculation. I read from the newspaper that some Malaysian leaders had proposed to do so. Of course, whether or not it will be cut off, we do not know. Although the two agreements provide for water supply to continue until 2011 and 2061, it is very easy for them to cut off our water supply by using some excuses. For example, they can tell us that they are repairing the roads in Johor Baru and the pipes have to be removed. Three months later, there will be no water coming to us. I hope Mr Chiam will think about it. Do not take this matter lightly. It is not as simple as he thinks.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I have been listening to Mr Chiam since the day before yesterday, and I am very puzzled because Mr Chiam does not really state his stand on the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. He is only saying that we should have more trading relationship with Malaysia. He did not tell us his stand on this present situation of our relationship with Malaysia. Perhaps Mr Chiam may be like the two other opposition Members, forgetting one very important aspect of the recent development in our relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, that is, the views of the Malaysian politicians on our people and our leaders. He could have been very naive in his thinking. He said that the Malaysians could not just say that they wanted to cut off our water supply. He may give the wrong impression to the people of Singapore. For example, the water supply problem, we should not take this matter lightly. We should not ignore the matter. I hope Mr Chiam could understand. At the same time, I am very happy because last Sunday, in the Lianhe Zaobao, we read that there are not many Singapore cars going to Malaysia while there are many Malaysian cars coming to Singapore. So from there, we can see that the people of Malaysia do love Singapore. They enjoy coming to Singapore. So I feel that the strained relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, to a certain extent, may be due to the adversary views of just some politicians on us. On the whole, I think most people in Malaysia still like to come to Singapore. In this respect, we should thank the people of Malaysia for their love towards us. Another point is, as what Mr Goh Choon Kang had said just now, there seems to be no law and order in the Taiwan society now. I have many friends in Taiwan and they told me that this was only a temporary phenomenon, and after some time, Taiwan would restore its law and order. But now, Taiwan seems to be a paradise for criminals and why is it that in Singapore, it is hell for the criminals. Mr Jeyaretnam, the NCMP, seems to have forgotten this because Singapore is a society which is governed by the rule of law. Because we have very strict laws against criminals, therefore, in Singapore, only the criminals need to be living in fear. Yesterday, he was talking about the fear in Singapore which is a self-inflicted fear. I feel that the NCMP should look squarely at the situation now in Singapore, as compared to that in Taiwan. If we do not have this rule of law, we would have been fighting or even throwing the microphones around here in this Parliament Chamber, like the way they do in Taiwan. The NCMP should not be worrying unnecessarily over imaginary matters and say Singapore is a country where the people are full of fear. The opposition Members and the NCMP should realise that we are now debating on the motion to thank our President for his Speech at the Opening of the Ninth Parliament. We should look at what we are going to do in the 21st century and not what happened at the general election. I think we should have more constructive opposition parties. We should discuss things like Singapore 21, our vision to make Singapore a better home for everyone in the 21st century.

May I reply to that? Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Jeyaretnam has the floor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the last speaker got himself carried away in his enthusiasm, if it can be described as enthusiasm. What he perhaps does not understand is that I was talking about the rule of law. Rule of law does not mean that we have laws and that is enough to satisfy the rule of law. The rule of law is that, besides written laws, there are certain conventions, what the Americans might call due process of law, that have to be observed. This morning I was questioning about the impounding of a passport and what I understand finally is that there was really no reason in law for the impounding of the passport. It is just that the Comptroller of Income Tax wanted some help but that was not what section 87 provides. I can go on giving several instances where the rule of law has not been followed in Singapore. And then about the fear. Only this morning, I saw in the papers that after Prof. Woon, who was a Nominated MP here, urged students to speak up, there were some students who were standing up and saying, "Oh, there is fear. We cannot speak up because we will get into trouble if we speak up." I think we cannot try and blind ourselves to the facts in Singapore. If the Member wants examples of this fear, I can give him countless numbers.

I thank the NCMP for giving me such a compliment by saying that I am a rather energetic person. Yes, I am indeed. An hon. Member: Enthusiastic.

Enthusiastic, sorry. I think the NCMP has got me wrong, Sir. I did not mention about the rule of law. It was him. I did not bring it up. I said fear. You were mentioning about fear.

I said that there was fear.

Yes, what fear are you talking about? I am saying that your fear is self-inflicted. There is no fear. If you have fear there will be no opportunity for you to make noise in this House. I think we should not turn the House into a House of grievances really. You have enough opportunities and there is no fear. We can guarantee you.

Mr Chiam, do you want to speak?

Sir, I am much obliged. As regards the point by Mr Chng Hee Kok who says that some MPs have threatened to terminate the supply of water to Singapore, I would say that those MPs are irresponsible in saying that. They are irresponsible MPs over the other end. An hon. Member: Who are they?

I do not know who are the MPs. I have not read in the papers about MPs threatening. Perhaps Mr Chng can supply their names. As far as I know, no responsible leaders from across the Causeway have threatened to cut off water supply to Singapore. This issue of water supply is a very serious issue. It is not a case of cutting off water supply and we have to sacrifice our opportunity to bathe. It is a bigger issue than that. It is our life blood. Cutting water supply to Singapore means that you are trying to stop all activities in Singapore. It is not only to keep us alive by drinking water, our industries will be affected. Even our garden city, there will be no water to water the plants. This is a very serious issue. It is like declaring war on Singapore if they cut off our water supply. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

I think the main leaders from across the Causeway, the people who are in the know, will never say such a thing. It is a very serious threat. There is a question: what is my stand on Malaysia? My stand is that Malaysia holds a special position as far as Singapore is concerned. I have already stated that. We have got all kinds of historical, political, social, ethnic language ties, whatever you name it. We are very close to each other, and we have a special position in regard to Malaysia. I think if there is going to be National Education and it is going to be taught seriously in our schools, one of the subjects is that we should at all costs build up friendly relations with Malaysia. An hon. Member: At what costs?

At all costs, in the sense that all efforts must be made to have friendly relations with Malaysia. There can be no other way. An hon. Member: One sided?

Of course, there must be mutuality. On our relationship with Malaysia, I think we should teach our children that we should have special relationship with them. Even Singapore was built up by Malaysians. In fact, the whole first generation of the Cabinet were Malaysians, except for Mr Lee. So I think we have a special position. I do not think that we should try in any way flame up or try to increase what has already been a bad situation. Singapore should show responsibility, restraint, and we should not at all times, as Mr Goh Choon Kang has said, reciprocate resentment with resentment. I think that is very good. We should do something, in fact, to reciprocate resentment with something to really cool them down and show them their mistakes.

Sir, can Mr Chiam elaborate on exactly what he means by "at all costs"? After that, he changed it to "all efforts".

I have already clarified myself. To show the urgency that we should have closer relationship. It may be a slip of the tongue, but the point is that we should make all efforts to have a closer and real bonding relationship with Malaysia.

Sir, I do not think it is quite enough. We are talking about a very serious issue here. When he said "at all costs", it means at all costs. "Costs" to us, I would like to know what these costs are?

I think Mr Chen is trying to flog the issue a bit too far. I have already stressed that there must be mutual benefits to both sides. There is no other way to have a lasting relationship if it only benefits one side, and that is very clear. There must be reciprocity of benefits. So if it benefits them, it must also benefit us. If we are trying to get one over them, as somebody said, if there is going be an abang adik, then it would not work. There must be an equal relationship for mutual benefit. The relationship must benefit both sides. I think I have made myself quite clear on this point.

Sir, at no time did he say the word "benefit". We all know what "cost benefit" is. What I want to know is what costs are we prepared to bear in improving ties with Malaysia. Mr Chiam thinks that we should be prepared to face to pay all costs. I do not know what they are.

Mr Bernard Chen reminds me of a lawyer in court, trying to cross-examine and get somebody to say something which he does not say.

You said it. That is why I am asking. An hon. Member: You should withdraw and apologise!

I have clarified myself. There is nothing to apologise and I would not apologise for it, because I have explained what I said. That is quite clear.

It is not clear at all.

Unfortunately, Mr Chen is dealing with a lawyer and not a layman. I think he has flogged the issue too far.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I share Mr Chiam's sentiments that we should not inflame the Malaysians or aggravate the situation. Nevertheless, this is a very serious discussion. The point I am trying to establish with Mr Chiam is this. He is a lawyer. It is precisely because it is a legal document, and that is why we have the International Court of Justice. The question I asked him really is this. We did not take up the subject of water. It is the Malaysians who took it up. On and off, they make threats about cancelling the agreements or not supplying water. It is very serious. He is absolutely right. It is our life line. The point I am trying to establish with him is that since this is a legal document, therefore, as a lawyer, he must realise that at any time one side can breach the agreement. The question that I want to ask him is, when there is a breach of this water agreement, from his point of view, is it good enough for us to take it up with the International Court of Justice? And in the meantime, what do you do about the water?

I am really surprised at what Mr Chng is saying. Malaysia is a country of standing. You are insinuating that Malaysia will breach an international agreement. Are you saying that? I do not think we should say such things. There is no inkling of Malaysia trying to breach an international agreement. If you suggest that, I think it is very bad for Singapore, not only for the Government, even for Singapore, to suggest a very friendly country that they intend to breach an international agreement. I have no fear that they will. They will never breach such an agreement.

Sir, I just want to seek a clarification.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have had enough of this discussion. This is a very important subject. I am sure we have more to say about this later, but I think we should not prolong this unnecessarily.

All right. Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.05 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.43 pm until 3.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate on the Presidential Address. Sir, as the last of the maidens of this Parliament, I approach this lectern not without some trepidation. My trepidation is all the more because the precious few nuggets that one wishes to add have all been taken. Nevertheless, I persevere and I wish to address, in particular, the vision that the President has painted in his Address of Singapore in the next millennium. It is a vision of particular significance to young Singaporeans for it is they who will inherit Singapore 21. I, therefore, propose to address from the perspective of young Singaporeans three themes that have emerged in the course of this debate - materialism, National Education and multi-racial harmony. Sir, every Member of this House has lamented the trend towards materialism among young Singaporeans. I would like to offer an alternative perspective. If, by materialism, we mean the drive to create and accumulate wealth, it is but, in my view, a corollary of our environment. Domestically, we have enjoyed peace, stable Government and unprecedented growth. Our success has been calibrated in economic terms. Today, some of the fastest growing economies in the world are within the Asia-Pacific region. Singapore is linked to these countries through our regionalisation effort, and other efforts to economically integrate, such as AFTA and APEC. Global trade and investment have been given a boost by the conclusion of the Uruguay Round which has lowered tariff barriers to historic levels. These then are the ingredients of an environment burgeoning with opportunities for wealth creation. Is it then so surprising that young Singaporeans strive for material comfort? Indeed, the first tenet of Singapore 21 is the creation of wealth - it underscores economic success as the very bedrock of our survival. Young Singaporeans have imbibed this message well. If they seem impatient, it could be due to youthful impetuosity. If they appear over anxious, it could be due to concern that opportunities lost will never be regained. I urge those who look askance at such behaviour to cast their minds back to a time when they too were embarking on a career, starting a family, and situated at the wrong end of a stream of home mortgage payments. I believe the logic is compelling. Indeed, the problem could be worse if our young were in no hurry to go nowhere. But our best home cannot be just an aggregate of a stream of economic benefits. Otherwise, patriotism would be reduced to a mere function of the ebbs and flows of the economic cycle. The intangibles are equally important - a sense of community that binds us together as a nation. It is a question of balance - an equilibrium between self-interest and group-interest - that tempers materialism with compassion and responsibility. Government has set the tone by emphasising the sharing of wealth, building of ties, and care for the young and aged, as part of Singapore 21. Are young Singaporeans aware of the problem and, more importantly, will they respond to the call? It is perhaps best to hear it in their own words. Sir, at this year's Pre-university Seminar, more than 500 junior college students have spent the past few days contemplating their future in the 21st century. In a discussion on our nation's values and responsibilities, one group of students had this to say about managing materialism: "Our scenarios suggest that there may be an optimum level of materialism that is necessary in society to keep the work ethic in a healthy state. However, it also seems likely that beyond a point this may be detrimental to society . While it may not be good to mechanically restrict materialism, there is certainly no need to encourage it by making materialism a virtue. We would suggest that Government and community groups try to highlight success in areas that have nothing to do with personal gain and recognise a broad field of accomplishments." Sir, I think our young do recognise the need for balance and I believe we have good reason to be sanguine. I turn now to the subject of National Education. I identify with that generation of Singaporeans born in the post-independence era. Most of us have a cursory knowledge of the events that shaped the birth of our nation. Some, who have persevered, would have a cerebral grasp of these events and their significance. Few, if any, would have a visceral appreciation - the kind our parents and grandparents would have, the kind that the preceding two speakers exhibited - of those turbulent and trying times. For us, the defining moments of Singapore's history are at best a series of tableaus. In this regard, the introduction of National Education is a welcome initiative. It is important for Singapore that the parameters that define our existence as a nation are deeply embedded in our psyche. We may not have a nostalgic passion that is the privilege of our founding fathers. But Singaporeans, young and old alike, need to cultivate an abiding respect for our constraints, not as insurmountable hurdles, but as pragmatic limitations. I believe National Education can help us do that. Having said that, I humbly offer three suggestions with regard to National Education for consideration by the Minister for Education. Firstly, in the quest to instill national values in our young, we must take care not to be over-zealous. Over-emphasis on our vulnerabilities may imbue our very young with a pathological anxiety of the future. Worse, it may breed cynicism among youth that this is a mere propaganda exercise. National Education lessons should be balanced with a countervailing focus on our strengths. For example, smallness is not without its virtues. It means that we can marshall our resources well, that we can be more adaptable and, therefore, respond quickly to change. McKinsey, the global consultancy group, has mooted the idea of "bubbles of value". They note that successful companies pay special attention to identifying discontinuities early, in order to take advantage of money-making opportunities that may be short-lived. This also holds true for countries. As competition intensifies, windows of opportunities will narrow. Those who are nimble enough to seize transient opportunities will be successful. Our size can be an asset. In short, I advocate that the NE curriculum should give equal emphasis to the problems that we face, and the strengths, such as a strong leadership and a united people, that helped us prevail. When older teachers regale students with their experiences, they should be encouraged to share not just the agony of hardship, but also the ecstasy of their triumphs. The object is to imbue Singaporeans with a spirit of quiet, pragmatic, confidence. Secondly, Singapore's constraints should not be considered in isolation. Rather, the discussion should be in the context of the challenges faced by others. In a recent interview with the Straits Times, a veteran Russian political commentator, Professor Georgi Arbatrov, said: "It is difficult to be a small country, but it is even more difficult to be a large country. In a nutshell, that describes the different challenges countries face because of their unique circumstances." At a time of growing interdependence among nations, greater awareness of these relativities will serve Singapore and Singaporeans well. As DPM Lee put it at the launch of the National Education programme, "We must have the confidence that we can overcome our problems, but also the humility to know that we do not have all the answers for ourselves, much less for other countries". Armed with such knowledge, Singaporeans are less likely to draw invidious comparisons with Singapore when visiting others. Thirdly, Sir, I submit a plea to the Minister for a moderation of the school workload. When I discussed the introduction of National Education with some of my constituents, one of the first responses was to ask whether it would be an examination subject and how much additional homework it would entail. National Education is too important an endeavour to let its impact be obscured by the weight of the school time-table. The Addendum from the Minister for Education states that the school curriculum will be revised "to stretch but not overload" our pupils. It is an assurance that will undoubtedly bring cheers to the hearts of many students and their parents. We wait with bated breath for the outcome. Sir, finally, on the issue of multi-racialism. There is a concern amongst young Singaporeans, particularly professionals, that we may be becoming a more ethnocentric society at the expense of our national identity. Policies and programmes of recent times may have unwittingly accentuated these anxieties. The establishment of Special Assistance Plan schools, the advent of community-based self-help groups, the introduction of ethnic quotas in HDB estates, and the formation of Group Representation Constituencies - each of these initiatives has a compelling rationale of its own. Each also has an inescapable ethnic dimension and taken together cumulatively, they may have contributed to this perception. Sir, this concern is exacerbated by the educational underperformance of some communities. In a meritocratic system, these educational differences will be translated into socio-economic stratification along ethnic lines. It makes it all the more important for Government to guard against the emergence of divisive trends within our society and to take appropriate measures. In this regard, the efforts of the Ministries of Community Development and Education, the self-help groups, the CDCs and other civic organisations can help to uplift the underprivileged, disadvantaged, and mitigate these adverse trends and they deserve our wholehearted support. However, Sir, beyond this, there is a call for Government to do more to emphasise our national identity to counteract divisive forces. Several Members have touched on various ways that this can be done. I would just like to add two dimensions to it. The first is in the arena of sports. Shouting oneself hoarse for 90 minutes at a soccer match can sometimes achieve a lot more bonding than hours of classroom work. Few spectacles can equal the Kallang Roar as a symbol of Singaporean unity. The people of Namibia celebrated as one the success of their national sprint champion, Frankie Fredericks, at the Atlanta Olympics. We have the resources; why not tap this avenue by encouraging Singapore sportsmen and teams? A champion team or individual can really capture the imagination of a people, regardless of race, language or religion. Sir, National Education can also serve this purpose. It gives us an opportunity to study our history, and think about our common future. It is a chance for us to take ownership for each other's aspirations and concerns. In short, for us to think, strive, and unite as Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by sharing a memory from the 1960s. It is that of a $10 note bearing the image of four arms of four different hues linked together in solidarity. In those days, I had few opportunities to behold such currency, let alone use it. Nevertheless, those rare occasions have left a vivid imprint in my mind of our multi-racial society. Sir, I do believe that we must nurture and cherish these and other icons of what Singapore society is if we are to succeed in our quest to build a nation. Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Timah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate is quite different from previous debates on the President's Address. MPs have spoken not only on domestic issues but many MPs have also commented on recent difficulties in Singapore-Malaysia bilateral relations. They have asked me for information on certain specific points such as the Points of Agreement (POA) on railway land. I will explain the details of the POA subsequently. But, first, let me respond to the comments made by Members on bilateral relations, and I will do so in a general way. It is a fact that Singapore-Malaysia relations are going through a rough patch and we are at a low point. Rough Weather and Squalls Dr Wang Kai Yuen in his speech in moving the motion of thanks reminded us that the President, in his Address, said, and I quote: "From time to time we must expect rough weather, even in tranquil seasons and despite the most careful navigation". Indeed, Sir, Singapore-Malaysia relations have experienced rough weather and turbulence now for nearly three months. In this rough weather, there has been one wave after another. Let me recount them. The First Wave The first wave came after the Senior Minister's remarks on Johor were made public. Although Senior Minister made his comments in his individual capacity and in a private legal suit, the matter became a Government-to-Government issue. Kuala Lumpur sent an Aide-Memoire to the Government of Singapore. Vituperative and uncouth insults were hurled at SM. Vehement attacks were made against the Singapore Government and the Singapore people. Unrelated issues, such as KTM land and KD (Malaya), were brought up. But this wave subsided after Senior Minister apologised and promised to delete the offending remarks from his affidavit. The Second Wave The second wave arose after the Malaysian media reported that the Malaysian Cabinet had decided to freeze new ties with Singapore. Within 24 hours, KL clarified that there was no such freeze. But, since then, some bilateral activities have been cancelled or postponed by Malaysia, causing people to wonder if there, indeed, had been a freeze. For example, seven trainers from Johor who were training in our ITE were abruptly recalled and their training suspended. An official study visit to Singapore scheduled for mid-April 1997, to be led by the Mayor of Kuala Lumpur, was postponed indefinitely. Certain Malaysian Ministers also said that sports and cultural linkages would be suspended. One Minister even cancelled attendance at the opening of the "Destination Malaysia Tourism Fair" held in Singapore. The Third Wave The third wave came after the Straits Times carried a factual report on crime in Johor. The flurry of attacks started all over again. Threats were made to sever ties with Singapore and to cut off the water supply. One Malaysian Minister even warned our media to "stop it or suffer the consequences" and told Malaysian newspapers to mount a tit-for-tat media war against Singapore. The Fourth Wave The fourth wave started when one Malaysian Minister alleged that a drop in the number of Singaporean visitors to Malaysia was due to a Singapore Government directive. Another Minister jumped on this allegation the next day. All these were based on so-called "sources". And based on unsubstantiated sources and unfounded speculation, strong language was used - that Singapore was "confrontational" and "spoiling for a fight". The Fifth Wave A fifth wave appeared to be in the making last week when, with no prior announcement, some Singaporeans were prevented from returning to Singapore for several hours because of new immigration checks. Mr Speaker, that is surely the best way of discouraging Singaporeans from visiting Malaysia, far more effective than any Singapore Government directive could possibly be. Other Aspects of Turbulent Weather Of course, in between these big waves, there were other twists and turns, whirlpools and gales, such as offensive cartoons about Singaporeans going on sex holidays to Thailand and Indonesia. Singaporeans were also called uncivilised for urinating in lifts. Malaysian Leaders' Position: Takes Time to Return to Normal Relations Sir, throughout this period, Malaysian leaders at all levels have variously remarked that it would take time for bilateral relations to return to normal. Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said on 6th April, I quote: "I think it has to be given some time. I don't think we should rush into the situation and ignore the sentiments of the Malaysian public". This was despite statements by Singapore leaders that we were prepared to move on with relations. As early as 15th March, Prime Minister Goh had stated clearly that both countries should try to move forward and concentrate on the positive aspects of bilateral relations. Sir, Singapore will do its part to improve ties, but it will leave it to the Malaysian leaders to set the pace. We will proceed at a rate that they are comfortable with. This has been our consistent position. How have the Singapore Government and People Reacted? Sir, during this squall, the Government and people have remained calm, measured and restrained. We have not demonstrated in the streets. We have not hurled obscenities at Malaysian leaders. We have not issued threats, or pilloried Malaysians. But, as many of our MPs have said, it is important that our restrained reactions should not be misread or misunderstood - that we are weak, that we can be intimidated or cowed, that only one side has emotions and sensitivities. The Two Countries have Evolved in Different Ways Mr Speaker, in the thirty-two years after separation, Singapore and Malaysia have actually become two different societies. We have evolved different political styles and approaches. It is important to recognise these differences so that we do not misunderstand or misread each other. Such recognition will avert problems and difficulties. True, there are many similarities between our two countries. But there are also fundamental differences in the way we have moulded our two countries and societies. These differences will always be there. And they will spill over into bilateral relations from time to time. The question is: Despite this complicating factor, can we work together for common benefit? The answer to that question surely must be - Yes. Meetings of the Two Foreign Ministers Singapore-Malaysia relations are too important to be allowed to drift. During this troubled phase, I have been in touch with my Malaysian counterpart, Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi. We have met twice, once in New Delhi when we were there for the Non-Aligned Ministerial Meeting, and recently last Saturday when Foreign Minister Badawi requested to meet me, when I was in Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting. In New Delhi, we agreed to keep the lines of communications open. We also agreed on the importance of not misreading each other's intentions. In Kuala Lumpur, we discussed the allegations that Singapore had issued a directive to discourage Singaporeans from visiting Malaysia. I told him that such allegations were baseless. We also discussed the recent actions by Malaysian Immigration officers against Singaporeans. Foreign Minister Badawi and I agreed that both Singapore and Malaysia could benefit from bilateral cooperation and we agreed to keep in touch. Since then, I should add that the Malaysian Foreign Ministry has given us some information and clarification of the measures at the Checkpoint and we in turn have sought for more details and further clarification. Sir, the question is how do we take it from here and how do we get back to even keel. Singapore is committed to establishing a long-term relationship with Malaysia based on mutual respect, trust, reciprocity and mutual benefit. This is the way forward. As immediate neighbours, we are bound to have difficulties and differences. In fact, Prime Minister Mahathir himself recognised this when he said in Tokyo, and I quote: "Naturally between neighbours there will be differences off and on, but over time, this feeling can be overcome". Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure all Members will agree with me that good relations with Malaysia are important to both Singapore and Malaysia. There is a lot at stake between both countries. Cooperation will benefit Singapore and Malaysia, both of us. But it must be cooperation as equals and for mutual benefit. It cannot be on the basis of what a Chinese newspaper Guang Ming Daily in Malaysia said, and I quote: "Being a tiny island, Singapore should know the importance of maintaining cordial relations with its neighbours. Failure to recognise this fact is as good as dropping a rock on its feet." What the Chinese newspaper implied is, we should behave like a small brother. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot be the basis for a durable relationship between sovereign nations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to go on to talk about the requests made by Members for details of the POA. But I understand that the Leader of the House has a procedural motion to make.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Points of Agreement. Mr Speaker, Sir, some Members have asked about reports in both the local press and in the Malaysian press over the Malayan Railway lands in Singapore. They asked if it is true that we were creating difficulties. They also noted that the Singapore Government had recently replied to the New Straits Times and that we had also replied to a letter from KTMB published in the Straits Times. And they wanted to know what is the background to these reports and several Members have also asked for details of the Points of Agreement. So, first of all, what are the Points of Agreement? Sir, it is a Government-to-Government agreement between Malaysia and Singapore concerning railway lands in Singapore. The POA was signed on 27th November 1990 by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of Singapore and the then Malaysian Minister of Finance, Tun Daim Zainuddin, on behalf of Malaysia. The POA was signed on the same day that Prime Minister Lee handed over the premiership to Mr Goh Chok Tong. Background to the POA Before I take Members through the provisions of the POA, Members may wish to know the context in which the POA was concluded. Sir, the Malayan Railway Administration (MRA), now Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd (KTMB), operates a railway on about 200 hectares of land in Singapore. Of this, 140 hectares (or 70%) of the land are held by the Federal Lands Commissioner on 999-year leases. These leases contain covenants which restrict the use of the land for railway purposes only and which also prevent the lessee from transferring the land other than for the purposes of MRA. If these covenants are breached, the Singapore Government is entitled to resume the lands in accordance with the terms of the leases. In 1984, Malaysia asked Singapore if we had any special plans for the Malayan Railway land in Tanjong Pagar as Malaysia was thinking of stopping the railway at Woodlands and either selling or developing the property in Tanjong Pagar. We responded that we preferred the MRA to continue to use the land at Tanjong Pagar for railway purposes. However, if MRA did not want the land because it wanted to terminate the services at Woodlands, Singapore was prepared to take the land back in accordance with the leases of the various parcels. That was where the matter stood till the late 80s. Mr Lee Kuan Yew relinquishing the Premiership to Mr Goh Chok Tong The General Elections in 1984 and 1988 were a watershed in Singapore politics. After the 1988 elections, Mr Lee Kuan Yew handed over the reins to the second generation of leaders. As Prime Minister Goh explained to this House on 13th June 1990, Mr Lee's main preoccupation at that time was to settle all outstanding bilateral issues so that the second generation leaders would not be saddled with the baggage of the past and fettered with the old mode of thinking. One significant development in this regard was the 28th June 1988 Memorandum of Understanding between Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia on water, natural gas and the Changi ferry service. This MOU then paved the way for the 1990 Water Agreement on Linggiu Dam signed on 24th November 1990 by PUB and the Johor State Government in the presence of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Mahathir. Our plan to move the CIQ to Woodlands Amidst these developments, Singapore was also concerned, Sir, over the trafficking of drugs from across the Causeway. Passengers arriving by rail were not cleared (they are not cleared even today) at the checkpoint in Woodlands, which is the first point of entry into Singapore, but only cleared when they reached Tanjong Pagar. We had discovered cases of drugs being thrown out of trains before they arrived at Tanjong Pagar. Illegal immigrants also frequently jumped off trains before they reached Tanjong Pagar. Although the Police maintained vigilance, it was impossible to station officers all along the line. We could not allow this situation to persist. The Government therefore decided in September 1989 to shift our own, that is, Singapore Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities from Tanjong Pagar to the Woodlands Checkpoint. Sir, our decision to shift our CIQ was independent of any decision by the Malaysians to move their railway station to Woodlands. But in our assessment, it makes sense for the railway to terminate at Woodlands. As I mentioned earlier, the Malaysians had also indicated in 1984 that they were thinking of stopping the railway at Woodlands and either selling or developing the property in Tanjong Pagar. But we knew, Sir, that they were concerned that this would cause all MRA lands south of Woodlands to revert to Singapore Government as they would no longer be used for railway purposes. Therefore, one possible approach was for Singapore to allow the Malaysians to redevelop some parcels of the MRA land so that they could be redeveloped independently, especially the site at Tanjong Pagar, and for Singapore to share in the gain from this redevelopment. The lands which could not be redeveloped would revert to Singapore. This would be a win-win arrangement. Roots of the POA Mr Lee Kuan Yew then put a proposition to Tun Daim Zainuddin. He informed Tun Daim that most of the MRA lands in Singapore (with the exception of three plots in Woodlands, Kranji and Keppel) were narrow strips and not capable of independent development. If the MRA decided to terminate its line at the new Woodlands Checkpoint, then notwithstanding the restrictive covenant, the plots at Keppel, Kranji and Woodlands could be realienated to a company which would be owned 50%:50% by nominees of Singapore and Malaysia. There would be no compensation for the other MRA lands which were resumed. Prime Minister Lee explained to Tun Daim that the land exchange should be limited to only these three parcels of land. The other plots, including the tracks, could not be included as it could otherwise lead to endless problems and arguments between Malaysia and Singapore in the future on whether these portions were capable of being developed. Malaysia wanted the railway station to terminate at Bukit Timah, and not Woodlands. Mr Lee agreed to this. But he proposed that the Bukit Timah station be economically built because in the longer term, Woodlands would be a better site. Malaysia also wanted a larger share in the joint venture company, larger than 50%. PM Lee agreed to 60:40 in Malaysia's favour. After further negotiations, the Points of Agreement was signed by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Tun Daim on 27th November 1990. Terms of the Agreement Mr Speaker, Sir, I have given to the Clerk of Parliament a copy of the full text of the POA with all the attached plans and annexes and, with your permission, Sir, I would request that it be placed on record and Members be allowed to inspect it in the Library of this House. Sir, I have given extracts of the Agreement to the Clerk of Parliament and, with your permission, I would request him to distribute it to Members so that they could follow the rest of what I have to say. [Copies of POA distributed to hon. Members.] Point (1) of the Agreement states that the station at Keppel will be vacated and moved from Keppel, in the first instance to Lot 76-2, which is next to the Upper Bukit Timah Fire Station along Upper Bukit Timah Road near the junction with Jurong Road. The Government of Singapore will help in the alienation of such lands as may be reasonably necessary for the development of the station, provided that it is not necessary to acquire land which in the opinion of MRA and the Government of Singapore has major permanent structures on it. When MRA wants to acquire despite the Government of Singapore's view that there are major permanent structures, then the acquisition will be at market price. Point (2) stipulates that the land at Keppel will be vested in a limited company (M-S Pte Ltd) to be developed as residential and commercial land in accordance with our zoning plans. Point (3) specifies that when the MRT reaches Woodlands New Town, the MRA may, within five years, move its station from Lot 76-2 to a site in Woodlands adjacent or close to the MRT station. Then the two pieces of land, one in Kranji and in Woodlands, will be vested in the limited company, M-S Pte Ltd, and developed in accordance with the plans given. Point (4) goes on to specify that Singapore's Land Office will issue freehold land titles to M-S Pte Ltd in respect of the lands at Keppel, Kranji and Woodlands. Point (5) defines that 60% of the shares of the limited company, M-S Pte Ltd, will be owned by a company to be designated by the Government of Malaysia; and 40% of the shares by a company to be designated by the Government of Singapore. Payment for the development costs of these properties will similarly be shared in the ratio of 60:40. Point (6) goes on to say that there will be no compensation for the MRA land. Instead the three big pieces will be realienated to M-S Pte Ltd at no cost. Whoever takes the land should clear the tracks and also pay for the costs of resettlement of squatters. Therefore, the cost of clearing tracks and squatters for the three pieces of land will be on M-S Pte Ltd. For the balance of the MRA lands, the cost of clearance of tracks and squatters will be on the Singapore Government. Point (7) states that in exchange for the MRA land at Keppel, a plot of land of equivalent value in Marina South will be offered to M-S Pte Ltd so that a prestigious building can be developed on this Marina site. M-S Pte Ltd intends to develop and retain a prestigious building as a long term investment. If the land offered to M-S Pte Ltd is, in the opinion of M-S Pte Ltd, not suitable, then alternative sites in Marina South of equivalent value shall be offered to M-S Pte Ltd. Sir, there is also an Appendix to the POA which states that the station to be built at Upper Bukit Timah at Lot 76-2 should be economically built until, in MRA's judgment, Upper Bukit Timah Road is the best long term location for the station. The Appendix also says that in Singapore's judgment, the better long term location of the station for most economic benefits is either in Woodlands or in Johor Bahru. Hence, the proposed MRA station in Upper Bukit Timah Road should be economically built. The Appendix also states that MRA may conclude that it is better to move the station in the first instance to Woodlands. When the MRT extends from Woodlands to Johor Bahru, the MRA station can obtain economic benefits by moving to Johor Bahru. Mr Speaker, Sir, those are the key provisions of the POA. The effect of this Agreement is that when the Tanjong Pagar station is relocated to Upper Bukit Timah, all railway lands south of Bukit Timah other than the Tanjong Pagar site will revert to Singapore. When the station is shifted to Woodlands, all the railway lands south of Woodlands other than the Tanjong Pagar, Woodlands and Kranji sites will revert to Singapore. The land exchange contained within the POA, particularly the Kranji and Woodlands plots, was an incentive to encourage the Malaysians to move to Woodlands. At the time, the New Straits Times hailed the signing of the POA as "the best thing that could happen to further cement economic ties between the two countries". Sir, let me turn to the problems encountered in implementing the POA. For four years after signing the POA, the Singapore Government worked with Malaysia to implement the POA. However, after signing the Government-to-Government Agreement, the Malaysians made requests which departed from the POA. For example, the Malaysians wanted to retain certain developable lands outside the railway corridor which they considered capable of development, other than Keppel, Kranji and Woodlands. They later also asked to include a commercial/ shopping complex in the Bukit Timah station and for four more parcels of land in exchange for moving straight to Woodlands. Singapore was also approached on whether we would agree to develop the Bukit Timah site on a 60:40 basis if MRA relocated its station straight to Woodlands. Singapore's position was that the terms of the POA were clear and had to be adhered to. According to the POA, three and only three parcels of land at Keppel, Kranji and Woodlands had been agreed for joint development. All other MRA lands would be returned to Singapore without compensation. There was no provision in the POA for 60:40 joint development of the Bukit Timah site. The Bukit Timah station was also to be built economically. If Malaysia found the station at Bukit Timah unsuitable, the land and the station would revert to Singapore under the terms of the POA. Sir, in December 1993, Tun Daim Zainuddin wrote to Senior Minister and proposed that: `as the land area at Bukit Timah is substantial, it should be shared on 60:40 basis which is the same ratio for the rest of the parcels of land which we had agreed to develop. I think it is fair. If this is agreed, then Railway will consider moving straight to Woodlands.' Senior Minister replied to Tun Daim in January 1994 to point out that the terms of the POA were very clear and under those terms, the land at Bukit Timah was not among those lands to be jointly developed. Senior Minister in his reply said: `As long as the station was in Bukit Timah, the other two large pieces of land in Kranji and Woodlands could not be developed. . Only when Malaysia had vacated the Bukit Timah railway station, would these two pieces at Kranji and Woodlands be developed. Point 3 of the Points of Agreement gave Malaysia the option to move the station to Woodlands within five years of the MRT reaching Woodlands.' `In other words we had agreed on strong incentives for the station to move to Woodlands. At the time of the agreement in November 1990, I knew that KTM would sooner or later have to move to Woodlands. The old Bukit Timah trunk road was being replaced by a new island-wide network of expressways. The Bukit Timah area has no MRT and is becoming a low rise residential area.' The letter went on to say: `I believe that I was fair when I agreed to Malaysia's 60% and to Singapore's 40% share, in developing the three major pieces of land. Some in the Cabinet thought that I was generous and should have stuck to the 50:50% formula. I favoured an agreement because I did not want this problem to trouble relations between the two countries later.' Mr Speaker, Sir, some Members have referred to the recent replies from the Singapore Government in the New Straits Times and the Straits Times on matters concerning the POA. These replies were necessary because on both occasions, erroneous accounts of the POA and developments subsequent to it had been published. We had to respond in order to set out both the facts as well as the correct legal position. As for the New Straits Times' article and our reply, on 19th March 1997, the New Straits Times carried a story, "Differences hold up plan to develop KTM's Singapore land". The article gave an inaccurate account of the POA. For example, the article claimed that lands in Kranji, Woodlands and Tanjong Pagar would be handed over to KTMB when the station moved to Bukit Timah, and that the land exchange offered in Marina South was not on par with the land in Tanjong Pagar. Accordingly, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Development, Mr Lam Chuan Leong, wrote to the New Straits Times to point out these inaccuracies and set out the main terms of the POA. However, in carrying our reply, the New Straits Times edited out one key point and refused to make the necessary corrections as communicated in writing by the Permanent Secretary (National Development). The New Straits Times also refused to accept an advertisement by the Singapore Government to point out that NST had edited out letters without our consent. We therefore had to buy advertising space in the Straits Times in Singapore on 15th May 1997 to put our clarification on record. As for the reply in the Straits Times, let me refer to the letter by the Managing Director of KTMB, Dato Abdul Rahim Osman, which appeared in the Straits Times of 13th May 1997. That letter claimed that the Agreement, ie, the POA, "would be operative only upon Malaysia initiating what is agreed upon". That is to say: (a) The POA is not yet operative; and (b) The POA would only come into force when the Malaysian government unilaterally decides to initiate what is agreed upon, ie, to vacate its railway station in Tanjong Pagar. Our Attorney-General has advised us that this is clearly not so. Accordingly, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Mr Goh Kim Leong, replied on 26th May 1997 to set out the correct legal position. In his reply, Mr Goh Kim Leong pointed out that: `The Points of Agreement is a government to government agreement between Singapore and Malaysia which took effect and became operative on 27th November 1990, the day that it was signed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of the Government of Singapore and Tun Daim Zainuddin on behalf of the Government of Malaysia.' `It is an established principle of law that where an agreement does not stipulate a fixed date for performance, it has to be performed within a reasonable time. This principle applies to the 1990 Agreement, with Point (3) of the Agreement delimiting the maximum period for the railway station to be moved from Keppel, that is within five years from the time the MRT reaches Woodlands New Town, which it did on February 10th, 1996.' Sir, in conclusion, the POA was an agreement concluded by the two Governments after careful deliberation by both sides. It is an internationally binding Agreement which should be implemented in good faith. I have taken some time to spell out the background, the details and the terms of the Agreement because we have to place on record that Singapore has adhered to the terms of the Agreement. Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, let me say that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong strongly believes in close cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia for mutual benefit. While the Prime Minister and the Singapore Government are bound by the terms of the POA, Mr Goh has made strenuous efforts to move the bilateral relationship forward in a way that could overcome the problems posed by the Malaysian Government's desire to change the POA. He has therefore proposed his Framework for Wider Cooperation, a subject which, I understand, he will elaborate when he takes the floor now.

Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister for Foreign Affairs? After hearing his explanation on the KTMB land and the agreement, I wonder whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs would offer some suggestions as to why the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir, accused the Singapore Government of putting pressure on them?

Sir, it might be better for the Member for Hougang to hear out what Prime Minister Goh has to say, and if he still has questions after that, I am sure both of us will be very happy to respond to his questions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law has just given us the background to the Points of Agreement (POA), and explained the difficulties in working the agreement. These difficulties are part of the reasons behind the current strain in Malaysia-Singapore relations. Let me add to what Minister Jayakumar has said, but first let me bring you back to June 1990. I told the House then (I was then Deputy Prime Minister) that I had asked Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to "settle old accounts as I prefer to open a new era unfettered by old thinking". By that, I meant settling outstanding issues like the railway land. I wanted a clean slate on which new relations free from historical and emotional baggage could be written. It was for this reason that Mr Lee wrapped up the negotiations on the Malayan Railway land before he stepped down as Prime Minister. In fact, he signed the "Points of Agreement on Malayan Railway Land in Singapore" with the then Malaysian Finance Minister, Tun Daim Zainuddin, as his very last act in office on the day he retired as Prime Minister, ie, 27th November 1990. He did so with my full support. The POA provided for Singapore and Malaysia to set up a joint venture company, M-S Pte Ltd, to jointly develop three parcels of Malayan Railway land, in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands. Malaysia would have a 60% share, and Singapore 40%. We wanted Malaysia to have a significant long term stake in Singapore as this would give both sides an abiding interest in good bilateral relations, and in the prosperity and success of the other. The proposed high quality property developments by M-S Pte Ltd would give Malaysia such a stake. I subsequently learnt that Dr Mahathir was unhappy that the Malayan Railway land at Bukit Timah had not been included for joint development in the POA. But I could not simply set aside the POA. The POA was a formal agreement between two countries that had been signed by Tun Daim and Mr Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of both Governments. Meeting on 28th October 1991 in Harare About a year after the signing of the POA, I met Dr Mahathir in Harare in October 1991. That was when I had my first inkling of problems with the POA. Dr Mahathir stated that he would like to develop commercially the MRA land at Bukit Timah, something not provided for in the POA. His idea was to use the station and the railway track to Jurong for a few years. After that when the Bukit Timah railway station was no longer required, the station could be shifted to Woodlands. I suggested that it was commercially more viable to shift the railway station to Woodlands in one step instead of two steps. I added that we had decided to extend our MRT to Woodlands and if the railway station were to be built at Bukit Timah, it might have to relocate to Woodlands in just a matter of years. Meeting on 6th September 1994 in Langkawi Three years later, in September 1994, I called on Dr Mahathir in Langkawi. Again, he raised the commercial development of the Bukit Timah site. I replied that I could not deviate from the terms spelt out in the POA, which did not allow for the joint development of the Bukit Timah site. I said that it was clear from the POA that other than the three specified parcels, the Bukit Timah site and remaining Malayan Railway land would be returned to Singapore. I left that meeting disturbed and worried that things were not going right on the issue of the Malayan Railway land. I gave considerable thought to ways to overcome the problem. Meeting on 2nd December 1995 in Singapore The opportunity came when Dr Mahathir visited Singapore and called on me on 2nd December 1995. He presented his vision of a fast inter-city electric train that would run from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur to Kunming. He wanted to keep the railway station at Tanjong Pagar. I was supportive of his proposal for a city to city fast train link. All great cities in Europe are linked by fast trains. Travelling by train from city to city is convenient and popular. A fast train link between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur would be an attractive and viable alternative to air and road travel. I gave Dr Mahathir my full support for his proposed electric train project. However, I explained that I had to act within the terms of the POA, which governed all issues affecting KTM land in Singapore. (KTM is the new corporate name for Malayan Railway.) I pointed out that the electric train service would require a variation of the POA. I further explained that I could overcome the political and legal difficulties of varying the POA only within a framework of wider cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia. I recalled his "prosper-thy-neighbour" philosophy and said that the framework could include Malaysia selling Singapore water for the long term, ie, beyond 2061 when the second Water Agreement with Johor expires. My idea was that with a new water agreement, I would be able to overcome whatever difficulties posed by the POA for the electric train. I felt confident that this would enable me to convince my Cabinet, and later Parliament, to vary the terms of the POA to meet Malaysia's needs for the electric train. Meeting on 15th December 1995 in Bangkok Two weeks later, I met Dr Mahathir again on 15th December 1995 in Bangkok at the ASEAN Summit. At our bilateral meeting, I informed him that my Cabinet was supportive of the electric proposal within a framework of wider cooperation. I proposed that this framework of wider cooperation could include a long term indefinite supply of water to Singapore. Once this was agreed upon, Malaysia could decide on the terminal point of the new railway in Singapore within its railway lands. The terminal point could be at Tanjong Pagar, as Dr Mahathir wanted. But should Malaysia decide to move the railway station from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands, the Singapore Government, notwithstanding the terms of the POA, would agree to the joint development of KTM land in Bukit Timah, in addition to the agreed three parcels of land referred to in the POA. Dr Mahathir replied that he would look at the matter closely. Meeting on 2nd March 1996 in Bangkok Dr Mahathir and I next met in Bangkok on 2nd March 1996. The setting was the inaugural ASEM meeting (Asia-Europe Meeting). At our bilateral meeting, I emphasised that our cooperation on the electric train project and the long term supply of water would serve as two important symbols in bilateral relations. I told him candidly that although water was not an immediate issue for Singapore, an agreement by Malaysia to meet Singapore's long term water needs beyond the life of the present water agreements would remove the perception in Singapore that water may be used as a leverage against Singapore. It would be a powerful signal that our two countries are embarking on a new era of cooperation. I explained that a new water agreement would help me to overcome the political objections and the legal restrictions posed by the POA. However, I acknowledged that Malaysia had to ascertain first that it has enough water to meet its own long term requirements. I also used the opportunity to inform him that we could not allow the building of gantries or catenaries for the electric train. The Singapore Government had not allowed even its own MRT to build gantries above ground because they would be an eyesore in a city state like Singapore. PM's letter to Dr Mahathir dated 18th March 1996 Immediately after our meeting, Dr Mahathir spoke to the Singapore and Malaysian press. He told them that Malaysia was ready to study how it could supply water to Singapore if it had enough to meet its own long term requirements. I wrote to Dr Mahathir on 18th March 1996 to follow up, and to express my appreciation for what he had told the press. Dr Mahathir's reply to PM dated 1st April 1996 In his reply on 1st April 1996, Dr Mahathir assured me that Malaysia was prepared to supply Singapore with water if its water resources are in excess of its growing needs. He also said that he had instructed KTM to minimise the use of gantries and level crossings by using a third rail and either overhead or underground crossings. He recognised that this could increase costs but aesthetic considerations must be given every importance. Meeting on 24th November 1996: A fresh approach When I next met Dr Mahathir during the APEC Leaders Summit in Manila on 24th November 1996, I reaffirmed that it was for him to decide if he wanted the train station for the new electric railway to remain in Tanjong Pagar. But I also suggested that Tanjong Pagar is not a suitable site for the fast train service. The station at Tanjong Pagar is scruffy, hemmed in by a flyover and the container docks in front. There is limited room for expansion. More importantly, the city centre had already moved away from Tanjong Pagar. I proposed a fresh approach. I offered three alternative sites for the Tanjong Pagar train station and a new train route. These sites are at Newton, Suntec City near Marina Centre and Marina South. I felt that any of these three sites was superior to Tanjong Pagar. Dr Mahathir agreed to consider these three alternatives. The new train route would also free the three parcels of land under the POA plus the Bukit Timah land for joint development. PM's letter to Dr Mahathir dated 21st December 1996 I wrote to Dr Mahathir on 21st December 1996 elaborating on the idea of alternative stations to Tanjong Pagar. I said that Singapore would contribute significantly to the cost of building the new infrastructure - the new station, a new train route - if it was better than the existing route - and the third rail in place of catenaries. Singapore would invest in the infrastructure for the Singapore sector to help make the fast train service financially viable. A group of Malaysian officials came to Singapore in February 1997 to view the three alternative sites. Recap of why we could not agree to Malaysia's proposed electric train project Mr Speaker, Sir, to put things in perspective, let me explain why we could not agree to Malaysia's electric train project on the terms originally proposed. First, under the POA, both sides have agreed that Malayan Railway would vacate Tanjong Pagar. Therefore, the proposal for the new electric train service to the station at Tanjong Pagar was inconsistent with the POA. Second, because electrification of the existing railway would mean extensive changes, the electric train service would amount to a new railway. Under the Railways Act, Parliament's approval has to be granted before the new train service can begin. Under section 3 of the Railways Act, the Malaysians would first have to deposit their railway scheme with the Secretary to the Cabinet. The President, on the advice of the Cabinet, can then provisionally approve or reject the railway proposal. If the President approved, details of the scheme must be deposited with the Chief Surveyor for public inspections and objections within three months. Next, the plans and the objections, if any, have to be presented to Parliament and considered and approved or amended by Parliament. Third, the overhead catenary system proposed by the Malaysians is unsuitable for a densely built up city like Singapore. It is against our planning rules. The Singapore Government has spent millions of dollars to bury all our telephone and power cables underground. It has not allowed the Mass Rapid Transit and the Light Rail Transit to use overhead cables for aesthetic and safety reasons. The catenary system uses a very high voltage of 25,000 volts. This poses a safety risk and causes extensive electromagnetic interference in the surrounding areas. We had thus proposed the use of a third rail system which is visually less intrusive and allows for a smooth ride given the operating speeds here. I would like to add that for the same reasons, trains in Europe commonly use the catenary system in the countryside and switch to the third rail system in the city. Fourth, the Malaysian proposal as conveyed in writing by Malaysian officials actually described a commuter train from Tanjong Pagar to Kulai, with intermediate stops in Singapore, and not a high speed electric train from city centre in Singapore to city centre in Kuala Lumpur as envisaged by Dr Mahathir. Conclusion on POA Mr Speaker, Sir, the framework of wider cooperation I proposed to Dr Mahathir is designed to overcome the difficulties I had highlighted. I want good relations with Malaysia. I wish to be helpful. But it is not possible for me, or for any Prime Minister of Singapore, to simply set aside the POA which is an international agreement solemnly entered into between two Governments. To do so would undermine the sanctity of all the agreements and treaties Singapore has concluded in the past or will sign in the future. However, provided there is a framework of wider cooperation which includes long-term indefinite supply of water to Singapore, I believe I will have a convincing reason to carry my Cabinet colleagues, Parliament, and the people of Singapore, first, to vary the POA to meet Malaysia's requirements, and, second, to invest in the Singapore sector of the infrastructure for the high speed train to help make the train service financially viable. I believe both countries have much to gain by working together for mutual benefit. I firmly believe that neighbours must live together in harmony and help each other to do better and improve the standard of living of their people. If Singapore and Malaysia can embark on a new era of cooperation, we will signal to the present and future generations that we have discarded the old historical and emotional baggage in favour of fruitful, mutually beneficial cooperation. Mr Chiam See Tong's proposal of an economic union with Malaysia is not as ridiculous as it sounds. He got his economic history of our Malaysia days wrong, and he has ignored important non-economic factors, but the economic logic of his proposal is correct. However, cooperation takes two willing parties. I do not think this is the right time to talk about an economic union when bilateral relations are strained and we are still having difficulties implementing specific items of cooperation. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore and Malaysia share a symbiotic relationship. I fully subscribe to Dr Mahathir's philosophy of "prosper-thy-neighbour". It is an important way to strengthen our two countries' symbiotic relationship and help each other to become developed. The electric train, when it comes about, will be more than a physical connection; it will be a powerful symbol of the two countries' inter-connectedness on the fast track to success. I have another reason for telling the House the details of my discussion with Dr Mahathir on the POA and the electric train. Whatever the present strains in our relationship, I support Dr Mahathir's vision of a fast train network connecting Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, and all the way to Kunming. I hope that the fast train service will succeed. But I need Malaysia's help to vary the terms of the POA so that the fast train can operate in Singapore. I have suggested how this can be done through a new framework of wider cooperation. I do not know at this stage when the new era of cooperation will come, or whether it will come. I hope it will come. I shall work for it. If it materialises, I will have to come to Parliament to vary the terms of the POA, and seek your approval for the new electric railway line. I will also ask the House to support our investing in the Singapore sector of the infrastructure for the fast train service. Singapore 21 - A Vision for a New Era Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me turn to Singapore 21 - our Vision for a new era. In January 1992, during the debate on the President's Address, I asked the House, "To judge my Government not by what I say or can accomplish straight-away, but by what my Government will achieve at the end of its term of office. Edusave, independent schools, Medifund, home improvements - they need four to five years to show everyone what there is in it for them. If we go for short term, small benefits, and miss the long term, big benefits, we will lose our strategic way. This will spell ruin for Singapore." We went the full term. We delivered on our promises. The people gave their verdict. They liked our programme. That was the main reason for our success in the General Election, not the corny excuses given by Mr Jeyaretnam for his defeat. Today, I am again asking this House to take a long view, to look soberly into the future, weigh the strategic choices and make the right strategic decision. This House will lead Singapore into the next millennium. It has been self-renewed. It should be a future-oriented House, one with ideas, one which will deliver. We know one thing about the future. Globalisation will mean more intense competition. Many MPs have emphasised the need to sharpen our competitiveness to stay ahead. The Information Technology revolution will speed up the process of change itself. We must keep on learning and be quick to adapt to changes. But there are many things in the future we do not know, and cannot possibly foresee. Twenty years ago, as a young MP, I had no idea that Information Technology would so change the way we live, or that Communism would collapse in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe so abruptly and benignly. Given that changes will be even more rapid and drastic in the future, what kind of a world will we live in in 20 years' time? How do we prepare Singaporeans for this unknown future? First, we need to understand, as far as we can, the nature of the game unfolding. Second, Singaporeans must have a goal to chase and a vision to carry this country forward. Challenges Let me talk first about the basic challenges facing every country, developed and developing, and then the challenges facing Singapore in particular. All countries face a dual challenge. First is the economic challenge to maintain growth, create good jobs and attract investments. All countries have to cope with an increasingly integrated and competitive world. To do well, their societies must motivate and reward risk-takers and entrepreneurs, the highly skilled and the more able. Second is the social challenge to maintain social cohesion and to manage growing income differences between the highly educated and skilled and those who are less skilled and less able. The fast pace of technological change, coupled with the mobility of investments across international borders will mean constant change in a country's socio-economic structure. Industries will boom or bust. Companies will migrate or down-size. This will cause insecurity and social turbulence. Governments will come under pressure. Thus France has lurched from Left to Right and Right to Left, all within five years. All countries will have to balance these two imperatives: economic competitiveness and social cohesion. Many developed countries are finding this balancing act very difficult. While the OECD countries are leaders in the knowledge-intensive industries, many are also experiencing uneven or declining education standards, high unemployment and social tension, especially in Europe. Growing juvenile crime, racial tensions, structural unemployment, job insecurity, an unsustainable state welfare burden, and loss of confidence in the future are straining their social fabric. The experience of the developed countries holds lessons for us. They suggest the kinds of problems we may face in the future. Social divisions are not a major problem for Singapore today. But divisions may grow as our society matures and income gaps widen. We need to nip these issues in the bud. The most pressing challenge facing Singapore today is to retain our competitive edge. Keen regional competitors are breathing down our neck. Our neighbours are aggressively upgrading their infrastructure. They are directly competing with our traditional economic strongholds, our port and airport. They are also seeking niches in the new knowledge-based industries, like Information Technology. Our neighbours have the advantages of cheaper land and abundant labour, and the pull of larger domestic markets. They can copy successful strategies and acquire the latest technologies. But we still have the competitive edge of a better trained and disciplined workforce, higher productivity, and a more conducive total business environment. We can meet the regional competition. But merely outperforming our neighbours is not good enough, nor is it our goal. Winning the Malaysia Cup or even the South-East Asian Games championship may make us the best in the region, but we are still nobody in the world. Increasingly, Singapore will have to compete with both developed and developing countries for talent and investment. We are not only competing with Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Shanghai or Taiwan but also Seattle, Atlanta, Dublin and Sydney for investments. Unless we can develop into a world-class city, with capabilities equal to the best anywhere, we are just a tiny speck on the world map. We have to make it to the World Cup finals. Besides economic competition, Singapore faces a far more fundamental challenge: rooting our best and brightest in this country. A recent survey by MasterCard found that one in five Singaporeans wishes to emigrate, despite Singapore's economic success. I am not sure how much to believe this survey. The Good Conduct Certificates issued to those who had emigrated, the data did not suggest that there is a serious uptrend, nor is there a downtrend, in emigration. In 1987, 3,825 Good Conduct Certificates (GCCs) were issued; 1990, went down to 2,528; 1996, 2,240. But, nevertheless, there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest a potential problem. Choo Wee Khiang tells me that a friend of his was dismayed and shocked that his 15-year old daughter had talked to him about emigrating. So our key challenge is to build ties among the people and emotional bonds to this country. Deepening our sense of belonging will be a priority in this term of my Government. Response How should we respond? We can continue as we are, pursuing our current strategies, perhaps with some minor course corrections, hoping that National Education will grow a stronger sense of national identity. If we do this, it is quite likely that we will enjoy several more good years. But what if we should suffer an external shock and run into economic difficulties? Who would have anticipated the current strain in relations with Malaysia, a year or even six months ago? What will hold Singaporeans here? Affluence and prosperity cannot be the only glue holding us together. If Singaporeans are just economic animals, materialistic with no sense of belonging, they will be like migratory birds, seeking their fortunes in other lands when the season changes. They will have no cause to fight for, no community to live for, no country to defend or die for, only the pragmatic desire to get on and get rich. If it ever comes to this, Singapore will not survive as a sovereign nation. To meet this problem, and other challenges now unknown, it will not do just to make minor course corrections, small improvements to a generally working model. We need a new vision for Singapore, an ideal, a fresh mindset. We need to move beyond material progress, to a society which places people at its very centre. Singapore 21 is my team's vision for the future of Singapore, a Singapore where people make the difference, where each citizen is valued, a Singapore which is Our Best Home, an ideal home which we will all help to build. Singapore 21 is about what the people of Singapore want to make of this country. More than a house, Singapore must be a home. The Government can provide the conditions for security and economic growth. But in the end, it is people who give feeling, a human touch, a sense of pride and achievement, the warmth. So beyond developing physical infrastructure and hardware, we need to develop our social infrastructure and software. In Sony Corporation, they call this "heartware". We need to go beyond economic and material needs, and reorient society to meet the intellectual, emotional, spiritual, cultural and social needs of our people. Our concept of competitiveness must therefore recognise that the robust and successful societies of the future will be those which place people at the centre. Countries and societies which can develop and mobilise the people, and serve the human needs, goals and aspirations of their citizens will have a lasting edge. Singapore must be such a society. Towards Singapore 21 There are several elements that I believe we need to adopt to achieve this. Beyond Top Talent - Value and Develop People at all Levels In a global, knowledge-based economy, countries which attract and mobilise human talent will thrive. We have to continue to draw in talent, but we must also continue to invest heavily in the education and training of our own people. We aim to maximise the talents and abilities of all Singaporeans, not just the best and the brightest, but every individual. Not everyone is equally talented. But every person has some useful ability. Our education system must therefore not only groom our top talent, but also recognise and develop a range of skills and abilities at every level. We have begun to move in this direction. Not everyone can perform equally well. But every person who tries his best should have his contribution recognised. Our attitude should not be that only a few people at the top add value, while the rest only run the machinery. Every Singaporean has a contribution to make to his job, his company, his community and his country. But equally, he has a responsibility to keep himself employable and productive through continuous learning, and to play his part to the best of his ability. This does not mean moving away from meritocracy. We must always give the ablest and most committed the scope and the support to develop to their full potential so that they can contribute their maximum to society. But we must also develop all Singaporeans to their full potential. Countries with a larger population can afford to use their human resources less efficiently. But Singapore's talent pool is so small that we cannot afford any human wastage. Our system must not focus primarily on developing our top talent, but must value and develop people at all levels. Beyond the Drive to Succeed - Passion for What We Do Singapore was built by hardworking people who had the drive and determination to succeed. We must not let this work ethic weaken. But beyond the drive to get ahead, we must cultivate a sense of pride in our work and a passion for what we do. Many Americans have this quality. They have an intense interest and passion for whatever field they are in, which drives them to develop true expertise and to push the frontiers of their field. This quality has made them world leaders in many new technologies and disciplines. This is what R&D and innovation are about - people who pursue their interests and ideas with a passion, people prepared to be different from others - because they are thinking of new things. We must foster this sense of passion, this pride in work, both in the schools and in the workplace. So beyond the drive to succeed, we must have passion for what we do. Beyond Success - A Sense of Service The Government has shared the fruits of growth with all Singaporeans, and will continue to do so. But beyond our efforts to improve the lives of all Singaporeans, my hope is that Singapore will become a society where every citizen not only strives to get ahead, but also feels a responsibility to share success. Many of our founding fathers, like Tan Tock Seng, Lee Kong Chian, Govindasamy Pillai (a founder member of the Ramakrishna Mission), and Haji Ambo Sooloh (a Bugis merchant and philanthropist), used their wealth to benefit others, not to flaunt their success or for personal glory, but out of a deep sense of responsibility to their community. They built schools and hospitals, and helped the needy and the weak. We must keep this noble tradition alive. Beyond donating to charity, every Singaporean, no matter what his station in life, can do something to help others and his community, whether through voluntary welfare organisations, or simply by getting involved in community work in his neighbourhood. Not all well-off Singaporeans contribute to charities. Some feel that by paying taxes, they are already subsidising the poor and needy. But paying tax is the legal obligation of every citizen. It is not philanthropy. It offers nothing extra for the community. We need to change the mindset of such people, to get them to feel that they owe a social responsibility to others for their success and affluence. Beyond Tolerance - Respect and Gain Strength from Diversity In many societies, race, language or religion will take on increasing importance either as a rallying cry or as an anchor in an uncertain and fast changing world. Look at the divisions Pauline Hanson has generated in Australia. But Singapore is a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. So we must distinguish ourselves as a society where the different races respect and accept one another, and the majority makes room for the minority to succeed. Everyone, Singaporeans and visitors alike, regardless of their cultural or religious background, should feel comfortable in Singapore. But while recognising and celebrating the importance of each community's heritage, our shared national identity must come before our cultures of origin. As our pledge reminds us, first and foremost, we must be Singaporeans, one united people regardless of race, language or religion. And we must guard against individuals or institutions which would stir up religious or racial divisions in society. As a society, we must be willing to respect and accept a greater diversity of ideas. Why do some societies, like the US, for example, produce more ideas and innovation than others? Education systems have something to do with it. But the broader social environment is critical in supporting creativity and innovation, whether in the arts, sciences, research, industry or politics. We have to move beyond tolerance, to respect the different cultures in our midst, and to gain strengths from diverse ideas. But there must be individual responsibility and a sense of accountability to the broader community. Rights and duties are inseparable, two sides of the same coin. This is the way to become a cosmopolitan, creative and cultivated society, which attracts top talent from all over the world. Beyond Leadership - Civil Participation Outstanding leadership and sound government will always be crucial. The government has to provide the best conditions for security and economic growth. Yet leadership and government will not be enough. We need a civil society to mobilise our people's energies and talents, and to create a cohesive and resilient nation. When people participate actively and become involved in community and national issues, they build ties among themselves and bond to the country. We must change the mindset that only a few leaders at the top of the system need to think and take responsibility for social and national issues, while the rest of society can simply mind their own business and go about their daily lives. All Singaporeans must feel a responsibility for solving local issues and shaping their own communities. They should not wait for the Government to solve every problem. The Government itself must be prepared to take a step back and perhaps even a back seat, especially on local community issues, and allow some free play to develop. One good way to do this is for concerned citizens to get involved in voluntary work or in the running of their own local communities, through the Town Councils, CDCs or RCs. Singapore's political life must evolve in the direction of greater participation by the people, more willingness to shoulder responsibilities, and more giving to the country than taking. Conclusion In future, the competitive advantage of nations will lie in their people - how a society is organised to maximise and mobilise the potential of its people, and how it serves the material, spiritual, intellectual, political, social and emotional needs of its citizenry. The ideas I have put forward are to develop a cohesive and resilient nation, a people fully equipped to compete in the future and a people with emotional stakes in Singapore. Singapore 21 will help us to pre-empt the problems faced by many developed countries today as they try and maintain economic dynamism while managing growing social divisions. We should focus on building capabilities, resilience, and "heartware" for the future, rather than just going for growth and trying to reach developed country status. To work through these ideas will require fundamental changes in our approach. We need time to build a consensus about the need for such a change of course, and to work out what exactly the new course should be. We are already taking major initiatives in education. The public sector is actively thinking of the future and also for the future, preparing for scenarios which we hope to avoid but which we must be ready to cope with. But this is only half the story. The other half depends on Singaporeans feeling a responsibility to contribute their ideas, and committing themselves to participate actively in their communities and in national life to make our vision of a best home a reality. Singapore is about people. It is only in Singapore that we, as Singaporeans, have the freedom to build the kind of environment we want to live in, work and bring up our children. That is what being an independent, sovereign nation means. In no other country will we have the same opportunity to shape a country we can be proud of. I hope that Singaporeans from all walks of life will rise to the challenge and make the difference for Singapore and for your children. Singapore 21 is about a Home for a People, not a hotel. A Home where we feel comfortable with ourselves, where we look after one another, where everyone makes the country succeed. Our vision for Singapore is not houses of bricks and mortar, but homes with hearts and dreams. People who feel confident and secure. People who believe in Singapore and its future. Let us work together to make Ours the Best Home, for ourselves and our children. [Applause].

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Prime Minister, by way of clarification, a question? I was very moved by his statements that he had tried and it is his hope to bring about a closer relationship with Malaysia, and he called it a symbiotic relationship, and that he was prepared to go the extra mile if necessary. May I ask him, in the light of all that, did he consider how that statement in the affidavit would have been received by Malaysia when they came to know of it? He must have seen that statement before it was filed or after it was filed in court. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister was not aware of it, and so were the other plaintiffs. Did the Prime Minister give any thought to whether that statement in that affidavit would damage the relations with Malaysia? It is not enough, Mr Prime Minister, as SM Lee would have us believe, to say that that affidavit was meant only for the court and it was only to be in chambers. The Prime Minister's lawyers would have advised him that once an affidavit is read in court, whether in chambers or in open court, it can then be released to the public, and so there was a danger that Malaysia would come to know of that statement. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he had given any thought to that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to end this debate on the President's Address on a high note, not in some scruffy debate on this issue which has been in the press for a long time. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is now my humble duty to wrap up the debate. However, after the Prime Minister's speech, I find it not an easy task to do, and therefore I intend to be very brief. In the course of the past four days, over 50 speakers have taken the floor, and all except two have supported the motion. I would like to thank the Members for supporting the motion standing in my name. All 23 new Members have delivered their maiden speeches. Even though they are new in this House, several of the deliveries were robust and invigorating. All have prepared themselves well. Their speeches give us an idea of the calibre of the Members and what concerns them most. And those retired Members who had made way for the new Members shall be happy to know that their replacements are worthy ones. Sir, most of the speeches made reference to the President's Address and the topics covered can be classified into several areas. Topic number one is international competitiveness of Singapore. This topic received many comments reflecting the concern of Singaporeans. The issue is how to continue to develop our economy in the face of increasing international competitions, and the increasing cost of doing business in Singapore. Many Members recognise that the key lies in the preparation of our young for future competition, and the need to move up the technology curve in order to remain competitive is also well recognised. Topic number two is the play of free market forces versus social cohesion. All Members who spoke on this topic stressed the importance of free market economy in Singapore's continued success. They believe in meritocracy to promote social mobility and to reward hard work. On the other hand, Members also recognise that there will always be someone in our midst who will fall behind. Topic number three is education and life-long learning. Many Members highlighted the fact that the future depends on the education of our young to meet competition. They note that our young must be taught creativity. Our young must acquire the desire for life-long learning. Members also stressed the importance of continuing education and upgrading for the adult working population. Topic number four is on Singapore's value system. The value system of Singapore is another much discussed topic. Members are concerned that the Singapore society today might be turning too materialistic, and there might be concern that Singaporeans are exhibiting increasing signs of evolving into a self-centred society. Other Members were also concerned that our current success might breed complacency. Topic number five is on Singapore/Malaysia relationship. This is certainly the most emotive issue during the current debate. Many Members deplore the current state of affairs between our two countries. All in their speeches reflect the quiet resolve of Singaporeans to stand up for Singapore. In this respect, Members also reflected Singaporeans' impatience over the perennial threat to cut our water supply. As Mr Chiam said, water is our life blood. He also mentioned that cutting water supply is a very serious matter. It is tantamount to a cause for war. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have also comprehensively discussed about the Points of Agreement between Singapore and Malaysia over the KTM lands. Singapore MPs have been quiet over the past two months over this issue, and this debate allows Members to air their views. They have done so in a quiet and resolute way and have expressed unequivocally the true feelings of Singaporeans. The issue now is how do we proceed from here, and I believe that the ball is now in the Malaysian side of the court. Topic number six is on the National Education programme. The National Education programme was proposed last year when it was recognised that young Singaporeans lack a good understanding of our history. In view of the recent events, the importance of the National Education programme has become obvious, and it is a hot topic in this debate. All the Members who spoke agreed that this programme is important to ensure that young Singaporeans will remain a united people as they grow up in future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure Members who have spoken have expended much time and effort into preparing their speeches. I would like to thank Members for their contributions. You, Sir, too deserve our thanks for showing forbearance in sitting through these four days of speech making. Being an eloquent speech maker yourself, I am sure you must have been tempted from time to time to join in the debate. From the speeches, Sir, we can see that the atmosphere of this House is an upbeat one. It is one of hope, it is one of optimism. We do have challenges ahead of us, but none that we cannot overcome. This reflects the confidence of Singaporeans as we face the challenges of the new century. Ours is a country that is secure, united, progressive and prosperous as we enter into the 21st century. And under the banner of Singapore 21, we Singaporeans will achieve our goal of making Singapore Our Best Home. On this note, I would like to ask Members to join me in thanking the President for his Address to this House. [Applause].

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection: Mr Goh Chee Wee Prof. S. Jayakumar Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Hng Kiang Encik Sidek bin Saniff Mr Wong Kan Seng Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. Sir, at the beginning of every Parliament session, it is the practice of Parliament to appoint a Committee of Selection so that the Committee of Selection can meet to appoint Members to the other Sessional Committees of Parliament. Sir, I beg to move. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Mr Goh Chee Wee Prof. S. Jayakumar Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Hng Kiang Encik Sidek bin Saniff Mr Wong Kan Seng Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon.

4.55 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament. The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). Even so, at the beginning of each Parliament Session, Parliament must resolve to have NMPs before they can be appointed. The first two NMPs, Dr Maurice Choo Hock Heng and Mr Leong Chee Whye, were appointed in November 1990, but they were in Parliament only up till July 1991, as the Seventh Parliament was dissolved early. Members of the House were not able to adequately assess the usefulness of the NMP scheme, even though two NMPs had spoken up on a wide range of issues. Hence, in the last Parliament, we debated at length the merits and usefulness of the NMP scheme again and eventually, Parliament resolved to have NMPs in the Eighth Parliament. So 10 individuals were appointed as NMPs in the last Session of Parliament. Two of them, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, served two terms. Having seen the performance of the NMPs, I am of the view that the NMPs have acquitted themselves very well. They have fully justified the privilege conferred upon them by Members of this House. The NMP scheme has proven to be viable and credible. All the NMPs were very active. I do not think I am giving away any secrets if I say that some of them were so active that they made many civil servants and office holders worked very hard. The NMPs have helped to raise the quality of debates in this Chamber. Their non-partisan and independent views showed that they were not "yes-men or women" of the PAP. They did not play to the gallery. They asked many questions, moved motions and took part in the debates on a wide variety of subjects. If there were to be a prize for the MP who asked the most number of questions, Members will no doubt give this prize to Dr Kanwaljit Soin who, I am told, asked a total of 287 questions during her sojourn in Parliament. Depending on the merits of the issues, the NMPs have, at times, been dissenting and critical, sometimes supportive and other times constructive in their views. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, for instance, had even persuaded this House to pass the Maintenance of Parents Bill submitted by him. If there were to be a prize for innovation for Members, we would award it to him. But he was also highly critical in his views, eg, when the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act was amended. Although Dr Kanwaljit Soin did not get the approval of this House for her Family Violence Bill, many of her suggestions were incorporated in the amendments to the Women's Charter subsequently. Indeed, Sir, some will even say that the performance of the NMPs outshone that of the two SDP Members who are no longer in this House. Sir, there are now only two elected opposition MPs in this House. As opposition Members they will generally take an adversarial position in the debates, though sometimes they have been constructive. We also have a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament who was reported in the Straits Times on 24th May 1997 as having said that he is "not going to be one of the `constructive opposition MPs' who are just smiling and want cosmetic changes." There are only two elected opposition MPs here, so his criticism must surely apply to his Assistant Secretary General, Mr Low Thia Khiang. Anyway, with a lone voice in wilderness, and in his moment of delusion, he has vowed that he wants "complete change". I think I read somewhere that he told the Foreign Correspondents' Association on 27th January 1997 that he and Mr Low Thia Khiang do not have much power, hence it is very difficult for them to make any proposals in Parliament. In just five months he has changed his mind. We all will hold our breath with expectation to see what "complete change" he can bring about as an NCMP in this Session. All we could remember of him during his six years in Parliament in the first half of the 1980s was that he had to be disciplined six times by the Committee of Privileges. It is an unenviable record. If there were to be a prize for the MP who was the subject of Committee of Privileges hearings for the most number of times, it will surely go to Mr Jeyaretnam. I hope he will not have the dubious honour of receiving that prize again, in this Session. Sir, to make up for the decline in the number of elected opposition MPs, I will, when the Bill is ready, move an amendment to the Constitution to increase the number of NMPs from six to nine so that Parliament can give vent to views which may not be canvassed by the PAP or opposition Members. They will help to fill the void left by the loss of two elected Opposition MPs. When the Constitution was first amended to provide for NMPs, it is stated that "persons to be nominated shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement." So far, three batches of NMPs had been appointed and they generally came from these key functional areas I just mentioned. After having operated this NMP scheme for more than six years, we should fine-tune and improve the selection process. Therefore, I intend to propose to the Special Select Committee that apart from inviting members of the public to nominate suitable and interested individuals for the Special Select Committee's consideration, we can invite the leaders of certain key functional groups to nominate their members for consideration. Initially, in this improved process, we can approach the following three key sectors to nominate their members for consideration by the Special Select Committee. They are: (a) business and industry; (b) the professions, and (c) the labour movement. Members will note that many of the former NMPs came from these key sectors, though they were not specifically nominated by the organisations which make up these functional areas. What is new about this approach is that we will formally and systematically request these organisations to get together and nominate some individuals from among their membership for the consideration of the Special Select Committee. The detailed procedures will be worked out later and be considered by the Special Select Committee. To conclude, Sir, in view of the merits and usefulness of the NMP scheme, I urge Members to support this motion. Question proposed.

Sir, the objectives of the NMP provision had been debated at length in 1990, both in Parliament and in Select Committee. It would be useful to remind, especially new Members in this House, what were the objectives of the NMP scheme. It is firstly to offer Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation in keeping with an open and consensus building government promoted by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong when he assumed office in 1990. Second, it would also provide more alternative views which are non-Government, non-ruling parties and non-opposition. Third, it is to tap Singaporeans who have no political inclinations but nevertheless could contribute their experience and views on major political issues. Finally, as the Prime Minister put it at that time, the NMP scheme could be a way to appoint office-holders in the longer term, although it was proved not necessary even until now. Members can see that in the seven years these objectives have been more or less achieved. It remains really for us to evaluate whether the NMPs have delivered the goods. As the Leader of the House says, most of them have, although I must add that in addition to making life miserable for Ministers and civil servants, some NMPs even made the Speaker wince by the number of questions that some of them asked, and some of these questions even the PAP MPs would not feel comfortable to ask. But they did make contributions. They had Private Member's Bills. There was one Bill that I almost threw out, much to the annoyance of the NMP concerned. I hope she would forgive me. But there is one aspect that some Members may not appreciate and this is something that I talked to the NMPs when they were here. I think many of these NMPs have also made some sacrifices. They came here also at their own time and most of them have lost a considerable amount of privacy, which many of us MPs also value. I think their contribution of time and sacrifice should not be ignored and instead of saying that they are taking away the limelight of personalities, we should appreciate their presence here. It is for this reason that I support the Leader of the House's motion to once again introduce NMPs in this House.

( In Mandarin): Sir, in every new Parliament we have to debate on whether there shall be Nominated Members. In the last two Parliaments we heard various views on the pros and cons of Nominated MPs. Personally, I feel that since the introduction of the Nominated MP scheme in 1990, the appointed Nominated MPs have contributed greatly to Parliament. Their collective performance is satisfactory and individually they had outstanding performance, as the Leader of the House pointed out just now. Singaporeans are gradually accepting this concept. I feel that this Parliament should also have Nominated MPs. In the general election held at the beginning of this year, two things concerning Nominated MPs happened. First, one former Nominated MP contested as an independent candidate and lost. Secondly, a candidate for Nominated MP in 1992 who was not appointed, contested this general election as an opposition candidate. These two matters clarified some doubts that some people had about NMPs. Some people deem the NMP scheme as a stepping stone to becoming a Member of Parliament while others are worried that if the Special Select Committee makes a slip and lets in people with ulterior motives to Parliament, the dignity of the House may be undermined. However, the results of the general election showed that being an NMP itself does not guarantee that the same person will find his way into Parliament as an elected MP. If he does not have the support of the voters he will not be elected into Parliament. I feel that this Parliament should have Nominated MPs. Apart from this system having been proven to be effective and that it has been accepted by Singaporeans, we actually need people who have constructive and independent views to come into this House. Like what Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said, in moving the Constitution (Amendment No. 2) Bill in 1989, this is to strengthen our political system further by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation, and to evolve a consensual style of government where alternate views are heard and constructive dissent is accommodated. Take the second and third batches of NMPs, for example. They seem to represent the various functional groups such as the women's organizations, the employers' federation and the trade union movement. I feel that when we appoint NMPs to this Parliament, we should also focus on the various functional groups. I am very glad to hear from the Leader of the House that we will be amending the rule so that the various functional groups will be invited to nominate their representatives to be candidates for appointment as NMPs. I think it is a good idea to appoint NMPs according to our needs of the moment for the various projects and policies we are going to launch. Singapore is looking at a world class land transport system. We are extending our MRT network, and are planning to have LRT. We are also going to improve our bus and taxi services. If we can get an expert in land transport system to be a Nominated MP, I am sure he or she will contribute substantially to our deliberations on the subject in Parliament. We are now encouraging more students to study engineering. So why do we not get an engineer to be an NMP? We are encouraging our students to be more creative. So why do we not have an expert in critical thinking to be an NMP. Also, on housing, it may be good to have an NMP who is an expert on public housing or town planning. With our regionalization drive, a successful entrepreneur who has ventured overseas may be able to present this House with first-hand views as an NMP. Then, of course, a leader of the trade union movement who understands the urgency of training and retraining would be an ideal candidate as an NMP too. The PAP imposes very strict requirements on its candidates. All its candidates must be of high integrity apart from their talents. I think the opposition parties should also have this sort of quality control on their candidates. As for NMPs, the same principle applies. Sometimes, I feel that integrity is more important than the system itself. A system which is not so perfect, but if it is run by people who are of high integrity, it could be gradually perfected over time. But, if we leave a perfect system to be run by people of doubtful character, it would collapse eventually.

5.15 pm Recently, I accompanied the Minister for Information and the Arts on an official visit to Vietnam. We went to an ancient capital city of Vietnam called Hue. Opposite the Royal Palace where the emperor used to meet his officials, there was an archway on which was inscribed the four characters: zheng zhi dang ping ( ) which means "upright and stamp out, without fear or favour." These four characters have left a very deep impression on me. At all times and in all countries, of all political systems, this is one basic requirement of a politician, that is, integrity and honesty. I am confident that the Special Select Committee will select a batch of honest people with high integrity to come into this House and fill up the empty seats opposite me. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to have Nominated MPs in this Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the past few days we have listened to speaker after speaker, inside and outside this House, calling on the people to be competitive and for Singaporeans to stay among the top league of nations, they must always work hard and compete intensely. In other words, competitive spirit must become a part of our culture. When we started to regionalise, we called on our people to be entrepreneurs, to take risk and be prepared to move into the business markets where only the brave dare to go. Yet this afternoon we have before us a motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House to allow Singaporeans into this Chamber without having to work hard, without having to compete and risk being defeated at elections. Is this not a contradiction of what we are trying to do - rallying Singaporeans to stay relevant and compete? Parliament is the highest prestigious institution in the land. It should not be seen to encourage non-risk takers. The NMP scheme is a soft option way of entering this Chamber, and Parliament must not be seen to lower its standards of entry. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have fought and won five general elections. I can tell you each time it gets harder and tougher. Every general election, however, has a very humbling effect on me and I am sure for my other elected Members in this House. At every GE, we go house-to-house campaigning, asking Singaporeans to vote for us. It is not easy. You ask the newly elected Members of Parliament how they feel. How difficult it is for them to approach someone and ask him to vote for you. It is indeed a very humbling experience and it can also be a very embarrassing experience. If the voter turns around and says, "Why should I vote for you? You only come when you need my vote." How do you react? What must you say? Mr Deputy Speaker, these are experiences that only those who have fought in the elections will know. After the general election, we continue to work the ground, doing our Meet-the-People sessions, listening to our constituents' problems and managing these problems as best as possible. We do this because we have the responsibility towards these people who voted for us. And here today we have this motion to allow non-elected Members, without the experience of working the ground, to enter this Chamber and give advice to all of you, elected Members of Parliament, on matters that he or she has very little knowledge of. It is no wonder that at one of our previous Parliament sittings, a Nominated Member of Parliament called on HDB to pass to Town Councils the maintenance of car parks, because it was not profitable. Surely if he has worked the ground, he would not have made such a suggestion. Because Town Councils are funded through S&C charges, and by taking an unprofitable programme, our residents will need to pay more. It shows a lack of grassroots feel. But does he care? No! Because he has no responsibility to anyone, but himself. To me, this entry of non-elected Members is very hard to swallow and, worse still, taking advice from people who have not fought the elections or worked the ground, and who profess openly that they do not want to be involved in the politics of the day. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is this House not a political institution? Every discussion in this House is political in nature. If this is a political institution, then those who do not want to be involved in politics have no right to come to this House. In this House, we pass legislation affecting the people. Those without a mandate should not be telling Ministers and Members in this House what to do and what not to do. There are already adequate representations in this House. We do not need more lawyers, unionists, professionals, doctors and businessmen. Are you saying that all these professions are not represented in this House and that Members in this House are not able to present the views of these various professions? What is most important is whether Members in this House have brought up the people's concerns. If we are judged to have not done so, then we deserve Nominated Members of Parliament. If we go through past Singapore Parliament Reports and compare the topics brought up by Nominated Members of Parliament and elected Members of Parliament, you will find that there was no topic brought up by NMPs that had not been brought up by any elected Member of Parliament. However, the way these topics were brought up differed because of difference in style, presentation and emphasis. NMPs, being smaller in number, captured the attention of the media. And some, being more articulate than some of our Backbenchers, would receive more coverage and thus appear to be doing more work and be more effective than the Backbenchers. But it is not just speaking well in this House that makes one better than the other. It is the ground, the constituency that must be constantly nurtured that is important. If elected Members of Parliament were to neglect the ground and just concentrate on making speeches in this House, I am sure they can do an equally good job. There is no doubt that NMPs, like Walter Woon and Kanwaljit Soin, have done well with their fine rhetoric in this House. In fact, Tan Sai Siong, the Straits Times journalist, acknowledged that the NMP scheme was a success, thanks to Walter Woon and Kanwaljit Soin, and I quote her: "As someone who used to agree with those MPs who are opposed to the scheme, the performances of this pair have convinced me that it is probably not the NMP scheme that is good, but the NMPs themselves who have made it so." However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a saying, "One swallow does not make a summer." One Walter Woon or one Kanwaljit Soin does not make the NMP scheme a success. [Mr Bernard Chen interrupted.] I am surprised that Bernard Chen acknowledged. He is an old MP here. He should be proud of the fact that he got elected and he has done well in this House. I warned this House when the NMP scheme was introduced on vested interest groups trying to seek representation in this House. I see shades of this in the last Parliament when women's interests were expounded by NMP Kanwaljit Soin. She did well. But many have asked me if she is a representative of AWARE. I hope not. Dr Kanwaljit Soin is a good friend and colleague and I know she has very strong views of her own and I respect her for that. However, those who do not know her well may think that she is the spokeswoman of AWARE. Fortunately, AWARE is a good organisation fighting for women's rights only and has no hidden agenda. What, Mr Deputy Speaker, if some other organisations take the cue from Dr Kanwaljit Soin's performance and try to send their own representatives into this House? These organisations could be religious, communal groups, seeking to be heard. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it would be a back-door entry for communal, religious and racial politics. Yet I remember very clearly that we came to this House to pass the Bill on Group Representation Constituencies to ensure that multi-racialism will exist well in Singapore. And yet I can tell you, and I am warning this House again, your Nominated MP scheme would one day be the back-door entry for all this type of politics. Because we are multi-racial, we cannot nominate only Chinese NMPs. The other races will be upset. The minority race will have to be included. Then, if you nominate only the professionals, the very well educated, questions will be asked on favouritism. What about the non-graduates? I hear the Leader of the House mentioning all the various professions. But this will stir a sense of unease among those non-graduates. Communal politics and clan interest groups want a voice. Even Tang Liang Hong tried to become a Nominated Member of Parliament. And if people like him are excluded, such groups can send in a seemingly good Singaporean to be their proxy representation. I know we have a Special Select Committee to prevent this. How long can you resist these people knocking at your door every two years wanting to get in? If they are rejected too many times, again, there will be questions asked. If for some unforeseen reasons, one gets into this House, then this House will be in real trouble. This is going to be possible because you want more Nominated MPs and you might lower your guard in your selection process as a result of wanting more. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after a while, the original purpose of wanting Nominated MPs becomes blurred. First, you started with non-partisan Singaporeans. Then we start to choose people because they represent interest groups - your employer groups, your unions, your business groups. What other changes are we going to make? People who want to come in are monitoring the pattern of selection and appointment. They are watching you very carefully. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, most of us will not be in this House forever. New Members of Parliament would be elected in. They have no history. They feel less for the issue because they were not involved in it in the first place and they have different value systems. I think I will rather plug all the loopholes than feel sorry later on. The last time we debated this subject, the Whip was lifted and I voted against it. This time the Whip is not lifted. Am I right? And I cannot vote against it because of party rules. However, my conscience tells me that this scheme is unnecessary and wrong. I am left with no choice. I will still continue to vote against it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as the motion itself states, and as the Leader of the House said, it is necessary for every Parliament to decide whether there is a need for Nominated Members. It has to examine the question anew and not look back at what had gone in the past. So the question is: Is there a need for Nominated Members of Parliament in this present term of Parliament? Singaporeans were told before the elections began that the PAP had combed Singapore and had the best batch that was suitable for entry into Parliament and they were going to introduce 23 of the best, of the cream, in Singapore into Parliament. Now we are told, "Oh, no, it is not good enough. We need six more Nominated Members." An hon. Member: Maximum nine.

All right. You need nine. But you are going to increase it to 10, I thought, afterwards. We need nine more Nominated Members. May I ask why? I will come to the reasons given by the Leader. I was not in this House when this scheme was first introduced. But I had a look at the debate in this House when the Bill to amend the Constitution to allow for Nominated MPs was introduced. And the present Prime Minister, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, who moved the Bill, referred to the President's Speech at the Opening of the then Parliament. He referred to the paragraph on "Encouraging Participation" and "Accommodating Dissent", and he quoted the President: `Singaporeans have shown that while they value good government, they also increasingly want alternative views to be expressed and dissenting voices to be heard. The Government will listen to alternative views and dissenting voices, and accommodate them where they are constructive.' I suppose the catch is "constructive". It is constructive as defined by the People's Action Party or by the Government. May I say, without imputing any disrespect to the Prime Minister - I see he has left - that those words now sound a bit hollow in the light of what happened in the last eight days of 1996 and the first two days of this year. If it is dissenting voices in Parliament that they wish to be heard, may I assure the House that there would have been at least six MPs from the opposition were it not for the fact that the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers, as I said yesterday, sent the clearest message to the voters of Cheng San that if they were foolish enough to choose other than the Government candidates, they would lose everything. The Hon. Prime Minister, in his speech earlier, referred to what he said were my corny excuses for not finding myself elected into Parliament. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that there is a simple test that can be done to see whether what I said were corny or whether they were real. May I suggest, in all earnestness, to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet that that be put to the test. Let the present PAP candidates from Cheng San resign and let us have another by-election. Let us have no more of these messages to the voters that they are going to lose everything - no more MRT, no LRT, no education benefits, everything - and let us not have the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers break the sections in the Parliamentary Elections Act and swoop on the polling stations to dissuade voters by their presence. Then let us see what the result is. I say this in all sincerity and earnestness. Then we will know whether the reasons I gave are corny or they are real. I am quite ready to be put to the test again to see whether the voters of Cheng San will reject me. If ---

A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are discussing Nominated MPs.

Do you want to give way?

I am not giving way at the moment.

No, I am raising a point of order. We are discussing the Nominated MPs. I think we should not be distracted by all this.

I will come to that. The Leader, in his speech, gave what appears to be two reasons.

Mr Jeyaretnam, Dr Tan wants to bring up a point of order. Would you give way to him?

I am referring to the reasons given by the Leader for this proposal.

Let him bring up his point of order first, please.

All right.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are discussing this Nominated MP issue and yet I hear Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam rambling on the Cheng San election which, I think, is not proper. I thought we have discussed this and spoken at length in the past few days. We have given him a lot of time and he should not be bringing up this matter again. He should stick to the debate on the issue of Nominated Members of Parliament.

All right. Mr Jeyaretnam, just try to keep within the point.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am keeping to the point because I said I would be coming to the two reasons advanced by the Leader for this motion. One, of course, was that the previous NMPs had acquitted themselves. But that, with respect, is no reason or no need for NMPs in this Parliament. But the second reason is that he said there are now only two elected opposition MPs. And that is why my point is relevant. We would have had more than two elected opposition Members. We would have had at least six if the Government had been sincere in its intention to hear dissenting voices in this House and to be guided by what some Singaporeans are clamouring for. That is the whole point of my speech. Let us go back and see what the voters of Cheng San would want. Then you will get more than two elected MPs. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I read during the election campaign that Mr Tang Liang Hong had been rejected for a seat in this House as a Nominated Member. He would have provided a dissenting voice, even if he was propounding Chinese chauvinist views, which I do not accept for a minute and I do not think the voters of Cheng San would have accepted. But if you are saying you want dissenting voices, then he should have found a place here. That is why I say all this sounds a bit hollow now. Finally, may I say that I share the sentiment that was expressed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. As I said, when speaking on the election of the Speaker, this is the people's House and it is the Members who are elected and represent the people who should be in this House. It may, of course, be said and I am sure it would be said, "But you are not elected." That is true, but only because of the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers making threats to our voters of Cheng San. Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday I was told that I had gone back on my principle. My party had considered my coming into this House and we thought the situation was quite different and we should accept the seat. But may I say this, finally, before I sit down, that if it is thought that the Government needs suggestions or advice on any matter, it should not be difficult to obtain it outside the House. The Government may appoint, if they so wish, an advisory body - we have already got a body but we can have another body, if you like - to consider Bills or actions and to advise the Government. What is the special need or reason for them to be in this House? It is not that I have anything against the former NMPs who have acquitted themselves, but to have NMPs and then to go on increasing the number would be to demean this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion of the Leader of the House. Sir, when the Government first mooted the idea of having Nominated Members of Parliament in the House in 1990, it received mixed reception from members of the public, including Members of this House. I was then a member of the teaching staff at the University. I was a lecturer in constitutional law. It was a compulsory subject for second year law students then. When you teach a subject such as constitutional law, you would follow the development such as Nominated MPs with some interest. What was foremost in my mind then was the question of legitimacy and the moral standing of the Nominated Member if he should come into this House, and this is an issue that was raised in some of the speeches we just heard. Sir, an ordinary elected Member claims the legitimate right to sit in this august House because he is duly elected by his constituents. He owes a duty to his constituents to speak, without fear or favour, and to advance and protect their interest if need be. Such were the principles of democracy. It is to the people that an elected Member is accountable to ultimately. An NMP, on the other hand, is chosen by a committee of this House without having to go through an election. In other words, he does not represent any particular constituency. His moral authority to speak on behalf of the people of Singapore is therefore apparently weak as a result. For this reason principally, Sir, I had my doubts initially as to whether the office of the NMP would strengthen and advance our political system. The misgivings were expressed in this House when it was first mooted. There were some Members who said that this is something that goes against the grain of our development in the political system. It weakens the political system and people who are not prepared to go through an election, as you have just heard, do not have the qualities which qualify them to be Members of this august House. Sir, when the idea was first mooted, the then First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, had argued that the principal purpose of the NMP scheme was to, in fact, strengthen our political system further by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation, and to evolve a consensual style of government where alternative views are heard and constructive dissent is accommodated. Mr Goh also said that although PAP MPs have been encouraged to play the role of a constructive opposition by suggesting alternative and even contrary solutions to problems, the point remains that they are still Government MPs, subject to the rule of the Whip within the party itself. Mr Goh also added that NMPs will help remove any misgivings that the Government is afraid of dissent. Sir, NMPs are politically non-partisan. The NMPs can give a voice in Parliament to the views of protest voters, and those who are unhappy with Government policies. NMPs will, according to Mr Goh, play a constructive role. They can be relied upon to say things which no opposition MP will want to say; and NMPs can concentrate on the substance rather than the rhetoric of the debate. Since then, over the years, I have watched the development and acceptance of the role of NMPs. As non-elected Members, it seems to me that their stature and standing have grown in the eyes of the people. Sir, the law has laid down rather strict criteria for the selection of NMPs. If you look in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, it provides that only people who have distinguished themselves in private or public service may be considered for selection. The records of performance, as you have just heard, of the NMPs so far have clearly vindicated our belief that they can play a part in the debate in this House with added depth and breadth to the debates. NMPs have also, in my assessment, helped us to move forward towards a more consensual form of Government which is receptive to alternative views and one which seeks to accommodate constructive dissent. We have also heard that NMPs have raised many questions for oral answer by the Government. We have seen examples of the sterling performance of people like Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon who through their efforts have made legislative changes and also raised questions which brought about policy changes within Government itself. Sir, the Member for Ayer Rajah raised the point that these people have done well in Parliament simply because they are good people themselves. I would like to differ with the suggestion. I would argue that it is a scheme which allows good people to be thrown up, people who are interested enough in this country to want to participate in the debates, but who are not prepared to go so far as to identify with the ruling party. It is therefore a scheme which has allowed good people to come forward, and this is an indication of what the scheme tries to achieve as a result. Sir, having NMPs in Parliament is one more reason why our Government cannot adopt a cavalier attitude in deciding policies. It provides an additional safeguard which serves to protect the interest of Singaporeans. To that extent, I think NMPs have helped to raise the standard of accountability in Parliament. The point was raised in an earlier debate that NMPs serve no purpose when you have the Feedback Unit, the Institute of Policy Studies and the various agencies which provide feedback. However, I would hasten to add that these are feedback which are not canvassed in a public forum such as this, and therefore the people of Singapore may not have the benefit of such views expressed as it is in this House itself. In this regard, we should appreciate that a debate in Parliament on issues of national interest is different from getting feedback from agencies and groups in Singapore. Sir, as I have said, one common objection against having NMPs in Parliament stems from the lack of moral standing of the NMP to speak as the people's representative. There is the perceived absence of accountability to any particular constituency of people. This ideal is premised on the notion that only those who have been voted in by the people would have the right to speak on behalf of the people. Sir, there are as many definitions of democracy as there are countries that make up the world. We have accepted that we must, as a people, settle our form of democracy that would help us move forward as a nation. I do not deny that NMPs have no electoral base. I would, however, look at the issue of NMPs from the perspective of whether having NMPs is in the best interest of Singapore. In this regard, I come to the point raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah. He said in his speech earlier that because the NMPs are not prepared to go through a competition in an election, they lack moral standing to represent the people in this House. However, if you look at the whole issue of the NMP from the perspective of whether their contribution in this House is in the best interest of this country, whether their debate in this House would strengthen policy making process in this country, and if the answer is yes, they do, then I think they serve the interest of Singapore and they serve the interest of the people. Let us not forget that NMPs too are Singaporeans. We should accept as an article of faith that when the NMPs speak up, it is with the best interest of Singaporeans in their hearts. I do not believe for a moment that only the people's representatives in this House have the monopoly of the people's interest in this country. If by participating in this House, the NMPs can contribute to a more focused discussion and one that will help us to arrive at better solutions to our problems, then we should, in all honesty, support this motion and look forward to their presence here. That is sufficient moral authority for me. It is not true that the NMPs are not accountable to anybody. On the contrary, they are held to a higher standard of conduct by virtue of the office they are called to and we take comfort in the fact that above all these, they are accountable to this House and to the people of Singapore for their actions. In this regard, I am not unduly worried by the comments made by the Member for Ayer Rajah when he said that they represent vested interest groups, because I believe that ultimately they will have to satisfy this House that they carry the right credentials and the right standing and qualification to speak in the interest of Singporeans, and not for any particular vested interest group in particular. Sir, a government of the people, for the people and by the people is not premised on the foundation of elected representatives alone. A government of the people must be founded on the cornerstone of what is best for the people. And this must surely include listening to the voices of all people in this land, including the voices whom NMPs seek to represent. I have said in this House that we should expand the space for participation in the governance of this country. I see the presence of NMPs as an example of expansion of this space. For this reason alone, if not for the reasons stated earlier, I beg to support the motion raised by the Leader of the House that there should be Nominated Members in this House for the term of this Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after listening to the NCMP's speech, I have this horrible sinking feeling that we might have to listen to the Cheng San episode for the rest of the term of our Parliament. So I say, please, give it a rest; wait until 2002! Sir, initially, I had reservations on the introduction of NMPs into this House. To a certain extent, I agree with Dr Tan on the principle that only elected Members should serve in Parliament, as only they have the credibility and the legitimacy because of the mandate given to them by the voters. But I have kept an open mind, recognising that we are very unique in Singapore, and we never shy away from adopting unconventional solutions when it is found that they are good for the system and the nation. Therefore, observing a few terms of NMPs' performance, I have now come to the conclusion that the positive contributions by the NMPs outweigh the negative. While I am still of the view that not all NMPs have performed up to expectation - in fact, some, in my opinion, did not use the opportunity given to them to the fullest, and some even over played their role as NMPs - nevertheless, I can appreciate the positive contributions made by some of the NMPs. Among them, they had given a wider perspective to the topics debated and contributed to a more lively debate in this House. They had, in some way, offered the Backbenchers as well as the Ministers the opportunity to have the issue at hand debated in greater depth. Most importantly, they, unlike the opposition Members, were not out to score political points and therefore did not confuse the general public when articulating their views. I personally have engaged in interesting and meaningful debates with some NMPs, and I must admit that the experience has been, for want of a better word, refreshing. The NMPs also helped to correct the perception that, because of the overwhelming majority of the Government MPs, the Parliament sessions serve only as a rubber stamp to all the Bills passed. All these positive contributions will no doubt go a long way to compensate the somewhat below par performance of most of the opposition MPs. While I am prepared to accept and support the continuation of having NMPs in Parliament, nevertheless, I hope that they would not be just articulating their views and ask questions without recognising the heavy responsibility to assess the seriousness and consequence of such views expressed in this House. I would also like to suggest that the term of appointment of any NMP should be limited to a maximum of two terms.

Sir, I thank Members for speaking up on this topic. I think the merits and demerits of the scheme had been well canvassed when the Bill was first debated in the Second Reading in 1990; then it went to Select Committee; and it came back again for the Third Reading. But then there were still some Members who were not certain whether we should have this scheme. So the Prime Minister promised that at the next Parliament, we would lift the Whip and allow Members to vote freely and we could decide again whether we should have NMPs. After having experienced six years of NMPs, including the first two in 1990, we all can recognise the contributions of the NMPs. I accept that some are more active than others; some are more articulate than others. But I do not think that it is just a matter of rhetoric nor that those who are more active just want to score points. I think they have made a very useful contribution and the fact that they have got some publicity and therefore might have overshadowed some of our own MPs, I think, is unfortunate. We have to find a way to correct that. If you make interesting speeches and useful suggestions, I have no doubt that the press will cover you, regardless of whether you are NMP, opposition or elected MPs. So we should not fear people who come in here and say things which may not be what we had wanted to say or dare to say. We should let them speak up and, as some of our Members and even the Prime Minister have said, it creates space for some of these people to express their views. I can fully understand the passion that Dr Tan had in making his speech because, as I said, he won the elections. So did all of us. We all won the elections. But we also agree that there is indeed room for other people to come in here and give us some of their views. Sometimes, there can be useful contributions that we should accept. We must have an open mind and not just close our minds to changes. I am glad to hear Mr Sin Boon Ann say that before he came in here he was against this scheme. And having read about the performance of the NMPs, he now feels that it is a good suggestion to have NMPs. Dr Tan is worried about sectional groups, ie, religious, racial or interest groups, or as proxies of other people, finding their way into Parliament. If we open our eyes, put our ears on the ground and be more observant on the kind of the people who may apply to be NMPs, we should be able to keep them out. If not, in one term, we will find them out. We have the example of Tang Liang Hong in 1992. I think some of our own MPs who know of him felt that he really is not the type of people who should deserve a place in this Parliament. Therefore, they expressed their views quite strongly and eventually Tang Liang Hong did not come in. It has been proven by the last election result that indeed that kind of person is not what we want in Parliament. So I hope Dr Tan would be rest assured that we would be very vigilant in making sure that people like that would not come in. I know that, as part of the procedure, the Speaker, as Chairman of the Special Select Committee, will circulate the names of those who have applied, including their CV, etc., and he will ask for comments from the Members whether they have any views on the suitability of these people who want to be NMPs. So please give us your views, Dr Tan, if you know of any individual who may, by accident, slip in under this proxy arrangement. I am really not quite clear what Mr Jeyaretnam's position really is, whether he is opposed to this scheme. He kept griping about the Workers Party's loss of Cheng San. Like what Dr Tan said, this is not the place to debate it. But let us accept this. An election is an election, conducted fairly, openly and that the people have chosen. He said 50,000 people turned up at his rally but they eventually voted with their feet. That is not our fault. They came and heard the Workers Party team and said, "That is not the kind of people we want in Parliament." Therefore, they have rejected it resoundingly.

44,000 voted for us.

That may be so. But in this first-past-the-post system, one vote is a majority and you have lost, and that's it. Accept it, and be gracious about it, and not be so pathetic by bringing this up every now and then to remind yourself that you have lost this election, and lost sorely. I suppose he endorses the virtues of Mr Tang Liang Hong as he had said that that is the kind of dissenting view that we should have in Parliament. I was wondering why, when the Workers Party was debating as to who should accept the NCMP seat, the Workers Party did not nominate Tang to the Returning Officer so that he can be here instead of Mr Jeyaretnam. Why is that? Because I believe Mr Jeyaretnam very much wanted to be an NCMP.

No.

No? Then why are you here? I really find it difficult to fathom this.

May I answer that?

Sure, please.

As I indicated earlier, the decision is not mine. The decision is the Party's decision. The Party decided at a meeting of the Executive Council that we should accept the NCMP seat because the circumstances were very different from the one in 1980 when we rejected it. We also accepted this NCMP seat in 1988, and Dr Lee was here. So it was the Party's decision and again it was the Executive Council's decision that I should take the seat, which was assented to by all the other candidates who stood in Cheng San. An hon. Member: Against your advice.

I am very glad that Mr Jeyaretnam brought this up and he said the situation has changed. Let us throw our mind back to 1984. In 1984, Mr M. P. D. Nair stood against Mr Heng Chiang Meng in Jalan Kayu. Mr M. P. D. Nair scored 48.8% of the votes, and Mr Heng Chiang Meng scored 51.2%. That was quite a substantial minority. Yet the Workers Party decided that it would not allow Mr M. P. D. Nair to accept that seat. In fact, here I have a September 1984 copy of The Hammer. That was before the election. It says: "Singapore does not need NCMP" and gave many reasons, eg, it is a second-class MP. And whoever wrote this article told the readers, "Do not be tricked. What Singapore needs is more men like Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam in Parliament, and not PAP stooges." If NCMPs are PAP stooges, I do not know what is Mr Jeyaretnam doing here, if he is not a PAP stooge. It goes on to say in this article that they would not accept the NCMP scheme. Then in 1988, in the same publication of The Hammer, a different issue, again it ran through the arguments about why the Workers Party rejected the NCMP scheme in principle. I do not want to go through the reasons here because I think Mr Jeyaretnam himself is quite familiar with them. Of course, they tried to find a way out and gave this argument that "the Party was not unmindful of the fact that the Workers Party's candidates in Eunos GRC have as much a moral authority to represent the voters of Eunos GRC as the PAP candidates". Have they? They fought an election and they lost. But, for some reasons, I think Dr Lee Siew Choh wanted very dearly to get back into Parliament after many years and insisted on coming back, the Party had no choice but to let him come in. It goes on to say in this statement that "the Party wishes it to be understood that this decision is not to be regarded as a precedent for the Party's decision in future cases." That means it is a one-time thing, an exception. Now, we hear the same argument in 1997. In fact, it has become the rule that if the Workers Party loses an election and is one of the highest winners among the losers, it would accept the NCMP seat. That is why Mr Jeyaretnam is here. Just accept it and own up that you have changed your mind. In the same way that you would change your mind if this NMP seat were offered to Tang Liang Hong, or a Workers Party proxy. You could send in a proxy. If we are not vigilant, for all you know, he could be here representing the Workers Party. In that case, you would have another voice in Parliament. So it is just an obsession that he must try to put aside and not to be too caught up with it. This scheme has worked well for us in this Parliament and I think it will continue to work well for us. I can appreciate the sentiments of Dr Tan. I also heard the other Members who spoke up in support of this scheme. But lest Members get away with the impression that the PAP MPs are fully supportive of Dr Tan, after talking to the Prime Minister, I would lift the Whip, and let him vote. I think people would know that it is really an internal party position and, except for one or two Members who may not think that this scheme should be implemented, we will let Dr Tan decide. Maybe, he will have Mr Jeyaretnam join him, for all we know.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just want to seek a point of clarification. The Leader of the House mentioned about these functional groups. Can he please explain what sort of grouping he is referring to? I know that apart from business people, the unions and so on, would he include the clan associations and religious bodies?

Sir, the idea of improving the NCMP scheme is really something that we have been thinking about. I might say that even the Workers Party thought along the same lines many years ago when they were looking critically at the Bill and poking at the principle and so on. They also said, "Why did the Bill not require nominations from organisations and bodies that are involved in promoting the economy or the social rights of Singaporeans, for example, the Chambers of Singapore and the professional bodies?" So we will continue to make improvements and the suggestion of Dr Tan will be taken into account. But just to elaborate on this ---

I think you should not.

I have not finished yet. Dr Tan wanted to know which are the bodies. I mentioned the professional bodies which will include doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers and people like them. For industry, it means the Chambers of Commerce, the Manufacturers' Association, the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and the like. I also mentioned the labour movement, which means the NTUC. These are just the three categories that we have in mind in the initial experiment of this new selection process. As we gain more experience, we perhaps may look at it again and, in fact, the Constitution did provide for the general categorization. We may go to other social groups like the National Council of Social Service organisations, the culture, the arts, the universities and so on. So we are open to views.

Are you saying that there is a possibility you could include clan associations and the religious bodies into your functional groups?

We are not deciding on this right now, whether it is going to be religious bodies or clan associations. What I am saying is that there are social community organisations and these are broad groupings. Of course, we are just trying this out and the first three groupings are what I have just mentioned.

That means you have some thoughts about this. There is a possibility that you could include all these people.

Right now, the possibilities are these three groupings that I have just mentioned.

Finally, Sir, I would just like to make a little comment on Mr Sin Boon Ann's speech. I think he spoke like a typical academic arguing his case. I just would like to hear from him five years later when he becomes a more polished politician.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament."

Mr Deputy Speaker, may it be noted that I am abstaining on this vote.

So be it.

That is very interesting. I thought I heard two "noes", and I suppose one of it is Dr Tan's, quite surely, and the other is Mr Low Thia Khiang's. These are recorded. Mr Jeyaretnam has abstained. I suppose he wants to reserve his position just in case one day he may come back as an NMP.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.