Hansard, 1999-10-12

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [11th October, 1999], 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 Second Session of this Parliament.". - [Mr Davinder Singh]. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for calling on me to give an address. I shall make it a short one, if possible. Sir, the President has given a comprehensive plan of the Government to take Singapore through various social and economic challenges in the new millennium. I must say that it is a very carefully thought out plan which can help us all to achieve the tasks ahead. We need to persuade different people with different interests to work out the plan. And unless we are able to get people to work as a team, I think it is going to be a difficult task for us to be able to realise the vision that we have set out to achieve. Sir, it is important for us to look at some of the problems outside Singapore which we sometimes have very little control, and I think it is very important that we do so because the problems that are confronting us in the region do, in a way, affect some of our plans that we hope to achieve. And this is particularly important in a region where we are often met with very volatile situations and problems. Therefore, we have to be very sharp, be able to analyse, be able to forecast and be able to appreciate these changing circumstances, which are very critical in our plans to achieve the goals that we have set. Sir, as usual, the Opposition Members have not suggested anything concrete on how we could improve on the Government's plan. All they have said is their common rhetoric of democracy for Singapore. They said that the President's Address did not say anything about democracy and what direction we are taking. In fact, the President has translated democratic ideas into concrete plans to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I think if they visit some of the areas, the suggestions, the agendas of the different Ministries, they will begin to realise that there are democratic ideas, viewpoints, which are translated into very concrete actions. Sir, there are many brands of democracy - the Taiwan brand, the Philippine type, the South Korean kind, the Indian type and many others. I am not sure what brand of democracy they want to promote. Having said and done, I think their brand of democracy has not produced anything that is concrete for Singaporeans. And many Singaporeans have not bought their brand of democracy, and I think that is an important aspect that we should be aware of. I am not sure of the kind of democracy that they are promoting, but at least the PAP brand of democracy has produced decent housing, education and health for the people, and that is very concrete. Over the last 30 years, we have realised the impact on the lives of Singaporeans, and that is the measure we should look at and that is the democratic brand that Singaporeans should adopt and support. Sir, it is crucial for us to look at the changing external events. However, I foresee that there are few emerging social issues that we should pay attention. These need to be attended to because I feel that they are specific and concrete areas that we should pay particular attention in the next few years. Sir, on the issue of social and economic dislocations of older workers, the continuing dislocations of labour intensive industries will affect the livelihood of our older workers, as they would find it difficult to obtain work because they do not have the necessary skills to fit into the new production sectors demanding higher and better skills. They have to make various adjustments to their living and it may be difficult for some. The number and the problems facing this group of older workers will increase, as labour intensive operations flow out to countries with cheaper facilities and cheaper manpower. Here, I feel that the NTUC, ITE and the Ministry of Manpower should set up additional worker training centres with the least red tape to give on-the-job retraining to older workers. ITE can play a bigger role in the direction of the training of older workers. We should, in fact, project and assess the impact on older workers in terms of their employability, and this is a very important area that we need to focus so that we can minimise the dislocations on the livelihood of this group of people. Sir, on increasing health care cost for older persons, I feel that the costs of health care for older persons are increasing steadily. This will become more acute with our ageing population. Many families would find it financially burdensome, especially if they have older parents who need long-term care. Currently, many older persons are treated in acute wards in general hospitals when they need to be treated and followed up in less acute care hospitals. Older persons referred by GPs often land up in higher paying wards, when we know that they come from very low-income background. All these problems of health care cost could be contained from runaway increase if both the hospitals and the GPs can work together in partnership in the delivery of health care and the establishment of more community care hospitals. I think this would be a challenge for us in the next decade or so, and unless we begin to look at more innovative ways in the delivery of health care, this group of older ageing population can be dislocated and affected. But I am confident that the Ministry of Health together with the medical personnel in the community would be able to work together to find a more effective solution to this challenging issue. Sir, on the aspects of racial harmony and respect, I would like to state that we should not take racial harmony for granted. We must get our young of various races, right from school-going age and those who are living in the various neighbourhoods, to live and interact and to have a common arena where they can share and appreciate their sentiments and their emotional ties could be strengthened. Where possible, grassroots organisations should take more active steps to promote social interaction among Singaporeans of different races, be they Malays, Indians, Chinese, Eurasians and others. When we have better emotional ties and good relationship, that we are Singaporeans after all and we need to care for one another, we can move ahead as a team, and this is very critical and crucial to Singapore in terms of our need to become a better integrated, better self-respecting community and a community that has the capacity to build up its bonds. And if we can do that, then Singapore will stay steady and be able to manage the different difficulties that may arise. Sir, in this respect, it is very important that I personally feel, as a minority group member, that Singaporean Indians and Malays who are in the minority groups not to feel small, but we need not feel that we are going to be marginalised, but we should be able to stand tall and see how we can seize the opportunities that are available to make the best and improve the stations of our life. As minority group members, we should make all the efforts to take the equal opportunities provided to all Singaporeans for our advancement in the social, educational and economic arenas. Where would we get such equal opportunity - in Malaysia, in India, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Europe, South Africa, United Kingdom, and even in the United States? I think a lot of these places talk about equal opportunities, but when you get to the brass tack, you begin to realise that many of them do not have equal opportunity. They all remain rhetorics and cannot be realised. But in the context of Singapore, we know that every citizen, irrespective of race, irrespective of religion, irrespective of different persuasions, is given equal opportunity to access to services, to education, to various types of opportunities that are available if they are prepared to be challenged with it and if they are prepared to manage with it at their best. Sir, in many of these countries that I have highlighted, although they claim to treat every citizen irrespective of his colour, language and religion, they do not really do so in terms of their social policies. As minorities, we should be proud about ourselves. Chinese Singaporeans must work together with all other Singaporeans, whether they be Indians, Malays, Eurasians and others. I think we need to work together. We need to appreciate one another. We need to see how we can support one another in order that we will be able to make more progress in the interest of Singapore. Sir, I hope that our younger Singaporeans, when they become leaders, must ensure that all policies do not discriminate against any ethnic group and it must be based on merit irrespective of their ethnic background. In this way, we can hold and make Singapore society cohesive. Sir, a lot of my parliamentary colleagues have given ideas and suggestions for Singapore 21. Many of them have articulated issues related to how we can help to strengthen Singapore and how we can realise Singapore 21. We also know that many countries have also good plans and ideas. But many of their plans have not been realised. I am sure that if Members have read and visited many of these places they will begin to see that many of them have laudable and idealistic aspirations about what they will do for their citizens and how life for their citizens could be improved. But in many of these places, lives have not improved at all despite all these aspirations that they have shared or identified. We need to ask why this is the case. In the final analysis, it is not good ideas that are sufficient. We must have good people at the helm to manage and make good social institutions. These are important issues that Singaporeans will have to realise. Unless Singaporeans realise that it is good people that can manage these institutions appropriately in their interest, all these ideas, plans and visions that we have cannot be realised. So I would urge Singaporeans to be able to know and appreciate how they can be discerning and take every opportunity to ensure that we have people of integrity, honest, and willing to be committed to manage the various social institutions that we have in our context. It is only through this assertion and achievement that we will be able to realise some of the visions that we aspire for.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh, thanking the President for his Address. Sir, the regional economic crisis has severely tested our economic resilience, political resolve and social bonds. It was indeed a harrowing experience. We can now say, with a sigh of relief, that we have turned the corner. With our sound economic policies and management, non-corrupt and good Government, and the willingness of the people to take the CPF cuts and make the necessary sacrifices, we have passed the test. We have obviously done better than many other countries in the region. There is a closer bonding between the people and the Government, a new sense of purpose, a new vitality and vigour, as we march in the 21st century. But we are not out of the woods yet. We still have some distance to cover. We are affected by what happens in the other countries in the region. The fundamentals have not changed. We are a small country, a prized strategic hub in a very turbulent region, with the need to defend ourselves against any predators, with a small population and a small talent pool, and a small economy that is vulnerable to global economic swings and cycles. Sir, the fault lines remain, whatever some may say. Issues of race and religion can still ignite and fan the emotions. Let us not pretend that these issues do not matter and have no impact on our lives. We should be aware of these fault lines and make sure they do not entrap us. With this in mind, we can do our utmost to promote and uphold multi-racial and multi-religious harmony in our schools, workplaces and neighbourhood. I agree fully with my colleague, Dr Vasoo, that we must all build up this multi-racial heritage. Sir, as we overcome the latest economic crisis and cross over to the new millennium, we must be no less vigilant, no less ready to defend our sovereignty, and be even more competitive and creative in ideas as well as technology. While the crisis was on, there was gloom and doom. My point is, now that the crisis is receding, we must not swing to the other extreme of euphoria. It is a marathon. The race is not over. There can always be another storm or typhoon. Singapore has a small population and talent pool. Hence, manpower development and training are crucial to us. I am glad that the Government is focusing on this in Manpower 21. It saddens me when I go to the ground and meet ordinary Singaporeans who are unskilled or semi-skilled, who could not fit into our fast-moving knowledge-based economy. They are indeed at a loss. Many are still looking in vain for their unskilled jobs that have gone off in the restructuring, and are no more there for them. We must therefore do all we can to train and retrain this group of Singaporeans, many of whom are in their 40s and above. We can have more retraining and upgrading courses for them in languages that they understand or are conversant in. Most of them are main breadwinners themselves. So ways have to be found to keep them going while they are undergoing training, either on-the-job training or sponsored full-time courses and in ITE courses, as suggested by Dr Vasoo. Employers should change their mindsets and be more pro-active in training and retraining, in particular towards older workers. Many older workers are indeed very discouraged and disappointed when they are told by employers that they are too old, or the time is past for them, for training. Such attitudes must change. It would be a waste of our precious national human resources if this group of Singaporeans is left out. Workers, too, must have the aptitude and thirst for retraining and upgrading. With the rapid pace of technological change, workers will have to re-learn and retrain many times over in the course of their careers. Sir, one half of our population is female. In view of our limited resources and talent pool, we should all the more make full use of woman power and talent. We have top women bankers like Mrs Theresa Foo of Standard Chartered Bank, top hoteliers like Ms Jennie Chua of Raffles Hotel, top accountant like Mrs Fang Ai Lian, Managing Partner of Ernst & Young, and Ambassador to the United States of America, Prof. Chan Heng Chee. Now we have a woman Permanent Secretary in Ms Lim Soo Hoon in the Ministry of Community Development. I hope the list will grow. It makes no sense for us not to make full use of woman power for the betterment of the country. If I may add too, we should have more woman MPs in this House to liven up the debates. Sir, the regional turbulence and upheavals have proven, beyond doubt, the wisdom of allocating a significant portion of our resources for defence and security. The regional crisis underlines the crucial importance of total defence and National Service. Without creditable defence and deterrence, we will be at the mercy of others. If we are defenceless, others will just walk in, and we will have to bow to their every whim and fancy. My sons who are National Service officers told me that National Servicemen take their training seriously. And with apologies to the Minister for Education for speaking Singlish, they say, "Don't pray, pray, this is serious business." And they do take their training seriously. Indeed, the regional crisis has driven home the message more than any other pep talks can do. Sir, the new millennium is our new frontier. We are revving to go forward to invest and apply new technology, to be creative in all that we do, to do things better, to do it differently, if necessary, so that we can all make a difference to the lives of our fellow Singaporeans. As we march into the new millennium, we must remain united and cohesive, taking the ups and downs as one people and one nation. Our hearts must beat as one for Singapore. We will then be able to weather any unexpected storm. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. I rise in support of the motion. The last quarter of the 20th century has witnessed unprecedented growth and development of the economies of Asia. The expansion of consumption and the market force doctrine expanded trade and created wealth. We had measured our success by the profit we made. The economic crisis is therefore a warning signal for us to reassess our value judgment. The people-centred approach in the President's Speech is timely and the shift of emphasis from money and economy to the people is most welcomed. We are excited by the Government's intention to create more opportunities and space for Singaporeans to develop their full potential. The private sector is keen to participate fully in partnership with Government in shaping our future together. We look forward to a creative and innovative environment for ideas to blossom and be tested. Not all new ideas will succeed though. We must be prepared for failures. Failures must be seen as a stepping-stone to potential success. While strict observance of procedures has served us well in the past, it has also prevented lateral thinking and lateral decision-making. The mindset of the people that operates the policies must change if we are to achieve the full potential of ideas in order for Singapore to benefit. Information Technology will be an integral part of the Singapore lifestyle in the 21st century. It helps us plug into the world. When technology and humans meet, a new relationship is inevitably created. We have seen movies depicting the doom day scenarios when the two cultures clash. I am confident this would not happen. Technology, in particular, information technology, has been beneficial. However, I have witnessed children more comfortable with communicating with computers rather than with fellow human beings and this frightens me. We must recognise this phenomenon and address it. Developing our people goes beyond the training of skills. It involves the releasing of their potential by providing opportunities for them to exercise their ideas and talents for Singapore. Singapore buys skills and has 400,000 foreign workers working for pay. Singaporeans must work for Singapore for more than just pay. They must have a passion in their chosen careers to do the best for themselves and for Singapore. We must wean students from picking a career based on monetary returns only. It is a role that both parents and schools must play an active part in. Only then can our children develop their full potential. We support the Government's intention of turning Singapore into a Renaissance City. The rebirth and expansion of cultural activities will allow the arts, music, drama, sculpture and the appreciation of aesthetics to flower. We must also ask ourselves why our artists had to leave Singapore to win accolades in foreign lands. We must establish the conditions and climate for them to return to Singapore. We will know that we have succeeded in establishing a Renaissance City when our artists choose to return home or, even better, if their talents can be acknowledged at home. We must start to nurture a people with a sense of aesthetic sophistication that demands the best in the arts, architecture and other aesthetic disciplines. We have many talented Singaporeans but our population size requires support from talented non-Singaporeans. Many talented non-Singaporeans have taken up the challenge to come to Singapore to join us in our effort. We welcome their contributions. However, we sometimes wrongly equate foreigners to foreign talents, and we know that this is not so. The next millennium will see a new Down Town in the Marina South area. This virgin piece of land challenges us to design an ecologically-sustainable city with minimum or no private vehicle traffic, no pollution; and where natural green areas removed by development are re-incorporated within our built environment; where rainwater collection is part of the infrastructure of every building. A highly urbanised Singapore is in a position to pioneer ultra-tall buildings to accommodate a large population and yet maintain its livable quality. We look forward to a new Down Town with mixed usage to ensure a more vibrant people's environment. Together with Government, we must seek alternative proposals that can only enrich the final implemented solution. While we develop our recreational areas, we must make a conscious effort to retain some of our wilderness. It is in the natural wilderness that bio-diversity exists. Singapore should not only be a `pretty garden', but a real experiment in co-existence between nature and an urban population. Pulau Ubin is one such place, a place where we can relax, go back to the simpler things in life and experience our harmony with nature. Mr Speaker, Sir, a people-focused programme outlined by the President has excited us and we have been motivated to make it happen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion, moved by the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of the Second Session of the Ninth Parliament. Although the President's Speech, in essence, substantially hovered over Singapore 21 which was debated intensely in this House fairly recently, I believe it serves as a staunch reminder to Singaporeans of the emphasis and weight the Government is attaching to the Singapore 21 vision. People, the President clarified, will be the focus of our Government, as we brace ourselves for the next century. Although this current emphasis appears to be stronger than ever, I recall that this represents a continuation of a trend which was first mooted by Prime Minister Goh in 1997 when he suggested the need for a "people-centred" vision which transcends material achievements to a society which places people first. As Singaporeans, we have demonstrated ourselves to be pragmatic and realistic. Our leaders have brought us thus far, that we can stand tall and walk with our heads high, having faced the severest of any conceivable adversity during the separation days, and turning obstacles into opportunities for the future, in the more recent regional economic crisis. Against the odds, Singapore has not only survived but also flourished to be a nation envied by many from any nook and corner of this world. For what we have today, we owe it to our early leaders for all their untiring efforts, sacrifices and all they have done for the present generation's betterment. However, what we have today - be it material wealth, racial or social harmony - as has been mentioned in this House countless numbers of times - these can never be taken for granted. It is incumbent upon all of us that if conditions were difficult in the early years, all indications are, we are potentially confronted with an even tougher future. First, is the inevitable fact that we have no other choice but to transit to a knowledge-based economy in due course, the sooner we are ready, the better. The rapid changes in the global economy and technology have already led to a feeling among some Singaporeans that they have to run even faster just to keep pace with the changes. As a small open nation, we are inextricably tied to the global trading system and have little choice but to meet the challenges of competing within the constraints of the new global arena, or perish. Thus, Singapore has no choice, and the economics of survival is, and will always be, Singapore's priority. In addition, as we enter the new millennium, it is apparent that the accelerating pace of technological change will be a key defining characteristic of the new millennium. It will be a world in which economic value is derived from the active generation and application of knowledge, a world where human capital forms the new basis for wealth. It will also be a world where the rapid pace of change puts the social fabric in all countries under strain. Competition for trade, talent and investments will become increasingly tense as it takes on a global dimension and as people and investments become more mobile. Singapore has to remain economically competitive. To achieve this, we must continuously develop capabilities in key areas in which our competitors are lacking and finding it difficult to emulate. In addition to our cost structures, the quality of our human capital is key. It is a known fact that we can no longer compete in industries that are land and labour intensive. We must compete based on knowledge - on the generation and application of ideas, innovation and information. To do this, we must develop our human capital. Singaporeans must realise that this is the reality in an area of intense global competition and rapid technological changes. They must constantly upgrade themselves to prepare for the new competition. The challenge is adequately preparing Singaporeans from all walks of life for this inevitable change. I have little doubt that our better educated young, and being better endowed, will be able to live up to the challenge. My worry is for the older workers, as was also earlier expressed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC, Dr Vasoo. Several hundred thousands of them have between 10 and 20 years yet of economic life to look up to. I applaud what the Government and the NTUC have done by way of the multitude of programmes in Manpower 21 and NTUC 21 to prepare them for the inevitable KBE transition. This is a clear demonstration that we care for our people The lingering fear is how far these programmes - many of them are already in place, and I am sure many yet in the pipeline - have reached the people, especially the truly vulnerable ones. I fear, Sir, if this is not aggressively pursued, we may run the risk of creating an underclass where a segment of society loses hope. If every Singaporean truly matters, then we must be prepared to go that extra mile or kilometre to reach out to the bottom strata. Second, Sir, while I am comfortable that our young are adequately prepared, I have a different concern for this group. Can we expect that they stick through thick and thin with Singapore as our seniors and we have done? Or will their patriotism be just skin deep and a function of the peaks and valleys of the economic cycle? Can we expect the emanation of a sense of community in them that will lead to the much desired community bonding and ultimately, the togetherness as a nation? The Government has laid the ground work by emphasising the sharing of wealth, building and preserving of ties, care for the young and aged, and the Singapore heartbeat as part of Singapore 21. Are young Singaporeans aware of the problem and, more importantly, will they respond to the call? Or will they become just armchair critics, as Minister of State for Defence, Mr David Lim, has put it? What makes a people a nation is their sense of being implicated in a common destiny. Unity is sought in diversity. It is also the same sense that makes it possible that the unity will prevail in conditions of adversity too. To some extent, the latter has been demonstrated by a generation of Singaporeans who threw their weight behind policies and programmes that turned a looming debacle into a synonym for success. But as the moment of danger appeared to have passed, so did the urgency for collective action, which was replaced by the desire to derive the maximum benefit for oneself or his immediate family. While such an outlook is understandable, it may be seen as quite dangerously incomplete. On the premise that happiness cannot be bought, greater personal affluence, therefore, need not necessarily translate into satisfaction that comes from being at ease with oneself. And, since not all can do equally well in a competitive society open to the effects of international economic forces, the relationship between those thriving and those labouring to keep up could not but emerge as an issue over time. Sir, the recent financial crisis, if its effect were prolonged on us, could have provided a clearer barometer, but unfortunately or fortunately, we got out of it sooner rather than later. The absence of a serious crisis makes a sense of shared destiny harder to develop and gauge. Yet, it is that bond, and not only economic success, that can provide an enduring perspective on personal achievement and ensure social divisiveness is kept at bay. No legislation can generate that bond; no campaigns can sustain it. It can only emanate from a people who see Singapore as a country where the legitimate and necessary pursuit of material interests concurrently provides space for inhaling patches of cultural, artistic and spiritual green. It is a fact that no one owes Singapore a living but that does not mean that Singaporeans owe the country no more than just doing National Service and taxes as payment for making a livelihood here. We owe it to one another, the recognition that we are fellow citizens of this enviable little island republic, called Singapore. That recognition holds within itself the social glue that Singapore needs today. Will it stick? That depends on whether people, especially our young, are willing to look beyond their immediate interests. That depends on whether people are willing to act to realise the Singapore 21 Vision and become involved. The Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Mr Inderjit Singh, yesterday warned of the danger of over-emphasising academic performance being carried into the workplace, especially in the uniformed services. He said such emphasis could run the risk of creating an elitist class system. Sir, what is important is the fact that the elitists, whether academic or economic, need to understand that their position, while deserved, depends ultimately on how they carry, conduct and position themselves. Elitists inevitably exist in every society, but elitism - the idea that the elitists do the rest of society a favour through their existence - can be damaging, even lethal, especially in a small crowded country like Singapore, where social visibility is high. For the Singapore 21 Vision to work and for Singapore to make it in the future, diverse voices must be allowed to participate in, or even celebrate the reality, mystery and vibrancy of Singapore, not necessarily to register their specific interests but as a beneficent, collective and protective reach they belong to. Even if some voices may be out of tune, but if they are sincere and honest, they will ultimately synchronise with the grand orchestra whose proudest song is none other than Majulah Singapura.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to join in the debate. The people welcome the Speech by the President. They appreciate its people oriented focus. This time the economy took a back seat. By this, Singaporeans should not assume that the economic battle is won and, from now on, the economy will hum along. The economic battle is endless. We need a strong economy to survive and progress. We must never lose sight of its importance. Over the years, we have made great progress on the economic front. We have now reached a level of economic development that the country can put the development of our people on the forefront. Nevertheless, the Speech by the President is not devoid of economic considerations, but only that it considers the economic effects through the people. We have to develop our people as it is they who drive the economic engine and growth. People and the economy are sides of a coin. We need both for a strong nation. Developing an economy is demanding. But developing a people is even more difficult. Developing our people will take not just a matter of years but perhaps a lifetime and longer. But the sooner we start, the faster we will get there. The country has started developing our people for years, since 1965 and even earlier, not just now. Over the years, we have developed an education system that the world admires. But the emergence of a knowledge-based economy dictates that we change our education system to encourage more creativity and an innovative spirit among our children. But in making these changes, we must ensure that the quest for excellence and the capacity for hard work are not displaced. Excellence is the centre piece of a great nation. Without excellence, achievement and success is shallow. Excellence comes from hard work. We must not fear hard work. There are no easy and painless paths to success, and we should not look for one. But as we develop as a nation, it is understandable that our people want a less stressful life for their children and themselves. But that should not be at the expense of excellence and hard work. In making changes to meet a globalised, knowledge and information-based world, we should not inadvertently cause the people to discard those values that girdle the nation. A change made on a firm foundation creates growth. Otherwise, it is just becoming different. We have to send a clear and consistent message to the people. Sir, talents are necessary for a nation to compete and grow. In the future globalised knowledge-based economy, talent will become even more critical. If the United States, the leading economy in the world, hungrily soaks up talents that it finds from around the world, how much more important this strategy of attracting talent must be for a small country like Singapore. However, the foreign talents and workers can strain national cohesion for they bring with them different cultures and value systems. We need to develop and strengthen our own symbols, institutions and value system to anchor Singaporeans to Singapore - to permit us to identify ourselves and to enable us to be unique. But this can be a dilemma for we also want to conform to international standards to enable Singapore to link to the world and to exploit the opportunities. We must be mindful that this conflict exists. The balance will not be easy to find. Perhaps, in some instances, we may need to allow two systems to develop in parallel: one for our link to the world, and the other for our national identity and unity. Education and skills provide the means for growth and development of nations and individuals. But it can also divide the people, for those who are educated and skilful advance faster and further than those who are not. Over the last few decades, we have been able to keep this divide from widening. With the addition of creativity and innovation to education and skills, our drive into the knowledge-based economy will accentuate this divisive pressure. As the economy becomes global and high-tech, Singaporeans with low education and skill will find it harder to get work at low level jobs, as low level jobs move out of Singapore. Besides the able reaching out to help the less able, it behoves upon Singaporeans to understand and appreciate the future - what is meant by a high-tech knowledge-based economy - and to seize the opportunities for education and the opportunities to upgrade their skills and acquire new skills. Not only would there be more educational opportunities for our young, the school of lifelong learning and other schemes like the Skills Redevelopment Programme will provide ample opportunities for our adult population. If all who can make it do so, then it will be easier for society to take care of those who, despite their efforts, fail. I urge our people to seize these opportunities to upgrade and improve themselves. A major difficulty working with people is the mindset. This is a set of personal principles and values that a person uses to live life. To get a person to do something different, the mindset first has to be changed. This is not easy and takes time. We have plenty of this experience. Many public housing residents once lived in villages, in houses with their own compounds. Today, we still have difficulty getting some of them to remove their old bicycles, pots, shoe racks and other belongings from the common corridors. Some residents give scant respect to common properties. Hence, junk mails litter the void deck. Playgrounds with equipment are vandalised. Lifts become convenient toilets. Thus, in spite of over 30 years of nationhood, over 30 years of living in high rise flats, over 30 years of campaigns and other forms of exhortation, old habits persist. Mindsets are firm anchors of behaviour. It will take more than just a few years to achieve the goals of Singapore 21. Sir, our youths are our future. We must help them to reach their best. For many families, both parents work. After school, some youths hang around shopping malls and game arcades. The number of delinquents among secondary school students is increasing. Quite a few of them are involved in more serious offences. I would like the Government to give more support to our youths. They need facilities to occupy themselves in purposeful and worthwhile pursuits. One thing that we can do is to set up more youth centres. Here, they will have their peers for company. Here, they can join in meaningful activities. Here, they can find help when they need it. Youth is an age when they seek independence and their identity. This is also the time where parents show more concern for them. If youths, who have the urge to spend time away from home, have youth centres to hang out, parents may not need to cross examine them when they reach home. This will remove a cause of friction between youths and parents. Rectifying an error usually cost more than preventing it from occurring in the first place. If we do not help them when they are young, wayward youths can become a lifelong liability for society and the nation. Help our youths before they go astray. It costs less this way. Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the focus on our people. I endorse the call to our people to develop themselves and to be more involved in the community. But we must not lose sight of the importance of the economy. We must also not inadvertently dilute the values that girdle the nation. Excellence and hard work are essential to success. There is no easy path. While we welcome foreign talent, we must encourage our people to strive to be the best they can be. Hence, the Singapore 21 journey will neither be easy nor quick, though the sooner we start, the earlier we will get there. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address indicated that the Government is placing emphasis on people development. When this was published, some people questioned why the Government is focusing on people, seemingly for the first time. And this idea was verbalised by the article in Chua Lee Hoong's article "Mr Cynics meets Mr Govt" on 9th October in the Straits Times. Is that a fair comment? Surely, we all must agree that the Government policies, since the founding of Singapore, have always been people oriented. It was not explicitly stated so in the past. In the early years, in fact, the focus was on job creation and the idea was to allow the market mechanism to distribute the benefits to the people. The emphasis, as stated in the President's Address, simply means that the Government is now addressing the development and fulfilment of the individual in a more direct manner. Why is it necessary now and not so in the past? Is it because it is expedient to do so today as that would be in tune with the time when people are becoming more educated and enlightened? I think not, Sir. My colleague, Dr Tan Boon Wan has actually expressed it very well. He said that people and the economy are two sides of the same coin. Sir, the new emphasis on people is probably the right approach and perhaps the only viable approach to tackle the challenges of the future because the future is going to be very different from the past. So what is the future going to be like? At the dawn of the new millennium, I think it is tempting for many of us to reflect and forecast the future. As we all know, doing so is very difficult. Most of the forecasts made by very prominent people in the past were mostly wrong. However, there are some fundamental trends in our society that could not be changed no matter what we do in the near term. In other words, these are trends that would predict the future of our society in the next 10 to 20 years. In effect, we can actually talk about the future that has already happened. This is a term I borrowed from the management guru, Peter Drucker. I think it is important to do so lest we collide into the future unprepared. It is almost like the recent train accident in Paddington Station in London. The outcome could be very unpleasant. Sir, may I have your indulgence to focus on two trends, namely, demographics and technology. The first trend is demographics. As we all know and as has been repeatedly said, Singapore's population will be ageing rapidly. This has already been touched on by several speakers, including Dr Jennifer Lee, who spoke extensively about care-givers yesterday. The youthful nation that we were just 15 years ago will have a more elderly look in the next 15 years. We are indeed becoming an old folks' home. The 4th October issue of Newsweek magazine reported that by the year 2050, Japan will have the world's largest share of old people, people aged 100 and above, followed by Singapore and Finland. There will be pressure to minimise discrimination in all fields of human endeavours by age in our society. In the future, we would be like United States today where discrimination by age will be illegal. There will be heightened demand on public services such as health care, transportation and recreation by the elderly. Those measures announced by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) on the accessibility of MRT for the elderly are just one very clear example. But what is not so obvious, and that requires reinforcement, is that the aging of the Singapore society is occurring at a pace unparalleled in the history of mankind. We must be one of the fastest aging nations, if not, the fastest aging nation in the world. This is one important factor for us to consider because all our institutions, social systems and cultural instincts to respond to problems do not prepare us to handle this rapid pace. And to become a caring and loving society, we must harness the energies of the senior citizens in the future. In my mind, Sir, it is not so much to tap the senior citizens as a pool of human resource or a pool of labour since we are short of younger people. I think it is important to do so because of the fulfilment of the individuals and these senior citizens of tomorrow a job will bring. Yet, in catering to the needs of the senior citizens to stay involved and engaged, we must also remember that in Singapore, we have developed a culture of youth, a culture where high flyers in our civil service move up the ladder very rapidly. So, would we be able to continue this practice when the current generation could continue to work way past what we perceive today as the retirement age? This is but one example of what I meant by cultural shock of being one of the fastest aging societies in human history. I am glad that this Government is already taking concrete steps in this direction. Prof. Low Seow Chay yesterday spoke about the six Committees looking into the various issues faced by senior citizens and consolidating the views of close to 1,000 respondents. And when we talk about senior citizens, we are not talking about the generation before us, nor are we talking about the generation after us. In fact, we are referring to ourselves, the baby boomer generation, the generation in charge today but the senior citizens of tomorrow. Of course, we are not the only society where the elderly population is increasing at a very fast pace. Of the other countries with similar proportion that come to mind, ie, Japan, the European countries, United States and Canada, these are developed countries where a much higher proportion of their aged are educated or are already considered knowledge workers. For these countries, they could extend their retirement age for these senior citizens and turn what seems as a handicap into a comparative advantage. Unfortunately, for us in Singapore, a high percentage of our elderly are not very well-educated and as we are not yet a developed country, not many of our aged today and tomorrow could be considered knowledge workers. Thus, engaging senior citizens in a meaningful manner will be a very major challenge. Dr Ong Chit Chung had already earlier on touched on the problems faced by the elderly in going through training to acquire new skills because of their current inadequacies in educational background. Mr Lim Boon Heng had also touched on the need for life-long training and worker retraining. If that is his task, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has an unenviable task. The second trend I would like to touch upon is technology. Several technological developments are already obvious and have immense implications. For instance, mobile phone is one of these. Finland is a leading example where most teenagers today already possess their own mobile phones and they are willingly paid for by their parents who believe that technology will bring about unpredictable benefits as the new way of communication becomes second nature to the young. The phone sets are becoming more capable, allowing e-mail retrieval, Internet connections and even payment for goods dispensed by vending machines, also connected to the Internet. It is likely that mobile phones might be the most common platform for e-commerce, and not the PC. In Singapore, mobile phones have already liberalised a lot of the professionals and entrepreneurs from being bound to their desk. I am sure many of us have come across golfers who continue to engage in value-added activities while playing a round of golf. As penetration of mobile phones reaches a critical mass, I think society will be completely transformed. Again, how do you predict the future? I suggest we observe the Finns as they go onto this new technology. Most of us are already familiar with the spread of Internet and its importance. I do not have to dwell into it. We are all aware that the stock markets in the United States and also in Singapore are paying high premiums for companies engaging in Internet e-commerce, in particular, business-to-consumer e-commerce. What is not so obvious is the changing landscape of employment brought about by Internet. With Internet, individuals are able to sell their service directly to the consumer in the global market. There is less need for intermediaries like companies to provide employment. In fact, there is no barrier in the new Internet market such as national borders. For instance, India is already exporting its software services to the world via the Internet. Today, this export is worth close to US$2 billion and has been growing by more than 50% over the past several years. Other services are also available over the Internet. Jobs that are traditionally done in the home offices of corporations are being out-sourced to the suppliers with the best economic value-added regardless of time zone and location. For example, US companies and Japanese companies are engaging software professionals in Singapore via the Internet while Singapore companies are doing likewise in India and China. With Internet, the importance of companies and corporations as an employer will diminish over time. It is being replaced by the ascendancy of the individuals as agents working on contractual basis. The question is, if individuals can make a living from the world on the Internet, would they still feel an obligation to the society that nurtures and shelters them? In fact, the very concept of nation state might be an obsolete idea in the world of Internet. This is a very pertinent question as we try to build a society of active citizens. It is also a soul searching question that we must ask ourselves. Just as Singapore would like to migrate from labour-intensive industries to the knowledge-based economy as my good friend, Mr Ahmad Magad had elaborated earlier in his speech, the advent of Internet is bringing forth greater competition to our knowledge workers as large numbers of knowledge workers from countries like India, China and other European countries will become available on line. Yes, we are being squeezed on both sides, from the lower value skills side by cheaper countries, and also from the higher value side from more capable countries with more skilled workers. So, is the future a bleak one? Sir, I do not think so. I attended a seminar recently where Mr Lim Swee Say was the Guest of Honour. In his short speech, he said that the raw material of the knowledge-based industry in the future is bright ideas. I think he is right on the mark. The question is how to turn these bright ideas into goods and services which the world is prepared to pay for. In this, it is obvious that we have only one option and, that is, the education of our next generation. This topic has been touched on earlier by Dr Tan Boon Wan. The question that I have in mind is: is the education system we have put in place still appropriate? Should we change that education system? I would point out that there is a movement in the United States' institutes of higher learning such as the Stanford University to revert to core curriculum. This curriculum is not to prepare students for a specific job in a job market but to enable them to create their own jobs in the future when they come to the job market. And what is to be included in this core curriculum? In this respect, I find the views of Yotaro Kobayashi, Chairman of Fuji Xerox and Founder of Aspen Institute, Japan, as expressed in his article "Education, Knowledge and Wisdom" featured in Look Japan magazine, April 1999, quite interesting. He felt that Japan has specialised in economics and technology but as a developed country, the Japanese education system should be more balanced. Japan should evolve into the kind of society that other people can honestly say that it is exciting to be living there or that the Japanese are interesting to interact with. When one specialises in economics and technology, it is acceptable to learn through memorisation. But what is needed is an education that encourages people to form and hold their own opinions. Unless the Japanese become people with their own ideas and philosophies, the Japanese are not going to be interesting and exciting people. Unless the Japanese have their own ideas about how life should be lived, the Japanese will never truly be able to have dialogues with people from other countries. He concluded that the Japanese perhaps would have to study subjects like history. I think the wisdom in these words would be of relevance to Singapore as well. Coming to education, I am glad to note that the Government is putting the highest emphasis on education as evidenced by the fact that the Ministry of Education has the highest concentration of Minister and Ministers of State. It has put together many programmes of improvement in curriculum and facilities, teaching, training and recruitment. For instance, we are aware of the PRIME programme for the rebuilding and refurbishing of schools. The Ministry is allocating budget by providing one PC for every two students in our schools, one of the highest, if not, the highest ratio in the world. The Government also realises that IT will be the key technology that will ensure whether a nation would forge ahead in the future or not. The Government is taking all the right steps such as the formation of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and the establishment of IT infrastructure like cable network and broadband network like Singapore One. I think we have put all the pieces in place. As Dr Tan Boon Wan pointed out, the key thing is how to inculcate creativity in our young people. In the era of knowledge workers where creativity of people is a key focus of our education programme, it is absurd that the NCMP yesterday asserted in his speech that this Government is trying to stay in power by instilling fear in the people. He quoted extensively from one Ian Buruma that Singaporeans cannot think or are afraid to think for themselves as if Mr Buruma is an expert on how Singaporeans feel and think about our country. Perhaps, we should ask ourselves: who is this Mr Ian Buruma? I looked up the Internet and found out that Mr Buruma is a freelance author and journalist, one time Resident Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Times Review of Books. He is said to have very sharp critical faculties and is described as a critic par excellence. The NCMP presumably also did the same search and found this one critic whose opinions are in resonance with his own prejudices and he holds up the words of this critic as gospel truth. My regret is that he did not consider the opinions of the hundreds, if not, thousands of Singaporeans who participated actively in the various Feedback Unit dialogue sessions, surveys and also in the S21 discussions. May I remind the NCMP that Mr Buruma is a columnist who makes his living writing provocative articles. I do not think Mr Buruma has ever even managed a company, let alone a nation. Actually, we can get a measure of Mr Buruma and his biases from the title he gave to a review of the book The Singapore History - Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. And that title is "The man who would be king" to describe Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I think it is very provocative for Mr Buruma to do so. In this House, I think no one would agree that the word "King" can be used to describe a political leader like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a leader who, at the peak of his power, arranged for the transfer of that power to his successor, our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. And no one could deny that when the PAP holds absolute majority in Parliament for so many years that the democratic institutions in Singapore are left intact. So, may I suggest to the NCMP that Mr Buruma adopt a provocative stance to gain a higher profile - in fact, this is the way he makes a living - and the NCMP, in his desperation for some justification for support, swallows the story line, hook and sinker. In fact, I have a copy of the review here. I took it from the Internet and printed it. In fact, if you read through the review, you will discover that the NCMP's speech is, by and large, Mr Buruma's speech but in a different form. The NCMP talked about Mr Lee Kuan Yew preferring to rule by fear and popular support is not one of his style. And that very sentence is in this Buruma's review and I quote, "Courting popularity never was Lee's style. He preferred to be feared." Further down the article, you will find that - the NCMP also said so directly - in the concluding remark, for instance, the various biases, "To call that "Asian values" is an insult to the rest of Asia." It is in the same article and reproduced from the review written by Buruma. Also, the reference to the Memoirs of a Mendicant Professor could also be found in exactly the same article. In fact, in the scholarly circle, taking major extracts from other people's reviews or articles can be called plagiarism. So, it is regrettable that the NCMP does not have a fresh look and original ideas but to take someone else's articles, couch it and come to Parliament to put it out as his own ideas. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I have touched upon several trends with major impact on our nation in the next 10-20 years. The problems we face are difficult ones that require in-depth analysis and effective implementation of strategies. I am gratified that this Government is cognizant of the trends and is adjusting our policies to respond to it. And the new focus on the people to deal with the future that has already happened is the right way to do so. I am confident that under the able leadership of our Government, Singapore will continue to achieve its goals and to bring a better life to all Singaporeans. On this note, I would like to support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to thank the President for his Address to this House. Many of the points made in the President's Address are points which I, as a trade unionist, can identify with. Some of these points could even sound like issues which unionists raise with our employers. Examples of these are treating people as a valuable asset, developing and motivating them to reach their full potential, enabling them to contribute to their full potential, putting people first and take into account people issues when making decisions. As a unionist, I can only feel happy with the focus given to people in the President's Address. Two things that struck me most was a call for active citizenship and heartware. In the industrial relations language, active citizenship is participation and involvement. Heartware is emotional bonding by increasing commitment. For companies to be high performing enterprises, the involvement of all workers is necessary. The old divide between thinkers and doers is no longer relevant in the knowledge economy. All workers have to be thinkers. For Singapore as a nation to be a high performing economy, it is necessary to get the commitment and involvement of all citizens. Allow me to share some thoughts on this active citizenship and heartware. Active citizenship is more than a reaction to demands for a greater say in the matters of the State from some quarters of our society. A knowledge economy in the face of globalisation and increased commitment, coupled with technological and social changes, requires the active contribution of all players. I acknowledge that there is some form of consultation and involvement in Singapore through the Feedback Unit, grassroots organisations and the various committees formed like the Singapore 21, Manpower 21, IT 21 and so on. However, we must do more as there are many benefits from active citizenship. There is an educational value in active citizenship. Our citizens, by asking questions and getting answers from these questions as well as reacting to feedback, will learn more of the issues that affect them as citizens. By participating, the consent of citizens is gained together with their commitment for policies and actions that affect the country. We have to recognise that the abilities and outlooks of our citizens will differ. Some of us may not be academically bright. Some may be physically impaired. Others may not be interested in participating in political debate. Yet others may only want to work at grassroots level. Yet, they are all our citizens with rights and responsibilities. Leaders can also learn more about the feelings, concerns, aspirations and thinking of the people. By listening to citizens and taking their views seriously, the leadership will be harnessing the creativity and knowledge of all sectors of our population. Knowledge cannot be the monopoly of a few individuals. The collective contribution of many will result in better decisions. Another reason why I support active citizenship is that it allows for changes to take place in an orderly fashion. Drastic change is painful and can be avoided if change can be made gradually with the support of the people. Another important aspect of this participation is that it will result in improving the quality of lives. People will have a sense of fulfilment in so far that they can contribute ideas, suggestions and even criticisms to make a difference. It is empowerment. It is taking greater responsibility for matters affecting them. Active citizenship has to be taught and understood by all to yield maximum benefit. If not applied and understood well, it could affect our social cohesion. It would be spending more time and energy talking and quarrelling rather than moving forward. We must realise that active citizenship goes beyond politics and we will therefore have to build up institutions that can contribute towards active citizenship. These institutions should be membership based, people focused organisations, trade unions, cooperatives, voluntary welfare organisations and self-help groups. They will build up strong institutions for civil society and strengthen democractic institutions. Trade unions and cooperatives can contribute immensely towards achieving this vision of active citizenship and building up heartware. Trade unions promote workplace democracy. The ordinary worker can influence outcomes through his union. The President in his Address has acknowledged the contribution of unions. I am also glad that the Ministry of Manpower lists strengthening partnership as one of its important strategies for Manpower 21. Partnership can only be strengthened if partners are effective to play their part. Both employers and Government have acknowledged the role workers and their unions have played in helping Singapore get out of the economic crisis. An important aspect of heartware is keeping faith and building trust. It is therefore not only important to restore to workers the CPF cut as quickly as possible according to the ability of the economy to afford it, but also to take steps to strengthen unions and reward workers. The best reward the Government can give to workers is to ensure that there is not only full employment but there are good paying jobs for which workers are able and willing to take on. Unions can be supported by making it easier for them to organise workers and form unions. Employers should not go against unions' organising efforts. If they are not prepared to support unions openly, they should at least remain neutral without working against unions. Our current laws need to be reviewed for unions to organise workers based on the new evolving employment relationships of the knowledge economy which sometimes are different from the old industrial age definitions. Tripartism has been a positive factor in getting us out of the recession. It is one of our most competitive advantage. It should not be devalued. It should be built on. Employers should be actively encouraged to promote bipartism at the enterprise level to reinforce tripartism at the national level. Cooperatives are commercial organisations formed by citizens to address both commercial and social needs. During the last economic crisis, they played an important role in stabilising prices and helping the lower income. As we promote local enterprises, cooperatives should also benefit from the many schemes in place for small and medium sized enterprises. They have added value to the life of Singaporeans and they must therefore be supported to do more. In conclusion, I must emphasise that the role of the Government must be that of an enabler, for citizens to take more responsibilities for themselves and the State. Government must help institutions that can bring about active citizenship, and come out to be more tolerant of differing ideas and views. With this in place, the people of Singapore can thus be active citizens that can build upon our achievements. We must not deflect from the mission of giving our citizens a better life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has outlined the Government's initiatives, plans and programmes for our citizens in the new millennium. The Government has been careful and purposeful in forging a national consensus on the changes needed to improve the quality of life of Singaporeans in the years ahead. However, the Government cannot do it alone. It requires the support and participation of every Singaporean to achieve the goals envisioned for Singapore as we march onwards into the 21st century. Sir, it is fitting that the focus is on our people and their development. We have reached a stage of economic growth and development that our people no longer just look for material success. They are interested in where our society is heading, national and parochial issues affecting the neighbourhood and community, and relationships with other countries. Many are also spending time appreciating culture and the arts. With growing affluence, it is not surprising for people to reflect on the meaning, value and priorities of life and seeking peace and joy in the spiritual realm. Sir, yet we cannot afford to relax and be content with the status quo. We have to be proactive in responding to the challenges of a knowledge-based economy. With a small domestic market, our companies have to counter the threats and to seize whatever opportunities offered by globalisation and technological advancement to bring Singapore to the next level of economic development. With more intense competition, it would be an uphill task to attract more foreign investments and trade to Singapore. Creating new employment opportunities and enabling those already working to keep their jobs are areas that require the close attention and collaborative efforts of Government, employers, trade unions and individuals. Our ability to thrive and prosper in a knowledge-based economy lies in the skills, competencies, ingenuity and values possessed by our people. "Intellectual capital" and "weightless economy" relate to using talent and brain power to create wealth through creative design and innovation. We plan the long term by preparing and equipping our young to face the new competitive working and business environment with confidence and optimism. This is where our teachers and schools can make a significant contribution. Though the Ministry of Education does not think it necessary to make education compulsory, it is still important for us to send the right strong signals to all parents on the desirability of sending their children to school. We need to understand why some parents are depriving their children the opportunity for education and to take appropriate steps to correct the parents for the sake of their children. We must make every effort to ensure that all children receive proper education, otherwise our society will suffer the long-term economic and social repercussions if thousands of children each year do not attend or drop out from school. Singaporeans are living lives. This means Singaporeans have many more years to remain economically active. It is therefore essential that our schools lay a firm and strong foundation to imbibe the values and learning abilities to our children so that when they grow up they can become independent learners and go through life being able to look after themselves and their families. The GPC for Education is pleased with the initiative taken by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to fine-tune and improve the school ranking system. We wish to commend MOE for adopting the quality assurance approach, normally used in private sector organisations, in the School Excellence Model. This is another way to persuade schools not to concentrate only on academic results. It shows that the MOE is prepared to acknowledge efforts to cultivate values in schools. Schools are no longer penalised for any slip in ranking nor should they be afraid to admit students who are strong in non-academic subjects like sports, music and arts. If we want to achieve the Desired Outcomes of Education, it is only right that we focus on education as a whole and view the school as a system. Our teachers and schools have the confidence to assess their own performance and will work towards continuous improvements to achieve the targets they have set for themselves and for the students. I wish to support the ability-driven approach taken in education to tailor to the different needs of every child. Instruction should invariably take into account the child's individuality and his mental and physical development. Children develop at different rates in different areas and should always be treated as unique individuals. On the whole, about 80% of each cohort are able to adapt and cope with the standard curriculum requirements. As for the remaining 20% or roughly 8,000 students, we should pay close attention and devote needed resources to develop them into good and capable assets. It is important for us to strike a balance in the curriculum. Though science and technology are important, we should not neglect the other aspects like creativity, history, geography, literature, moral and civic education. Our students are generally strong in the contents of the syllabus but lack general knowledge. We should develop our students as well rounded individuals who are the pride of their families and country. There are overseas countries whose tendency is to overhaul and make the quantum leap in education with dramatic effect rather than introduce gradual incremental changes to improve and strengthen the education system. By overdoing this, there is the danger of doing irreparable harm to the education system. Once broken, it would take many years to make the education system right again. A generation of students would have lost out in the process. This, we should avoid in Singapore, as we make changes to our education system. Since our schools are provided with an integrated IT infrastructure and the school syllabuses use IT widely, we need to be mindful of the importance of character building and values education. We have to counter the adverse effect of IT on social interaction. We do not wish our children to be lacking in social skills or face difficulties in interpersonal human relationships. Computers can be fun, exciting and absorbing but doubts have been raised as to whether real learning takes place. We should avoid the pitfalls asserted by Clifford Stoll in his book, `Silicon Snake Oil'. Stoll wrote, and I quote: "Children love computer classes because they do not have to think for an hour, teachers love them because . they (do) not have to teach and parents love them because it (shows) their schools (are) high tech. But no learning happens."

Our children should be taught to master IT but not become its victims. Sir, I have been following the press reports on the controversies afflicting Chinese High School. It is sad and disappointing that the Board of Directors of the Chinese High School Association could not resolve their differences. It requires the Ministry to intervene by appointing the Committee of Management to take over the management of the school. The principal, teachers, parents, community and alumni association all have critical roles to play and significant contributions to make, acting in the larger interest of the school and the students. Some members of the public have criticised the MOE's stand against the involvement of students on the matter of the retirement of the principal. I wish to support the stand taken by the Ministry. It is amazing how some people can be misled into believing that because we want to develop thinking students, our 12 to 15 years old students should be allowed to involve themselves on staff matters. It is almost like suggesting that our young and impressionable students be allowed to join the picket line in employment disputes. Singaporeans must learn to draw the line between what can and cannot be allowed to be done. We must develop stronger mechanisms to involve the parents in the nurturing and development of their school-going children. More and more, we are seeing parents delegating and even relegating the responsibility of bringing up their children to the schools. School programmes involving parents on a regular basis should feature prominently in the school calendar of activities. Over time rapport and mutual understanding will develop, and our children will be happy enjoying the warmth and affection both at home and in school. Our students will learn and behave better in this favourable psychological environment. It is no doubt that our school children have never had it so good. An area that now needs addressing is the continuing education of working and job-seeking adults who left school many years ago. We should revive the active programme of adult education and continuing education. Though employers and companies should train and develop their employees, many adults should be encouraged to learn on their own. We should increase substantially the number of places in the continuing education programmes of our universities and polytechnics offering degree and diploma courses on a part-time basis. Access to educational opportunities for adults holds the key if we are to develop a learning culture in Singapore. National resources devoted to constantly improving the performance and competencies of our people will bring immeasurable benefits to the individuals, families and the country as a whole. I hope the Government will provide more funding, facilities and teaching resources on continuing education programmes for our adult population. As our people grow and mature, Singapore will be well on its way to become a more gracious and compassionate society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. As we move into the new millennium, it is apt that we should develop a vision for Singapore that focuses on developing our people. For the past 34 years, we have focused our resources ostensibly more on the development of the physical infrastructure. We have built up one of the finest road systems, ports, airports, housing estates, and information technology infrastructure, to name a few. Indeed, any foreigner coming to Singapore will not fail to notice the tremendous progress that this country has made since independence. Once the house is put in order, one would suppose the more challenging issue is how do we turn this house into a home. For us in Parliament, I believe our bigger challenge in the new millennium is to build a greater sense of belonging and of being rooted amongst Singaporeans for Singapore. As indeed we begin to ask this question, the starting point I believe for the discussion lies in the question of how we strengthen the sense of belonging to this place. The key really lies in the strengthening of community bonds. For this reason, we understand that the Singapore 21 vision is meant to develop our people into a more cohesive society for the future. One can possibly redefine the strategy into two broad areas. The first is a focus on the individual Singaporean, and the second being, the Singaporean as a member of a wider community. I believe that the outcome of our work in these two areas will to some extent have an impact on the people's sense of being rooted in and belonging to Singapore. The Singaporean as an individual It is heartening to know that our Government is not sparing any effort in preparing the next generation of Singaporeans for the knowledge-based economy. Towards this end, I note the Education Ministry is adopting a new approach in education that is ability driven and tailored to the needs of every child. It is also heartening to note that the Government is trying to redefine the meaning of success to include a wider range of skills such as the arts and sports. We all know that every child is created differently. Some are more artistically inclined while others are more at home with scientific research and mathematical calculations. It is unfortunate that in the early days of our development, we had no choice but to place a high priority and a premium on those skills that are better able to help us contribute to the development of our economy. Accordingly, we had to produce the engineers, the scientists and the bureaucrats to meet the needs of our country. The arts and the sports, in the order of things, were given relatively less emphasis. Those with abilities in the arts and the sports may not have been given as much recognition as they deserve. As a consequence, we have either lost these sons and daughters to faraway places or we have not provided a conducive environment for them to develop their talents further. Hopefully, with the new emphasis, we should be able to address the difference in recognition. Those who are artistically inclined and those with sporting talents can now have much hope in getting their hard work and success more widely recognised. Sir, my question is, if we want to recognise the potential value of every Singaporean and want to encourage them to develop every talent that they have further, we should not just confine our recognition of success to just academic achievements, the sports and the arts. The issue in this is not whether we should widen the scope of success to recognise such skills, but rather in extending our recognition of what constitutes success, are we encouraging Singaporeans to constantly devote themselves to their interests and undertakings in order to excel in what they do. Sir, excellence is a relative term and must be seen in the context of what is achieved. For example, in our new definition of success, do we give recognition to the handicapped child who surmounted his handicap to complete his education in a normal manner, even though his academic achievements may not be as remarkable as the top achiever? By all accounts, one would surely not deny the child's efforts are an enduring testimony of endeavour and courage. And for this reason, it should be sufficient for our purposes to qualify the child to be held up as a model of excellence and success. Secondly, as part of the people development programme, we recognise that we must go beyond using knowledge created by others by creating new knowledge ourselves. This approach has deep implication in the way our society develops. To create new knowledge, one must expect Singaporeans to be inquisitive and creative. To be creative and to expand the frontier of knowledge, one must be prepared to question basic assumptions and, if need be, to slaughter some sacred cows. It is only by being able to accept changes to our basic assumptions that society can find progress. As we progress to the new millennium, we must be prepared to move away from our mindset and be prepared to change and perhaps give up some of our own values. The values that have served us well may not necessarily be the same values that will serve our interests for the future. The question is, are we prepared to change with time, and change more radically, if necessary? Thirdly, it is right that we should speak of lifelong learning and of continual training of our workers to prepare them for the demands of changing technology in the new millennium. Continual training will constantly upgrade our workers' productivity and skills and, in turn, allow them to earn a higher margin of wages and improve their quality and standard of living. As we restructure our economy by emphasising on higher valued-added products in manufacturing and services, it is important that our workers continue to be retrained and re-tooled themselves to prepare them for the challenges ahead. The process of training and retraining is especially important for workers who have been retrenched in the industry. For those who have been retrenched, we send them for courses and training in order that they, after having found new skills, can then be re-employed in the industry, thus allowing them the opportunity to continue with their work. Unfortunately, Sir, for many of these older workers, a lack of skills that is solved by education and training, is only part of the problem. For many, their age and the relatively higher salary that they command make them unemployable. What can we do to ensure that these workers who have gone for training are given employment? At this moment, we recognise that there is some tension between leaving employment entirely to market forces and having employment regulated to a greater extent by legislation. The truth of the matter is that there are many older workers who have been retrenched, and having spent time acquiring new skills, are still having difficulty finding jobs. Will the Government be prepared to consider, aside from the present scheme of helping them find jobs through an exchange run by the Manpower Ministry, more initiatives in getting these retrenched older workers back to the workforce? The Singaporean as a member of a wider community The President's Speech touches on the fact that it is not enough for Singaporeans to be individually talented. Our drive towards making Singapore a better society depends very much on getting Singaporeans to vote together and having a common sense of commitment to Singapore and to one another. Here we speak of the Singapore "heartware". We recognise that social bonding and cohesion is an essential ingredient for the long-term survival of Singapore. In order for Singaporeans to have one heartbeat for Singapore, it is important that we continue to emphasise to all Singaporeans that they, irrespective of colour, creed, age or gender, will always have a place in this country. Our policy statements must therefore be sensitive to not creating artificial distinctions within society that unnecessarily stratify people according to categories. We divide people into the Normal and Express stream students, the gifted and non-gifted students, the EM1 and EM2 students, the overseas scholars and local scholars; or for that matter, the scholar class as opposed to the non-scholar class; and more recently, the distinction between foreign talents and local talents, and, of course, the cosmopolitans and the heartlanders. If one thinks about it, it is essentially these categories of distinction that divide people into being more capable as opposed to being less capable. How will this division, Sir, help with the bonding process that we are all trying so hard to create? While the reality of inequality in life is a fact that we must all recognise and live with, it is another to be typecast and to be constantly told, whether directly or indirectly, that one is less capable than the other. I can understand and appreciate the circumstances in which these distinctions have emerged. However, we must be mindful that in harping on this subject, we may lead to a situation of a deep divide within our society. This would surely put a strain on our social cohesion rather than reinforce it. We should perhaps give more emphasis to the principle that for those who are more capable, the rewards will be there for them, and more is expected of them to serve our society. For those who are not as capable, they will always be a part of Singapore, and be made to feel that they are just as wanted and appreciated for what they have contributed towards the making of this country. Here, I like the idea that we should have more emphasis on bonding between the successful Singaporeans and those who have not done as well. We must not envy or begrudge those who have succeeded. However, every Singaporean has a given right to share in the country's success. Equally, those who contribute more on taxes must not begrudge the various schemes aimed at improving the lot of the not so fortunate. After all, we must remember that it is our duty to look after the less fortunate in our society. Sir, we speak of an active citizenship under the Singapore 21 vision that envisages more avenues for citizens to participate in the nation's affairs, in order to tap on the widest range of views. My colleague, Mr Thomas, has also touched on this issue earlier. We want to be able to get citizens to participate in the building of Singapore, and to get them to contribute ideas so that they can understand what is at stake. In law, we have this maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. This principle applies equally well in our desire to want participation of our people in the policy-making process. We have the Feedback Unit and the regular dialogue sessions with our grassroots leaders. Many people have often wondered how much of the feedback that is given has been taken into consideration in the formulation of policies. No doubt, there is certain feedback which has translated itself into changes in policies and legislation. On the other hand, there has also been numerous feedback that has been perceived to have been ignored. Perhaps more can be done in this regard to convince the people that their views are taken seriously. As a simple illustration, there are many Bills in this Parliament that have been passed which have had the participation of many concerned Members. Yet, despite the input of the Members, the Bills nonetheless are immediately passed after the Second Reading. In some cases, we have had assurances from the Government that subsequent amendments to the Act will take into account the feedback. However, in some other cases, it did not appear that the feedback was taken seriously. Our focus on the development of people in this debate touches on the issue of the kind of civil society we want to create in Singapore. My learned colleague, the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, has asked pertinent questions in this debate. He asked whether the people of Singapore are prepared to take responsibility for their decisions and how the Government can send clear signals on the terms of participation from the citizens. Sir, there are many forces at work in society. While some may like to argue for more political space within Singapore, I agree with my colleague that others may not feel as comfortable for the kind of space that is asked for, and we would be quite happy with the status quo. To those who clamour for Singapore to be a better civil society, there is a certain presumption that this is what the rest of Singaporeans want. The truth of the matter is that your HDB heartlander may not be so interested in these issues so long as the integrity of the Government of Singapore is not in doubt and the people continue to enjoy a standard and quality of life that is unparalleled anywhere in the world. What makes this vocal minority think that they have a better right to impose their views on the silent majority? We must recognise that the responsibility of the Government rests in balancing the various forces at work. We must also remember that a duly elected government has the mandate of the people to do so. Sir, we accept that it is not always possible for the Government to agree to every issue. However, where there is indeed a constructive attempt being made to improve legislation or policies, the Government must be seen to be taking this effort more seriously. Finally, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to the President for delivering the keynote Speech of the Government. No doubt, the Speech is meant to chart the course of the Government in the coming years. It has also provided us a valuable opportunity to take stock of where we are coming from and where we are heading. For the above reasons, Sir, I support the motion.

Clarification with the Member. In his speech he mentioned that civil society may not be desirable for HDB heartlanders and the Government has a duty to balance their interests. I would like to know from him, in his view, how does civil society, as implied in his speech, come in conflict with the interest of HDB heartlanders, if the Government decides that civil society is desirable.

I think central to the debate on civil society is a certain perception that a civil society must entail certain values. These values are to some extent a reflection of the kind of values that is often associated with the more liberal society of the West; where there is greater freedom of speech, greater civic participation, and a more liberal media. These are the sorts of issues that one would normally associate with a civil society. Having said that, and this is consistent with the kind of debate that has emerged in recent months, the sort of ideas that go into a debate for civil society need not necessarily dovetail with the kind of interests that the HDB heartlanders may have. And to that extent, therefore, it may not necessarily be the same kind of agenda that the two interest groups are pursuing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion and wish to express my thanks to the President for his Speech. I have come across many Singaporeans who, like Mr Chiam See Tong, think that the President's Speech does not contain anything new in terms of the Government's visions and policies for the future. Personally, I do not expect anything new nor do I think there should be one. Indeed, the economic crisis has served to adequately remind us that our current policies with regard to managing the economy, responsiveness to changes, openness and transparency of information, being pragmatic and ready to take the pain and involving our best and brightest, both in the Government and private sector, remain relevant now and in the future. Perhaps what is quite less understood by many Singaporeans is the fact that the changes made to the banking and financial sector, recommendations contained in the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness and policy on foreign talent, are by any measure a major transformation and reformation of our economy and society. The fact that this was implemented without any accompanying violent protest and political instability that have rocked our neighbours does not make it less exciting or significant. Many have lost their jobs, suffered wage and CPF cuts. Small and medium enterprises continue to face severe challenges posed by a variety of global pressures. Perhaps one visible aspect during the economic crisis has been the important role the private sector has played in tandem with the Government through the various committees to draw up plans to get us out of this crisis. To the Singaporeans at large, they have witnessed how collective efforts of both the Government and private sector have brought about the desired results during one of the most serious crisis experienced by Singaporeans. On this note, Sir, allow me to respond to the two main issues that were discussed, ie, active citizenship and social cohesion. It is a great day for me as a member of civil society to listen to Members of the House speaking in support of active citizenship. This alone demonstrates how far we have progressed in terms of developing an active people sector. This is a strong endorsement to the many people working in civil societies. Let me remind the House that civil society is not a western concept. However, there remain many challenges to overcome and I would like to highlight a few of them: One is changing mindset. In the past, it is quite common to hear of civil societies being categorised into social workers and armchair critics and social commentators who are frequently challenged for the lack of involvement in social and charitable activities. It is as if one must be involved in charitable activities before being considered as doing something for society. While it is clear that the ultimate objective is for the best and ablest in the society to help the less able through volunteerism, members of civil society are usually initially driven at least by enthusiasm, passion, spontaneity and idealism. Quite often, it starts with them articulating their views as many feel the need to contribute in terms of ideas and feedback. The more accessible communication channels today make it more convenient for many to make their first start by contributing ideas. The more involved and committed - perhaps prompted into action - would then participate as members of the various organisations that best suit them. Therefore, there is a need to change the mindset and to view these people, not as irritating commentators to policy makers, but perhaps as a growing and untapped pool of young idealistic citizens who can play a part in our common goal to help improve society. To help change this mindset, we can do a number of simple things: (1) have civil servants, employees of statutory boards and Government corporations to be more involved in civil society so that they can have a better appreciation of civil society and perhaps become civil society's active citizens themselves. Quite frequently, the problems of civil societies are at the operational level - with the bureaucracy; (2) have Government agencies involving relevant civil societies to participate in the various activities and to be invited to some of the relevant functions organised. Of course, civil societies too must reciprocate but here the common complaint is usually the unenthusiastic response from Government agencies; (3) civil societies themselves should start by not excluding other organisations like the CDCs and self-help groups and many other agencies as not being part of the larger family of civil society. We should not differentiate the Government sponsored civil society and independent groups as, ultimately, they both serve a common goal for our society; and (4) Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam talked about the fear that Singaporeans have in involving themselves in debate and public discussions. First, it must be clear to anyone intending to venture into public discussions to be prepared to be intellectually challenged, even robustly. This is to be expected. However, I do sense that some of the replies from the Government may be a bit too personal which may tend to discourage public discussion. Having said that, I would say that being thick-skinned must certainly be one of the necessary prerequisites of anyone intending to engage in public debate. For those who feel personally slighted or rebuked, I have this to say to them, "Don't Quit" because this country was not built by quitters. Next, is for the Government agencies to use the strength and not weaknesses of civil societies. Quite often, civil societies are bogged down by fund-raising activities. Lack of financial and administrative resources are common complaints of civil societies. This is where greater collaboration between Government agencies and civil society can be more effective to tap their enthusiasm, commitment, network and not rely on their weaknesses for fund raising. Third, globalisation. Like anything else, civil societies too are affected by internationalisation and globalisation. Their values on society and environment, for example, are no longer domestic or national issues. It transcends geographical boundaries. Increasingly, civil societies will find more things in common with civil societies in other countries. There will be greater need for joint collaboration and mutual assistance. This is where civil societies in Singapore are sometimes unnecessarily disadvantaged as many exercise self restraint in obtaining assistance of financial help from other institutions overseas as they may be perceived to be promoting a foreign agenda or, worse still, become elements of other undesirable organisations. We need to recognise that working with foreign organisations is going to be part and parcel of a larger civil society as we become part of a global family. Therefore, we must not only be prepared to learn from others but also become active contributors ourselves to other causes in the region. On this note, I would like to respond to the very encouraging gestures that Simon Tay and I would like to undertake a study on "Civil Society in 21st Century Singapore". This, in our view, is an indication of how civil society can proceed and progress beyond discussion and debate. The report would address on the potential contribution and personal limitation and challenges facing Singapore's young civil society. The issues that our report would address include the registration of societies, limits on speech, assembly and association, especially in public, and the role of private foundations and Government agencies in supporting civil society organisations. The report would also look at civil society in Singapore in a broader regional and international context. I would now like to quote from Judith Shklar an extract from the National Standards for Civics and Government: "Active citizens . are public meeting-goers and joiners of voluntary organisations who discuss and deliberate with others about the policies that will affect them and who serve their country not only as taxpayers and occasional soldiers, but by having a considered notion of the public good that they genuinely take to heart. The good citizen is a patriot." Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to touch on another issue of social cohesion. I am prompted today to include these two issues in view of the recent incident which in my view demonstrates the fragility of a social cohesion and that each and every Singaporean has a part to play to preserve and enhance social cohesion. At the recent Mendaki-MUIS Tea Party to congratulate Malay-Muslim graduates from higher institutions last week, I was seated with four young Malay graduates, whom I later discovered, two of whom will be going for further education overseas. I was delighted to find out that all four of them told me their families no longer depend on them for financial contribution. This demonstrates how far sections of the Malay-Muslim society have progressed. However, when I asked them what would be the most difficult problem they would face when they enter working life, they remarked that the perception others have of them would be the greatest obstacle they would face and they expressed concern that they may not be given equal opportunities by employers. If the best and ablest of our society and those who have profited and benefited from our system feel pessimistic, I wonder how less successful Malay-Muslims feel. On another occasion, as a member of the Work Group on KBE, initiated by the Malay PAP MPs, we met two groups of bankers separately: one, Malay-Muslim workers in the financial sector and, two, representatives of major banks who coincidentally are all Chinese. Our discussions revealed wide differences of perceptions one has of the other. These are no small matters which cannot be resolved overnight but efforts must be taken quickly as part of a long and permanent process of bridging these perceptions. For a start, I have asked these bankers whether they are prepared to help Malay-Muslims in the financial sector to improve and upgrade themselves as the community is short of skilled expertise and resources to face the challenges of KBE. They are quite happy to help knowing that their efforts will go a long way towards bridging these perceptions. I must thank them for their willingness. On the other hand, Malay-Muslims too need to be more relevant on national and international issues and be more actively involved in the various social community organisations outside the Malay-Muslim community. Malay values of gotong-royong must be extended to include other Singaporeans. I personally know of many organisations who are desperately looking for Malay-Muslim members. Malay-Muslims must and need to respond to this. Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of Malays in the SAF which was touched upon by the Member for Cheng San. First, let me say that the Senior Minister's comments came from his personal experience. More significantly, our geography makes this issue a relevant and permanent one. In my view, the reaction of the community is good because it indicates that Malays care about what other Singaporeans think of them. It would be worse if Malays have not responded. Perhaps the only way to change perception is for Malays themselves, especially those in the SAF, to continue to demonstrate their commitment through working with other Singaporeans, earning mutual respect and trust of fellow soldiers and Singaporeans. Beyond rhetoric, we need to demonstrate good deeds. But I must caution that it would be unwise for anyone to think that this can be solved through one dialogue session. Anyone is free to write and speak on this issue provided racial sensitivities are not breached. While Malay leaders like Encik Othman Wok and Encik Rahmat Kenap have earned the trust and confidence of the Senior Minister, I am sure there are many other younger Malays deserving of such an association. Hopefully, over time, many more will be identified. Because only then can perception change.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.41 pm until 3.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a young nation with limited natural resources, Singapore has done well to position itself to be a world-class city in the world. Over the last 34 years, the Singapore Government has, through careful planning and prudent use of public funds, developed Singapore into a modern city with excellent infrastructure and amenities. Today, Singaporeans live in high quality housing, a clean and green environment and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. Singapore has also made its mark of excellence in the global market. We are known in the world for our airline, SIA; our seaport, PSA; our public housing programme, HDB; and our clean and green environment. We have successfully built a positive corporate image for Singapore. Today, many people are aware of the existence of Singapore. They know where Singapore is and what is Singapore like. But not many people understand Singaporeans or know what is a Singaporean. We have yet to develop a "brand name" for Singaporeans. Instead, some foreigners have negative perceptions of Singaporeans such as Singaporeans are not allowed to chew chewing gum in Singapore; Singaporeans are fined for not flushing toilets; Singaporeans are caned or jailed for any wrongdoing. These perceptions always cause embarrassment to many Singaporeans when they meet up with their foreign friends. We have read in the papers about the ugly Singaporean or the kiasu Singaporeans who misbehave themselves and project a bad image for Singaporeans especially when they travel overseas. If such behaviours were to propagate, we would be embarrassed to be called Singaporeans. Thus, there is an urgent need to erase these negative images of Singaporeans and take action to develop a Singaporean identity. We must nurture Singaporeans to be caring and considerate citizens of the world. More efforts should be channelled to inject meaning into the lives of Singaporeans. Singaporeans must learn to be more "human" in a fast-changing and materialistic world. We must live life to make a difference to other people's life and that is our ultimate goal of living. Sir, I support the President's call for the Government to focus on people. This is a timely call for all Government departments to pay more attention to Singaporeans. Singaporeans need more attention and listening ears. Today, if you make a call to any Government department, you will most likely be speaking to a voice-mail system. In our drive to achieve higher productivity and save manpower, we have sometimes lost the human touch in our public services. Many Singaporeans are still not familiar or comfortable to use the voice-mail system, and thus are deprived of such public services. Sir, I strongly support the use of technology to increase efficiency and productivity but technology should bring the public sector closer to Singaporeans instead of alienating them. Although the public sector should take the lead, we must also understand the pace of change acceptable to the masses. We must synchronise the use of technology to meet the needs of Singaporeans. In this way, the public sector will have a closer rapport with the general public and would be able to serve them better. Another concern which I would like to raise is the issue of heartlanders and cosmopolitans. I believe that all Singaporeans should aim to be heartlanders and cosmopolitans. We must upgrade and maximise our potentials to be a global knowledge worker or entrepreneur and, at the same time, our hearts must be with Singapore. Singaporeans must strive to be global players, be they contractors, food court operators, entrepreneurs, professionals or service providers. Every Singaporean stands a chance to be a global player if he or she strives to achieve his or her best. The Government must play a more creative and proactive role to facilitate and provide opportunities for Singaporeans to achieve this goal. Sir, if we want to achieve "One people, one nation and one Singapore", I agree with my colleague, Mr Sin Boon Ann, that we must not classify or segment Singaporeans. This will create cracks in our society, thus hindering our efforts to strengthen community bond and nationhood. We must set realistic goals and hopes to motivate Singaporeans to achieve greater heights in their lives. Sir, the S21 report has set out useful directions to guide Singaporeans into the next millennium. I would like to highlight one of its key pillars, namely, "Strong families: our foundation and our future." The need to develop strong families must not be understated. Strong families are the foundation for healthy lives and wholesome communities. Every Singaporean must make every effort to keep our family strong and healthy. Strong families will provide the impetus to build a cohesive society and nation. In today's fast-paced society, families are at risk of disintegration. Our home ownership scheme has unintentionally resulted in the rapid nuclearisation of families in Singapore. This coupled with the HDB flat allocation system has caused many families to be located all over Singapore. As a result, many Singaporeans are living away from their parents, thus making it less convenient to visit their parents frequently. Family contact time has reduced drastically over the years, thus threatening family bonds. This situation will gradually erode family ties, especially among siblings and younger families. Without strong family support, Singaporeans will find it difficult to cope with the complexity of urban living in the next century. Consequently, some may seek greener pastures elsewhere resulting in a brain drain phenomenon. Sir, I recently spoke to a young Singaporean who just graduated from the United States. I asked him why he returned to Singapore despite the abundance of opportunities and excitement in the United States. His answer is simple. It is because of his family. His parents are migrants from China who have spent their lives making a living in Singapore. They have experienced hardship and seen the transformation of Singapore from poverty to its present state. They are true heartlanders of Singapore who have faith in our Government and believe that their children will have a bright future in Singapore. They have a strong sense of belonging to Singapore and make concerted efforts to encourage their children to return home. Sir, I am not sure whether this young man's generation will have the same sense of belonging to Singapore as his parents. Will younger generations of Singaporeans encourage their children to stay in Singapore? We need to address this issue of rootedness of younger Singaporeans. We must help Singaporeans to develop pride to be Singaporeans and live in Singapore with their families. Sir, Singapore strives to be a world-class economy and a world-class home. We must also strive to be a world-class people. This is a challenge for both the Government and Singaporeans in the next century. Sir, I support the motion.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the motion moved by the Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh, Mr Davinder Singh. Before I proceed, allow me to touch on a newspaper article which somehow or rather belittles the Opening of the Second Session of Parliament which was full of Parliamentary tradition. I believe that each one of us has his own weaknesses but what is important is the content of our speech. We depend heavily on journalists to assist in educating and conveying the intent of our speeches for the information of the general public. We hope that this can be done. Mr Speaker, coming back to the Presidential Speech, I fully support the decision to make people the focus of Government policy. Of course, there are cynics who criticise this effort. In fact, the voices of these cynics is a great concern of mine because it is a sign that shows that our society is still far from its aim of becoming a dynamic society that does not focus on material wealth and where there are children who would no longer remember the deeds of their parents who have brought them up. They would drive away the parents from the homes or abandon them without a place of shelter. If this trend continues, we will have a society that would not know the meaning of responsibility and a society that would forget its origins. So I hope the values of courtesy should be the emphasis of our education in schools right from primary to university levels. When we look at the concept of active citizenship, which is the idea of encouraging every citizen to shape his future, it is a new phase for giving him a stake in the future, as mentioned by the President in his Speech. Lately, and in recent years, the Government has introduced various programmes to enable every citizen to share in the prosperity of Singapore. For example, the share ownership schemes, the CPF top-up scheme and the Medisave top-up scheme. These are efforts to give Singaporeans a stake in a concrete form that they can see. But if Singaporeans only see the stake in material terms, I think it is a matter of concern for us, compared with the policy of active citizenship. It would be more meaningful if every citizen is invited to share in determining our future. We are all asked to offer our points of view as best as we can to make the Singapore 21 Vision a success. Another point I would like to touch on is the wider definition of success which does not only involve success in academic terms but also in sports and the arts. I welcome this change of mindset, because it will allow us not only to be a prosperous nation but also a gracious nation that we hope for. However, no matter how prosperous a country is, we cannot deny the presence of certain people who are not able to share in the prosperity. There will always be those who are left out and those who struggle to keep up. So, I would encourage all Singaporeans to practise the concept of life-long learning. We know of the difficulties of the workers, especially those 40 years and above, and who have secondary or lower education, to undergo lessons to upgrade themselves. We can perhaps reduce the burden of these workers if we can provide classless learning facilities, ie, capitalise fully the potential of radio and television. For example, not a long time ago, the Malay radio station had a special programme for the teaching of English, which was conducted by Asmah Laili. If we can adjust this to the needs of today and combine it with the national certification programme, it would enable mothers and also fathers to listen to the radio. By having such radio programmes in all the languages we could have English lessons suited to the needs of today, such as Business English or Cyber English, which would explain the terminology in the Internet world. Wafer fab English, for instance, will explain the terms used in the sector. We can also widen this effort through television. These educational programmes, of course, will not have popular ratings similar to entertainment programmes, but I believe that rating is not the only reason why we have radio and television. The life-long learning culture depends on the effort of individual citizens. They are the main factors, whether they would be able to continue their education or not. But I think there is no loss for the mass media to provide this facility and to ensure that we will provide this facility in full. We are also faced with the problem of drop-outs who are unable to study or who have been trapped in unhealthy activities. I am of the view that if these students are placed in a special school which provides only sports and athletic activities as well as the arts, it would enable them to gain excellence in the fields that they are interested in, apart from providing English, Mathematics and mother tongue lessons for their academic needs. Perhaps from this, we can produce sportsmen or artists who can do Singapore proud. And if these drop-outs are not monitored, they will be a problem to us later on, as we try to achieve the Singapore 21 vision. In conclusion, the Malay Muslims are taught the teachings of Islam which say, to love our nation is part of the faith. From Malay sayings, the Malays are called to be loyal to the land where they live, and remember that the grass may be greener on the other side but it is still better here. So, if there are any speeches that question the loyalty of the Malay Muslims, it must be thought out rationally and not emotionally. We must look at our situation. We should not react angrily. We are taught to be patient. Patience is part of our faith. And there might be wisdom in what has been said. There is also evidence that maybe there are some among us who are more loyal to another country or who deride the leadership of a country. A bad apple may spoil the whole basket and it is therefore our duty to prove our loyalty to our country. I believe that this loyalty and love for the nation will be proven in due course, and the world would be a better place if we work together towards it.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh. Sir, the President in his Address to open the Second Session of this Parliament had highlighted Government's efforts to promote life-long learning and to enhance our people's skills and capability under the Manpower 21 plan. Several hon. Members have also spoken in support of the Manpower 21 plan. I thank them for their endorsement and support for the initiatives contained in the Manpower 21 Report. Yesterday, Mr Lim Boon Heng, speaking about the employee share option scheme, urged caution on our companies to adopt such an approach of rewarding their employees. I think he made a valid point. We should proceed with care when adopting such new ideas. He said that one should be wary of adopting new ideas that appear to be great but their consequences are not fully known. I agree with that approach. But there are other ideas which, although new and novel, are self-evidently relevant and applicable to our situation, and we should be prepared to adopt them immediately and wholeheartedly. I will give you an example, Sir. The latest issue of Business Week (18th October) contained a special report entitled "Learning to Lead". It described how an energy company in the US, Conoco Inc, coped with a 1998 downturn in oil price and surplus capacity within the company. The usual approach in such a situation, when your product price is going down, would have been to cut spending and to close plants, which would mean retrenching some workers. Instead, the CEO made an unusual decision. He decided to make a major investment in the company's managers. He approved a new comprehensive leadership-development programme for his senior executives. The CEO explained, "Even though oil was at $10, it was the right decision. You're going to be successful in the long term if you have good people". That was why in the worst of times, Conoco was still investing in training its people to provide good leadership, so that the company can weather the crisis and emerge more competitive and more successful. Conoco was not alone in taking this approach. According to the same Business Week report, and I quote, "Corporate America has concluded that investing in people is the way ahead." Sir, this is one idea that we must adopt and embrace wholeheartedly, and apply as soon as we can. And this, in fact, is what M21 is all about. It sets out a strategy or blueprint, if you like it, for Government and employers to invest in our people as a means for Singapore to stay ahead. It provides a framework for all Singaporean workers to upgrade their skills, knowledge and capabilities so as to stay relevant and to remain employable. Sir, the recent economic recession, though rather brief, was a timely reminder of our vulnerability. It shows how easily tens of thousands of Singaporean workers can be made redundant. Now that the crisis is largely over and the Singapore economy seems to be well on the road to recovery, it is indeed timely for us to reassess our situation. We can sit back and simply ride this wave of recovery by doing, more or less, the same, doing what we have been doing before the crisis itself. It is the easiest way out. It is the course of least resistance. But the danger of taking this approach, this pathway of least resistance, is that with increasing globalization, we would be exposed to increasing competition and, over time, our economic space will shrink. We have to seek out new opportunities and adopt a new paradigm for growth and prosperity. So, what we should do is to use this recent experience to plan for the future. Of course, we cannot precisely determine what the future will hold for us, but we can safely assume that the 1998 recession would not be the last nor would it be the worst. Sir, in the pre-crisis days, economic growth resulted in the creation of as many as 120,000 new jobs a year. Singaporeans were, in fact, spoilt for choice. Companies rushed to carry out "green-harvesting" exercises. University graduates were offered jobs before they actually graduated. Production workers could quit a job and walk down the street to another factory and find another job with a $50 pay increase. In fact, many jobs had to be filled by foreign workers, due to a sheer shortage of Singaporeans. In some areas, it was a shortage of suitably skilled and qualified workers; but in many other areas, it was a shortage of workers who were willing to take on the less attractive and less pleasant jobs. In the post-crisis days, as the economy recovers, we cannot expect the labour market to return to the conditions prevailing in 1995 to 1997. If our GDP grows at the target rate of about 5% a year, and at least half of this growth comes from productivity gains, the balance will have to come from an expansion of labour supply, to yield a net job creation of around 60,000 jobs a year. This means that we must be prepared for a lower level of job creation, even as the economy recovers and settles to its long-term growth rate of between 4-6%. We will have to ask ourselves what are the jobs which will support sustainable economic growth over the longer term. As we move towards a knowledge-based economy, the jobs are likely to be transformed into knowledge intensive jobs. What this means is that while industries will need fewer people, these workers will be of much higher calibre, higher skilled, able to perform more valuable jobs and earn higher wages. Singaporeans must begin to prepare for these changes now. What would be the developments affecting jobs in the future? We think there are three developments that we must look out and be prepared for. These developments will form the backdrop and provide the challenges for us in implementing Manpower 21. IT/Technology Based Workplace Environment Sir, the first is the technology-based workplace environment. There is no question that technology will reshape not only the electronic and manufacturing based industries. Every other industry and business will be affected by the use of technology. Information technology and e-commerce are just examples of how technology has been applied to improve business efficiency and customer reach. For example, information technology is progressively being applied in sectors such as retail, banking and insurance to dramatically expand the delivery channels and the reach towards new customers, and, of course, also to improve the service to their customers. In education, the intranet and the Internet provide opportunity to apply new learning methods which can bring a whole host of education materials to the fingertips of students. Retail staff, bank staff, insurance salesmen, as well as teachers, will all need to be prepared for such changes. Increasingly, our workers have to be IT savvy, attuned to the latest technology and comfortable with the demands of the new jobs which are being created. Even in traditional fields such as construction, the use of technology will result in sizeable improvements in productivity and reduction in the need for low skilled foreign construction workers. Next week, my Ministry will launch the Construction 21 Report and announce new measures to transform the construction industry. While our new school leavers and graduates of polytechnics and universities will be well prepared for these changes and demands of new jobs, we must not forget the older workers who may not have the same skills and are in many cases hampered by their lower education. The concept of "lifelong learning" put up by the Manpower 21 Committee is designed to help mature workers learn new skills to help them to keep up with the changing job requirements. While younger entrants to the workforce will be better equipped, their stock of knowledge and skills will also get outdated in the face of technological progress. So even today's well educated younger Singaporeans must adopt a new mindset and embrace lifelong learning so as to stay employable. New Growth Industries The second major development is the accelerated pace of rise and fall of companies and industries. This is the result of the unprecedented pace of technological advances and applications. To succeed and remain profitable, companies are constantly seeking new products and new services. They are always looking out for better, more productive and lower cost opportunities. Those which cannot keep up with the pace of change will soon find themselves shut out of the market. In response to this trend, restructuring will become part and parcel of business growth and survival. When companies reorganize to concentrate on their core activities or to venture into new areas, very frequently, there will be employment disruption and, in some cases, retrenchment of surplus staff. So while the demand for a people with knowledge and capabilities in growth areas will increase, other workers may well find that their skills are no longer needed. There will be a shrinking demand for their skills. For example, since 1992, the manufacturing share of employment in Singapore has declined from 29% to 21% in 1998. While demand for higher skilled technicians, engineers, computer systems analysts and product research and development workers will still grow, the demand for production and assembly workers is expected to continue to decline. Our approach to helping these workers is to equip them with new skills and help them to re-deploy to other economic sectors, such as service industries. Other growth sectors which will continue to create jobs for our people will include the banking, finance, communication, broadcasting and information technology sectors. In the IT sector alone, the current pool of 33,000 IT professionals is expected to grow at about 10% a year for several more years. To prepare for the manpower needs in the high growth sector, my Ministry is planning to launch a Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme. This is a programme whereby workers are encouraged to undergo short "conversion" courses to acquire new knowledge and skills for careers in the growth areas. For a start, my Ministry is working with NCB on a programme to convert non-IT trained workers for higher value added jobs in the growing IT sector. The scheme will be implemented early next year. We will use the experience gained from this pilot project in the IT sector and extend it to the other new growth areas so that Singaporeans can be better equipped and better prepared to take on these new jobs. Raising skills levels and multi-skilling The third development is the demand for flexibility, creativity and thinking skills and also multi-skilled workers. Gone are the days when a production worker or production operator focuses on a single task on the assembly line. In a typical hi-tech manufacturing plant, whether it is in petrochemicals, semiconductors or food manufacturing, most of the actual work itself is done by machines, operated by a few highly skilled workers. These workers will have to conduct quality inspection and trouble-shooting and even maintenance of the machines that are placed under their care. Even in traditional jobs such as in the cleaning industry, healthcare aides, hotel industry with the need for a large number of chambermaids and other backroom support staff, there is scope to raise their skills and productivity by widening the scope of such jobs through proper training. The result is to enhance the image and dignity of these jobs. This will help us in our effort to re-deploy some workers who will be made redundant as the manufacturing industry reduces its labour requirements. To motivate workers to undergo upgrading so that they can continue to remain employable or be redeployed to other sectors, my Ministry is developing the National Skills Recognition System (NSRS). The NSRS is a framework that will develop industry skills standards in the manufacturing and service sectors and accord national recognition to the training that meets these standards. The NSRS will enable mature workers to earn credit for what they have learnt, and provide an additional mechanism for employers to assess their employees' skills level. This system is designed to be accessible to all workers, regardless of their basic education. It will provide all workers with the opportunity for skills certification to a nationally recognized standard. This will help facilitate the gradual transition of the lower skilled segments of our workforce into the knowledge economy and encourage them to also pursue lifelong learning. Apart from promoting lifelong learning, training and retraining, we must also constantly examine our employment market to look for areas that can be improved and also to enhance our resilience and competitiveness. For instance, we must refine our wage system to enable companies to be more responsive to changing business conditions in good and bad times. Hence, employers should quickly adopt the monthly variable payment (MVP) system. This system was recommended by the National Wages Council in May this year as a means to help companies to adapt to the changing business cycle. The monthly variable payment will in fact give companies an additional measure to adjust cost without having to retrench workers or resort to more painful wage cuts. We should also rationalize some of our employees' benefit system, such as the introduction of a co-pay principle for medical care. This was in fact recommended by a Tripartite Committee nearly three years ago but progress in implementation has been fairly slow. On the contrary, the civil service has already implemented this system since 1994, and has made very good progress with it. The question is: can we afford further delays in implementing a measure which will result in better allocation of health care benefits across the board and also ensure that our employers or companies do not bear an unfair share of providing such medical benefits to their employees? There is also the sacred cow of retrenchment benefits. A ceiling of 25 years service was introduced when the retirement age was raised to 62 years last year. However, as I mentioned earlier, the pace of change will cause companies to restructure and reorganise much more frequently in future. Companies will have to down-size when the market turns against them and when they develop new products or new services, they can then grow again. So company sizes will change. There will be frequent restructuring and reorganisation. If our retrenchment benefits are perceived by investors to be too generous and a hindrance to corporate restructuring, we may lose our attractiveness to such investors. Can we afford to pass up such opportunities because we want to preserve the present system of protecting our workers from unexpected retrenchment? Or should we recall, go back to first principle that retrenchment benefits were meant to help workers to tide over the period during which they are unemployed and looking for a new job? These are all very sensitive issues with tremendous impact on the state of our industrial relations. But we must start to discuss these issues and build up a tripartite consensus on how we can make progress. We have already started to do so with regard to another issue concerning union representation for executives in a company. In the years ahead, we must also find equitable and mutually agreeable solutions to these other issues so that they will not hinder the effort to create jobs for our people. Conclusion The new millennium will present many new opportunities to Singapore. These are opportunities which we must seize and ride on to bring us into the next phase of growth. If we are ill prepared, we will miss out on these opportunities and slide down on the competitive ladder. This will mean higher unemployment rate. We will have to live with higher unemployment rate. There will be insufficient and lower value-added jobs for our people who will end up earning lower wages and have to put up with lower standard of living. The transition to the new economy involves every individual. It is not confined to only the engineers and those who are highly educated. Rather, it requires the commitment, determination and effort of all Singaporeans at every level of the workforce. It requires our people to be willing to learn, to try new things, to be innovative. Whether professionals or production workers, employers or employees, the key to our ability to earn good living in the future will rest on our ability to acquire new knowledge and skills and to use these to add value to the economic effort. Individuals can choose to be overwhelmed by the changes and languish by the side, or take a proactive role to prepare for the future and ride on its opportunities. While the Government will provide the overall framework, the people and the private sector have to take the lead in seizing the growth and learning opportunities. Employers and workers must be agile, flexible and open to various possibilities in this fast moving knowledge-based economy. The Manpower 21 strategy and programmes represent a blueprint or a road map. Workers, employers and the Government must travel along this road hand-in-hand so that we can arrive together at our common destination. The road is not straight nor smooth. It is winding, runs uphill with many obstacles along the way. We must help each other to navigate the climb and overcome the hazards on the way. Government, working with the employers, will invest, subsidize, motivate and encourage workers to upgrade their skills. Singaporeans must also make personal commitment to make full use of these opportunities to upgrade. Every worker must adopt the "lifelong learning" credo and make continuing effort to ensure his or her employability. I urge all employers and workers to join us in this exciting and rewarding journey to transform ourselves into a globally competitive workforce. Sir, many Members have spoken and given suggestions and made many good comments on the M21 report. I do not propose to go into the details and respond to individual comments, but let me assure all the hon. Members that my Ministry will study and consider their suggestions and comments as we implement the recommendations of the Manpower 21 Committee report. Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address is a very comprehensive statement of the Government's policy. Apart from reviewing our progress over the last 30 years, it has also outlined the target for us in the 21st century.

4.02 pm After the recent financial crisis, we are now in a more stable position. However, we will face more intense competition in future. In order to build our nation in a better way and to make our economy more vibrant, we have to make full use of our human resources. We have to let our people give full play to their potential, and we want our people to work in a concerted effort to contribute towards our nation building efforts. The President also emphasised that we have to pay more attention to our aging population. Allow me to raise some recommendations on these issues. The United Nations has designated 1999 as the year for the aged. That is evidence of how the international community has attached great importance to the problems of an aging population. Singapore is one of the nations facing the most serious problems of an aging population. By the year 2030, out of four Singaporeans, one will be above the age of 60, that is, about 25%. The Government has already set up a Committee to look into this problem, with the terms of reference of looking after the senior citizens and to make adequate preparations for our future needs. In this connection, I would like to speak on three aspects which the senior citizens are most concerned with. First of all, health. We should provide some facilities for our senior citizens to have easy access to regular medical check-ups. In order that they may be healthy, physically and mentally, I think they should undergo regular medical check-ups. This is very important. Prevention is better than cure. We would like to thank the Minister for Health, Mr Lim Hng Kiang who, in reply to Dr Lily Neo's request, announced that his Ministry has plans for our senior citizens to be examined regularly. We have about 300,000 senior citizens in Singapore. If all these 300,000 senior citizens were to go to the Singapore General Hospital for a medical check-up, then I am sure the hospital will be very crowded and very busy, and these old people will have problem getting there too. In order to make it easier for the senior citizens, I think the community and grassroots organisations can also help in this aspect. Maybe regular check-ups for the senior citizens can be conducted in the community centres, say, routine checks on eyesight, blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol, etc. On the one hand, this will be easier for the senior citizens and, on the other hand, this will enable the grassroots organisations to participate in this very meaningful job. After the check-up, there should be systematic documentation on the health situation of the senior citizens. In fact, many senior citizens normally forget about the results and they do not take the necessary action to prevent the diseases. The Ministry of Health should publish a medical check-up record booklet, so that when a senior citizen goes for his check-up, the doctors or nurses will be able to record his state of health there, and this will serve as a very useful future reference for the doctors when they follow up with this senior citizen. Recently, in Bukit Gombak, we have started to conduct regular medical check-ups for our senior citizens. We have also published a booklet to record the results of the medical examination of the senior citizens. This was launched by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, Mr Chan Soo Sen. He was impressed by this record booklet and said that it was a very good idea. Presently, in schools, every pupil has a health booklet to record his or her state of health. I hope that the Minister for Health would consider publishing a similar health booklet for the senior citizens, so that they will have a better understanding of their health. Secondly, providing concessions for senior citizens on public transportation. In Singapore, concession is given to our senior citizens for commuting on our public transport system. However, this concession is restricted to only off-peak hours. Recently Lianhe Zaobao conducted a survey on this matter, and about 90% of those who were interviewed felt that when the bus companies give concessions to the senior citizens, there should not be a restriction on the time they can travel. But the bus companies did not agree with the finding because they felt that the senior citizens should not compete with the other commuters during the peak hours, and that it will pose some danger to the old folks. But many people feel that this is not a fair reasoning. This matter has, in fact, been argued for many years and there is still no concrete outcome. Very soon, the 20th century will come to an end. We hope that before the end of the 20th century, there should be a solution to this problem. If we are serious and sincere in considering this problem, I think this is a responsibility of every one of us, whether it is a Government department, the private sector, grassroots organisations or the civil groups. So long as they are involved in this problem of an aging population, they should put in a concerted effort and we should work in one heart so that we can have better results. I feel that we should deal with this matter in a more objective manner. At the moment, our transport system is very comprehensive, whether it is MRT or public buses, they are being operated very smoothly, and we have a very good public transport system. The commuters are also boarding and alighting from the buses in a very orderly manner. They have been treating the old people in a very courteous manner. It is not a big problem even if the senior citizens were to board the buses during the peak hours. Although many of us retire at 60 nowadays, with our good medical and healthcare system, many of our old people enjoy very healthy living. Look at our new President, he is 76 years old and he is still very healthy. I suggest that the relevant authority should seriously consider implementing concession rates for senior citizens even during the peak hours. Maybe we should try it for one year, and one year later we can have a review and see whether this concession, without any restricted hours, would pose any serious problem to us. If everything is all right, and there is no problem, we should continue to grant concessions throughout the day and night. It is a form of respect for the senior citizens, and it would also provide them with more convenience. In fact, in Hong Kong, in Europe and the United States, this is very common. The senior citizens enjoy concessions without any restriction. I feel that the relevant authority should seriously consider this recommendation. Thirdly, housing for the senior citizens. Now we have 86% of Singaporeans living in public housing, that is, more than 200,000 senior citizens are living in HDB flats. The thing that they are more concerned with is the lift, especially for those who live in high-rise buildings. I feel that HDB has done a great job. In the new housing estates, the lifts stop at every floor. This is a very good service to the residents, particularly to the senior citizens. The Government has attached great importance to this matter and during the upgrading projects, whether it is a major upgrading or an interim upgrading, provision was made so that the lifts can stop at every floor. However, in the interim upgrading programme, the HDB has fixed another standard that the lifts should be able to serve at least 50% of the residents before arrangement would be made for them to stop at every floor. But if we look at the flats which were built in the 1980s or earlier, the design was such that they would not be able to attain this standard. So we are unable to attain the standard set by HDB, and it is not possible to provide this service where the lift can stop at every floor. It would be very difficult for them to go out if there is no lift, particularly for those who are wheelchair-bound. It would be a very serious problem for them. In 1997, when I raised the matter concerning the lifts for certain blocks of flats in my constituency with the former Minister for National Development, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, he told me that since there were only 4 storeys, the residents could just walk up and down the stairs. Unconvinced, I showed him some photographs on how difficult it was for the old folks to go up and down the staircase, especially when they were sick. Immediately, he suggested that I raise this matter in Parliament and he would consider it. Now the lifts are being installed in these blocks of flats. Although the installation is not fully completed, the residents are already very happy, and they have asked me to thank the Minister for his good gestures. Sir, another issue that I would like to raise concerns single persons who wish to buy HDB flats. Yesterday, Dr Ker raised this matter about singles buying HDB flats. I do not want to repeat his points. We all know that for the singles to buy HDB flats, there are a lot of restrictions. First of all, they cannot buy directly from HDB. Secondly, even in the open market, they can only buy the 3-room flats and they are restricted to flats which are outside the city area. All these conditions have made it very difficult for the singles to buy HDB flats. Even for those affected by the redevelopment plans, they too have problems because under the redevelopment schemes, existing lessees enjoy a 20% discount when they purchase their alternative flats from HDB. But the singles are denied this discount. Sometimes, being single is not really their own wish, and it is beyond their control. During their younger days, some of these singles may have worked very hard to support their younger brothers and sisters and when they have grown up, they were already too old to get married. So they would have to remain single. I hope that the Minister would reconsider this matter because even singles have contributed to our nation building. Perhaps, we could impose certain restrictions on them, but I do not think some bending of the rules would affect the nation. In general, I think we should give the singles a fair deal. Under the redevelopment schemes, all residents enjoy a 20% discount. Perhaps the relevant authority may feel that 20% discount is too much, then at least they should be given a 10% discount. I think we should give them some concessions and be fair to them. These are the recommendations I would like to raise. I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh to thank the President for his Address to Parliament. The President has outlined the Government's objectives for the future. The Addenda detailed the programmes the Ministries intend to implement to achieve these objectives. It is more than fair to say that in the past 34 years, since independence, the PAP Government, together with the people, has transformed Singapore into a prosperous and thriving city state. We have the best infrastructure and investment climate that ranks among the most conducive in the world and a diligent workforce that is second to none. All these have been done under great political stability. Successive economic crises were overcome through the cooperation of Government and the people. We should be justifiably proud of our achievements. The question that we need to pose now is: do all these achievements make us a nation and the people active citizens? 34 years amount to some 1 1/2 generations, a very short time for a country. Nation building is a painstaking effort that requires generations to go through various trials and tribulations before the people can consider themselves true citizens. When we look around the world today, we cannot but notice, at least by way of negative examples, that nation building is a very difficult business. Emerging countries in Africa and Latin America are constantly going through political and social upheavals. Even so-called developed countries in Europe could not escape from the strifes that threatened to break up the countries, indeed break-ups occurred in some of these old countries. In the region, we are witnessing similar events that have yet to be played to completion. To sum up, we have to ask ourselves: are we a nation yet? One way to find out is to go through the baptism of fire. When we are confronted with a deep crisis, not just economic, we will find out whether our people will jell together and help one another to overcome the difficulties, whether we will die for one another to preserve our homeland. This is a very painful way which we would not wish upon ourselves. Another way is to increase the stakes our people have in the country which make it imperative for them to defend with the utmost of their ability. Yet, another way is to nurture a greater sense of belonging to the country where our loved ones and friends all call home and where we can seek comfort and solace in times of need. The Government can provide the hardware to make Singapore to continue to survive and prosper in this increasingly competitive world. Indeed, it has, judged by the Addenda that have been included in the President's Address. But the heartware that makes us true citizens rests in ourselves. We have to ask ourselves whether we are committed to Singapore. If so, how do we strengthen this commitment? I would suggest that we start at home with our own families. Close and enduring family ties will ultimately reflect themselves in the society at large. If we are prepared to fight for our own family members, only then will we be ready to do the same for our friends and fellow citizens. The Singapore 21 Vision may help us along the way. But we ourselves must respond to the initiatives and strengthen our commitment to be not just active but true citizens. Human beings are not machines. The Government cannot press a few buttons and expect the people to turn on and behave just like robots. We have to light the fire in our own bellies to nurture our love for and commitment to our own country. This would take a few more generations. There is no better time to start now as we are all poised to take up the challenges ahead of us. In due course, we hope and we will surely become one people, one nation, one Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh. Sir, in the President's Address, one of the major challenges that he identified that is facing us, and indeed facing other countries, is how to fit into a globalised information and knowledge economy while, at the same time, maintaining our own identity, values, sense of cohesion and nationhood and perhaps, most important of all, our ability to decide for ourselves our own future. The changes being made to our education system also reflect this challenge and the programmes that we have laid out in the Addendum to the President's Address show how we propose to face up to these challenges that are coming in the 21st century. We want our students to be world-ready. Yet, we want them at the same time to be rooted to Singapore. How do we achieve this? In some ways, our language policy is a very good example of how we do this. We use English to teach our students and that makes them world-ready, ready to interact with the rest of the world in business, finance and technology. But at the same time, because of our continued emphasis on the mother tongue, our students grow up well rooted in their own value system, history, culture and in Singapore. To be world-ready, we have instituted a number of programmes. We are already world class in many areas. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study, for example, shows that our students do very well by international comparison in Mathematics and Science. But that, in some sense, is history. We must move on. Our system is very efficient at transferring a set of skills and a certain body of knowledge into the heads of our students giving them skills that they can use immediately in the economy. But we must now go beyond this by giving them the ability to learn new knowledge throughout their lives and to create new knowledge. Hence, to make our students world-ready, we have introduced creative thinking in our schools, not just as a subject, but as a skill to be learned and infused throughout the curriculum in the schools and in all the activities that they do. I agree with Mr Loh Meng See's wise words when he says that we are making a system that is already good better and not to make such major changes to the system that we risk upsetting something which is already quite good. We will build upon the solid foundations that we have. And I would like to assure Dr Tan Boon Wan that, in the process of reforming our system, the continued emphasis on excellence will be there. How do we make our students rooted to Singapore? This is also one of the issues that has been raised by many Members. It would be a pity if our educational institutions lost their character entirely and our universities and schools produce students who could have come from universities and schools just like in any other country in the world. Our universities, polytechnics, ITE and schools should produce students who are world-ready, yet rooted in Singapore with that something unique about them that makes them Singaporean. Hence, we have National Education in our schools and we have also introduced the community involvement programme. So we, in the Ministry of Education, will certainly do our part to help to nurture the active citizens that we need for the 21st century, active citizens who have a well-founded confidence and commitment to Singapore's future. Putting these two parts together, making our students world-ready and yet rooted in Singapore, we have programmes for all levels, from pre-school through primary and secondary to further education and higher education and also into continuing education. Several Members, Mr Iswaran and Mr Zainul Abidin, have commented favourably on the Ministry of Education taking a more active role in pre-school education. This is something that we would do. We would leave the operation of pre-school centres and kindergartens in the hands of private operators and non-profit organisations, as is happening today. I think they are doing a reasonably good job. What the Ministry would do is to look at areas of high impact where we can help to improve the quality of pre-school education. We will carry out research and studies. We will look into how we can improve the curriculum, teaching standards and teacher quality. Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Education, is studying this matter and when she is ready in the not too distant future, she will have more to say on how we will progress in this programme. Continuing education is another subject that was touched on by a good many Members. This is really the next great frontier of education. We have gone through mass primary education, mass secondary education and, to some extent, mass higher education. In Singapore, something like 85% to 90% of our students have post-secondary education in the ITE, polytechnics or universities. The next major development in education will be mass continuing education. And here, our polytechnics, ITE and universities will certainly work with the Ministry of Manpower in the M21 programme to give this programme its effect. Overall, what we are aiming for is a holistic education in which we can achieve the Desired Outcomes of Education. We are going into more school autonomy to help to release the ideas and initiative in our principals and teachers. We are improving and repositioning the National Institute of Education so that our teachers will be able to have continual education and upgrading in the NIE so that they will keep up and be able to upgrade themselves, as they progress in their careers. Indeed, every teacher is an entrepreneur in his own classroom and we want to encourage him to exercise his initiative to do the best for his students. Mr Inderjit Singh has also raised the question of streaming. This is not a new issue. Streaming is a form of mass customisation which is really quite consistent with the approach that the Ministry is taking towards ability-driven education. Streaming has allowed our students to progress at a pace which they can manage. If I could give some examples. In 1980, before we had streaming, only 58% of a Primary 1 cohort sat for the "O" levels. In 1998, this had risen to 81.3%. But, more dramatically, in 1980, before streaming, only 24% of a Primary 1 cohort obtained five "O" level passes or more. But, by 1998, this had increased by 2 1/2 times to 61.2%. By allowing students to progress at a pace which they are comfortable with, at a pace which they can manage rather than forcing the pace, we have actually allowed many more of our students to do much better and to go much further in the education system than they would otherwise have done. So contrary to the view that streaming stigmatises students and so forth, streaming has, in fact, allowed many more students to enjoy success. In some countries like the United Kingdom and United States where streaming is not widely practised, they have a dilemma. They have two choices. If a person does not pass at a certain level, they can either retain him or they do what is called "social promotion". They promote him to the next level even though he has not passed. And the research shows that those who are retained become despondent. They lose interest, they have low self-esteem and they drop out. And those who are socially promoted cannot manage at the next level. They get despondent, disinterested in their studies, no social esteem, and they also drop out. So in those systems where they do not practise streaming, they wring their hands and say, "Well, there is really no solution to the problem." But if we are prepared to take an objective look at how streaming has actually brought success to our students, then we can see that streaming really has provided many more avenues for our students to progress through the education system and to do well. But in an ability-driven education, what we do want to do is to go beyond streaming to see how we can better harness the talents of our students, be it in the sports and the arts, as Mr Harun Ghani has suggested. I am not saying that we would go as far as he has suggested in creating a special academy and school, and so on. But in fact, we are going some way towards that by developing NAFA and La Salle as arts institutes. We are trying to see how we can channel students who have such interests into professional development in these areas where they might pursue a very satisfying career. But we are also looking at our schools to see how we can use the present streaming structure and see whether we can allow students who may be stronger in some subjects than in others, to perhaps take a combination of subjects at various levels. And these kinds of experiments we will continue to try out in the schools. One of the experiments that I am quite prepared to try out is to see how we can adjust our "O" and "A" level system so that students can make better use of their time, especially those who are clear-cut going to university, rather than having to be straight-jacketed between these two very major examinations within a very short space of time. Sir, I welcome the support and the suggestions from all the Members who have spoken on education subjects during this debate, especially Mr Loh Meng See, Dr Wang Kai Yuen and others. Education is an enterprise which requires the support of all - the school, home and community. My colleagues and I and by that, I do not mean just my colleagues in this House, but also some 40,000 teachers, support staff, professors, lecturers and so on in our schools and institutions of higher learning, appreciate the support that Members of this House have always given to education and our teachers. And I hope that in the coming years, we will continue to enjoy your support. Sir, I support the motion. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof) (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address the House in support of a motion moved by my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh. Some journalists regarded the Speech by President Nathan as not having any significant news. But for me and most of the Members of this House who have spoken before me, it is an essential part of developing the Singapore society. His Speech has a great meaning to all Singaporeans because he is an excellent practitioner in the process of nation building for Singapore. I would like to relate my personal experience when he was the Executive Chairman of the Singapore Press Holdings in 1984. I was in Cambridge to pursue a fellowship course. One evening, while I was revising my work at the hostel, there was a knock on the door. When I opened the door, I saw him smiling. In his hand, there was a plastic bag. He sought permission to enter and when I asked him what was his purpose in visiting me, he told me that there was nothing special. He was simply in London while on his way home from America. Mr Nathan took the trouble of coming alone by train to Cambridge just to meet one among hundreds of his staff. He wanted to know the welfare of his staff and he advised me to study seriously. After chit-chatting for about an hour, and before he left, he gave me six cans of chicken curry and said, "You must be longing to have halal chicken curry from Singapore." I was dumbfounded. Beneath his appearance of a serious and firm man, he is in fact a caring and kind person, and he is a person who practises true care for his fellow human beings, even though to me, a small man. Therefore, when he was speaking about social cohesion, it has a significant meaning because when he addressed it, he himself has an unblemished moral integrity. Mr Deputy Speaker, although yesterday we have heard many views and suggestions on how to bring about social cohesion, I think this is the main issue as it has the decisive impact on the success or failure and the survival of Singapore. The incident in the Balkans is a lesson to us. Therefore, please allow me to talk on this topic. Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore, a multi-racial nation, is only about 34 years old. During this brief period, we have worked hard to bring about a united nation and by learning from the experiences of other countries and by managing and formulating our own policies. The journey towards this destined end is still long, but despite that, our firm actions and valuable ideas have worked out gradually since 1965. Mr Deputy Speaker, if we were to look back, in fact, we have actually achieved many successes in this area. Firstly, the severance of ourselves from our country of origin and also developing a sense of loyalty to Singapore. I have witnessed and felt these changes. I remember clearly when I was a teenager at the end of 1950s and early 1960s. At that time, when we entered the house of a Javanese or a Bawean Pondok or the house of a Minang, you will see the Garuda crest with the slogan "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika". It means unity in diversity, which is the symbol of Indonesia, and it was fixed on the wall. Some had a portrait of Sukarno hung to the wall. I also remember that on 17th August, as a boy scout on duty, I found thousands of Singapore residents gathering at the Indonesian Ambassador's residence in Paterson Road until there was a need for traffic control. But during the Konfrontasi, I began to realise the reality of politics. "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" began to disappear from the walls of the Malay residences. Now, more than a generation has passed, when we enter a living room of a Singaporean Malay, not only we no longer find it on the wall, in fact, the perception towards "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" has changed so much. The emotional and psychological attachment to their place of origin is fading fast. I know this process is not only happening among the Malay community in Singapore but it is also happening among the Chinese and Indian as well as the Eurasian communities. The Malays, like the Chinese, Indian and Eurasians believe that they are the genuine citizens of Singapore. I agree with what Mr Harun had said that where our legs stand it is also the place where we support the sky. Now, 17th August for Indonesia is seen by us as no different as 1st October for the day of independence of the People's Republic of China and also the month of independence for India. We have 9th of August which is very special and very meaningful to us. For those who were born after 1965, the root of their citizenship is even deeper. This is our only motherland. This is our country. This is where we live and die. And this is where we would be protected and this is the country where we will defend with our blood and life. I learn about security and mutual trust in a multi-racial society as early as 1964. My family was the only Malay family in a Chinese village at Lorong Sinaran, now Novena. When there was a racial riot, our village chief, known as Ah Teng, had advised our family not to leave the house. They went to the market to buy us the food and protected our family. We trusted their honesty. They have never betrayed us. I think there are many similar incidents which have become the foundation for this mutual trust among us. The social cohesion and this harmonious living is no longer an empty word or hope. How do we arrive at this point? This is a result of physical, economic, social and psychological steps that have been taken by the Government to nurture the feeling of Singaporeans and to eliminate all impediments. We have broken down all the racial compartments through the resettlement and brought them under one roof in public housing. Our children go to the same school, use the same language. They went through National Service together. We work together in the same office, we eat from the same hawker centre, we buy from the same supermarket, participate in all activities organised by grassroots organisations and participate in the same professional bodies. The harmonious living of various communities is a reality now. We have taken in fact one step ahead. The housing policy has ensured that all residents from the condominiums, 5-room, 4-room, 3-room, 2-room flats and also our old residents, share the same amenities. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are only half-way in our nation building or what the Prime Minister called the Singapore tribe, and the end is still far away. This is because, although we have managed to narrow the gap between the races, the fault lines are still there. We need probably one, two or three generations to achieve this. The following factors may assist us. First, we must keep the principles of meritocracy in the true sense. Second, what we earn from the economic progress is used to enhance our shared benefits, and increase our stakes in Singapore. Third, we must ensure that there exist a national resilience that enables us to repel any destructive impacts resulting from happenings around South East Asia, the Asian continent or the world, which will resurface the sensitivities of race or religion. Fourth, we should create the culture of trust at all levels, and to enhance the confidence and loyalty of all Singaporeans, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, and we have to gradually expose them to areas of services which are considered as sensitive. Fifth, we must make them understand the history, arts, culture, norms and customs of other races through specific additional programmes in schools and our workplace. In this area, we should be able to distinguish the mainstream thoughts and practices among the races from the thoughts and practices of the marginal groups. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of this, the process of building a Singapore tribe should be enhanced and done in a systematic way. I would like to propose that we set up a policy research body that identifies the common interests and differences among the races and recommend further appropriate actions. This body should comprise various relevant Ministries, statutory boards, representatives from the different race groups, institutions of higher learning and individuals. It should be placed under the Prime Minister's Office. I realise that there is also a Presidential Council for Minority Rights and the Inter-Religious Organisation, but the roles of both these organisations are limited. Sir, if the problems of the elderly in Singapore are so important that it takes us to form an Inter-Ministry Committee for it, I think the purpose of building a Singapore tribe is even more important for us to merit the setting up of such a body. Developing a Singapore tribe is as important as the economic progress of Singapore and, in fact, it is important for the survival of Singapore. We should revise the process of this objective and to fine tune all the measures or the policies that we are going to implement, so that we can achieve the best success. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of Mr Davinder Singh.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to join my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, in thanking the President for his Address to Parliament last Monday. A lot has happened since we opened the First Session of this Parliament. Compared to our neighbouring countries, we have weathered the crisis much better than they have. This is not to say that we have not had our fair share of problems, such as falling demand and asset values, over gearing by companies and businessmen in their personal capacities leading to cash flow problems, over capacities in production facilities leading to retrenchments of workers and other cost cutting measures. We are much more resilient because of the sound financial and economic systems we had painfully put in place over the years. We also have a much stronger tripartite relationship between the workers, employers and the Government. Led by enlightened union leaders, the Government could implement a cost cutting package that could minimise job losses and help businesses to turn around more quickly. Many of us have taken the goodwill and cooperation of the unions for granted. It need not be so and, in fact, it is not the natural order of things. We can see this from the numerous labour disputes happening frequently world-wide. Our harmonious industrial relationship is a result of many decades of relationship building between the Government, the employers and the unions and workers. In fact, President Nathan himself spent a bit of time with the unions in the 60s. And many MPs have also spent a stint in the labour unions as well to help to build this tripartite relationship. In better economic times, the Government and employers keep their faith and share the good results with the workers. As the economy begins to turn around today, the Government and employers should bear this in mind and find an appropriate time to reciprocate. The Government has suggested a restoration of about 2% of the employer's CPF contribution early next year. Some employers whose businesses have not recovered yet are naturally concerned about the early restoration. They are afraid that this would affect their turn-around. My own view on this is that the restoration should be a part of the recommended wage increase for next year. Companies that do well should be encouraged, and also be given the flexibility to pay more to workers in the form of a variable component. There are many challenges ahead as we recover. We will continue to face more and keener competition, not just from low-cost countries in this region, but even from other low-cost countries in other continents further away. We have to work on improving relations with our neighbours as our economies are interdependent. Political problems with our neighbours can distract us from our main task at hand of economic growth and social bonding of the people. The Government has identified several areas for us to focus on, to better compete in an increasingly global world. I shall just touch on two of these in greater depth. The first one is on people development. Given our lack of natural resources, there is no denying that people development will be the most important focus for us if we want to stay ahead of the competition. The Government has always regarded the 10 years of primary and secondary education as the period to provide a firm foundation for further education for our children. I support the initiatives to revise the curriculum to encourage more creativity. However, I feel that the Government should slowly go one step further, or backwards, by playing a bigger role in pre-primary education of our young children. Studies have shown that inculcating a good foundation in the languages and mathematics can start even earlier than Primary One. Children from richer families attend private nurseries and kindergartens that give them a headstart in this area. The quality of pre-primary education for the masses varies vastly. Many young children start Primary One, not on a level playing field, but with differing exposure and levels of skills, both verbal and analytical. I know the Government has responded to this issue before by stating that it would prefer to leave this aspect of our children's education to the private sector. The Minister for Education has also just spoken again on this subject. However, I feel that as our society progresses, and we can afford it, I urge the Government to reconsider its role in this stage of foundation building for our children. I am pleased to note that the Ministry of Education has decided to be more involved in pre-school education, by investing in curriculum design and teacher training, conducting research and tightening regulations. It is a step in the right direction. Secondly, I notice that many of our teachers in primary schools are not graduates, especially for the English language, which is the foundation for other subjects, even Mathematics. Teaching our young children in school proper English is extremely important. If they learn to pronounce words wrongly in their early years, it will take an even longer time to unlearn them. Recently, I was looking through the English work of my son. He was asked to give the meaning of "revive". So he wrote, "resuscitate" and was marked wrong. He did not understand why, neither did I when he asked me. The teacher wanted the words "bring back to consciousness". How can we encourage creativity if our teachers are so rigid in the way they mark? The word "resuscitate" may be a bigger word than "revive", but it certainly is not wrong. I do not mean to run down non-graduate teachers in the primary schools. Some non-graduate teachers I know of are very good too. I know that it would be too expensive and probably impossible to have all graduate teachers in the early primary schools for our children. Perhaps the Ministry may want to consider having one or two senior subject teachers in each standard or school as a point of reference for other teachers to refer to in the event of ambiguities and as a standard bearer. Mathematics papers today are a test of the children's English. Unfortunately, sometimes the problems are so badly phrased that I myself had difficulties trying to understand the problem, let alone the children. Today, we are encouraging our civil servants, and everybody else for that matter, to write directly, concisely and clearly. This should also apply to teachers who set examination papers. Teachers should avoid using double negatives, for example, when they set papers, and other ambiguous language when setting mathematics and other questions. It would help our children to be more focused on the subject matter than worry about the language and their understanding of the problem. I am delighted that the Government will equip the schools with one computer for every two students in the Information Technology Masterplan. Students, however, do not just learn in school. They follow up their learning at home. Students from better off families will have computers at home. Those whose parents cannot afford it will be handicapped. I would like to request that the Government allow the use of Edusave funds of the children to be used for the purchase of computers for home use. I believe that this use of the Edusave funds will be as important as using it for the enhancement programmes in the schools. Some studies have shown that computers and IT have actually widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots, because the have-nots cannot afford computers and computer training to compete in this global age of IT. We should try our best to narrow this gap and help the poorer families to own computers for the benefit of their children. IT is becoming a big industry, especially in the United States of America. All the new multi-billionaires there in the last five years are in the IT industry. With the Internet, IT businesses transcend borders and the world becomes our marketplace. It is appropriate therefore that the Government should support IT companies in Singapore and help them to grow and build a global business. Hence, I commend the Government for setting aside money to nurture and build a critical mass of intellectual property-based enterprises in Singapore. The next subject is regarding the restructuring of the financial sector. I am pleased to note that the MAS will create a more conducive regulatory environment and actively promote the financial sector. In particular, I support the five-year liberalisation programme for domestic banking sector to encourage the development and upgrading of local banks. I am also happy to note that the Government plans to develop Singapore as a premier insurance centre. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as a director of a local insurance company. My main concerns are in the areas of ownership of such financial institutions. Although it is wise to invite and welcome foreign ownership, whether through acquisitions or mergers, of our financial institutions, I feel that we should still require the Singaporean shareholders to retain majority control of such financial institutions. There is no doubt that foreign ownership, especially by big, international and progressive institutions, would benefit us, as they bring not only their international networking and business clientele but also their latest financial products and innovations. I welcome their foreign talents too, provided there is a systematic process for such foreign talents to transfer their expertise, skills and knowledge to the locals over a period of time. However, I believe that the ultimate majority control should remain in the hands of Singaporeans so that we would have a better control over our financial system. It would be a sad day indeed if all Singaporeans end up working for foreign financial institutions. The Singapore economy is a small economy and our biggest financial institutions are small by world standards. As we all know, many US Fortune 500 companies have market capitalisations that are larger than Singapore's gross domestic product. It is therefore very easy for large financial institutions to take control of us, if our regulators allow it. I would like to ask that despite the liberalisation of the financial sector which I support, the Government should continue to keep the majority control of Singapore's financial institutions in the hands of Singaporeans. The sense and pride of ownership is one of the social glue that will bind Singaporeans to Singapore. I would now like to touch on some issues related to the Addendum of the Ministry of National Development. I am pleased to note that there will be a review of the Concept Plan to be completed by 2001. During this review, I hope the Ministry will obtain feedback and consult the industry players, members of the public as well as the GPC for National Development. In land scarce Singapore, I fully support the greater intensified use of land, whether industrial, commercial or residential. In fact, in the prime residential areas, I have always urged the Government to allow the developers to build to a much higher density so that more of our people can enjoy living in prime areas. In the Concept Plan, when use of land can be increased to a higher plot ratio, there are windfall profits to be made. More of such windfall profits should accrue to the State than to individuals. Development charges should therefore be adjusted accordingly. A new downtown will be developed in Marina South. As we are still in the planning stage, I would encourage the Government to tap on the expertise of private architects for ideas. I urge the Government to incorporate more residential developments so as to bring back more vibrancy and life to the city centre after working hours. There should be more bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways to make other less pollutive and healthier modes of transportation more convenient for people working and living there. The Government may also wish to consider allowing water-based facilities and activities to be conducted in the Marina South waterfront, which Members can see in Hawaii. It should be exciting to be able to fully utilise our waterfront not just for commercial use, but also recreational. I would like to touch on the issue once again of the upgrading of older private residential housing estates. I have made this call many times and I am glad that the Ministry is planning to look into this object more seriously. Many older private housing estates do not have playgrounds, parks or the LRT in the vicinity. Many older folks living there cannot find the money to pay for the upgrading of their old condominium common areas. Many of them are retired or semi-retired. I would like to ask the Government to reconsider allowing the use of their CPF, up to a certain limit, for the payment of such upgrading costs. The reassessment of the new and higher annual values should also be deferred for a few years so as not to deter such upgrading. If we do not give private housing estates enough incentives, very soon some of these may turn into slums. Nationally, the Government should continue to look into improving the quality lifestyle of our residents. I hope they can speed up on the building of park connectors, walkways and bicycle and jogging paths to make living in Singapore more enjoyable. I would like to urge that playgrounds be built in national parks, including the Botanic Gardens for people to enjoy and use. Some parks such as the Chinese and Japanese Gardens are not well utilised because they impose entrance fees. I would like to ask the Government to consider opening such parks free of charge to all residents. With these comments, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, to thank the President for his Address. In the Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry of Manpower states that it will restore the CPF contribution as quickly as possible. To the workers, this is a piece of good news. The workers have witnessed the rapid recovery of the Singapore economy from the recession. During the recession, they made sacrifices by resolutely accepting a 10% reduction in the employers' CPF contribution rate. Now that the economy has begun to turn around, it is only fair that they be compensated appropriately. The Government will review the long term employers' and the employees' CPF contribution rate. There are some rumours in the market that eventually the employers' and the employees' CPF contribution rate will be set at 15% each way. Many union members are asking me whether this is true. The workers are very concerned with this matter, because this will affect their savings for retirement. In the MOM's Addendum, it is mentioned that the Ministry will refine the CPF system to ensure that members have adequate savings to meet their old age needs and medical care. However, there is no mention as to how this could be done. MOM has also stated that they will explore new avenues for CPF members to invest their savings for higher returns. Everyone is very happy when they heard this. Yet there are some people who are skeptical as to whether their investments could also cause some CPF members to lose part of their CPF savings. Has the Government set up any sort of mechanism or system to safeguard the interest of the members when they are investing their CPF savings? How do we encourage the self-employed people to save beyond Medisave to better meet their old age needs? How do we encourage CPF members to plan early for adequate financial security for their retirement? Everyone, particularly the workers, would like to know how much money is considered adequate. MOM has not given us details on this. To realise the Singapore 21 Vision, the concerted effort of each and every Singaporean is needed, that is to say, every Singaporean should selflessly contribute his or her best. Equally important, those in power, the Cabinet Ministers, should have the patience and take the trouble to explain to the people of Singapore what the intentions of the policy are. Why should certain things be done in a certain way and by so doing what benefit would they bring to the people? So long as the Government and the people can continue to have this tacit understanding, I believe that Singapore's future is bright and promising. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for Health (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in support of the motion in the name of Mr Davinder Singh to thank the President for his Address. I fully support the motion. In his policy Speech, the President outlined our vision and listed the tasks ahead for us. To me, this is truly thought-provoking. He reminded me of three Chinese sayings about "ku", or hardship: (1) chi de ku zhong ku, fang wei ren shang ren ( ), meaning you must be able to endure utmost hardship before you can be above the others; (2) tong gan gong ku ( ), meaning as true friends and partners we should share in each other's comfort and hardship; and (3) ku jin gan lai ( ), meaning after enduring hardship, happiness will eventually come. Singapore 21 Vision is something worthy of all our people to fight and strive for. In a sense, we have no choice but to strive for it. This is because we are facing very intense competition. We are like a boat sailing against the current. We must forge ahead or else we will be driven back. However, to succeed, we must have strong fighting spirit. Success will not be plain sailing. There will be hardship to endure. The three sayings I quoted above are not only the trilogy for us to realise our Singapore 21 Vision, but they are also the rondo for the long-term endeavours of Singapore. We want to go for the knowledge-based economy. On the one hand, we have to work hard. On the other hand, we also have to constantly upgrade ourselves. So we have to keep on learning and keep on working hard. This is tough - real hardship indeed! If we want to upgrade ourselves to become a world class economy, we have to look beyond our own country and take in the whole world in view. We have to strike friendship and deal with customers and partners with different cultural backgrounds, and to operate in unfamiliar environment overseas. That is also hardship! I can testify, as I have personally experienced it! We will inevitably encounter frustrations and even failures. But we have to uphold the spirit of "failure is the mother of success", draw experience from our failures and never say die! We have to inspire our people to build up the courage to face failures and anticipate failures. This reminds me of the story of "The King and the Spider" which I read in primary school. Once upon a time, when Scotland was at war with England, the King of Scotland lost six battles successively against England. He took shelter at a broken house. There, he saw a spider making its web. When the web was half way through, the wind blew and the web was broken. The spider tried again, but the same thing happened. It kept on trying and trying, until the sixth time, yet it failed again. The king who was taking shelter there said, "Poor spider, you are like me. I have also lost six battles. I do not think I should try again." But the tiny little spider refused to give up, and on the seventh time, it succeeded in completing its web. The king jumped up in joy and called up all his subordinates to prepare for a new battle. As it turned out, he won! This story tells us how we should face our failures. I asked my children whether they have read the fable. Both of them said no. We should create opportunities for children to read this kind of story. If we are used to always live in peace and comfort, afraid of losing, afraid of dying, afraid of uncertainty, afraid of failure, we will have no fighting spirit to face the challenge of our future. We must always aim to move forward. We must have the courage and determination to be creative, to innovate and to find new ways and solutions to our problems. Only then can we find the new Promised Land. So we must be able to suffer the greatest of hardship, to be up and coming. But, on the other hand, we need not suffer the hardship in silence or suffer it alone. In a traditional society, we have happiness to share, we have hardship to share as well. So long as we have strong family, it will give us strength. We also have friends to rely on, and the community can remain cohesive, then all of us will be able to suffer the hardship as well as share the happiness together. In this process, we will be able to give one another the much needed support, so that in our failure we get sympathy, we get the support from our friends, and remain strong and unbroken. When we succeed, we have also encouragement from our friends and people to share our happiness and joy. This makes life rich, meaningful, and interesting. When everyone is ready to suffer with us and enjoy together, we will be able to find courage to risk and face failures. We will then be upright, strong, principled, and courageous. We could then claim to have the spirit of a world-class nation and a world-class citizen. So after all these struggles, and after all the hardships, we will succeed. We will reach the end of hardship and taste the sweetness of success. This is something that we should treasure. So we completed the trilogy. However, we must also remember that we should not indulge in and drown ourselves in sweetness. We should not be arrogant and complacent. We must remember that we have to continue to look for, face, and overcome new challenges. And in the struggles and facing the challenges, we will set new targets, new goals and new objectives, so that we go through the same process of hardship again to achieve further success. We will go back to the first step of hardship, share that with our community, and then achieve success again. Hence the trilogy gets played again, and again. Isn't this our rondo? I think you may find it gloomy to listen to so much of hardship and woes. But then this was exactly the experience of Singapore 65. In 1965, we became independent. We suffered much hardship, much more than now. But our forefathers, led by our first generation leaders, all sang this trilogy of hardship, and built up a peaceful and prosperous Singapore for our enjoyment. Now, in 1999, we placed emphasis on the Singapore 21 vision. Like our forefathers, we want to create opportunities for our next generation. Let us see Singapore 21 as a continuation and extension of Singapore 65. We are now much stronger than we were in 1965. So if we could do it in 1965, why can we not do it in the year 2000? We have gone through the trilogy of hardship. We are now entering the next trilogy in our rondo. Having sung the first trilogy, we should be more confident about the second. So let us get on with it. I feel that this is the great inspiration that we can derive from the President's Address. This is the challenge that the President's Address has outlined for us.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh. Our progress in the past 40 years has laid a firm foundation for our future development and we will continue to build on this foundation and to march into the next century in order to meet the challenges brought about by globalisation and the knowledge-based economy. However, while we develop the knowledge-based economy and move towards being a globalised cosmopolitan, we should also enhance the bonding between the people to build up a caring society. This is very important. The President pointed out that the cohesion among the people of Singapore should not be diminished just because of globalisation, particularly the gap between the successful and the less successful. They should have the ideology to look after one another and support one another. The President also made special mention, and I quote, "Those who do well succeed not simply through their own efforts, but because Singapore society has given them the opportunities to get ahead. They have an obligation to serve their fellow Singaporeans. On their part, Singaporeans should cheer for those among us who do well, and not envy them." I fully agree with the President on this. On the other hand, this is because behind every successful person, there is always a group of people who is working silently to assist him, and to support him. As such, successful Singaporeans have the moral obligation to serve other compatriots, and to pay back to society. Every successful Singaporean should start by helping those who are working under them and the people around him, and then extend his help to the weaker ones in our society. In this way, there will be more great people like Tan Kah Kee and Lee Kong Chian, people who are well respected by all in Singapore. In the past decade, the Government has left no stone unturned in supporting charitable work and continuously urged the successful Singaporeans to help those who are less successful. The Government has also recognised the contributions made by the successful people. This can be seen by the number of National Day Awards given to these people every year. However, I feel that this recognition is still confined to a mere formality only. We really have not recognised or built up a climate that enables people to respect these successful people and support them, so that these successful people can become the role model for the young people to emulate. I find that the young people are quite different from the older generation in their thinking and in their behaviour. They are affected by the environment of a highly commercialized society and the tough competitions they are facing. They are materialistic, self-centred and very kiasu. Deep in their hearts, they lack the respect and admiration for the successful ones. They do not have the humility and modesty to learn from others. On the contrary, they are full of envy and jealousy, and they express their jealousy in various ways and this causes a lot of embarrassment and disappointment to the successful ones. I believe that we can guide these people to respect the successful ones through school education, social education and the media, so that more respect could be accorded to the successful people. These may help to change the kiasu mentality of the people and enhance the bonding of the people in order that the successful ones can be encouraged to contribute more to the less fortunate people. At the same time, we should allow those who are less successful to learn from the successful people, to learn from their hard work. This will be more meaningful. I believe the Government can strike a balance between the successful and the less successful people. Here let me quote an article by the well-known writer You Jin appearing in the Lianhe Zaobao. In the article, she wrote: "To do good and expect nothing in return is an inherent cultivation and virtue. Showing gratitude and willing to reward a good deed is a kind of moral obligation. If the receiver of the benefit has the means in future to help another person in the same spirit, then this is bringing the virtue to higher ground." In his speech, President Nathan also spoke about the importance of attracting foreign talents. He said, and I quote: "Without an infusion of foreign talent to give us that extra boost, Singapore will not be in the front ranks among many cities in Asia." I fully agree and support this view of the President. What I want to point out is that the foreign talents we are attracting should be those who are able to give us that extra boost to enable us to have breakthroughs in the fields of economy, science and technology, culture and the arts. However, during my meet-the-people-sessions, I observe that some foreigners who are applying for permanent residence status and citizenship are not exactly "talents". They do not have a university degree or possess the skills or talents which are needed by Singapore. They are farmers and ordinary workers. Yet, they are granted permanent residence status. I am puzzled! The Government should set up stringent benchmarks and clear criteria when they admit the foreign talents, so that there will not be discrepancies when the civil servants carry out their instructions. The President also said, "Post crisis, we are in a stronger position. But we can expect fiercer competition, and more daunting challenges." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out that we have already weathered the regional economic crisis. However, except for those who were retrenched and some businessmen, shop-owners and hawkers who were hit by the crisis, many Singaporeans merely had their CPF contributions cut and were not really hurt. This is possibly due to the Government's prompt action in implementing the second $10.5 billion package of cost-cutting measures. It enabled the economy of Singapore to avoid more severe beating, and helped the economy to stabilise. Therefore, we should inculcate the idea among our people that we must have a capable government to lead us through crises like this. I find that many Singaporeans actually believe that it is a natural order of things for Singapore to go through this economic crisis unscathed. I do not deny the fact that the developing trend of the world economy, the Asia-Pacific economy and the South East Asia economy since the beginning of this year have certain effect on Singapore's economic recovery. However, if not for the Government's timely intervention by implementing the cost-cutting package measures in the shortest possible time, Singapore's economy will be like some of the countries in South East Asia , and unable to get out of recession in such a short time. Therefore, if we can keep on explaining to our people how we have tackled our economic crises such as those in 1965, 1976, 1985 and 1998, it would help to make our people realise the importance of having a good government. I feel that it is very important to make the people of Singapore realise the vulnerability of Singapore and the need to constantly work hard and maintain the spirit of fighting for survival and prosperity. The President also mentioned that the Government will revamp its education system so as to prepare our citizens for the knowledge-based economy. The Ministry of Education will adopt the necessary measures to cater for the different needs of each and every child according to his learning aptitude. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the new educational measures and reform and to adopt a more creative approach to education so that students can have more avenues to develop their talents and achieve success in different areas. We have to also address the problems of parents who have this kiasu mentality. They force-feed their children even before they have started attending school, putting them through very heavy scheduled ballet class, piano lesson, art class, swimming lesson, performing class, recitation of Tang poems, etc. The poor children have lost their childhood innocence, and are being pressurised until near suffocation even at a very tender age. Although children can absorb all kinds of knowledge, there is a limit to it. We should also pay attention to their character formation. We should not force-feed them. Another problem I would like to raise is the problem raised by the Prime Minister at the National Day Rally. The issue is on the use of Singlish. This is a common social phenomenon and it is a common way of communication among the ordinary citizens. Although it is not good to use adulterated English, it is, after all, a by-product of our multi-racial and multi-lingual society. It was only when I realise that some Singaporeans who speak pure English and not Singlish are also not able to speak standard English and write standard English that I begin to understand how very important it was for the Prime Minister to raise this issue of speaking standard English. Everyone knows that I am a Chinese-educated MP. I am unable to speak standard English. Yet, I reject the use of adulterated English, just as I do not agree with people speaking adulterated Mandarin. During my business trips overseas, whenever I hear our Singaporeans speaking the Singapore-style of Mandarin, I would try my best to stop them. Whether they are speaking English, Mandarin or Malay, the foreigners just cannot understand what they are talking. The adulterated languages of Singapore are generated because of the multi-racial environment. Most Singaporeans can understand this type of language, but the foreigners do not. Let me quote you an example. When I was in China, I actually heard a Singaporean speaking, "My brother kahwin liao." All Singaporeans present could understand what he was talking about. But in China, England or the United States, I am sure the people there would have no clue at all as to what he was talking about. Therefore, it is important for the Government to promote the correct usage in English, in Malay, in Mandarin. I think it is very important to our efforts to enhance our capability and then to promote a knowledge-based economy. We should not resort to the use of sub-standard language, whether it is Singlish or various forms of Mandarin. Because of our environmental limits, our Mandarin may not be as good as that of the others, and our standard of Chinese is lower than others. This does not amount to giving us the right to use and promote sub-standard Chinese and Mandarin. Likewise, our standard of written and spoken English cannot be compared to that of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. This does not mean to say that we cannot write grammatically correct English and speak standard English. In the promotion of the use of standard languages, besides the efforts of the school teachers, the press and the various media also play very important roles. Here, I would like to tell you the real-life joke concerning another Singaporean who speaks pure English. I would like to declare my interest as a publisher. In August this year, I came across this real-life incident. A pure-English speaking Singaporean and a number of journalists from the English language newspaper criticised a certain book compiled by an English author and alleged that there were "full of grammatical mistakes" in the book. They even captioned the article as: "50 language bloopers" (The Sunday Times, 1st August 1999). As a reader, my first impression would be that the report and criticism by this pure-English speaking Singaporean and the journalists from the English language newspaper, because my standard of English is not as high as theirs, must be correct. I am sure many, many Singaporeans must have believed that the newspaper report was accurate. However, upon consultation with this English author himself, I realise that the criticism by the English newspaper on the grammar taught in this book was not quite correct. This illustrates the point that the English-speaking Singaporeans can sometimes regard correct grammatical usage as being wrong usage, and treat some wrong usage as correct, and then launch an attack openly. A reader wrote to the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and complained about wrong grammar being used in the book. She doubted the identity of the author, and even telephoned the publishers to send a punitive expedition against them. What I do not understand is why is it that she herself could not differentiate between the correct grammatical usage and the wrong usage, yet she behaved as though she was having justice on her side. Why can they not be like the Lianhe Zaobao in hiring a panel or a high-quality language specialist to authenticate the English used in their reports. So from this incident, I learn the importance of the Prime Minister's insistence of speaking standard English. If we do not turn this around and correct the mistake, then we would be criticised by the foreigners that the standard of English here is very poor and it would be difficult for Singapore to make it to the list of globalised international cosmopolitan cities. Just as this English author was telling me, he was surprised that the standard of English in Singapore has dropped so dramatically over the last few years. There is nothing I could say about it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans have very good linguistic abilities. Many Singaporeans can speak many languages. However, they are generalists and not specialists. They are not proficient in any of the languages - neither here nor there. The Prime Minister's emphasis on the use of standard English is not only very timely, but only serves as a warning to our bilingual educational system. Apart from emphasising the use of correct English, we should have a better use of standard language in the media, in the television, radio and the newspapers. The television and the radio stations should introduce some high quality programmes so as to enhance the language standard of our audiences. The Government departments and some companies should also conduct some language classes to help their staff to improve their language standard. I feel that our bilingual system is a good one and we should yield good results which would enable us to accept the challenges of the new century. I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think we have heard enough for the day. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Debate be now adjourned. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Resumption of debate, what day, Mr Singh?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes to Six o'clock pm.