Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of thanks for the President's Address. Sir, I concur with the President's sentiments that we are standing at the crossroads, and for the next few years will be confronted with the most severe challenges in Singapore's history. Due to the changed environment we are in, there are several critical stress points that could become more pronounced in the future. I would like to elaborate on three of these stress points and the need to provide relief for them so that they do not manifest themselves into more serious ailments. The first stress point relates to the people-Government relationship. There is a danger of an increasing chasm between the Government and its people which the President in his Address identifies broadly as the need for political renewal. It is undeniable that the political leadership has over the last 36-37 years done much good for Singapore. Most Singaporeans have a tacit understanding that Government policies have good intentions. It is just like the boy in Jack Neo's show "I Not Stupid" who said, "My mother is like the Government. Everything she does is - for our own good." Singapore's past successes have hinged on meritocracy and pragmatism. Hitherto, economic issues drive Singapore and rightly so in view of her limited resources, smallness and thus vulnerability. Feedback from constituents suggests that Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, increasingly want to have a say in Government policies. While there has been more consultation and dialogue with the citizenry over the last few years, there is still a feeling that there is some way to go with the new consultative approach. Out-of-bound markers must be widened in order to engage Singaporeans, harness their energy and ideas and help them take ownership of the policies that will shape Singapore's future, thus increasing their sense of rootedness. I therefore welcome the President's call for opening up more space for Singaporeans to debate on national policies and issues. However, the engagement between the Government and the people must go beyond mere rhetoric. The Government must show that it values and takes its citizens' views seriously. It must not be too quick to dismiss or put down ideas and feedback for, after all, no one can claim a monopoly on knowledge, experience or wisdom. Wherever possible, debates on policies should precede their implementation so that there will be maximum buy-in and support when these policies are put into practice. The Government must take a proactive stance and respond quickly to feedback and suggestions. Feedback should be a two-way, not a one-way street. Otherwise, the citizens will view the Government feedback mechanism - however elaborate or sophisticated - as a black hole, where under the force of gravity, no light emerges. As a constituent once cynically remarked to me "Where is the Government's feedback to my feedback?" After public consultation and debate, the Government should take pains to indicate the changes or refinements made to its policies arising from feedback as well as the reasons for rejecting other proposals. It must show that it will not hesitate to take concrete action and change its policies, where it benefits the majority of Singaporeans, even if it involves an about change or about face of an existing policy, such as in the Chek Jawa case. Otherwise, many Singaporeans would continue to feel that dialogue and debate are mere tokenism. By way of anecdotal evidence of this sentiment, even the CEO of an established private company in Singapore who has taken part in many feedback sessions and sits on the Board of a GLC, told me recently that he himself is still very sceptical about the Government listening to concerns about the impact of its policies. So this is not just the sentiment of the MP for Sembawang GRC's daughter or young friends. So what more the average man-in-the-street, most of whom have chosen to be the silent majority! Indeed, Sir, as the President has so rightly pointed out, no policy is so cast in stone that it can never be changed. To ensure that policies remain relevant and enhance rather than impede stakeholders' welfare, as the MP for Sembawang GRC has so robustly argued, it is important to remind civil servants who are the face of the Government and facilitators of Government policies, that they must show compassion, be less rule-book bound and listen with a heart, not just with the mind. In other words, be customer-centric, in form and substance. Otherwise, they will not live up to their title of "civil servant" and will be considered neither civil nor servant. It is acknowledged that the civil service and statutory boards have over the last few years improved tremendously in the delivery of its services to the public. My recent experience as a private sector representative on the JTC's Customer Services Panel and URA Concept Plan Review Committee 2001 have been positive. In these instances, the Government organisations concerned have been responsive to feedback and have made the effort to take into account some of the suggestions as well as explain why others cannot be implemented. However, more can be done, so that our civil service would be known not only for its incorruptibility and efficiency but also for being in-tune with the people and the needs of the time. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point relates to the need for us to manage the imbalances arising from an inevitable widening income divide among the have-nots, the haves, and the have-lots, as a result of the inexorable forces of globalisation and IT. As we promote entrepreneurship and risk-taking, there will be fabulous successes but there will also be spectacular losses. To quote the New York Times journalist, Thomas Friedman, there is no longer a First World, a Second World or a Third World. Only a Fast World where the forces of globalisation are embraced and a Slow World, where nations and communities who fail to do so are left behind. Singapore could become more and more a winner-takes-all society. The rich are likely to get richer while the poor will have increasing difficulty to play catch-up. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to venture two proposals to address the needs and concerns arising from this tendency towards greater income disparity. Firstly, as income disparity becomes more pronounced and as job insecurity increases, our meritocratic system upon which much of Singapore's success lies must be peppered with a lot more compassion in its execution. While we celebrate the icons, the phoenixes, and the heroes of capitalism, we must never forget those who are left behind. A group is only as strong as its weakest member. In a 4 x 100 metre relay, a slow start by one runner, or a poor baton change by another, can cost the team a medal. We thus need to temper capitalism with compassion. Existing financial assistance schemes for the low income groups, the handicapped, the sick and at risk families administered by grassroots organisations, the CDCs and MCDS are to be applauded. However, there is a need for constant review of such schemes as regards, say, the qualifying income ceiling and the quantum of such financial assistance as well as the criteria and conditions under which assistance is dispensed in order to ensure their adequacy and appropriateness. Feedback from some constituents is that the financial assistance rendered by the Government, while very much appreciated, is paltry at times and, in some instances, not commensurate with the stringent requirements imposed. I am not advocating increased social benefits or an enhanced welfare system per se. Far from it, as I wholeheartedly support the promotion of self-help and the dignity of work, a point which the Minister of State for Manpower expounded so poetically yesterday. However, there will always be a group of people where no amount of resolve on their part is enough. They need help due to their circumstances. Let me cite an example. A resident in my constituency is an able-bodied odd job labourer. He is now unable to work as his wife is suffering from terminal liver cancer and he is looking after her and their two sons who are still schooling. It is this class of people that we must continue to acknowledge, remember and render help appropriately. As a volunteer worker recently remarked to me, "While it is right for the Government to promote self-reliance and the dignity of work to avoid the development of a crutch mentality, our means test must also not be so stringent that it is considered a mean test rather than a means test." Another way to mitigate the income divide would be to ensure that ample avenues are given to all to maximise their potential and level up. Allowing the brightest and the best to excel economically and the worst off to receive assistance will address the top and the lowest echelons of society. But there is a growing number of those who are just "getting by" based on our current pragmatic economic definition of success. These people might be frustrated by the income squeeze and become envious of the successes of the heroes of capitalism. Sir, a tangible way to address this issue would be to provide them with ample avenues to level up. Mr Speaker, Sir, in relation to this, I subscribe to the President's argument that the key means to uplift the population is to redouble our emphasis on education and training. With the need to cope with the demands of the new economy, constant restructuring and, therefore, higher obsolescence of existing jobs, opportunities for lifelong learning should be created to cater to diverse groups of people. These include those who need to prepare for a new area of employment, are planning mid-career moves, are interested to return to the workforce, particularly the women, are interested to upgrade their qualifications or are just purely looking for intellectual satisfaction. The courses could be offered by tertiary and recognised professional institutions in cooperation with the industries. They need not be confined to new growth industries but also staple old economy sectors which will continue to need employees, like teaching and even in the field of property management. Such staple old economy sectors could hire mid-level middle-aged managers whose jobs have been made obsolete by restructuring or the changed economy. Over time, the provision of a wide variety of lifelong learning opportunities will help maintain a highly skilled and knowledgeable labour force which is able to adapt to the changing job market and adjust to economic restructuring and downturns, such as what we have just experienced. In this respect, I am pleased to note that the MOM, with the cooperation of MOE, has mounted many schemes to promote and encourage lifelong learning. To allow more to benefit from these lifelong learning opportunities, subsidised fees could be considered even for houswives preparing to return to work and low-income earners. More Singaporeans, and not just the best and brightest, would benefit from such lifelong educational opportunities. Those who miss the boat the first time can at least have another chance to reach their desired destination, and this is important since human capital is our most valuable asset. Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point is the need to manage ethnic polarisation in our society. This has always been a thorny issue in domestic politics. One needs to bear in mind the context of race relations. The reality, whether we like it or not, is this: Singapore as a Chinese dominated society in a region comprising ethnic majorities. There are sometimes unspoken concerns that centre on where the stronger pull lies: (1) blood and kin and, increasingly, one's religious faith; or (2) loyalty to one's country. Sometimes, the problems are compounded by the socio-economic distinctions that exist among ethnic groups that have led to the, at one time, controversial formation of self-help groups like MENDAKI and SINDA. These issues are not confined to our Malay compatriots, although they have, quite unfortunately, borne the brunt of the most intense scrutiny because of recent events. Sir, notwithstanding all this, I do not forget that we have done very well indeed over the past few decades in building racial harmony among the major ethnic groups. We need only to recall the major strides we have made. Elsewhere, racial tensions are often resolved violently - in India, the Balkan republics and in Africa. We are blessed to have an enlightened leadership that lived through tumultuous times in our history and appreciates from bitter experience how racial fault lines can ruin everything we have so painfully built up over the years. We now have racially integrated schools, racial limits in public housing to prevent the formation of enclaves, minority representation in politics through GRCs and community-level activities to bind people together, in the words of our pledge, "regardless of race, language or religion". But, as the President has put it in his Address, "The task is never complete." The issue continues to haunt us after decades and continues to morph into new forms, whether it be madrasahs, tudung or something else. If we are not vigilant, the cracks will widen and undo everything. We must never allow that to happen. This is more important than ever before not merely due to recent events but also due to the international talents we are trying to attract who are also from diverse ethnic groups and religious persuasions. Indeed, the concept of a multi-racial, multi-religious society may be foreign to our foreign talent, some of whom hail from ethnically more homogeneous societies. The issue of social integration and cohesion could take on an added dimension when the number of foreign talent in Singapore becomes significant. Hence, we must never let up on efforts to foster greater cohesion among the people. Sir, as a nation, we should re-affirm multi-racialism as a creed, as the only way forward. Efforts continue to be made in schools with the formation of the IRCCs and Harmony Circles at the community level. I applaud such moves. But let us not forget the adults, especially those in their early 20s and 30s, and the middle income groups who tend to participate less in grassroots activities. Adulthood and, sometimes, affluence, rob us of our innocence. How often, as adults, do we sing the national anthem or say the pledge? Sometimes, we grow sceptical of the civic lessons we learn in school and need to relearn them. I remember some years ago, watching on TV a memorial service for the victims of the SilkAir MI185 crash. The nation had already grieved for the victims and their families. The service was a grim reminder to the rest of us who are not victims or their family members. While we will perhaps never fully understand the depth of pain they felt, the presence of other Singaporeans was an act of solidarity with fellow Singaporeans and fellow human beings. It showed that other Singaporeans understand, care and, most of all, share in that grief. I picture in my mind similar services the Americans held in their own country and throughout the world, commemorating the victims of the World Trade Centre collapse. There is a binding power to such "rituals". One needs to think only of the National Day parades that in recent years have taken on a rather nationalistic tone. While some may be sceptical, many others I know, including middle income and successful professionals who have watched these parades "live", often speak of how proud they felt to be Singaporeans. Sir, when we stand side by side, hands held high with that of our neighbours, the colour of our skin, the language we speak at home, the type of cars we drive, the houses we live in, the country clubs we belong to and the things we do on Friday or Sunday, do not seem to matter anymore. Sir, I would like to suggest that we could have much more of such national events - to re-enact our history, to celebrate our shared destiny - to instill this sense of our common humanity and, more importantly, our "Singaporean-ness". If there are those who think such activities are propaganda, let them be. We must think of ways of bringing such events to reach adults in their communities, homes and workplaces. Perhaps, we need to form a National Unity Committee to coordinate all efforts to this end. Sir, I echo the words of the President that "we must move beyond mere tolerance, in order to enhance appreciation and build confidence among the different groups." The national events I propose should, hopefully, "widen the common ground that all Singaporeans share". Sir, I have dwelt at some length on these three critical stress points, which could become more acute over the next few years as Singapore operates in a changed environment. These stress points, in addition to others, need to be managed so that they do not fester and affect our political, economic and social health. A little stress helps to keep the adrenaline pumping and thus sharpen our competitive edge, but too much stress could pose serious health hazards for Singapore. Sir, the world today is not the same as before. It has become competitive, complicated and even controversial. We need to adjust and innovate in order to progress and advance. While we want to narrow the divide between the poor and the rich, we also want Singaporeans to be self-reliant and independent. While we want to be more open and allow opportunities for dialogue and consultation, we also want to ensure constructive and useful debates. While we want to provide more space for individual communities to grow, we also want to build consensus and common grounds. These are some of the S21 dilemmas which continue to challenge each generation afresh. Nonetheless, Sir, the healthy constitution we have built, in terms of our social, economic and political capital, should serve us well in these turbulent times. I am sure with consultation, cooperation and commitment, we can overcome the obstacles ahead and advance as a nation. Sir, I therefore unequivocally support the motion.