Hansard, 2002-04-05

asked the Prime Minister why was the Opening of Parliament delayed for more than four months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has not been any undue delay in the Opening of the New Parliament. The time between the General Elections and the Opening of Parliament in the previous and the present instances was similar, being 144 days and 142 days respectively, or just about 20 weeks. In the earlier two general elections in 1988 and 1991, the interval was slightly shorter, about 18 weeks. Sir, a reasonable period of time between the General Elections and the Opening of Parliament is necessary to take stock of the tumultuous global and domestic developments, and to prepare policy positions and plans for our new term of office. But before the Opening of Parliament on 25th March, the Prime Minister, the Ministers, the PAP Members of Parliament reached out directly to our community leaders and the public to discuss the actions against the terrorists in Singapore, the new terrorist threats that we faced, communal and the tudung issues, as well as economic challenges we face. The Government also very quickly set up the Economic Review Committee to review our economic policies to revitalise the economy, and remake Singapore. So the Government has not been tardy since the General Elections. In other words, we have not been sitting on our hands.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister whether we could convene Parliament one month after the General Elections, so that Parliament can be operationally ready in case there are urgent matters to discuss? I am sure Members of this House are fully aware that many issues happened after the General Elections, and this House has got no opportunity to discuss all these issues. Therefore, I would request that following General Elections in future, at least a month, we should all be sworn in and this House will be ready to tackle urgencies. Another question, Sir, is whether this is going to be the trend.

I do not think we can predict what would be the trend in the future because nobody can tell us what is going to happen in the future. While we can set some rules, I do not think we should be so rigid as to say that we should meet immediately one month after the General Elections (GE). There could be many reasons why we cannot meet immediately. But if there are important or urgent reasons that we have to meet immediately after the GE, then there is no doubt that the Government will seize upon the opportunity to do so. But, here, we cannot commit that in future we will have a sitting one month after the GE. Much depends on the circumstances. I think the less we tie ourselves down with rules, the better it is. We should do what is necessary, what is useful, and what is important. Besides, immediately after the GE, there are many issues to be settled. Many of the programmes that the Government put up before the GE are ideas that we should pursue, and we need time to thrash them out; we need time to think through the major issues, and in this instance, for example, the key challenges we face today are economic restructuring and the new threat of the terrorists. So these are the two key challenges and therefore these are not issues that we can immediately come back to Parliament after the GE and settle. We cannot solve the problems even after the Budget. It will take some time for issues to be studied and to come out with programmes to resolve some of them. We cannot resolve all of them even in the Budget in May.

asked the Minister for National Development what is the situation regarding the land reclamation off Pulau Tekong and its possible impact on the Malaysians.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been many reports in the Malaysian media alleging that our land reclamation works off Pulau Tekong and Tuas will impact Malaysia in various ways. We are surprised by these recent allegations since our land reclamation policy is not new. Given Singapore's small size, it has been our long-standing policy to reclaim land from our territorial waters so as to meet the demands on land use. I will address these allegations in my response. First, there is concern that our works may encroach into their territorial waters, or somehow shift the boundary between Singapore and Malaysia. We have stated that the reclamation works are carried out entirely within our waters and that there is no encroachment. The reclamation works also cannot change the territorial boundary in the Johor Straits. This boundary was defined by fixed geographical coordinates since 1995 in an Agreement that was signed and ratified by Singapore and Malaysia. Another concern raised is that the reclamation works at Pulau Tekong will affect the shipping lane to Pasir Gudang Port by making the shipping lane narrower and shallower. Sir, this is not the case. The existing shipping lane to Pasir Gudang Port lies in the deep water channel between mainland Singapore and the islands of Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. Ships going to our Sembawang Wharves also use this shipping lane. The current reclamation works at Pulau Tekong will not reduce or otherwise affect the existing width of this shipping lane. The shipping lane is not made shallower by the reclamation works. The Maritime Port Authority (MPA) regularly monitors the siltation levels within the shipping lane to ensure that the channel remains deep enough for navigation. In the case of Tuas, our reclamation works are about 7 km away from the shipping lane to Tanjung Pelepas Port, so there is no possibility that our reclamation would affect access to Tanjung Pelepas Port. I would also like to address allegations that the reclamation works at Pulau Tekong will increase the current flow in the Johor Straits, cause flooding in Johor and affect the fishermen's catches. Hydraulic modelling studies are done for our reclamation works to assess the impact of reclamation on currents, tidal flows and water quality. They indicate that the reclamation at Tuas and Pulau Tekong will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding waters. Furthermore, water quality in the Johor Straits has also been jointly monitored on a regular basis by our Ministry of the Environment and Johor's Department of the Environment (DOE) since 1991. The results show that the water quality in the Johor Straits has remained unchanged even after reclamation works have started. Sir, Singapore has acted within its rights and obligations under international law in carrying out the reclamation works. During his visit to Malaysia in March this year, DPM Lee had indicated that if the Malaysians had concerns about the effects of the reclamation, they could send us a note and we would consider it. The Singapore Government is still waiting for a note from the Malaysians to understand their concerns more fully.

Sir, notwithstanding the legality of Singapore's reclamation works, there appears to be a perception across the Causeway that we ought to have consulted before we undertook these works. May I ask whether there is any basis for such a request or expectation in law and also whether this observation of Rule No. 1 has been bilateral.

Sir, to answer Mr Iswaran's question, let me first explain to the House why we reclaim land. Singapore is a small country. We are about 680 sq km. We need land. When Habibie said that we are a little red dot, he was not too far off the mark. If you look at the map, you will see Singapore in relation to Malaysia and Indonesia. Malaysia is about 330,000 sq km. So we are less than 1%, about 0.2%, the size of Malaysia. Our population is growing. Our need for land for schools, factories, housing is growing. That is the reason why we have to reclaim land. Without reclamation, we would not have Marine Parade, we would not have East Coast Parkway, we would not have the airport. Without reclamation, we would not have Jurong Island, we would not have space for industries. Without reclamation, we would not have Marina South to expand our CBD. So that is the reason why we have to reclaim land. We are not a big country like Malaysia. Secondly, our reclamation is not a secret. We do not do reclamation quietly and sneak it through and suddenly we have the barges going to Pulau Tekong to reclaim land. Our plans are approved in Parliament, in this House. They are reviewed in all our concept plans. In fact, the reclamation of Pulau Tekong was reviewed in the 1991 Concept Plan, 11 years ago. The concept plans are revised every 10 years, and in the 2001 Concept Plan which we released last year, the reclamation plans are still there. Any member of the public can get access to these plans. If you are not in Singapore, you can just click on to www.ura.gov.sg and you can see these plans. So these are not secret plans, neither are they carried out surreptitiously or just on the spur of the moment. As I said earlier, we have looked at reclamation and we have carried out reclamation since the 1960s. To summarise, we are a small country, we need land. We have been reclaiming land for a very, very long time. Even then, after all the reclamations for the last 40 years and all the reclamations that we are going to carry out within our territorial waters, we will still be a small country, still smaller than Malaysia. So it is rather surprising that these allegations come out at this particular point in time, that we are thwarting their port development, that we are affecting their waters, or affecting them in many other ways. As I stated earlier, our reclamation works are done within our waters, in accordance with international law. We do not encroach on Malaysian territory. They do not affect navigation in the Johor Straits. They do not narrow the channel. They do not affect the water quality. The reclamation works that we do are a result of our own need for land. So I do not see why we have to consult Malaysia on a matter of sovereign concern. A few years ago, Malaysia was thinking about reclaiming some land off Johor, in the Straits. This was not too long ago, and the planned reclamation was very extensive. They did not see the need to consult us, neither did we make any noise about it. So given this, the fact that we need to reclaim, given the fact that we have made studies to ensure that the reclamation works do not have an impact, is it necessary for us to consult? Is it unreasonable for Singapore to want to continue to reclaim land to the maximum extent possible, within our territorial waters?

Sir, may I ask the Minister, besides the studies done, what other measures have been taken by the Ministry to minimise any possible environmental impact on both Malaysia and Singapore? Is there any pollution screen being erected, or whatever is being taken?

When the reclamation works are being done, first of all, the reclamation barges have to be properly managed, properly steered, and so on. As far as the actual works are concerned, there is a requirement for the reclamation works to be carried out in such a way that pollution and siltation are kept to a minimum. For example, the contractors are required to make use of siltation screens. These siltation screens are meant to block the silt from actually moving out of the area of reclamation.

I would like to ask the Minister how binding is this 1995 agreement between the two countries, and could any one party alter it unilaterally, or interpret it differently.

I think I should defer to my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to answer this question. But as far as I know, it is an agreement that was signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for Singapore and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for Malaysia. It is an agreement that was ratified by both countries. It cannot be unilaterally altered by either party.

I would like to ask the Minister, therefore, is there a basis for the Malaysians' expectations of us to stop work.

We have carried out these works within our territorial waters. We have taken all the necessary steps to examine whether there would be any adverse impact on the surrounding waters. The reclamation profile has been properly calibrated to make sure that the impact on the environment is minimised, if not, completely eliminated. So as far as we are concerned, we have carried out all these works in accordance with our international obligations and within international laws. There is really no need for us to stop work at this point in time.

Singapore's position is that it has no impact on shipping lanes, no effect on the environmental situation in the Straits. But given Malaysia's position that it has an impact and that it has indicated that it will send a note, looking forward, how do you see this being resolved, or would it be yet another issue in our tangle of problems?

Sir, as DPM Lee has asked the Malaysians to send us a note, I think it is important for us to wait until we receive such a note in order to understand more clearly what exactly are their concerns. Because right now, from what we read in the media, there are so many different allegations and some of these allegations contradict one another. So I think it is best for us to just calmly wait for the note to come.

Sir, may I ask the Minister when we built the Second Link, although it was a joint project, we did quite substantial reclamation also for the purposes of the Second Link. Did the Malaysians raise any objections then?

No, they did not.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether, under the 1995 agreement, or under any international law, is Singapore obliged to notify Malaysia, or consult Malaysia, when we want to do any reclamation.

Sir, as I explained, the reclamation works are within our territorial waters and we have satisfied our international obligations. I do not see that there is a need for us to consult.

asked the Minister for Health how many patients, who have overstayed in acute hospitals, have been charged with higher fees since the policy was implemented from March 2002.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Dr Lily Neo, has asked how many patients who have overstayed in acute hospitals have been charged with higher fees. It is a policy that the Ministry of Health introduced in March 2002. Mr Speaker, Sir, to-date, only one patient has been charged full cost for four days of overstay in Class B2 ward of Singapore General Hospital (SGH). Despite financial counselling given to the patient, she chose not to be discharged home after she was certified medically fit. The reason she gave was that she did not want the hassle of returning to SGH for her daily outpatient radiotherapy treatment. Let me take this opportunity to explain our policy on overstayers in acute hospitals. Patients should be discharged from the acute hospitals when it is medically assessed that they no longer require inpatient medical care. Patients who still insist on staying in the hospitals should pay the full cost of their extended stay. In this way, we ensure that the heavily subsidised beds are taken up by patients who require inpatient care. In implementing this policy, I would like to reassure Singaporeans that we have put in place several safeguards. First, our hospitals certify patients that they are medically fit for discharge based solely on medical grounds. Secondly, my Ministry is aware that some families may face difficulties in looking after patients at home upon their discharge for various social reasons. Some patients may also require step-down care. As such, the hospitals will assist the patients and their families to arrange for placements in step-down facilities, or home medical, or home nursing, for these patients. Patients and their families will be given sufficient time to make the necessary domestic adjustments. Full cost would only be charged from the seventh working day after the patients have been certified medically fit and after the hospital has placed them in appropriate step-down care facility, if necessary.

May I ask the Minister of State whether it is appropriate to implement the new subsidy for overstayers ruling as there is, at the moment, still a shortage of nursing homes and community hospital beds to discharge these patients? Moreover, the home care services are not adequate presently to have them sent home.

Mr Speaker, Sir, where step-down facilities cannot be found for the patient, or where the home nursing arrangement has not been arranged, the patient will not be discharged from the hospital, even if they are medically fit and even if the seven days have been exceeded.

Sir, may I ask the Minister of State what is the average occupancy rate of the acute hospitals?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the occupancy rate depends on whether the patients are in the subsidised or the paying class wards. Currently, in the subsidised wards, particularly in the C class wards, the occupancy rate is close to 100%.

May I ask the Minister of State who certifies the discharge of overstaying patients?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the certification that the patient is medically fit will be done by a doctor. As in the acute hospitals, these patients are in departments that are under the care of consultants. The consultant in charge will be responsible for the patient being certified fit for discharge.

May I ask the Minister of State whether it is right to put the onus on the doctor to certify the discharge of his patients? Do the doctors have enough time to investigate whether, socially, these patients are ready for discharge? Will he not agree with me that a patient cannot just be assessed physically, but also in totality?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the doctors will only certify on the medical grounds whether the patient is fit to be discharged. There are social problems involved in many of these cases and the social problems will be handled by the medical social worker. Where the medical social worker cannot solve the problem, meaning that the home nursing or home medical services cannot be arranged, then the patient will not be discharged. It is only when all arrangements can be made, and there have been seven days since the time the doctor has certified that the patient was medically fit to leave, it is only at that point will the patient be charged full rates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to discharging of patients, is it because of the present case mix policy, meaning there is a specific period of stay that a patient will get subsidy from the Government, after which there will be no subsidy? So I am wondering whether the patients are being discharged for this purpose to make sure that the hospitals do not have to pay on their own to treat those overstayers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this policy has nothing to do with case mix. At this point in time, case mix has not been introduced for purposes of reimbursement of the hospital. So they have no reason to take case mix into consideration when discharging patients. And should case mix be introduced at some point, we will ensure and insist that decisions on whether patients are discharged home or whether they are medically fit must be decided purely on medical criteria, and not on financial or case mix criteria.

Sir, regarding the allocation of the medical social worker to a case where step-down care is needed, when does the medical social worker come into the picture?

Currently, it is the policy in many hospitals that looking at discharge of the patients and placement of the patient starts very early, sometimes even soon after admission, particularly with stroke patients. So the medical social workers may be involved very early in the management of the patients.

May I ask the Minister of State whether it is correct to say that many overstayers are old people with no income or from families with low income and many of them with no family members who can look after them. May I ask whether this new ruling will jeopardise this group of people further financially and socially.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy has been implemented for only a month and only one patient so far has been charged. In her case she had financial counselling and, for convenience, she wanted to stay in hospital. We will monitor the effects of this policy over the next few months. If there are any cases that have been discharged and it has caused undue suffering to the family or to the patient, they can bring it up with my Ministry or they can bring it up with me and we will look at it. But as this is a new policy that has been implemented for only one month, I cannot at this time tell the Member whether or not there will be anybody affected in such a manner. But we will monitor this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister of State, since the average occupancy rate for the subsidised wards is 100%, is there any plan to increase the number of beds for the subsidised wards?

Mr Speaker, Sir, currently there is a great demand for C class beds. We are reviewing the matter and, at this point, we have not made any decision on that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister if there are plans for more step-down care services to be provided.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, there are plans for more step-down facilities, there are plans for new nursing homes and new step-down facilities to be built.

Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether it is correct to say that Medifund cannot be used for nursing homes and step-down care. Therefore, may I ask him whether his Ministry has created a group of people with special needs that cannot be met by our present schemes, in other words, have we created a group with no safety net for them? How would the Minister of State assure Singaporeans that nobody would be deprived of medical care as a result of lack of financial means?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first premise that we have when a patient is discharged from the hospital is that the patient is medically fit to leave the hospital. So the question of the patient not receiving medical care does not come in. As long as a patient is in the acute hospital requiring medical care, Medifund will be available for the patient.

Would the Minister not agree with me that many patients with disabilities are as a result of diseases? A good example he mentioned earlier was stroke. Therefore, how can he then refer to such cases as not medical-related cases and not needing Medifund?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we need to make a distinction between medical problems and social problems caused as a result of medical illness. When a patient comes to the hospital, the patient is ill, he is treated and medical care will be provided for him. But as a result of the medical illness, there are real social problems that may occur in that the person may be left disabled, without work and may have to make alternative financial arrangements to look after themselves. These are the social problems as a result of a medical illness. Where the social problems arise, they are referred to the medical social worker, who will then liaise with the various bodies responsible for taking care of providing support for people with financial problems, to help these people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the 100% occupancy rate of the C class wards, can the Minister of State assure us that those who are on the waiting list would be given the relevant medical attention and also at the C ward charges?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said close to 100% because the occupancy rate fluctuates from day to day. Any patient who requires treatment will not be delayed. The patient will be admitted, put into a bed in another class, but the charges would remain, depending on what class the patient is admitted. So the various hospitals have contingency plans to deal with the situation when at one point in time there are not enough beds in that particular class.

Sir, will the Minister of State tell whether a comatose patient is ever fit enough for discharge from the hospital?

The decision on when a comatose patient is fit to leave an acute hospital will be a decision to be made by the doctor in charge. But there are comatose patients who leave the acute hospital to be transferred to a nursing home where they may remain for several months until they recover.

If the family of a comatose patient insists that the patient be kept in the hospital, will this patient then be subjected to the policy of full charge?

If an appropriate step-down facility is available for the patient and the arrangements have been made and there is a step-down facility that is available for the patient, it would make sense to move the patient to the step-down facility, because the cost of looking after the patient in an acute hospital is much higher than in a step-down facility. And that is the purpose why step-down facilities are built. So where a patient has an appropriate facility available for him and the family does not want the patient to move to that facility or the patient does not want that to happen, then the full charge will come in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may ask the Minister of State, when will plans for the additional step-down facilities be implemented? When can we see the step-down facilities be done and in what percentage are we talking about?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figures with me at this point in time on the details of the step-down facilities and when they will be available. But I will make this information available to Mr Steve Chia.

Will the Minister of State not agree with me that the difference between the step-down facility and an acute hospital is one of subsidy, and will the patient not be put in a position where he is forced to take up an alternative provider of care where he does not enjoy any subsidy from the state in a situation like this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not agree. There is a difference between a step-down unit and an acute hospital. In an acute hospital, the level of medical care is more intensive and the patient is more acutely ill. The patient goes to a step-down unit when his condition is stable and needs medical care or nursing care of a lower intensity, and that is why the cost of providing care in a step-down unit is much lower than in an acute hospital. And, in a step-down unit, they are subsidised too.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I practise in a hospital, so I understand the system very well. The problem of overstaying, if I may ask the Minister of State, if I am correct, is very subjective because, really, medicine is as much a science as it is an art. So, are there going to be very clear fixed parameters in which you can determine that a person has already reached a stage where he should be home and therefore if he stays any further he should be considered an overstayer? I think this is going to be very, very difficult to determine. So I am not sure on what sort of criteria or whether there are certain international guidelines he is going to use to determine that a patient has overstayed his due period of stay in the hospital.

We have left the decision to the doctor in charge because it is not possible to draw a guideline that you can apply across every case. Every sick patient is unique. So we will leave it to the doctor who is looking after the patient to make the decision. As a rule, and in fact all the doctors are very compassionate people, I cannot imagine that they would want to discharge a patient who is not fit to be discharged. What we will make sure is that there is no financial, social or administrative pressure on the doctors to make a decision that is not in the interest of the patient.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State, in that case, if the Ministry's thinking is that everything should be left to the doctors to decide when a patient is fit for home, then why is there a move over the last one or two years for the Ministry of Health to ask professional bodies to draw up clinical practice guidelines. I happen to chair one of these as well. Obviously, the Ministry's purpose is to ensure that there are perhaps clear guidelines for the management of certain diseases. So I would like to ask the Minister of State, if that is the thinking of the Ministry, then why are they asking doctors to draw up practice guidelines? Obviously, the reason is that medicine is very subjective and it is very, very difficult to determine when a patient is well enough to go home or how he should be treated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are fully aware that, in medicine, there are subjective decisions to be made and the guidelines are drawn up by the doctors for themselves. So when the guidelines are drawn up, it is the specialists within a certain area who draw up guidelines to help them make the correct decisions. And most of the guidelines are clauses to ensure that it is not rigid, such that the doctor involved can still use his own discretion to make the final decision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has stated that a decision on such overstayer cases is left to the hospital doctors. But who reviews the doctors? Is there an avenue for a second opinion? As he said, doctors may differ in opinion. Will he care to put a mechanism for appeal or review of any cases? Where families are not happy, could they bring it up through some channel, rather than come to our MPS, then we appeal to the Minister? It will be too late, it will take too much time.

Currently, the consultants in charge of the patient are responsible. But this is a suggestion that we can take up, ie, as to whether or not, when an appeal is made, another doctor within the hospital can review the case. This is a suggestion that we will take up in the Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State, in the acute hospitals where there is great pressure on the beds, doctors are often asked to do what we call "discharge rounds", in other words, doctors will go and do a round in a ward to discharge patients primarily to have new beds to admit acute patients and some of these patients are not again what we would determine as optimally cured or treated at that point in time. In the light of this, how is the Ministry going to prevent this practice from happening where you discharge patients primarily because you want to free beds to take in acute patients?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not want our doctors to discharge any patients who are medically unfit. This is not acceptable. If there is any case that anybody knows, please let me know.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the medical condition on whether a patient is fit to be discharged is decided by a doctor but could the Minister of State consider whether the decision to charge him fee for overstaying can be determined in consultation with the medical social workers to take into consideration the financial and social aspects? The medical condition is decided by a medical doctor but the decision to charge a fee should be decided including other elements as well.

Mr Gan, I think the question has been asked. Dr Khor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my supplementary question is actually similar to Mr Gan's. Following the question from the Member for Jalan Besar, the decision to discharge should be based on totality, that means, he may be medically fit but there may be social problems, so we should involve the medical social worker.

That question too has been answered.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State that since there is such a great pressure on subsidised beds and since lately, the Ministry of Health has also openly announced that they will go all out to court private patients as well, there seems to be mixed signals. On one hand, are we trying to say that there are a lot of extra paying beds and therefore we should go out to court paying patients but the subsidised beds are very full and we should try to discharge so-called "perceived overstayers"? Should the Ministry then not consider converting more paying beds to subsidised beds and ease the pressure on subsidised beds?

I think the Ministry will periodically review the demand for subsidised beds and looking at the trend, if there is a necessity in future where beds have to be converted, that is something that we will have to consider.

asked the Minister for Transport whether, in view of the much lower traffic volume on Saturday mornings, his Ministry will lift restriction on or review the bus lane operating hours in the Central Business District on those mornings.

Sir, unlike the new Ministry of Health's discharge policy which is only one month old, bus lanes have been around for nearly 30 years. I do not know whether new policies attract more supplementary questions or old policies. I shall know shortly. Sir, bus lanes are needed to facilitate the smooth flow of public buses. It gives priority to buses, enabling them to better adhere to their schedules. In this way, we have brought benefits to millions of bus commuters every day. Bus lanes are implemented only along roads where the bus volume is very high. On Saturdays, we operate from 7.30 am to 9.30 am, and from 11.30 am to 2.00 pm. Although overall traffic in certain parts of the Central Business District (CBD) may be lower on Saturday mornings as compared to weekdays, the frequency and volume of buses in the CBD area do not change very much. In fact, in other parts of the CBD, like Orchard Road and Bras Basah Road, overall traffic remains heavy on Saturday mornings. Therefore, the Ministry of Transport does not intend to lift the bus lane restrictions on Saturday mornings.

Since the policy is to ensure a smooth traffic flow and on Saturday mornings, most of the areas in the CBD are already experiencing smooth traffic, should the Ministry not have a periodic review on this? In fact, the ERP in the CBD area on Saturdays has been lifted which suggests that the flow of traffic is very smooth and there is no need for another policy to restrict it.

I think it depends on the volume of buses. We have checked. For example, on Saturday mornings, bus schedules remain quite heavy, as compared to weekdays. Yes, on Sundays, the schedules come down significantly. But as far as bus companies are concerned, they treat Saturdays as similar to weekdays. If I may give you some examples of the streets around this area. Hill Street, for example, on weekdays, in the morning, bus volume is about 164 per hour, ie, about two or three buses every minute. On Saturdays, it is 149 or 150, so there is not much difference. On Sundays, it comes down very drastically, about 130. Bras Basah Road, on weekdays, it is 180; Saturday mornings, 165. So it remains quite heavy. I know the concern. We have built roads and roads are expensive. We do not want to under-utilise the resources. Therefore, we are extremely selective when we decide on which roads to impose bus lanes. Although the working criterion is about 50 buses per hour, which is one bus per every 60-70 seconds, in practice, where we impose bus lanes, the bus volumes triple those rates.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State about the cameras being installed in buses. Are they still being installed and are they effective?

Sir, they are being installed. Those are called bus-cams and they have been effective in discouraging violators. We still receive cases every month - I cannot remember the figures - but not many. Obviously, they have worked.

With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding Standing Order 88(2), the exempted business motion be taken now and the proceedings on the remaining items on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. " - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]

"to enable Singapore to become a Member of the International Development Association by acceptance of the Articles of Agreement of the establishment and operation of the International Development Association", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [1st April, 2002], 'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".' - [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua]. Question again proposed. 1.25 pm

Mr Speaker Sir, I join my colleagues in support of the motion thanking the President for his Address. Sir, I am reminded by what you said about being the last few to speak. Indeed, in the last few days, Members have dealt with daunting issues that Singapore faces. I have also been advised by well-meaning MPs and Ministers included. But as the debate goes on, I should strike off issues raised accordingly. I realise that as at end of yesterday that indeed, I am left with very little to say. In fact, every evening for the last four evenings, I have been revising and updating my script. Yet, I still come to the same thing. I have decided that there is nothing wrong to have more of the same, so long as the more reflects diversity of perspectives. Therefore, Sir, I will be coming from the perspectives of challenges and opportunities in these trying times. This is a time of great change and challenge for Singapore. Singapore today is faced with the greatest threat to its competitiveness than any other time in its history as an independent nation. After September 11th, we must be more security conscious. The threads of our multi-racial society must be strengthened. As we strive to remake Singapore, we must embrace dramatic transformations that will ripple across many sectors of our society. A seemingly endless wind of change ahead, but behind it all, lie abundant opportunities. So how can the workforce stay relevant? And how can Singapore remain competitive? To combat the challenges and build on the opportunities, I would like to propose four key points. The first deals with stakeholders, namely, the workforce, the business community and the Government. The second looks at boosting entrepreneurial culture and spirit. The third calls for building a tradition of charity. The fourth hails for solidarity in change efforts. Economic gypsies Now, workers have to be prepared to embrace the role of economic gypsies. I term it that way because market volatility and shortened business cycles will mean workers have to change their jobs and work environments ever so often, to stay employed. Singapore now faces increased international competition for foreign capital, investments, and export markets. This is a result of the liberalisation of the former communist bloc countries such as China, Russia and Eastern Europe - who also have a lower cost base. We are also beginning to lose our traditional competitive advantage. Knowledge and technology have become cheaply available and portable in the KBE. Our growth rate can be expected to be halved from the heady days of near double-digit growth. Workers' earnings will consequently be affected. Frog in heating water Merely adapting to change is dangerous and misleading. It is like a frog in water that is slowly heating up. The frog will keep changing its body temperature to suit its surrounding. Contented, the frog goes off to sleep. But bliss turns to disaster, eventually it gets boiled alive. So people must do more than just adapt to change. They must jump out of their changing world, take charge and dare to venture into new territories. Ensuring viability of our businesses in the new economy From the workforce, let us now turn our attention to businesses. To survive and remain competitive, businesses cannot afford to carry surplus capacity on a long-term basis, without matching growth periods. They must be allowed to shed excess capacity, be it manpower or otherwise, in a timely manner. Businesses today face pressures of competition to reduce costs and will invest only in cost effective locations. Singapore is severely lacking in land and other natural resources which tend to push up our costs. Our workforce, traditionally hardworking and disciplined, must be flexible and realistic to retain what is left of our competitive edge. Workers must realize that unemployment is here to stay. As Singapore transits into a KBE, we face the challenge of structural unemployment. I understand that for a country to achieve KBE status, at least 65% of its workforce has to be in the skilled category. In Singapore, our skilled workforce only constitutes 59%. In our race to reach full KBE status, we may have to fill this gap with foreign talent. This will only worsen the problem of the structurally unemployed issue, as it takes time to retrain people for new jobs that require new skills. Those affected must therefore be prepared to turn to less pleasant or lower skill jobs, traditionally shunned by Singaporeans. Others, including professionals, may have to learn to be innovative and become self-employed, and offer competitively priced services. Bearing the full brunt of this vicious cycle are the executives. In 1997, I was approached by several, whom I call the PEMs - they are, basically, the professionals, executives and managers - who had lost their jobs during the financial crisis. Many of them are casualties of the dotcom bust and ongoing restructuring of our finance sector, highly skilled and trained. But they are a vulnerable group, with no avenue to seek redress. PEMs comprise a sizable 40% of the total retrenched workforce. I decided to put my support behind this group and initiated SPEC, a co-operative of PEMs. My friends questioned my move to champion the cause of executives, reminding me that my father, a retired Labour MP and a founding member of the NTUC, had battled the plight of workers. But, Sir, this cohort of our workforce is fast increasing, and they do not enjoy the slew of financial assistance and rebates handed out by the Government to the workers, which I fully support. Sir, I shall be calling upon the Government to appropriately do more in some areas and less in others, as befitting the role of Government in both good and bad times. The Government has allocated a $178,000-grant to SPEC to conduct job placement and other training schemes for this group of people, but I think more can be done for retrenched executives. Sir, I would like to suggest another way to help this group of people, especially those who are above 40 years old. It is difficult for them to find re-employment, because of employers' preference for younger workers. One alternative to re-employment would be for the Government to help them become self-employed. PEMs have a wealth of knowledge and expertise, and many years of valuable working experience to offer. The Government can facilitate the PEMs to offer their services to SMEs or other businesses that the Government would like to support. The Government can encourage companies to employ the services of PEMs by granting a subsidy, but for only a limited period of time. DPM Lee had given his view on subsidies yesterday. My take on his comment is that giving subsidies is tantamount to robbing Peter to give Paul. In this instance, I would like to persuade DPM Lee that in certain situations, it is necessary to jia-you, to get the car going. For my Malay colleagues, it means tambah minyak kereta. Otherwise, we will keep running on the same spot and we will be non-starters. Another way is to organise these PEMs to take up overseas postings under a subsidised funding scheme. We can prepare and encourage this group of PEMs to venture overseas. From my understanding, many companies in China require expertise and experienced operations managers to help them run their businesses. In these companies, they actually employ a lot of young MBAs, but these companies still feel that they lack experienced operations managers. So, this is one area where we can actually help our PEMs. This group of PEMs can actually become the nucleus for the eventual emergence of portfolio managers. They could form an "outsource industry" to meet the needs of businesses. Such an industry could thrive and flourish in the New Economy, and help to make Singapore more cost competitive. Sir, I would also like to propose that some form of minimum legislation be put in place to protect PEMs. They are not covered by the Employment Act. So they have no recourse to the Ministry of Manpower if they are treated unfairly by their employers. The Conciliation Service Unit, set up by MOM after the 1997 downturn, offers some consolation, but is not sufficient to help settle a retrenchment or termination dispute. Perhaps it is timely to consider a review of the Industrial Relations Act, to make provision for the aggrieved executive to be represented in an Arbitration Court, for termination and dismissal issues. To be sure, Sir, I am not seeking redress for executive union representation. To do that will be to hamper the flexibility of doing business in Singapore. Our desired outcome is to have minimum legislation to protect the rights of every stakeholder in Singapore. Sir, the President, in his Address to this House, emphasised the need for us to strengthen the spirit of entrepreneurship and risk taking, as a platform for Singapore's future competitiveness. May I also add that we will require as many of our best and brightest to take up this challenge, if we are to succeed in building this platform. And to this end, our Government must once again take the lead. The Government must correct the current imbalance in the distribution of local talent between the public and private sectors, to boost the spirit of entrepreneurship and risk taking in Singapore. Ironically, it has not been seen to take the risk of doing this, while exhorting the virtues of risk taking. The best and brightest among our young are still being educated and nurtured, at great public expense, for safe jobs in the comfort zones of Government service and GLCs. Worse still, many of able body and mind, who eventually retire from service on mandatory grounds, are re-absorbed into the service. The Government must practise more of what it is preaching on this issue. Notwithstanding the problem of a limited local talent pool, the Government must be bold enough to allow the private sector a larger share of this pool. For example, retiring officers, who are still fit for re-employment, can be encouraged and facilitated to start new businesses or become active equity investors in businesses. A good many of these talents can be drawn from the top brass of our Armed Forces. Instead of giving them the security of a second career in the cocoon of the Government and GLCs, why not encourage them to become risk takers and wealth creators, in line with our objective of strengthening the spirit of entrepreneurship? To further enlarge the entrepreneurial talent pool, the Government can also award scholarships for higher studies to top students, based on their aspirations to become entrepreneurs. Returned scholars could be asked to work in Government or GLCs for up to five years, after which they could be released to the private sector to pursue their dreams, perhaps with some help from industry and Government. Indeed, in our midst in this Chamber, we have a reverse trend in Minister of State Ng Eng Hen, who started a successful medical practice in the private sector and is now drawn into the Government to contribute. But this is a good thing to happen for Singapore, because it demonstrates that if we can nurture the private sector, with the creame de la creame, we will always be assured of a minefield to roost our golden goose. MOS Ng, please do not think that I am showering you with flattery, but I only wish to emphasise a point to all. Some may argue that good entrepreneurs need not be from the brightest and the best. I would argue that if Singapore wants to produce a few winners and another Sim Wong Hoo, then it must cultivate the brightest and the best. By and large, the majority of our entrepreneurs can be the mums and the pas of our heartlanders, but in uplifting the entrepreneurial culture and quality, there is no denying that we also need the best. We tend to have a pre-qualified definition for success - all the 5 Cs. But let me relate an incident my entrepreneur friend told me about. One morning, she drove her daughter to school, something she had not been doing for a while. The principal, who knows her as a successful entrepreneur, was surprised to see her and asked her why she was not at work. Amused by the query, my friend replied "Well I have made enough money for the year and have decided to quit my job." In fact, she had just quit her dotcom company that went bust. The pre-conceived notion here is that she had time to ferry her daughter because she may have lost her job. But the principal may or may not be having this notion that my friend thinks the principal has. The point really is that the meaning of success is relative and a matter of choice. Singaporeans must look at the entrepreneurial world through experimental eyes. Give room for trials and courage. Courage does not mean having no fear. Courage is taking action despite fear, and this, to me, is success. Sir, the President has also spoken of the need to maintain and strengthen our social cohesion, as we upgrade our economy, and the income divide widens between those at the top end and the lower end. The world's wealthiest country, the United States, is also a country of great income divide. But the social cohesion of American society is strong, partly because of their great charitable institutions and the generosity of America's rich, in reaching out to help their less fortunate compatriots. The spirit of the American charity is best illustrated by Bill Gates, the world's wealthiest person with a reported net worth of US$56 billion, but who has also given away US$20 billion to charity. I am no fan of Bill Gates, but here is an example of a businessman supporting the community in which his business thrives. Our Asian values of philanthropy are not lacking in the least. The first generation of Overseas Chinese in Singapore like Lee Kong Chian, Tan Kah Kee, Tan Tock Seng and Run Run Shaw were all charitable towkays who had given back much to society, especially to help the less privileged. These philanthropists have set up foundations and built institutions that have benefited many Singaporeans. Witness the former Nanyang University and The Chinese High. Sir, while we should celebrate Singaporeans who do well, let us also urge those who are well-off, to take a leaf from the great American tradition of charity and generosity and from our Asian philanthropy values, in reaching out to the less fortunate in our society. In so doing, social cohesion will be strengthened. In closing, Sir, we are all aware that Singapore is at the crossroads. The challenges we are facing are daunting, but by no means insurmountable. As a nation and a people, we have been at the crossroads and turning points many times in our history. Yet, each time we have overcome the odds and emerged stronger. I am confident that we will rise to the occasion and emerge victorious again. Strong leadership, transparency, meritocracy, hard work and flexibility will continue to give us the extra edge, not only to survive but will keep us ahead of many of our competitors. As a nation, we must soldier on with a positive mindset. As the Government, we must provide bold initiatives that will facilitate the PEMs and budding entrepreneurs. And as good corporate citizens, we must always remember to give back what we have reaped. In a nutshell, the President's vision must become a shared dream of all Singaporeans. I urge that there will be fuller discussions and public debates on this vision, so that all of us will own this vision and be inspired to always be hopeful. For in hope, we find the way to remake Singapore into a fine nation, not just in form but in spirit and soul as well. On this note, I support the motion.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the motion moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Member for Marine Parade GRC, to thank the President for his Speech. I agree with the view of the President and some other Members of the House that Singapore is now at a crucial crossroad. I also agree with the President's view that the choices we will make will determine our future, our success or failure, our progress or decline, in fact Singapore's very survival as a nation in a turbulent world. We have our meeting here as the world is still trapped in economic slowdown. This is exacerbated by the black September 11 incident. The contemptible terrorist attacks on the New York Twin Towers, the United States' reaction on the Al Qaeda terrorist group in Afghanistan, the unending bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East, the threats from the Kashmiri dispute, all create a really horrifying global political climate. In this region, the political atmosphere is no less worrying. Threats from the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group have not abated in the Philippines. In Indonesia, political developments have yet to move towards improved prospects. Malaysia is facing challenges from the Umno-PAS power struggle. As a global city state which is open and exposed, we are not spared the sparks of the conflicts and the winds of uncertainty. Is Singapore able to overcome the difficulties? This is the question playing in the minds of every one of us. We can feel confident because we have the capacity. We have the people rallying firmly behind the Government. We have among the world's best infrastructure for which we spent decades to build. We have an educated and capable population. We have national reserves which can be used in difficult times. We have leaders of calibre. We have an excellent defence. What matters is that we have a brand name. The Singapore brand is a very valuable capital. All these are the capital we have. However, we are still handicapped by several factors. We are small. We have only 682.3 square kilometres of land bereft of natural resources, and a tiny population of 3.26 million. Mr Speaker, I do not in the least doubt that we can and certainly will overcome the difficulties facing us now. When Singapore was born as a nation 36 years ago, these limitations were already there. In fact, a large part of the capital that I mentioned earlier were absent then. We have succeeded in creating the Singapore that it is today despite some quarters predicting that we would fail. In fact, some even hoped that we would collapse. However, a historical abnormality happened. We have survived. And what is more, we have prospered. We can be thankful and proud because Singapore is an oasis in a troubled region. Why and how did this happen? Singapore's survival depends on two factors - external and internal factors. As is the case with other small nations, Singapore's rise or fall is determined to a large extent, about 60%, by external factors and 40% by factors within the country. We are not the United States of America, or China which are sufficiently large to depend on the people's sources of wealth and dynamism of efforts. America's economy forms 27% of the world's GNP. China, with its population of 1.29 billion and vast land rich with natural resources, can depend on the efforts and wealth within the country to support itself in hard times. Singapore cannot. The situation three decades ago is different from the present. The bipolar world and the Cold War of the 1960s were to our advantage when we were viewed as supporters in the Western powers' struggle against communism. Hence, we enjoyed the inflow of capital which developed our industries, and this region saw support for anti-communist governments. Such strategic considerations have helped the economies of Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Brunei to grow. ASEAN has been hailed as the unmatched shield of stability in the region. The basis of development which began from these strategic considerations has produced a circle of dynamism which benefited the region. Singapore, which has more obvious internal advantages and adopts correct policies and approach, has been able to move far ahead. The world is now a unipolar one. The struggle against communism has ended. The concern of the West has shifted to tackling their biggest political and economic rivals. Who is considered as a side which is able to pierce the unipolar comfort of the United States? Although Europe is seen as an economic rival, it is still counted as its political ally. So is Japan. This puts China and militant Islam as the biggest challenge to US world supremacy. Based on the way the US conducts its international relations, many are of the view that the challenge from China is a long-term concern while the challenge by militant Islam is more pressing. Mr Speaker, let me explain. In its effort to counter the threat of the Soviet Union, the US rallied its allies among Muslim nations. It helped Iran under Shah Phalavi and strengthened groups opposed to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan apart from cooperating with several Arab countries. The political challenge of militant Islam to the US began when Iran fell into the hands of the mullahs. Its attempt to make Iraq a buffer against Iranian influence ended with the emergence of Iraq under expansionist Saddam Hussein. Now Iraq has still not been completely crippled after Operation Desert Storm. In Afghanistan, the government power fell into the hands of the Talibans who opposed Soviet occupation of the country. The new Afghan leadership later provided safe haven to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, the person responsible for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is actually political in nature. George Habash of the People's Liberation Front of Palestine is a Christian. So are several other Palestinian senior leaders. However, the existence and violent profile of Hamas, Hizbollah and Al-Aqsa groups have placed militant Islam as a challenge to the US. The western media is also responsible for such portrayal. The flow of migrants from Muslim countries in North Africa, Middle East and Pakistan to France, Britain, Germany, Denmark, and the social conflicts which have arisen from it have also increased the concern of European countries on the phenomenon called Islam. These countries, though well-known as protectors and advocates of human rights, have taken measures to protect their respective interests. Turkey, since Mustapha Kamal Attaturk's era, has been practising secular policy and identifies itself as part of Europe. Until now, its attempt to become a member of the European Union has still not become a reality. A line seems to have been drawn by the western world against Islam. In our country, the events sparked by the Jemaah Islamiyah incident, the emergence of KMM in Malaysia and Laskar Jihad in Indonesia as well as Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines show that the threat of global terrorism affects us and our neighbours. Mr Speaker, what is the link between the geopolitical development in the world and Singapore? If a major part of Singapore's future is determined by external factors, it means that we have to think about it seriously and rationally. Singapore is a secular country. Muslims form 15% of its population. It is surrounded by Indonesia where Muslims form 88% of its 228 million population and Malaysia where Muslims form 53% of its 22 million population. Events that take place in the world and our neighbouring countries will have effects on Singapore. Does this mean that Singapore should be suspicious of Islam? Statements made by our leaders are clear. Singapore is not suspicious of Islam. But it is worried about militant Islam. Mr Speaker, this is not only the concern of Singapore, but also other countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. Likewise with Muslim majority countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Algeria. They are also fighting to contain the influence of militant Islam. We should expand our network and cooperation with mainstream and moderate Muslim countries. They can become our friends. At the same time, we must stop the inflow of militant Islam and prevent elements of militant Islam from spreading in our country. It is the seed of division which can threaten our racial harmony. Economically, we are facing China with its formidable economic challenge. Many Members of the House have touched on this matter. In this region, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia can offer an alternative with much lower costs. All these and many more that I am unable to mention form 60% of the factors that contribute to Singapore's survival. Mr Speaker, we may not be able to change the external factor. It is beyond our control. But this does not mean that we should not do anything and let it grip us. We should make efforts to make them work in our favour. I studied geography. Those who are familiar with the topography of a desert know that an oasis does not exist on its own. Its existence and greenery are due to the underground water that flows hundreds of kilometres to it. The water flows slowly and though we cannot see it, the water flows non-stop. Singapore is like an oasis. To remain as an oasis, it needs to create a network which channels sources of production and expertise from all over the world. Through the external wing, regionalisation, the carving of niches in external markets, the setting up of strategic branch offices overseas, the entry of talent and our networking with post-industrial countries, we create a network which becomes the lifeline of our country. We also need to concentrate on the other 40% - the internal factor. We need to rediscover our strength, explore new areas, change our way of analysing and solving problems. We have to strengthen our unity, increase our sense of belonging and stakes of our people. We need to have confidence in ourselves and our capability. It is a factor that can prompt us towards progress. The Singapore brand enjoys an international standard. We should fully use it. The success of SIA and PSA in airline and port industries can serve as a model for other industries. We should have more models of this kind. Mr Speaker, two years ago I was in Belgium, a European country which has a high cost of living. It has been able to maintain its economic development by carving certain niches in the European and world economies. Its small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) produce special and world-class goods. You may have heard the term 'boutique chocolate'. It is a special chocolate, delicious, unique but the price is ten times that of ordinary chocolate. Many people love it. So is the case with its restaurants. It has one-star to three-star restaurants. The three-star restaurants are not big restaurants. Some are run by couples with an assistant. But I have been told that the cooking is delicious and the ambience is fantastic. Diners pay premium amount to enjoy the service. In Sydney, there are also similar restaurants which are extraordinary. Those who want to go to the restaurants have to book three months in advance. There is only one menu and it does not change but the restaurants are crowded with customers every night. What I want to stress here is that we should not blame costs only. Generally, to compete with our rivals, we need to lower our costs. But for special high-cost industries, we can still increase demand by being creative. Mr Speaker, the oasis which is called Singapore has to get a formula and model from the experience overseas. The formula and model are like underground water that gives life to the oasis. If this can be done, I am confident that the ship which is called Singapore will continue to sail in the sea of success. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion to thank the President. My being here is about maintaining hope in our younger generation. Three other Members of this House who were naturalised Singaporeans have spoken of how they cast their lot with Singapore. I, on the other hand, am a Singaporean born overseas to expatriate Singaporean parents in Sarawak. I spent my early years in Kuching and Kota Kinabalu, and later in KL. In the political aftermath of Singapore's independence, circumstances forced my parents to move us from Sabah to KL, while the racial riots there in 1969 sent them back to Singapore. Despite having to take a paycut each time and to start all over again in their career each and every time, Singapore was still home and that is where they went, because they knew that here, in Singapore, success would not depend on one's race and religion, but on hard work and equal opportunities for all. I remember how funny it felt having to renounce my rights to a foreign passport and to take the oath of citizenship again despite having being registered as a citizen since birth. After nine years in our schools, I gladly served NS, not only because I now possess the pink IC, but because I felt that this was a place I was prepared to defend because it had given me the opportunity to make something of my life. After BMT, I was assigned to do social work among soldiers convicted of consuming controlled drugs. Many of these so-called Hokkien ping were basically what I felt were very good people, who had just strayed onto the wrong path. They taught me to appreciate all my blessings, and made me to reflect on the need for opportunities to get it right first time, and also how difficult it was to come back on course if you did not get it right first time. For these soldiers, NS was not about learning to defend Singapore, but a struggle to get back on track in their lives and a struggle to be accepted back into a society which had already branded them as failures. Later, while studying to be a paediatrician, I suffered many reverses in specialist examinations. But I have colleagues who believed that I deserved a second chance, and who believed and supported me, and eventually, I became a paediatrician. These experiences taught me valuable lessons: Firstly, you must believe in yourself and you must believe in your dreams to succeed. The second was that, to succeed, you needed people who believed in you and who are prepared to give you a second chance. The third was that when you fail, you must be prepared to be disappointed, but you have the resilience to fight on, and perhaps be laughed at for a while. The fourth was that when you fail, you must confront your faults and weaknesses, and be prepared to try something new or to risk repeating your mistakes again. Later, as a doctor treating chronic illnesses, such as diabetes in children, I come to know that my patients will only get serious about looking after themselves when they have accepted the diagnosis and understand that they have a lifelong condition that will not go away, but which they can battle and overcome. Such patients respond to treatment better and faster once they have embraced the challenge of tackling the disease for themselves and get serious about taking control of their own lives. I feel that this situation is analogous to the process of reinventing Singapore, in that we need to undergo a painful restructuring of our economy and reinvent ourselves as a global city. Our young people must buy into their own version of the Singapore dream. They will need to help remake Singapore many times within their own lifetime. We need to support them in their efforts, even if they do not get it right first time round. We need to imbue in them the optimism born not of cocky arrogance in their own abilities, but in a deep and binding belief that they will triumph whatever the odds because their forebears did so. We must teach them not to underestimate the competition, but also not to give up. I believe that, in remaking Singapore, we need to create a national psyche that emphasises three aspects: Firstly, a spirit of optimism and inquiry that seeks new challenges and new opportunities and a culture that recognises that sometimes failure is a necessary stopover on the road to success. Perhaps, in Singapore, we are too hard on those who fail the first time round. Secondly, we need to have a sense of humility about our present successes, one that recognises the need to continually improve and commit oneself to excellence. And, thirdly, in echoing many of my colleagues in this House, I believe that we must create a national ethos that emphasises the individual's obligation to active civic mindedness and civic service. To instill this spirit of inquiry and a thirst for challenges, we need to imbue in younger Singaporeans the idea that they too can be the authors of their own success stories. They do not need to follow the generally recognised Government model. We need to communicate the stories of role models for economic success that will resonate with our young. Some of these models may not be the ones that we would recognise. We need to train our young to think business right from the start, to think leadership, to think a "can do" spirit, right from the schooldays. I know many of our budding entrepreneurs actually started doing business even in the NS days using handphones and pagers. We can encourage this simply by allowing our young people to plan and run their own fun fairs and magazines in schools, sell souvenir T-shirts in college, run service projects and incubate businesses even while they are schooling. I know there are one or two of my CDC colleagues who actually have already done so. At the tender age of 21, they have already become CDC counsellors because they were prepared to throw in their two cents worth. We should get them to develop gadgets as part of their school projects, and help them patent inventions and bring them to market. Never mind it is not a commercial success. I too have a patent. It is not a commercial success but it saves my hospital money. There is a thrill in learning the skills needed to get a group of people to work together to raise money or to complete a project for the good of society. This sense of achievement and confidence gained will spur our young people on as social and commercial entrepreneurs later. Learning how to run service projects, whether locally or overseas volunteers, will also ignite a spark of social conscience that will often blossom into a lifetime of volunteerism. Learning how to run these things, inter-school, inter-college or inter-community also teaches our young people skills and promotes social cohesion, attributes sorely needed in Singapore's future. For those who have left school prematurely, schemes to bring them back to school, or at least to bring them to formal learning, such as YMCA Project Bridge, should be encouraged. Perhaps, we also need to consider more educational support for those who would succeed if they only have a little bit more help in our school system. We need to inspire our youths by showing them heroes they can understand and identify with, heroes not only from Singapore, but from this globalised world that they can apply to Singapore. History buffs may know the lessons of Venice and Hong Kong vis-a-vis Shanghai, and they may also realise that London is still a financial centre despite the decline of the British Empire. But when it comes to our younger generation, they may be more inspired by the men and ideas behind household names, such as Nokia, McDonald's, IBM, Sony and Samsung. They need to hear how Steve Jobs and Bill Gates made their way, and their fortunes, and how the inventors of velcro, post it pads and the humble zipper seem to have come upon the great discoveries they made their fortunes. They also need to know the nature of the competition, and that China now produces modern washing machines that can also churn butter. The need to hear also about our own Singapore role models. Not only do they need to know the stories of Senior Minister, CK Tang and Lee Kong Chian, but also about Creative Technologies, our own poets and painters, our own innovative mushroom growers, internationalised prata and popiah skin makers, orchid exporters, aeroponic vegetable growers, fishball makers and, yes, even our entertainers. Not all the possible role models for our young people are well known to the media. One of my own grassroots leaders, a Mr Tay, started out as an apprentice in one of our local shipyards, then struck out on his own to become a successful subcontractor to shipyards. Although he is mainly conversant only in Mandarin, he now has business interests in Myanmar, Batam, and even in Australia. His is an example of a local SME made good, despite his own limited formal education. I believe many can learn much from his example. For these examples to be effective, they need to be widely known. They need to become part of the myth of Singapore. Our young people need to hear the stories of our local role models, not just to be aired on occasional news specials, but to be propagated in our magazines, serialised into TV dramas, made into comics and perhaps even made into computer games, and made into part of our local folklore. We would also do well to have a young businessman's council, or a young inventor's chat show. We should consider the road less travelled to be no less valid, especially when they lead to success. We should celebrate those who clawed their way back to success from the ranks of the scholastically challenged, either via entrepreneurial ladder or via an alternative scholastic ladder. The knowledge that your own countrymen have tried and made it, even though they may have tasted failure along the way, this is powerful stuff. This is about winning hearts right from an early age. We must tell our young people that they should not be like the proverbial frog in a well thinking themselves superior to others around them. 25 years ago, my mother, then a teacher, told me she had students who had never been to Orchard Road. Just before she retired, she told me of how her current students in the very same school were now comparing travel notes about China, Australia and the USA. However, we should make sure that our children do not just become ugly Singaporeans, known for passing loud comments about the relative backwardness of places that we visit, because pride comes before fall. In my travels as an advocate for diabetes knowledge, I have realised that whatever lead we Singaporeans think we have in technology or language or ability to understand the local culture obviously is fast disappearing. Our biggest stumbling block may well be a misplaced confidence in our own advantages. Our regional neighbours are at varying stages of economic development. Some may seem backward, but some are already better than us in certain areas. We need to teach our children to be humble when we visit these countries and to learn from them, to appreciate the cultural diversity, and to be inspired to see these as new lands of opportunity, new lands where they might want to do business. We should continue to send our young people abroad for school trips, even in these troubled times because we need to open their eyes to poverty, to opportunities for service, opportunities for commerce and to understand the people of the region better. We should encourage the work of the Singapore International Foundation to send more people as volunteers representing Singapore. Surveys by the SIF showed that young people who had done overseas volunteer stints were more likely to be volunteers in Singapore upon their return. These people will not only develop a greater civil consciousness towards our own citizens, but they will also be better able to function as global Singaporeans, rooted to Singapore and yet able to take on jobs and do business globally. But how about ourselves, this current generation, as change agents for a better Singapore? As the current generation of adult Singaporeans, we can do a lot more to show our young that they can have confidence in our generation yet. Let me just offer three suggestions before I close: Firstly, if you are a boss, consider hiring an older worker. He or she may have been retrenched, but may still have an agile mind and an able body. Sure, you could be wrong. You may have to sack him soon. But if you take the trouble to consider the individual and not just the age, and put yourself in his shoes, you may realise that one day, you too might want someone else to give you a chance to prove yourself. Young or old, degree or no degree, I find that it is actually the job attitude that makes the difference. Secondly, let us not price ourselves out of the market whatever our field is. We must consider that we cost more to hire than most other people in the region, so whatever we are doing, let us aim for excellence, let us aim to deliver value for money. Quality always commands a premium, but working smart enables you to charge less and yet earn more. Once you have tried a new chicken rice stall that is as good as the old one but gives you more chicken for the same dollar, you may not want to eat at the old store anymore. In Europe, Easyjet is flying rings round established airlines because it offers good value at low cost. SIA and PSA are companies which, to my simple doctor's mind, need to consider what their consumers are saying about their perceived value, even though they may currently be at the top of the pile. Thirdly, when in a position to decide or administer a policy, consider if there is something you could do to make another Singaporean's life easier, his business less of a struggle. The provision of more temporary heavy vehicle parks in the light of our slowdown in public housing development comes to mind. Our civil servants and statutory boards do need to consider that together with our business community, we, together, represent Singapore Inc, and our aim is to make it happen, not tell each other why it cannot be done. I am sure that preservation of policy aims and transparency can co-exist with compassion and flexibility in application of policy. It may take a little effort, but that can and should be the Singapore cachet. Singaporeans love food, so permit me to use one last analogy. Singapore is like an established up-market restaurant in a neighbourhood that is seeing a lot of new eateries spring up. Our items on the menu are good, but a little bit pricey. We need to ask ourselves whether we can really keep attracting the business by just giving good value, or whether we will need to lower prices to survive, and whether we need to put completely new items on the menu. I think we need all three, and fast. Maersk and Evergreen evidently feel that good price outweighs good service. How many more out there feel the same? Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President. 2.18 pm

Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President. We will prevail and emerge flying Sir, coming in at the tail end of the debate, I have had the privilege of listening to my colleagues' thoughtful and impassioned views on what Singapore needs to do to go forward and thrive in a very different world. I would like to comment on two priorities which stand out in the debate. The first, on what we need as individuals and, the second, on what we need as a society. Twin priorities First, Singaporeans have to be more self-reliant, more robust as individuals, less dependent on Government. Many Members have expressed this need for greater resilience. Mr Seng Han Thong called for a camel spirit, not an ostrich spirit, among third-generation Singaporeans, and Dr Ong Seh Hong called for flying dragons, not earthworms - all these, no doubt, adding to the diversity of the new Singapore eco-system. Second, we have to redouble our efforts to stay together as a people. Government has to engage Singaporeans and, particularly, young Singaporeans, more actively and demonstrate that it is sincere in doing so. But Singaporeans have to themselves take ownership of efforts to build a strong Singapore society to enhance our multi-racial compact and carry forward the Singapore Cause that Mr Khaw Boon Wan spoke about. A new culture Sir, I agree with the views expressed by many of my colleagues on these two priorities. At the core, we need a new culture, a new spirit, to take Singapore and Singaporeans forward in a new and very different world. We need a culture of rugged economic individualism. But it has to be a culture that sees value in every citizen, celebrates alternative paths to success, and preserves a deep and abiding sense among all Singaporeans that we share a future together. We have no choice but to go the way of economic individualism. We have to encourage individuals to do well in the marketplace and earn great rewards. We need many more Singaporeans willing to stand out, do things differently, take a risk and occasionally go against the tide. Sir, we need this new culture not only to succeed in throwing up a stronger core of entrepreneurs, but to develop a more innovative people. It will be what gives us advantage against the competition and enables us to achieve good growth. This new culture will take time to evolve and it will have many implications for Singapore society. How do we ensure that those who do well in the market and earn higher incomes will not feel they stand apart from and above the rest? How far should we intervene in the market or seek to moderate the consequences of the market, whether through our fiscal policies, HDB subsidies or a social safety net? These are not trivial questions. Not many societies have succeeded in preserving a true spirit of togetherness and cohesion while holding to a spirit of enterprise and economic individualism. In most societies, economic individualism has worked against social cohesion. And policies and attitudes aimed at preserving social cohesion have often worked against a culture of enterprise and economic individualism. The Americans have the most enterprising culture among the advanced countries. In strictly economic terms, they have outperformed the rest. They have been able to do so because, more than other societies, Americans accept the free play of market forces. Individuals are more willing to adapt to changes, develop the next product, find the next market, look for the next opportunity. Americans accept as fair that individuals be rewarded in the market for their energies and their enterprise. They also welcome the best and brightest foreigners into their society, give them a place and make them feel at home. The US has a wider inequality of incomes and wealth than most societies. But Americans tolerate inequality and even regard much of it as fair because of the reality and perception of social mobility in the US. It is a powerful and popular ethos - that anyone can get ahead if he puts in the effort. Contrast with Europe. Because there is less social mobility in European societies, there is greater popular demand in Europe for government to fight inequality than there is in the States. The Americans' non-egalitarian attitude to capitalism, and their greater acceptance of creative destruction in the corporate world, has produced superior economic outcomes. For every NTT DoCoMo or Vivendi, there are many more Wal-Marts, Intels and Microsofts. More important, jobs in the US have grown more rapidly than in any other advanced society over the last two decades. And they have had a faster increase in average productivity and standards of living. It has produced better results for the majority, not just the wealthy. But American society is not cohesive. They rally around magnificently in crisis, as September 11th showed, and have a fervent belief in certain American ideals - but the US is otherwise not a tightly bound society. Wealthy Americans make large contributions to charity, as Madam Ho Geok Choo has mentioned, but it does not change the basic reality of a somewhat disparate society. The affluent and the upwardly-mobile live their lives quite separate from the less-skilled if they wish, moving out to the suburbs and even out of the cities altogether. The Japanese are most unlike the US in social culture. They shun individualism and place a premium on modesty, group decision-making, and on sharing the credit. They succeeded as a people for 40 years, caught up with the West economically and surpassed the West in some areas. But Japan's system of consensual decision-making and its highly egalitarian culture are now holding it back. The system is geared to avoiding pain, which means avoiding reform. Farmers, construction companies and corporate dinosaurs have greater influence on government policies than the needs of the overall economy. There is a profound loss of confidence. The Europeans have a more congenial and cohesive culture than the US. They are also absorbing lessons from the US on how to create an environment for growth, although of course the Europeans would not say they are learning from the US. They are cutting taxes, trying to roll back the welfare state and putting in place US-style capital market discipline. But the differences between Europe and the US lie deeper, in the culture and outlook of individuals on either side of the Atlantic. Unlike the US, the Europeans view the world as a zero-sum game - one person's gain is another's loss. And so they seek to preserve the status quo. It is a culture that blocks out newcomers, start-ups and up-starts, those with ideas and innovations that can unseat the incumbent players and generate growth. So although there is great egalitarianism in European culture, and a genuine concern on the part of the successful for those lower down the economic ladder, the system produces less growth, fewer jobs and higher unemployment. It is an egalitarian culture that does not produce egalitarian outcomes, especially for those without jobs. Embracing the Market Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to embrace the market and accept the inequalities thrown up by the marketplace if we are to succeed in generating growth and creating jobs in our next phase of development. We cannot shrink from this challenge. We are a city-state, competing with cities within countries. They are not just cities, but cities that draw the best talent and the most energetic people from across their countries and regions. Cities like London and Zurich within Europe, Shanghai and Guangzhou drawing from China, New York and San Francisco drawing from the world. Over half of New York's residents are either foreign-born or children of parents who are both foreign-born. Native New Yorkers do not begrudge the presence of foreigners who have settled in the city. They know that New York throbs because it attracts talent from around the world in business, the professions and the creative arts. We have to be the hub in Asia for business, small and large, and a Mecca for talent. We have to develop Singaporeans of all talents and spur on Singaporeans to succeed. But we also have to move further ahead in attracting foreigners with the ideas, skills and connections that can contribute to Singapore's growth and vibrance. We should continue to shift the emphasis of our tax policies from redistribution to growth. We have to move away from the egalitarian approach. We should give greater incentive for anyone with the ability, guts and energy to succeed to go as far as he can. That way, we can succeed as a country, generate more growth and more jobs. It is not a zero-sum game. It is not a matter of favouring the rich or the clever, but of favouring a future of better jobs and better incomes for all. If a Singaporean entrepreneur becomes a billionaire, our "Gini coefficient", as the economists put it, will "worsen" - we will have greater inequality - but we should be happy as his success will create more jobs and better incomes for others. Strengthening Our Social Compact But the market philosophy that we need for future growth will not be viable in Singapore if we do not work hard on our social compact. We have to overcome the problem that many other societies have faced, where economic freedom has not coexisted well with social cohesion. We can do so, by building on our past strengths, preserving the trust between people and Government, and exercising strong leadership wisely. For the market-based philosophy to work and be accepted, Singaporeans who do very well must engage with and show concern for the rest of Singaporeans. We cannot recreate the environment that threw up the sense of commitment to community that our early pioneers had, or the extraordinary spirit that Singapore's founding generation had in building a new nation. But we will find ways to strengthen civic attachments and a sense of shared purpose among all our citizens. We have to do so through our educational institutions, our community organisations and, as Raymond Lim emphasised, through a more vibrant civil society. And we have to strengthen the heartware of multiracial relations, as Mr Iswaran and Mr Ahmad Khalis spoke on yesterday. Social Mobility Sir, we have to work hard to preserve a sense of mobility in Singapore society, especially through education. Every citizen must know he is getting an equal chance to improve himself and develop his talents. We have to intervene earlier to help children from lower-income groups. We have to raise standards of pre-school education so as to narrow the gaps, as best we can, at the starting line where children begin their school education. My colleagues, Sir, have spoken also of the importance of providing a "second chance" to those who do not do well in school. We have to expand the paths to tertiary education, and provide the full menu of opportunities for life-long learning. We may even have to provide classes for Members of Parliament seeking an upgrade in Cantonese karaoke. We need more varied heroes in education, who make good regardless of how they started. Like the ITE graduates who make it through polytechnic, some even through university. Or people like Mohamad Saberi Bakar who, not daunted by his indifferent 'O' level grades, decided to catch up in his mid-20s by working hard for a diploma, then an advanced diploma in IT - his study room was the Changi Airport waving gallery - and eventually went on to get his computer science degree. He now works as an engineer. Mr Saberi told The New Paper that he was tired of the "underclass" tag and people suggesting that, as a Malay, he would have no opportunities. In his own words, "Everyone has a chance in Singapore. No matter who you are or what your background or race is. It is just a matter of grabbing that chance." Redefining success But, ultimately, Sir, we have to measure success not by whether you get a university degree. Everyone who puts full effort into going as far as he can, and developing the talent he has, is a success. Every ITE graduate who holds down a job and looks for ways of upgrading his skills every few years is an unqualified success. We inherit an East Asian tradition that reveres scholastic success. We also inherited an education system that was geared to producing the intellectual elite in Britain. The combination of East Asian values and the academic bias of the British system was a potent combination, and has shaped attitudes among generations of parents. All that mattered to the British were your "O"s and "A"s and which university you went to. It is very different from the tradition in several European countries, where students who go through the technical route suffer no stigma. We have changed our system over the years, built world-class institutions in our polytechnics and ITE. ITE graduates got jobs faster than university and polytechnic graduates last year, and with good starting salaries. But some old social attitudes remain and we have to change them. We have to remove the sense of failure among those who do not make it all the way up the academic ladder. But we have to avoid going the way the British have since done, of converting polytechnics into universities and creating new degrees - in sports, tourism studies and so on - so that more people can make it through university. We should be honest and pragmatic in our education agenda. We should recognise different abilities and give them each the best chance of flowering. We should avoid lowering standards and giving students a false sense of academic achievement. Sir, we must continue to show compassion to families and individuals who end up in distress through no fault of their own or no lack of effort. But we should continue to focus this effort at the local level, through the CDCs and CCCs and through voluntary actions by private organisations and citizens. That way, we develop strong local community bonds and ensure that assistance goes to those who are willing to put in the effort to help themselves. That way we guard against a culture of dependence on the state. Our young must have opportunity to contribute to the community. They have to develop the instinct of wanting to contribute something much larger than themselves. Our schools are providing a range of activities to make this possible, whether through local projects or regional ventures that bring students face-to-face with the realities of life outside Singapore's prosperous, comfortable conditions. The enthusiasm of many of the students is remarkable. One school girl, Liu Xiaojun, 17, borrowed from friends to fund her trip to East Timor recently on a humanitarian mission. Her father, a technician, had been retrenched before her trip. Xiaojun has now found a part-time job as a piano teacher to repay her loan. Taking the Road Less Travelled Sir, we need a breed of young Singaporeans with a spirit of inventiveness and an ability to take failure in stride. More of our young have to be willing to be unorthodox and take the road less travelled. They must learn to take knocks, be prepared to run into a rut from time to time, know how to get out of it and look for another way to get ahead in life. It will take time to develop a more enterprising spirit in Singapore, a willingness to be different, and think differently. But it is not totally absent among our young. The eight national sailors in junior college, university or early in their careers, who recently put a hold on their education or careers in order to train full-time for the Asian games are an example of this new spirit. One of them, Stanley Tan, a 27 year-old who had completed his Bar examinations has decided to postpone his legal career until after the Athens Olympics. As he put it, "I want to see how far I can go. Frankly, I am looking at 30 or 40 years of a legal career. Taking some time off is a drop in the ocean." They are taking time-off to do something they can do well in, and do something which they take passion in doing. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should not try too hard to develop entrepreneurs, or to build an entrepreneurial culture. Entrepreneurs are self-made. But we have to provide more space for our young to develop a free-spiritedness that is lacking in Singapore today, and that is essential for entrepreneurial society. We should avoid being, as Mr Gan Kim Yong says, a perfectionist society. The Chinese have a saying, clear water has no fish (qing shui wu yu). I agree in spirit with Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay, Mr Chew Heng Ching and other MPs who felt that the excessive amount of time that our students spend in examination preparation is not ideal. It is especially not ideal for our more academically able, to prepare for both their "O" and "A" levels in a space of three years before proceeding to university. It will not prepare them well for the future. It is one of the reasons why the Ministry of Education has embarked on a review of the structure and curriculum for the upper secondary and junior college levels. But there are no easy solutions to the problem of examination pressures in a society whose very strength lies in being meritocratic and achievement-oriented. We do not want to water down our standards, or lose the transparency of the assessment system which allows all students to compete on a fair basis for entry into schools or the tertiary institutions. I am sure many of my colleagues in Parliament would join us in thinking through the changes which can be realistically achieved, and which represent real improvement over our current system. Building on Strong Foundations Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come this far over 40 years because of extraordinary feats of leadership. We are building a new Singapore on a strong foundation - an aspiring people, a system of multiracialism and meritocracy that still makes us special, a labour movement that favours growth and good governance, fair and transparent. It has given Singapore a strong brand name in every capital across the world. No one seriously thinks of us as a little red dot. We cannot erode these assets, the core of our social capital. But we need new capabilities to succeed against the competition, and to keep our sense of well-being as a people. These new capabilities will require us to evolve a new, tougher social culture. We can do so. We are a young society, still mobile, without encrusted values and habits, still engaging our future with vigour. We will prevail, and emerge flying dragons. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the motion which I rise in support of. Sir, the President's Address is a timely and sobering reminder of the most serious challenge that confronts Singapore since independence. Rarely have we been faced with an uncertain future that requires the complete resolve and single-minded determination of the nation to overcome. Why are we so despondent about the future? It does not take much to see why. At the moment, unemployment is hovering around 5% and rising. Many of those who are unemployed are the middle aged and not very highly educated. Neither are they in tune with the demands of the knowledge economy. Even as I am speaking now, I know for a fact that there are many, including those in the GLCs, who are now being retrenched or about to be retrenched because of the present state of the economy. We are speaking here of workers who are robbed of their dignity and pride to earn a decent living, not by circumstances of their own choosing, but by forces beyond their control. Sir, we are speaking here of the ineluctable sweep of the forces of globalisation that have taken many countries by storm. The breaking down of trade barriers would mean that for many, the goods and services that are now being produced, can be produced cheaper elsewhere. For many of the emerging economies with their teeming masses to feed, this would be a welcome opportunity indeed to provide cheap labour and to offer lower cost centres of production. On the other hand, for others, the availability of alternative venues of operation would mean that they no longer appear as attractive to foreign investors or as competitive as the foreign rivals. What results then is a steady flight of capital or a continuing relocation of operations to other venues which are cheaper to operate. When this happens, it is often the workers of closed down offices or factories who suffer. We see this when the labour-intensive industries here started to relocate to cheaper production centres in Indonesia, Malaysia and, in recent years, in China. Those of us who have had the good fortune of visiting China recently will attest to the rising and growing Chinese industrial might. This newfound confidence among the Chinese that comes with the rising level of wealth and the opening of the country is something which is self-evident. And greater still will be the confidence of the Chinese as China integrates itself further into the international trade through the WTO in the hope of becoming a first-world economy. The China that we know of today is a very different China that we knew of when our pioneers first stepped foot into that country 20 years ago or perhaps earlier. Then they were eager to learn from us and looked upon us for guidance and investment capital. We know that they have since moved on to become like a giant vacuum that sucks up new investment capital in Asia. With a critical mass of more than one billion people and offering cheap labour in a huge market, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify why investors should choose Singapore as a preferred choice of investment. China has now become our most awesome competitor in the marketplace for investments. Sir, how should we deal with global competition and its effects? For many, the natural instinct is to fight it by shutting out foreign import. We have, in Singapore, chosen the path of riding the wave of globalisation. Rather than to resist it, we open up our market to outside competition. From finance to manufacturing and services, there is nothing here that is protected from competition. Foreign parties who feel that they can produce cheaper and perform better can expect to do business here. For many, the process has been painful. The consolidation of financial services to brace itself for competition from foreign banks will see more than 2,000 jobs being lost in the process. Sir, we are not talking of some statistics here. We are talking here of fathers and mothers without a job and an income to bring home so that there will be food on the table and the bills will be paid. Not only that, with the hollowing out of our industries, more jobs will be lost. Indeed, even if we are able to hunker down and wait through the present storm of economic recession, there is no assurance that life, as we know it, will be the same again. Sir, in his Address, the President did reiterate that in order for us to stay competitive, our business environment must be highly conducive. In keeping with this objective, we have stated that our infrastructure must continue to be world-class at competitive cost and our spirit of enterprise must be strong. I have no problems with the broadly stated intention of our Government. However, I do have some reservations about how far a focus on continuing to improve our business environment is going to take us. In the present climate, I see that there are three major considerations in this approach. Firstly, I believe we are at the present level of development of our infrastructure where any further improvements would only bring about a diminishing return on our investments. The fact remains that economic outlook for the region will continue to remain weak in the next few years. We are, as they say, a good house in a bad neighbourhood. As long as there is no obvious upside in the outlook for the region, any further improvement to the infrastructure is going to only provide us with limited gains. Secondly, to foster a strong spirit of enterprise amongst Singaporeans requires a milieu that supports it. I am not that optimistic, Sir, in this regard. Over the years, we have not actively nurtured the growth of a strong body of small and medium enterprises. Instead, we have chosen to focus strongly on the GLCs as providing the engine of growth of our industry. For many of these GLCs, it is said that they have an unfair advantage on our local turf. It was not too long ago only that we learn of a GLC going into roast meat business here as well. It is arguable that for the GLCs, the yearning for contracts and business to stay alive is not of the same extent as the small and medium enterprises. The relative weakness of these desires should also arguably mean that our instinct, at least for the GLCs, for enterprise and business will not be as well-honed as it should have been. Additionally, when you have the best of brightest brought up in an environment that looks down at failures, whose primary pursuit of university education is to get well-paying secure jobs, and to avoid taking risk, one is not too hopeful that you can raise from this rank of Singaporeans many more successful entrepreneurs. Besides, even if we try to nurture in our young the spirit of enterprise, our ability to raise them in sufficient numbers is largely constrained by our lack of critical mass. Both China and India have population sizes that exceed a billion each. We have four million. Sir, how can we effectively compete in number with human talent? Thirdly, looking primarily internally, as our Government's approach seems to suggest, for new initiatives to re-orientate our economy may inadvertently cause us to lose our broad focus. Let me illustrate. We have identified the life sciences as the next wave for our economy. In this regard, we are committing much of our resources towards preparing our people for this undertaking. We are also spending much time and effort building up infrastructure for research and development in life sciences in Singapore. Yet, we know that the centres for cutting edge research in life sciences are to be found in the west. Brave as our attempts may be, it will be many more years, Sir, before Singapore's research and development centres in the life sciences can come up to the standards of the west, if at all we get there. Sir, there are many who have asked the question of whether or not, we are better off if we had just leveraged on the more developed science industry of the west, either by more intensive collaboration or direct investment overseas, than try to establish a separate physical base in Singapore. My fear is identifying new growth areas for our country may well embark us on a physical expansion of resources that will give us a very limited outcome, when we may be better off building up our R&D industries overseas. Sir, some years ago in this Chamber, I had suggested that for us to survive in this country into the next millennium, we must increasingly look overseas for opportunities. Here, I am not just referring to industrial park developments or investment into areas that we are comfortable with. I am referring to, as I have alluded to earlier, investments into the new areas such as the life sciences and info-communications technologies. We have, over the years, built up a substantial amount of reserves. Our budget surplus between FY96 and FY2000 was in the region of $17.535 billion. Like a prudent farmer, we intend that these reserves be stored for use in difficult times when the harvest is not so plentiful. Again, like the prudent farmer, we should also consider using these reserves and husbanding our resources to look to new sources of revenue if what we bring in from the field is not enough to provide for the family. With an accumulated surplus of approximately $17.535 billion, that is, in the last term of Parliament, we could use some of that money to buy a substantial stake, if not, a controlling stake in some of these carefully chosen world-class companies or companies with world-class potential. We could then leverage on our ownership of these companies by tapping on their management and technology know-how and in particular, their ability in brand management and promotion to give us a headstart in the new growth areas that we have identified. In other words, Sir, besides developing our bio-medical expertise, we should perhaps acquire leading bio-medical companies and be plugged in immediately into the world bio-medical grid. We could use this opportunity to send our best and brightest to learn from them, and hopefully, from this experience, we could build on a new generation of young Singaporeans who are savvy about the ways of international marketing and investments. Sir, at the present time, where the flow of information and mode of doing business is substantially different from the pre-Internet era, we must learn to think out of the box. Increasingly, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a continuing need to ensure that companies be rooted here to serve the economic interests of Singapore. In looking at the model that I have proposed earlier, we could perhaps own or control a Fortune 500 company, headquartered in the US or Europe, but allow it to be an outpost for Singaporeans to gain the relevant experience needed to keep Singapore in tune with the demands of the international market place. In this regard, we should perhaps take a leaf from the NUS, where we learned recently that they have, presumably to stay relevant, taken to setting up outposts outside of Singapore. Sir, if we are able to externalise our economy substantially and draw our revenue from this second wing, there will be less pressure on us if the Singapore economy is not doing as well. In fact, a thriving second wing derived through prudent investments and acquisitions could well allow us to have some inefficiency within our own economic sector. We do not, for instance, have to be so ruthless in making that segment of our workforce, the uneducated and middle-aged workers, redundant because they are not able to compete with their counterparts in India, China or Indochina. That way, we can keep a healthy balance between the need to stay competitive to make a living, which our investments and our stakeholdings outside of Singapore can provide, and the need to provide employment and to carry those Singaporeans who may not be able to look after themselves, without having to worry about cost efficiency. Sir, if we are serious about pushing our people to consider the world as our workplace, wherein to live and to work, I think we must be prepared to make some adjustments. I shall dwell on one, ie, education. It is widely known that amongst companies and businesses, there is one stumbling block in sending staff members overseas, and that has to be with the education of their children. Every parent in Singapore knows how important the second language is, and how important it is that they must do well in the second language if they are to do well overall in school. No serious parent will disagree that taking a child out of Singapore and placing him in an environment where the second language is hardly spoken or written, will have a major impact on his second language ability. Hence, for parents with school going children, it would almost be impossible to send them overseas, unless the centres of posting have Singapore style schools, or unless they can be assured that their children will not be severely disavantaged when they return. Sir, I know that the Ministry of Education has a policy of providing dispensation with the second language for the child for a year, if he went overseas and did some time there. However, for many parents, that may not be enough. The time has now come when the Ministry should perhaps review to see if they should be more flexible on the second language in order to ease at least one worry amongst Singaporeans who may choose to answer the call of the Government to work overseas. Sir, in overcoming the challenges ahead, we will have to rely on the larger home grown corporations since it is these corporations that will have the wherewithal to meet the demands that these challenges bring. Here, the GLCs, with their resources and close proximity to the Government, could well be suited for the work. Much has been said in this House about the role and performance of the GLCs. Long after the rumblings and grumblings in Parliament are over, there is still this rather common perception that GLCs could have been better run and should preferably not be staffed by senior managers who had spent the better of their careers in the public service. There is a common perception that part of our problem has to do with the policy of keeping our civil service young. What do we do with bright young senior army officers who we retire at 45 or, for that matter, young Permanent Secretaries who have served their time in service? It has been said that for many, they find their second careers in the GLCs. Sir, I have no doubt as to the mental ability and the integrity of civil servants who are seconded or chosen to spend their second career, or some say retirement years, in the GLCs. However, one wonders whether the skill sets involved in running a public organisation are the same as that of running an organisation that is oriented towards making money. Can we effectively move from the role of being a guardian to being an entrepreneur whose sole objective is to go out and earn more money for the company? It would be to our good fortune if they are able to make the mental switch. But then again, what if they are not able to and are just content to coast along? Typically, in the West, if a large public listed company goes through a bad patch, the CEO and the senior management run the risk of losing their jobs. They are assessed by their current performance. It does not matter whether they had been good in the past. What should matter is how they are currently fairing compared to CEOs elsewhere of similar companies. Our difficulty here is the assumption that the talent pool is limited in Singapore and, therefore, if the civil servant has proven himself to be good at running a Ministry, he should, at the same time, be good at running a large corporation. There is a common perception that in Singapore, it is the same group of men circulating amongst the various corporations. And unlike the civil service, they could well be there for the long haul. Many have commented to me that the GLCs may turn in bad results, but for the senior management, life goes on. If the perception is true, is this how we want to run these corporations and expect them to be world-class companies? Sir, if part of the problem lies in our policy of keeping the civil service young and, of course, the uniformed services young, we should perhaps now begin to review this problem to see if we should extend the retirement age of senior officers, whether they be in the uniformed services or the civil service. Not all of the developed countries subscribe to this policy. Embarrassingly enough, at international conferences, we often find our civil servants amongst the youngest in the crowd, and sometimes by a margin of more than 10 years. Something must be said of experience and age. No amount of brilliance can be an adequate substitute for experience. By pushing back the retirement age for these very capable officers, I think we would have taken away the pressure to provide for their retirement in the private sector. Sir, there is no denying that we are at the most important crossroads of our nation's history. It is not an exaggeration to say that our future destiny will depend very much on how we are able to resolve the present crisis. Over the past few days of debate in this Chamber, I have heard remarks and pleas that our Government and indeed our civil servants listen and not just hear the comments and suggestions on how we can better position Singapore for a better future. I sincerely hope that this time round, we will come out of this crisis stronger and better, with our bearings and policies enjoying the full confidence of the people, because our Government has taken serious account of the concerns of the silent majority. On that note, Sir, I support the motion. The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office and Ministry of Community Development and Sports (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President moved by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. Two days ago, I discussed with my grassroots leaders the President's Address and the debates in Parliament so far on the motion of thanks to the President. These grassroots leaders told me that having heard the President's Speech, they were a bit worried. And having heard the views expressed by the various MPs, they felt somewhat disappointed. Because the President's Speech sketched a scenario of a sea of roaring waves beset with crises. Subsequently, when they read the reports in the press, it appeared as though all the MPs were suggesting that everyone should be self-reliant. They felt that the Government seemed to have flinched. They asked me whether the Government had forgotten the strong mandate given to them by the voters some five months ago, with the understanding that the Government would bring them through the crisis. These grassroots leaders were very close to me, and that was why they were so candid in telling me their real feelings. This might well be the voice from the heart of many fellow Singaporeans. Of course, we must reassure them that the Government has been thinking of ways and means, all the time, to solve the problems of its people. If they do not believe, then they should listen to what Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said yesterday about the measures to be taken to restructure and reform. They would know that the Government had put in a lot of thought. The Government has also set up a few high-level committees to look for solutions, in consultation with private and people sectors. However, the challenges we are facing are really very tough ones. These are very arduous and formidable challenges that cannot be solved by the Government alone. Therefore, my parliamentary colleagues here have suggested that all of us, from the top to the bottom, must be united and strive for self reliance, so that we will be able to cross this sea of roaring waves. If we are not willing to help ourselves, then no matter what the Government provides, in the end it will be of no avail. I remember a story about a man who was so lazy that the only thing he was willing to do was to open his mouth to be fed and to hold out his hands to be dressed. One day, his wife had to go back to her own village to visit her parents. Before she left home, she made a big biscuit and tied it with a string around the neck of her husband. She told the lazy man, "If you are hungry, just open your mouth and bite on the biscuit." A week later, she returned home to find her husband dead. He had only managed to eat the part of the biscuit nearer to his mouth. He was too lazy even to use his hands to reach for the part of the biscuit farther away from his mouth. As a result, he died of starvation. So, if we do not help ourselves, whatever the Government does, it will be quite useless in the end. In order to continue with our success, we must change this mentality of relying and depending on the Government to solve all problems. The President's address devoted much of its volume on the people factor. We are reminded that if we want to succeed, we must struggle and fight. In Singapore, opportunities are still abundant and everywhere. So long as we are prepared to work hard, there will be achievements. I feel that, in order to tackle these new challenges in a new economic and political situation, all of us in Singapore, from the top to the bottom, should make some adjustments to our mindset and mentality. My colleagues here have already made some suggestions. Allow me to summarise these adjustments as three kinds of "a bit more", namely, a bit more courage, a bit more magnanimity and a bit more care and concern. Let me start with `a bit more courage'. This means that we must dare to innovate, dare to lead. We must decisively seize opportunities that come along, and be courageous and resolute in whatever we do. Otherwise, you will lose your opportunity. This is a big problem for Singapore, because we are blessed with a good natural environment. For example, our temperature here is quite constant. The weather will be the same as today, and so will the day after. There are no natural disasters to worry about. As a result, there may be a sense that if we do not work today, we can always work tomorrow, and if not, we can always wait until the day after tomorrow. This is not so elsewhere. In China, if you go to Huang Shan (the Yellow Mountain), today, you see the peak and you might see sunrise. But just a while later you may not see them because they are covered by the fog and clouds. So, the moment the fog is dispersed, you must immediately seize the opportunity to take in the magnificent view, otherwise you may just miss the most fantastic scenery you could see in your life. But, in Singapore, there is no thick fog. We see the same scenery day in and day out. Seizing an opportunity to view certain scenic spot does not seem to be that important. We must also dare to venture, dare to adjust, dare to advance and dare to retreat. We must never be too swayed by considerations of minor gain and loss, and hesitate over what move to make or shilly-shally. We must remember that paths are made by men walking over them. If we want to go somewhere and there is no access road, create your own way. So, if we want to start a business, use the road that we have created for it. There is of course a cost to it, but then this is what entrepreneurship is all about. You can recover the cost by charging others who use the road started by you. Next, we must dare to express ourselves. We must also dare to take responsibility for what we say. Whenever we tell our young professionals that the Government is asking people to make suggestions and contribute ideas, their first response is inevitably, "Where are the OB markers?" Are there any out-of-bound areas? When we keep thinking about the out-of-bound areas, then we might just as well shut up and do not talk. So in that way, we would not be able to have a good exchange of ideas. In my view and experience, so long as we speak according to our conscience, in the interest of the nation and our fellow citizens, it should not be deemed to be out-of-bound even if we hold views different from the government. That is my experience as a civil servant for more than 20 years. Next, we must dare to face failure. We must remember that failure is the mother of success. So when we start a business, we may make some mistakes and lose some money. So long as we learn from these we can treat the losses as though you are paying the tuition fees to learn. So, when we fall down, pick yourself up, lift up your head and try again. Hongkongers are full of such adventurous spirit. So they have a proverb: `A great gentleman can bend and can be straight'. To them, there are only temporary set-backs but no permanent failures. Take one step backwards, and you get more space in front of you. So, taking a step backward today may mean few steps forward in the days to come. You can start all over again. We must also dare to learn new skills, to go into new industries, new ventures. We must be able to turn quickly. You must remember that heaven never seals off all the exits. Every cloud has a silver lining. There is always a way out. Opportunities and success are out there waiting for you. . Next is not to be too agitated by noises or the comments from our neighbours. We must not be unduly troubled by what they say. We must put the truth in perspective. We must remember that important issues must be solved with reason and enlightenment. So if we all have a little more courage and can do all these things that I have suggested, then I think we will have more confidence in ourselves. Of course, we must have `a little bit more magnanimity'. With a little bit more magnanimity, we shall be able to accept divergent views from other people. This may be difficult. As it is often said that too many people generate too much noise, it becomes chaotic. But, remember, there is also this saying that "among three people walking together, there will be one who is good enough to be my teacher". In other words, there is always someone from whom we can learn something. So we can talk, we can debate, we can discuss, and from all these we will all learn something from one another. So long as we are magnanimous, listen to and willing to accept the views of others, then we will be able to find order in chaos. Even in a chaotic state, we can learn a lot of things. We must not judge a person by his success or failure alone. We should not reckon the person by the clothes he puts on. Today, we are successful, we wear branded clothes and drive a luxury car. But, you cannot guarantee to have all these luxuries forever. Many of our fellow citizens argue in forum page that we must have broader yardsticks to measure success or failure, and not by money alone. And success or failure is not permanent. Many of us like to sing. There are two lines in a very popular song by the name of Gujue zhao Jin Chen (Ancient Moon Shining on Today's Dust) which says, "Victory and defeat cannot last very long; rise or fall happens in a flash." So we are successful today, but tomorrow we may fail. So this is the turn of tide. When you see somebody fails, do not say that he is finished, because tomorrow he may rise up again. So we must be more magnanimous in this sense. At the same time, we must dare to accept talents from other places who can contribute different styles and ideas, and who can supplement our shortcomings with their strong points. We must be able to leverage on their greater abilities to our benefit. But we normally look only for their shortcomings, and say, "Look, we are better than they are." But, few would recognise others' strength and learn from them. If we can learn from other people's good points to strengthen ourselves so that we will have a good team and a strong community. If there are 10 people with the same ability, their combined strength is one multiplied by 10. But, if they have different capabilities, then their combined strength is 10 multiplied by 10, and you have 100 - this is what we call "synergy". When we are magnanimous, we will be able to understand and hence tolerate the different cultures and different religions. We must realise that "all roads lead to Rome", we could reach the same goal by different means. We must mutually respect one another. We must strengthen our mutual trust, and fortify the foundation of racial and religious harmony. We must also esteem the wisdom and strength of the masses and the community. Although not everyone in a community has high education, he or she knows the needs of his or her own community better. We must encourage each community to resolve its own problems using its own ways and means. We must not crave for a new Government ministry to be set up just whenever we are faced with a new problem, and then complain that there is too much bureaucracy. Once we have a new ministry, we must have new procedures. Once we have procedures, we cannot escape having bureaucracy. So if we have too many Government ministries, we are encouraging more bureaucracy. Since we all dislike bureaucracy, we might as well go and solve our problems ourselves rather than asking the Government to set up more ministries and then complain: "Why is there so much bureaucracy?". Next, is to have `a little more care and concern'. We must remember that the new economy is full of roaring waves, and people, including ourselves, will get tired or injured. When this happens, where do we go back to? We should go back to our family. But many of us feel that our family structure has been weakened. When the young people are urged to set up their families, they say, "Where do we have time?" These are matters that we must consider seriously. We must strengthen the family fabric. We must not forget that the family is the basic building block of the society's foundation. It is our emotional support and our focus of care. The family is a haven for us in the towering waves of the oceans. So, however strong the ship may be, in the face of the towering waves in a storm, we must find a haven. Next, more care means we must take care of the man-in-the-street, our little men, the ordinary citizens. The inspiration from our popular local song Xiao Ren Wu De Xin Sheng (Voices from the Hearts of the Little People) and the hot-selling local films, Money No Enough and I Not Stupid is that we should not forget the ordinary and less successful compatriots among us. We must remember that the prosperity of our nation and the opportunities that bring up the successful ones among us are actually created through the joint efforts of everyone, including the not so successful. In our society, about 90% of our people are ordinary men-in-the-street, and they contribute very greatly to our society. We must not forget them. We must not forget our roots. We must also propound the fine traditions of self-help - that is, the more successful ones should help the less successful ones to catch up, and cope with the development of the society and the nation. In the traditional societies, this is very important. The places that our ancestors came from, like Indonesia, China, India, have this kind of tradition. During the colonial days, the colonial masters did not care much about the life or death of the people under their rule. Yet, this spirit of self-help and self-reliance, enabled our society and the various communities to carry on, to survive and prosper. However, when the Government becomes too successful and too efficient, the people begin to look to the Government for help, and then this spirit of self-help and self-reliance in the community becomes weakened. So I feel that we must rediscover the communal self-help spirit and tradition, so that we could have more care and concern among our people. What we want to see more is problems solved through the care and concern coming from within the community, and not some ad hoc measures dished out by the Government through the civil servants. We must also care for the retrenched, the unemployed and the less fortunate people among us, because they are also part of our community. I remember when I was in Shanghai two weeks ago, I exchanged views with a Chinese unionist on helping the unemployed and retrenched. He told me, "In China, we try to educate the community that a worker has been retrenched not because he is not good enough, but because changes in the labour market has caused his job to be lost. So this can happen to anyone, including you and I. Hence we should not look down on the retrenched and the unemployed. Tomorrow, it may well be us. So, we should help each other. Show some care and concern for them, they will feel they have not been forgotten by society, and they will have the courage to start all over again." I think we can learn from this attitude, and show a little more care and concern for others. We must also not forget our elders. As it is said in Chinese, "Honour your own elders and extend it to other people's elders. Love your young and extend the love to other people's young as well." While it is good to look after my own family, we should look beyond that. We should transcend our family to look after and care for other people, beyond our family. We want to promote volunteerism in our society. We must encourage more people to volunteer in social works. We must strengthen our social heartware. A little more courage, a little more magnanimity and a little more care and concern can go a long way in strengthening our social fabric. Start from a little here, a little there and build up our social cohesion. Then, we will be moving in the right direction. We can find inspiration in the Presidential Address. Move forward courageously, and get rid of our kiasu (afraid to lose) and kiasi (afraid to die) mentality. We will be able to be bold and courageous, but with caution and prudence. Then we can reach the state of baijia zhengming (letting a hundred schools of thought contend). We can then lay the strong foundation for our future development in the new century. Some 100 years ago, the founders of Singapore came from various parts of Asia. On the basis of three "little bit more": more courage, more magnanimity and more care and concern for the people, they have built up this miracle in the form of a prosperous Singapore. Let us adopt the same kind of spirit to develop a better Singapore in the new century. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.35 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.13 pm until 3.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a labour MP, I thought I would just touch on issues that are close to the hearts of our workers and heartlanders. Our workers at the shop floor know very well that more retrenchment will be coming despite signs of economic recovery. They also understand the reasons, such as merger and acquisition, company relocation or restructuring, cost cuttings or poor business. There are many reasons why a person can or cannot get a job in the market. Obviously there is no one solution that will solve all the problems through getting jobs for the workers. It is encouraging to note that we have tried to help to alleviate the unemployment problem by setting up a Job Task Force and a Career Centre providing job placement and job counselling service under MOM. NTUC also spearheaded the Skills Redevelopment Programme and set up a JobLink centre to help fellow workers to find jobs and to provide the relevant training. We must encourage our workers to continue to learn and upgrade their skills. However, we must also realise that, besides skills, there are other factors that determine the employability of our workers. We may not be able to find a job even though you are highly skilled during the recession. It is true that there are workers who have managed to get a job after they have gone through some skills training. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are also many of them who still cannot find jobs even though they have obtained their new skills certificate. We need to find a better and more efficient way to match skills training that would bring more workers to the new jobs. The most common question that the workers ask is "What are the skills training courses that will most likely land me with a job?" That is not an easy question to answer. Mr Speaker, Sir, many people have said that there are 500,000 to 600,000 foreign workers in Singapore and there are about 100,000 workers who are unemployed because our workers are choosy about their jobs and are unwilling to take up those jobs done by the foreign workers. Therefore, many workers have urged our workers to lower their expectations. Theoretically, this may be correct and there is some truth in this observation. But according to what I know, a typical foreign worker from Thailand, India or China earns about $600 to $800 a month. If the worker is from China and he remits $500 back to his hometown, this would convert to about RMB2,500. In many parts of China, such a sum of money can really make a difference to the living standards of its people. This is the same for workers from India or Thailand. But such a salary, Mr Speaker, Sir, is far from enough for a Singapore family who lives in a 3-room HDB flat with two children. Some people have said that the minimum is $1,200 to cover the HDB loans, conservancy charges, utility bills, school fees and food. How low can the expectations of our workers go? It is easier said than done when we ask other people to lower their expectations. If you were in the shoes of these workers, can you maintain your family with $600? I think the crux of the issue is that our workers need to get a job that will pay them reasonably to support their family. There is an urgent need for MOM, NTUC and employers to work closely to redesign certain low-end jobs through automation and skills training. This in turn will help the less educated workers to increase their productivity. A good example would be the use of high-tech cleaning machine and the relevant skills training provided in the cleaning industry. These are the real help that many of our Singapore workers need. Mr Speaker, Sir, to remake Singapore, I think we must also focus on how we can develop new industries and create jobs for all levels of the workforce. It is not practical to expect to uplift our whole workforce to become highly skilled. This is crucial to the heartlanders because they need to make a living in Singapore. The Singapore Dream cannot be a global dream where the talented citizens seek their fortune in other countries. We will pay a heavy social, economic and political price for that. In fact, we need as many talented people as possible, be it foreign or local, to seek their Singapore Dream in Singapore and to compete in Singapore against the best in the world. Mr Speaker, Sir, many people have expressed their concern over the well-being of the small and medium enterprise, especially those in the retail sector. Many have also requested the Government to further reduce rentals, taxes and levies to alleviate their situation. On the other hand, we notice that many Singaporeans still do their shopping at the mega shopping malls and petrol stations in Johor Baru. This is fine during good times. Besides the fact that goods in JB appear to be cheaper due to the lower exchange rate for the Malaysian ringgit, it also helps to strengthen close bilateral ties. However, Malaysia has intensified its effort to compete in all ways and means commercially with Singapore recently. We have also noticed the media and the politicians there have threatened our water supply. I feel that, as Singaporeans, it is time that we should ask ourselves, if they continue to criticise us unreasonably and threaten us, is it time that we should refrain from shopping in Johor Baru. Why do we have to contribute to the well-being of the Johor Baru economy as Malaysia continues with its Singapore bashing? I, therefore, urge Singaporeans to shop in Singapore with immediate effect. If we do not support our own neighbourhood shops, it would not help them much even if HDB provides free rental to these shops. It is time for Singaporeans to make a stand to support Singapore. It is our nation we are talking about and if we are not vigilant, we may not be able to afford to shop in JB anymore. Our first-generation leaders have fulfilled the dream of our forefathers. They have built a stable and prosperous environment with a proper shelter over the head, abundant food and good education for the children. In 1990, when Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong took over the torch from the first-generation leaders, he said, "Singapore can only do well if her good sons and daughters are prepared to dedicate themselves to help others. I shall rally them to serve the country. For if they do not come forward, what future will we have? I therefore call on my fellow citizens to join me to run the next lap together." I am proud to say that Prime Minister Goh has not disappointed Singaporeans and neither have the people of Singapore disappointed him. The result of the last general election is a show of recognition and trust that our people have given to our Prime Minister. The President, in his Address to Parliament, has said, "During the term of this Parliament, we expect to make another political transition. The nucleus of the next generation of political leadership is already in place." Mr Speaker, Sir, to sail in the open sea depends very much on the steersman. Our new steersman has demonstrated his astute political judgement and foresight with tested capabilities. His leadership charisma lies in his commitment to Singapore and his resoluteness to overcome challenges ahead. The world is changing fast but the basics stay the same. We must have the confidence in the new steersman and his many young and capable sailors to bring Singapore to greater heights. Mr Speaker, Sir, no matter how rough the sea is or how strong the undercurrents, even if we have to sail in the dark, we will see the dawn. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to join in the debate. I support this motion to thank the President for his Speech. It is difficult to speak after more than 60 of my fellow hon. Members of the House, including some Members from the Frontbench, have had their say. You had yours. So many issues, ideas and suggestions were covered that one could literally say that no stone was left unturned. Let me quickly add that I agree with and support most of what were said. Hence, whatever I now say will evoke a sense of deja vu. I receive friendly hints that my chance of being appreciated increases the less I speak. With Professor Chin's words "somnolent" and "soporific" ringing loudly in my ears, I reckon that I would be tempting fate to perform a rendition of issues, ideas and suggestions already repeated many times over to an audience who had sat stoically here listening to them for the last five days. I intend to heed their advice but will stretch the edges. Let me therefore reduce the odds by confining my remarks to just one topic: quality. First, let me quickly add a few words on our civil service. Although DPM Lee had spoken on the matter yesterday, I decided earlier to say this. I would like to add my support to the call to our civil servants to implement policies humanely, giving sympathetic consideration to those who deserve them. However, I must add that in my dealings with the civil servants the last few years, I have found them to be humane and caring, but also cautious. They must be careful. We expect them to be so. But this should not stop them from being humane and caring. I know they can, they have, and should be more so in the future. I return now to the topic of quality. Here, I wish to declare my interest in the topic. I am the current Chairman of the Singapore Quality Institute, which is an association for quality professionals and promotes the quality discipline in Singapore. Notwithstanding this responsibility, I want to state that I am plumbing for quality as I personally believe in its importance. Practically everyone has touched on the topic of competition in the last few days. Two men, chased by a hungry tiger on an open plain, quickly understand the meaning of competitive edge. Just outrun the other chap. A competitive edge is, thus, simply being able to do something better than your competitors. And the longer you can maintain this, the better the competitive edge. Quality can be the basis of a competitive edge for Singapore. Why does a person pay so much for a Mercedes Benz when he can buy the same capacity car of another make for much less? The answer is quality, perceived or otherwise. Dr Ng Eng Hen also referred to Starbucks' order-to-froth-time quality target a few days ago. Quality is even more critical when it comes to service and, in our economy of the future, the service component is slated to become even more important. Mr Ong Kian Min eloquently elaborated on the service component yesterday. Years ago, Hong Kong had a very poor reputation for service. Today, this image has changed. What about Singapore? We have a good reputation for product quality. Singapore-made products are respected around the world. We must thank SISIR, then PSB and now known as SPRING Singapore, for this happy state of affairs. On the other hand, I think we have room, lots of room, for improvement in quality in our services sector. Let me share with you an example. I think Singaporeans deserve better taxi services. While many taxi drivers provide good service, many do not. Sometime ago, travellers arriving at Changi Airport had wished that our taxi drivers could be more helpful, such as helping them with their bags and luggage. I do not know if the situation there has improved, but I recently saw a lady stopping a taxi along Holland Road. She was struggling to load her luggage bags into the boot of the taxi. Meanwhile, the taxi driver merely sat in his taxi, waiting for the work to be done. Another example. A few days ago, I observed a passenger paying the taxi driver for the journey. The driver received the payment and returned the change, all the while with a sullen expression tainted with annoyance and anger. I asked myself, "Why so? Why was he not happy? Did he not just get paid? Should he not show some degree of happiness, if not gratitude for the customer, then for himself, especially when we are trying to survive the current difficult economic times." And what about the taxi driver who drove away with the belongings of his passengers? The misdeeds of this one black sheep brought Singapore world-wide infamy. In one stroke, as a result of his greed and misdeed, he tainted the good name of Singapore, Singaporeans and his fellow taxi drivers. And if we remember that for many tourists and overseas visitors, the taxi drivers are some of the first and last Singaporeans that they meet, their attitude and services provided by our taxi drivers are, thus, not unimportant to the image of Singapore around the world and our tourist income. Another experience of poor quality service that we can share is the treatment that we receive in some of the restaurants, shops and stores. I am sure each of us has encountered instances when there were many attendants and serving personnel but could not get one to help us. They might be looking in our direction but, miraculously, they did not see us, even when we stuck up our hands and waved. When this happened, we often swore to ourselves that we would not go back to the shop again, ever. And many customers do just that. You can put up lots of money into advertising, to decorate up the place and to spruce up the ambience, but the poor quality of service provided by the workers will kill the business, sooner or later. I have merely used the above examples to highlight the need for Singaporeans to adopt a more positive attitude towards their work. The taxi drivers and service personnel in restaurants and shops are not the only people who need to spruce their services, as each of us has encountered or heard of experiences of poor quality service in many other places and trades. Yesterday, Mr Ong Kian Min also described his experiences with some electrical contractors. If every worker in Singapore, citizens or otherwise, takes pride in his or her work to produce the highest quality product or service, to perform his or her work with care and attention to the best of his or her ability, this will result in happy, appreciative and satisfied customers who will buy the product and service, even if the prices may be a little higher, return for more and will probably sing praises of the establishment to others. By now I do not blame you if you were beginning to ask why is it that if quality is that great, that not every country is pursuing it. The truth is that though the idea is simple, it is very hard to do. Quality concerns mindset and attitude. A quality nation is one in which quality is endemic, systemic and permeates completely throughout the country. Converting a person is already difficult, what more a nation? But precisely because quality is difficult to achieve, it also means that, once you have got it, you get to keep it for a longer time. But does this mean that we have the luxury of time to develop a quality culture among Singaporeans? Let me answer this question by describing for you a recent experience. Last month, a friend bought me a gift from a trip to China. It was a nice box of biscuits. The box was fairly large, but there were only 12 biscuits in it. Each of the biscuits was separately packed with a small packet of drying agent to keep the biscuits crisp. It was a quality product. I asked my friend about the biscuits. The answers both impressed and perturbed me. It was made in China. So, Chinese manufacturers have obviously climbed the quality ladder in a few short years. What was even more disturbing was the fact that the biscuits were not produced for export but consumed by the local population. This suggests that the Chinese people have also changed and acquired a quality attitude. My perception fits in with the Chinese experiences of Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad, Mr Matthias Yao, Mr Inderjit Singh and others, as they had described in their speeches during the last few days. If in such a short timeframe the Chinese are able not only to acquire the capital, talent and technology but are also able to get their people to change their mindset and attitude to compete effectively, China is really the formidable and fearsome competitor that it is made out to be. Sir, as a nation, we started out with the emphasis on quality in the earlier years. During the 1980s, we refocused on productivity. But in the last few years, we refocused yet again and, this time, on innovation and creativity. I would like now to borrow Assoc. Prof. Chin's advocacy of the importance of culture and arts itself to quality. Quality, productivity, creativity and innovation are all important, but each is important in its own right. We have been exploring the issue of cost-cutting. Quality cuts cost in so many ways. Workers, doing the right things and doing things right, reduce repairs and reworks. Reliability of the products and services passes the savings to the parties down the line as their repairs and reworks are also reduced. Satisfied customers return and are retained, reducing further promotion costs, adding certainty to operation. We can go on enumerating its virtues. We should, thus, not take quality for granted. We should not merely subsume quality under productivity or creativity and innovation. Not everyone can or needs to be innovative or creative all the time. But everyone can and should deliver quality all the time. We should see quality as important, to be developed and promoted in its own right. By developing a quality culture among Singaporeans, we will add to the competitiveness of Singapore to whatever other competitive edges that we may develop. 4.02 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the new MPs to this House. I feel a deep sense of responsibility towards them, because I had a hand in getting them here. Some, like Khaw Boon Wan and Vivian Balakrishnan, I had personally persuaded to leave the security and comfort of their job to take on this onerous task of governing Singapore. The new MPs have crossed a major milestone in their lives. An 'MPship' is not a career move or a feather in the cap. It is a commitment to serve the people and the country. This you can do well, only if you feel for the people and the country, and are prepared to think beyond yourself, your family and your friends. The demands on your time and energy will be great, and the expectations of your performance high, both in Parliament and in the constituency. And you will probably receive more criticisms than bouquets. It is therefore not a job for the thin-skinned. You should seek to make a difference to Singapore. You can do this by looking after your constituents, helping them when they need help, and forging social cohesion. In Parliament, speak thoughtfully and honestly, after you have reflected on the issues and done some research and analysis. Do not just offer feedback, useful though it is, or echo criticisms without thought. Offer also suggestions for improving the lives of Singaporeans, and help to solve both big and small problems. Expression of views by Party MPs Tan Soo Khoon argued for the Whip to be lifted for all backbenchers, and for the Ministers to be allowed to speak freely. I do not really need to explain the meaning of the Whip and the Cabinet system of collective leadership to the former Speaker. But as there are many new MPs here, let me take some time to explain. Lifting of Whip The party Whip is an appointment that can be found in many political parties represented in all legislatures all over the world, particularly in countries that follow a Westminster or British style of Parliamentary democracy, like Singapore. The duties of the party Whip vary from party to party, but primarily they involve maintaining the party's voting strength, by ensuring that members attend important Parliamentary debates and support their party when a division is called. Simply put, the party Whip builds and maintains party discipline. It is in the interest of the people for political parties to be disciplined. In Parliamentary elections, the parties come first. Candidates stand for election under a party logo, unless they are independent candidates. The people want to be assured that the MPs they have voted for remain faithful to the party platform they were elected on. A party whose members are unable to maintain reasonable consensus on its policy positions will find it difficult to instill confidence in it, and get the support of, the voters. Furthermore, lifting the Whip for most motions, as Tan Soo Khoon suggests, implies that we should completely let go of party discipline. This goes against the grain of party-based Parliamentary democracy. We will be lifting the Whip on the motion on Nominated Members of Parliament. Already, we can see some MPs marshalling others for their cause. Do we want to see this for every issue? But how much leeway is given to MPs, and how to do it, are the prerogatives of the individual political party. Different political parties have different comfort levels when it comes to party discipline. Some are less tolerant of public dissent amongst their members, others more so. But none will agree that they can do away with party discipline completely. Nevertheless, in the spirit of experimentation, we are willing to provide more opportunities for the Whip to be lifted. Apart from lifting the Whip for matters of conscience and selected issues, PAP MPs may request, on a case-by-case basis, for the Whip to be lifted. At the same time, we are introducing other measures to enhance Parliamentary debates. For example, a more flexible timeframe will be adopted to allow sufficient time for MPs' views and inputs to be debated in Parliament, considered by the relevant Ministries, and incorporated into the draft legislation. Also, to help MPs prepare better for Parliamentary debates, we will give them more research resources and staff support. Our MPs today assume that the unity and cohesion of the PAP will stay forever, when they ask for the Whip to be lifted. They are too sanguine about the future. No one can tell what the state of the Party will be like in the future, or how some MPs will behave once they think that the Ministers are beholden to them because they can vote against the Ministers freely. Collective ministerial responsibility Soo Khoon also suggested that we should let Ministers state their individual views freely before the final decision is taken on a subject. This is being done. Ministers are expected to contribute to the debate on a subject before a decision is taken on the matter. Their inputs are given in Cabinet, before the matter comes to Parliament. We do not let Ministers speak discordantly outside Cabinet because of the principle of collective ministerial responsibility. This principle is another cornerstone of Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy. It is, in fact, enshrined in Article 24(2) of our Constitution. There are two reasons for this principle. First, collective ministerial responsibility enhances the accountability of the Government. In our Parliamentary democracy, whichever party has a majority in Parliament will form the Government. But the Government, led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers, is not at liberty to do whatever it wishes. It is accountable to Parliament. The principle of collective responsibility means that there is an agreement between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that they will stand together as a team when accounting for their actions before Parliament. Discussions within Cabinet are therefore secret. Once a decision on an issue or a policy has been reached, Cabinet Ministers will take the same public position. It cannot be otherwise. Imagine for a moment that the principle of collective responsibility did not exist. If a problem occurs, it is only too tempting for a Cabinet Minister to claim, "I did not really agree with this policy, so I cannot be held responsible." This principle of collective responsibility is therefore to ensure that all Cabinet Ministers are held accountable to Parliament for the actions of the Government. Secondly, collective ministerial responsibility enhances inter-ministry co-ordination. Most of the important problems we face as a nation are complex and cut across the portfolios of individual Ministers and Ministries. The Government's policies and initiatives must be evaluated in the light of their effects upon various aspects of our society. They must be carefully coordinated to avoid unnecessary duplication or, worse, mutual contradiction. It therefore makes good sense for Cabinet Ministers, and indeed, the entire Government, to share the same broad policy positions. So, if the views of Cabinet Ministers sound alike at times, we should be comforted that they are united. We should, in fact, worry if they begin to sound very different from each other on the same subject, for this would suggest a divided Cabinet. Severe challenges ahead Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last few days, MPs and the new MOSs have dwelt on many serious challenges that Singapore would have to confront in the coming years. Listening to them, I am not sure that they realise the full gravity and enormity of these challenges. The challenges they face will certainly be much tougher than those I faced when I first became an MP in 1976. The issues today are much more complex, and also more threatening. They will put our young MPs and Ministers severely to the test. In the eighties through the early nineties, we had the benefit of a benign regional environment. ASEAN was cohesive. Its economies were booming. There was political and social stability in our region. Indonesia was growing, and under Suharto, well-disposed towards us. The global economy also expanded rapidly. Yes, there were several crises - Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1979, and the downturn in the global economy that contributed to our 1985 recession. But on the whole, the external environment was favourable. This allowed us to concentrate on economic development. We attracted MNCs to invest here. We upgraded the economy from labour-intensive industries to higher value-added activities. Later, we built an external wing to our economy. We rode on the region's rapid growth. We went to China, India and many other places. The 1997 Asian financial crisis brought that happy state of affairs to an end. The crisis did not pull down only the economy of the regional countries. It also changed the political environment of some countries. Even today, four years later, the political situation in our largest neighbour, Indonesia, has not fully settled into a new state of equilibrium. So, in addition to having to restructure our economy, we now have to deal with a more volatile and less accommodating political environment in the region. Even more serious is the security problem we now face - the threat from terrorism and Islamic militancy in the region. September 11 and the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests exposed this grave and immediate threat to Singapore. Singapore was very nearly blown up. Four tonnes of ammonium nitrate, 1.2 tonnes of TNT, and fuses for the explosives, had already been acquired. The terrorists were looking for another 17 more tonnes of ammonium nitrate and seven trucks and they are going to pack the 21 tonnes of ammonium nitrate into the seven trucks and about the same time, drive all these seven trucks at seven different targets to blow them up. Can you imagine the devastation this would have cost to Singapore and the aftermath? MPs, understandably, concentrated on bread-and-butter issues, because these are what your constituents are concerned with. But you will also have to inform them of the larger picture against which the bread-and butter issues will have to be solved. So let me now elaborate on some of the more intractable larger-picture problems which we will be faced with. Wang Kai Yuen commented that the Government tended to understate good news and overstate bleak scenarios. It is in the nature of this Government to plan on the worst-case scenario. Then, if things do not turn out as bad as we had provided for, we can all sigh with relief. But if they do turn real bad, then we would have been prepared with possible responses. This characteristic of the Government has enabled Singapore to survive many crises. Islamic militancy Halimah Yacob said that Malay-Muslims in Singapore had turned to religion to counter the threat that their culture and values might be eroded in the face of the global cultural onslaught. She added that becoming more religious did not mean that Malay Singaporeans were choosing to disengage themselves from society. I understand her position. But if this was the only reason for Malay-Muslims in Singapore to turn to religion, and Halimah is right about Muslims not disengaging from the other communities, then I would not worry about the trend. There is really nothing wrong with Singaporeans wanting to be more religious, so long as they regard their religion as something personal between themselves and their God, and they interact freely with people of other races and religions. The increased religiosity of our Muslims is part of the global Islamic wave that emanated from the Middle East after the 1973 oil crisis, when the countries there were flushed with cash, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution. I met the Prime Minister of Mauritius last month when he stopped over in Singapore on his way to Australia for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. He told me that the Muslims in his country had become more conservative, and that many Muslim women had taken to wearing headscarves. Mauritius is far away from the Middle East and some distance from Africa, and yet in that island country, they too have been affected by this wave of Islamic resurgence. He lamented that their Muslims were not mixing as freely with the non-Muslims as they did in the seventies. In Mauritius, 52% of the population are Hindus, and 17% Muslims. At the same Commonwealth meeting, the Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone told me that the same thing was happening to his country's Muslims. They have also become more conservative. 60% of Sierra Leone's population are Muslims. There are, however, other Muslim societies which have not gone down the path of conservatism. I met a Moroccan Minister on Wednesday. He was surprised that so many Muslim women in Malaysia and Singapore wear the tudung. He told me that the women in his country did not wear the religious headscarf. He invited me to visit his country to see how Moroccan Muslims practise their faith. He added that Tunisia, another Muslim country, is even more liberal, but, no, not Algeria. If Singaporeans who are more religious remain engaged with mainstream secular society, there is no problem. But if they opt out, this could fracture our social cohesion. What I am even more concerned about, however, is religious activism and extremism, or people using religion to advance their own agenda. Take Ibrahim Maidin, the local Jemaah Islamiyah leader, as an example. He taught Halimah's children religious studies. He wrote to Halimah when he heard that she was standing for election. He urged her that as a Muslim, she should not do so. He argued that as an MP in a secular political party, she might be associated with laws and policies which were not in accordance with the Syariah. It spoke well of Halimah that she did not listen to him. Otherwise, she would not be here today, and would not be able to contribute to her community as well as to Singapore. This would have been a loss both to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Another Malay leader told me a similar story of extremism. A religious teacher had advised his students not to mix with non-Muslims as they were non-believers. When one of the students told her parents of this, they pulled her out of the class immediately. But what about the other students remaining in the class? Should it not be the religious teacher who should be pulled out of the class instead? At the very least, he should be advised to refrain from such teachings. Such extremism is a cause for concern. Extremism comes at the expense of inter-racial and inter-religious interaction. It excludes rather than includes. It results in the withdrawal of the practitioner into his own communal cocoon, and in the rejection of others who do not share his beliefs. When that happens, the other communities will not only keep their distance, but will also press for more space of their own. This can break up our social structure and social cohesion. Extremism is even more dangerous when the extremists campaign and compel others to follow their view in the name of religion. Zainul Abidin Rasheed should be supported when he asked moderate Muslims to stand up against extremists. Moderate Muslims should not allow the extremists to set the agenda for them. It is not only us who are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism. Earlier this year, leaders of the two largest Muslim organisations in Indonesia met in Jakarta to discuss the problems facing the country. After the meeting, the Nahdlatul Ulama chairman, Hasyim Muzadi, told a press conference that the image of Islam had been politicised by certain groups for their vested interests. He stressed that such radicalism was not the Islamic way of thinking. His counterpart in Muhammadiyah, Syafii Maarif, said that if the authorities were afraid to take stern measures against the radicals, that would pave the way for the birth of another Taliban nation. In Malaysia too, moderate Muslims - "the silent majority" - are being urged to speak up, to balance extremist views on Islam. The Executive Director of Sisters-in-Islam recently called on middle-class Malaysian Muslims, especially those who had been quiet so far, to voice out their moderate views, instead of allowing the radicals and extremists to dominate. My worry is that some extremist groups will exploit the growing Islamic consciousness in Singapore and in the region, to advance their religious or political objectives through radical means, some of which can be violent. The Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia is a radical group. It envisages the creation of a Daulah Islamiyah Nusantara, a pan-regional Islamic state, comprising Malaysia, Indonesia and southern Philippines. The Indonesian-led Jemaah Islamiyah group has added another country or part of it, Thailand, to Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia's pan-regional Islamic state. It has talked about forming an Islamic state comprising southern Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and southern Philippines. Ibrahim Maidin, the Singapore leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, went one step further. He told an ISD officer that he was convinced that sooner or later, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Mindanao in the Philippines, would come under Syariah law and become a Daulah Islamiyah, or Islamic state. He continued that when that happened, Singapore would inevitably also become Islamic. Other militant groups in the region have objectives which are more national in nature, but they are no less worrisome. Malaysia's Al-Ma'unah wants to set up an Islamic state in Malaysia. Laskar Jihad and the Islamic Defenders Front want an Islamic state in Indonesia. Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front want to form an independent Muslim state in the Muslim enclave of Mindanao in southern Philippines, while Barisan Revolusi Nasional and Gerakan Mujahiddin Islam Pattani want to do so in southern Thailand. Although these militant groups have objectives that are domestically driven, some of them already have operational links with one another as well as with Al-Qaeda. For example, both Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia and the Indonesian Mujahidin Council subscribe to the goal of uniting the global Islamic community, which is what Al-Qaeda advocates. These are not bogeyman tales to frighten children. Nor have we exaggerated the extent of the problem. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the militant groups in our region have extensive and well-developed networks. The Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah is part of a much larger regional terrorist network spanning Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah members have identified Abu Bakar Baasyir and Abu Jibril as among those responsible for the establishment and operation of the Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah. Abu Jibril has been implicated in crimes committed by the Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia, while Abu Bakar Baasyir and another Indonesian Mujahidin Council leader, Hambali, are said to be behind the movement to establish an Islamic state comprising Indonesia, Malaysia and southern Philippines. Six of the 13 Jemaah Islamiyah members being held in Singapore had links with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, while the two who were arrested and then released had visited Moro Islamic Liberation Front camps in the past. Jemaah Islamiyah may also have Thai connections. In January this year, a Singaporean Jemaah Islamiyah fugitive, who is still on the run, Mas Selamat Kastari, and four others were believed to have fled to Thailand. Kastari was suspected to be planning to hijack an aircraft from Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand, and crash it into Changi Airport. So you see, it is not just Al-Qaeda we are concerned with. It is Islamic radicalism and militancy in our region. The Al-Qaeda terrorists are primarily against the Americans. Their targets are Americans. The radical groups in our region have a different regional agenda. The two have combined forces. Relations with Malaysia Several MPs have spoken on our relations with Malaysia. Yeo Guat Kwang said that one union leader could not understand why the Malaysians were so angry with Singapore. In recent months, hardly a week went by without the Malaysian media playing up one bilateral issue or another: water, `tudung', land reclamation, and even Vivian's playful remark about "wild animals". Now it is Ravindran's turn to fall victim. Tomorrow will be Ong Ah Heng's. I asked some young Singaporeans what they thought of all these attacks on Singapore. They said that they were immune to them. In other words, there is no effect on them whatsoever. But unfortunately, when the Malaysian media carries factually incorrect or one-sided reports, or inflammatory comments, they also stoke the flames of the Malaysian people. They sour relations at the people level. Guat Kwang said that his union leader friend was worried about travelling to Malaysia. I know of others who had cancelled their plans to spend the recent school holidays in Malaysia. Land Reclamation Take land reclamation as an example of flame-stoking. There have been so many allegations on so many fronts, and also many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in their media reports. I do not wish to delve into detail on this issue, as Mah Bow Tan has already done so. But I do wish to point out that our land reclamation policy is not new or secret. Singapore is a small country. We reclaim land because we need land and for no other reason. We have been doing so since the 1960s. In 1991, a set of comprehensive land-use plans, including those pertaining to long-term reclamation, was approved by the Government and put on public record. This was the Concept Plan of 1991, which was recently reviewed, updated and re-issued as Concept Plan 2001. This is a publicly available document. We do take Malaysia's concerns seriously. This is why DPM Lee Hsien Loong told the Malaysian leaders during his visit to KL, that if Malaysia had concerns about our reclamation works, it could put them down in a note and Singapore would study them. Water Water is another complicated issue between our two countries. In fact, it has been a constant source of tension since our independence. The picture that has been recently painted in the Malaysian media is one of an arrogant, selfish Singapore profiteering from our purchase of raw water from Johor. As in the land reclamation issue, this picture is skewed to arouse feelings and resentment against Singapore. Let me give you an example. We have been accused by a Malaysian newspaper of raking in huge profits of RM600 million annually, by selling the water we get from Johor at 3 sen per thousand gallons, to ships which call at Singapore. Water sold to ships calling at our ports does attract high tariffs, but this is only because we do not want to encourage this kind of demand. We sell only a small quantity of water to ships, about 1 million gallons per day, which is less than 1% of Singapore's total water demand. The revenue Singapore gets from this sale, I wish, was near the RM600 million figure, but it is not. Last year, Singapore's gross revenue from our sale of water to ships totalled about RM40 million. The key unhappiness, however, is in the current price of 3 sen that we are paying for raw water. As part of the deal on the bilateral package, which we are still negotiating, we had offered to increase this 3 sen for raw water that was agreed between Singapore and Malaysia in the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. In addition, we had been prepared to vary the Points of Agreement (POA) on Malayan Railway Land, and offer Malaysia additional plots of land for joint development. All these concessions that Singapore had offered under the bilateral package must be taken into account when considering the price Singapore is willing to pay for water under a new agreement. But for Singapore, this issue goes beyond money. The 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements are international treaties, legally binding on Singapore and Malaysia. They are guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement and cannot be varied except as provided for within the Agreements, or by mutual consent. But we were prepared to consider an increase in the price of existing water within the bilateral package and as a gesture of goodwill to help conclude a deal. I bring up this point because at the height of the furore over water, certain comments by the Malaysian media troubled us. They seemed to suggest that Malaysia should unilaterally amend the terms of the existing Water Agreements, if resolution could not be reached on a new price for existing water. For example, a New Straits Times editorial of 30th January commented: "By (Singapore) suggesting that these (water) agreements continue to apply by default because the Johor state government failed to re-negotiate the price structure after 25 years in 1986 and 1987, it is simply playing hard to get." The same editorial suggested that the issue of water be viewed as a business transaction - agree to a price, seal the deal, or part with no hard feelings and look elsewhere for water. In other words, if Singapore does not agree to Malaysia's price for water, we would have to look elsewhere for water because Malaysia would stop its supply to us. But it is not so simple. Both sides can walk away from the negotiations on a new water agreement if we cannot reach an agreement. However, both sides have to honour the existing 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. As I mentioned earlier, these two agreements were confirmed and guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement, also known as the Independence of Singapore Agreement. Any breach of the Water Agreements would also call into question the Separation Agreement, and undermine our very existence. This is totally unacceptable. I think it is high time we explored a different approach to water supply from Malaysia. I do not want our relations with Malaysia to be always strained by this issue. It is not healthy for our two countries to be always locked in dispute. It is unwise to allow this one issue to sour bilateral relations at all levels and on all fronts. It prevents us from co-operating in strategic areas of mutual benefit. The long-term interests of our two countries might be better served if we can remove this constant thorn in our bilateral relations. The sensitivity of this water issue goes back to the Separation. On 9th August 1965, the very day of our independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman told the British High Commissioner in Malaya: "If Singapore's foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia's interests, we could always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johor." Time has not changed this perception that water is to be used as a leverage against Singapore. In an article entitled "Water as a Factor in International Relations" published in the November 2000 issue of Strategi, a journal of the Malaysia Armed Forces College, a Lt-Col Azmy Yahya wrote: "Malaysia should take full advantage of water as a strategic weapon to counter Singapore's military advantage over Malaysia." Noting that "without water, Singapore may not survive", Azmy said that apart from the ability to disrupt the water supply to Singapore, Malaysia also had the capability to pollute the supply with either chemical or biological weapons. He argued that Malaysia had the right to defend itself through all means. Fortunately, though, there are others with a more realistic sense of the situation. Lt-Gen Zaini Mohd Said, the former Malaysian Army Field Commander, wrote a commentary in Mingguan Malaysia just two months ago when media criticisms against us on water were at their zenith. He pointed out that water was a security issue that could lead to armed conflict. He reminded Malaysians that the Singapore military was stronger and more sophisticated. And although Malaysia had its own means of responding, Zaini concluded that both sides would be losers if it came to armed conflict. It is not healthy to always have a Damocles' sword hanging over our heads. It breeds mistrust and suspicion, and does not make for a productive relationship. It may be better for bilateral relations if we start to move a little away from our reliance on Malaysia for water. This is doable if we have to do it. We have already called a tender for a 30mgd desalination plant. We have been operating a plant to produce NEWater (reclaimed water) using membrane technology for two years now. And we intend to build more such NEWater plants. The cost of these alternative sources of water is not all that prohibitive either. We want to have good, stable relations with Malaysia for the long term and for mutual benefit. We shall play our part to achieve this. Malaysia has written to us with their latest proposal on the bilateral package. We shall send them our reply, stating our position, some time next week. But I do not want to leave Singaporeans with the impression that if we remove this issue of water from bilateral relations, or if we manage to wrap up the bilateral package, then there will be no more disputes between Singapore and Malaysia forever. There will always be the occasional squabble, because we are geographically close. Even more so, given our shared and broken history together, and the different ways in which our societies are organised. Co-operation Singaporeans must therefore view the inevitable ups and downs in our relationship with Malaysia with a certain calm and balance. We should not be complacent when things go well. Neither should we get excited when things turn sour. We need patience, stamina and a long-term view. We will stand firm on fundamentals, but must be broad-minded enough to accommodate Malaysia's interests where our own national interests are not diminished. We must not give up the prospect of achieving a win-win relationship with Malaysia. We can and we must co-operate with each other. Our two economies are strongly inter-dependent. Malaysia was Singapore's top trading partner last year. We were Malaysia's second largest export destination and third largest import source. Singapore was also Malaysia's fourth largest foreign investor in terms of total value of approved projects. So, co-operation would bring us greater benefit, certainly more than being at each other's throat. This is not to say that there would be no competition between us. Rivalry between our two countries will always be strong. In some instances, we will be fighting for the same piece of cake. But generally, I believe that the economic pie is growing and is big enough for the two of us. Neither country would do well without the other. It is a symbiotic relationship which we have not fully exploited. The late President Yusof Ishak told the inaugural session of our Parliament on 8th December 1965: "Our survival as a people, distinct and separate from our neighbours in Southeast Asia, depends upon our patience and resolution in dealing with physically bigger and hence difficult neighbours, and upon our perseverance in seeking long-term solutions of finding a new balance of forces in this part of the world." This is still good advice. Declining Fertility Indranee Rajah said that the Government needed to look into the problem of housing for singles. I would say that the more pressing challenge that we have to look into is the rising number of singles. Since we first highlighted the problem some years back, it has become more acute. The singlehood rate for resident males aged 40-44 rose from 11.6 per hundred in 1995, to 15.0 per hundred in 2001. That is for males. The singlehood rate for resident females in the same age group increased from 12.5 per hundred, to 14.0 per hundred. For males, most of the singles were those with secondary and below education, whereas graduate females continued to be the biggest "single" group across all ages. This inability or unwillingness on the part of Singaporeans to get hitched, is seriously contributing to our falling fertility problem. So two years ago, the Government put in place a package of marriage and procreation measures. We introduced the Baby Bonus, Third Child Maternity Leave, more and better childcare centres, family-friendly work practices, easier home ownership, public education and more opportunities for singles to socialise. But more than nine months after we started giving out the Baby Bonus in April last year, I have not received any bonus myself! I do not mean the Baby Bonus. I mean that the response to the package of measures has not been encouraging, and the fertility rates have continued to fall. I hope that this was because the economy took a downturn just as the measures were being introduced. I am told that couples are likely to delay or even abandon plans for children in times of economic uncertainty. We saw that phenomenon in the previous two recessions in 1986 and 1998. So, maybe, the response will be better as the economy improves. But I am not too hopeful. It will pick up somewhat, but the reason for declining marriages and births is more fundamental. We are experiencing a change in attitude towards marriage and family among the young. Surveys continue to show that our young place financial and career goals ahead of family formation. The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2001 hit a historic low, the lowest on record, of 1.42 children per woman, way below the replacement rate of 2.

1. The number of resident births in 2001 was about 40,000, a decline of 12.5% over 2000. This decline in our marriage and procreation rates is clearly a national problem. The implications are grave. We cannot let nature take its course, even though low fertility is common among developed countries. We need to act, as the implications of a continued sub-replacement TFR are severe for a small country like ours. We might not survive as a nation because of it. The Government is committed to creating a total social environment conducive to marriage and family formation. The Working Committee on Marriage and Procreation will be considering new measures. However, there is only so much that the Government can do. Ultimately, marrying and having children are personal decisions. It is up to Singaporeans to take advantage of the support provided by the Government. I am heartened by the fact that numerous studies over the years show that most among our young desire to get married and have children. The majority say that the ideal number of children is three. But the figures show that many are only having two or less. Our focus should, therefore, be on them. Besides the Government, parents, friends, relatives, colleagues, employers, and community and religious organisations can and must do more to bring about the total social environment conducive to marriage and having children. Going back to Indranee's request to look into the housing needs of singles, yes, singles are an integral part of a family. The needs of young couples, however, are comparatively more immediate and necessary as they need new flats to start their family. Singles will be helped in their housing, but the priority will be for couples and family. And to the pragmatic Singaporeans who have postponed their marriage plans, I advise them to act fast. The timing is good now to get a choice flat to start a family. The Government has tried many ways and means to make it easier for couples to have a family. Any MP who comes up with an ingenious and a better solution to help our singles get married and our TFR increased, will get a bonus from me. Not the Baby Bonus, but a real bonus. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to and read carefully the speeches of the MPs. I have instructed the Ministers to follow up on their concerns and ideas. I myself have addressed this House on three critical challenges for Singapore. These are challenges for which there is no obvious solution. I wanted to inject a sense of reality into this week's debate. The world is a complex place, and often, there are no black or white answers. This then requires a hard choice to be made among a range of solutions, most of which are neither painless nor cost-free. This is where leadership comes in. Wang Kai Yuen is right. The people want the Government to lead. They want the Government to listen to feedback and to consult them too. But at the end of the day, they want a strong Government that will find solutions to their problems and give them hope for the future. However, several other MPs, including Tan Soo Khoon, feel that Singaporeans are cynical and sceptical about the Government. I do not agree. Cynicism and scepticism arise when the Government does not do what it says. But this is a Government that does exactly what it says. We have a reputation for being legalistic, clinical and precise, meaning also that we take very seriously our every word and commitment. We invest a great deal of effort into policy announcements, to make sure that they are correct, because we will abide by our every undertaking. Singaporeans know that when we state a policy, we will carry it through. When we consult the people for their feedback, we take their views seriously. It is practically not possible, of course, to acknowledge individually every contribution. Nor is it possible to accept every suggestion. But that does not mean that we are merely going through the motions. The views that are expressed influence our thinking and attitude, even if some do not get translated into specific actions. Politicians in Singapore have high standing with the people, unlike politicians in many other countries. We do not shoot off our mouths, making wild promises and baseless accusations. Every line we take is a carefully considered and deliberated policy. For this reason, we do not like to be referred to ourselves as "politicians" because this word "politicians" has acquired a negative connotation in many countries. We prefer the term "political leaders". Yes, a handful of Singaporeans are cynical and sceptical. But we should not generalise the attitudes of these few Singaporeans to the rest of the 3 million Singaporeans! Indeed, if the large majority of Singaporeans were cynical and sceptical of the Government, they would not have returned the PAP to power again and again in 10 General Elections after 1959. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Prime Minister, could I ask the Leader to move a suspension motion, please?

With the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45(8) in respect of the Prime Minister's speech. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said, we had won elections again and again. Also, in the last General Election, in the contested seats, the voters gave us 75 per cent of the vote. Why? Because they knew that Singapore faced several severe challenges - the economic recession, the terrorist threat and a less than benign regional environment. And the voters believed in our leadership. So we must not disappoint them. We must lead. Look for new solutions to old problems. Anticipate future problems and head them off. Explain issues in simple, clear terms to the people and mobilise them behind the Government. Running a Government is like conducting an orchestra. Every PAP MP is a member of this orchestra. Each MP has his own musical instrument. And there are many different musical instruments, eg, the piano, violin, cello, oboe, bass, drum, flute and so on, each providing a different sound. But they must produce beautiful music together. If we perform well, at the end of each electoral term, the voters will ask for an encore. If not, the orchestra will not be invited back to perform. Does this mean that the MPs must make similar speeches since we are members of the same Party? No. Each speech is like a different instrument, with its different sound and effect. But, taken together, all the speeches you have made and you will make, must sound like a grand orchestral performance. If you do not understand this, and you sing Jail House Rock with your electric guitar when others are playing Beethoven, you are out of order. The Whip must be used on you. This does not mean that you cannot gyrate to the music of Elvis Presley, but do it at an appropriate occasion, like at the end of Budget Debate party. This orchestra analogy has relevance also to Singapore Inc, or to the whole of Singapore. In this case, the entire nation is the orchestra. The Government is the conductor, and the people are the musicians. As musicians, Singaporeans can play any instrument they like, which means they should feel free to speak up and offer their views and suggestions, even if they are contrary to Government policy. But do remember, whatever you do or say, at the end of the day, we must perform well enough as a team to deliver economic growth, social harmony, quality of life, and security for ourselves and our children. There will be many challenges for which there is no final solution where we can declare, "case closed". There are many problems which will remain with us for many years to come. And new challenges and problems will arise. We will simply have to persevere, constantly try creative and new approaches, and manage problems to the best of our ability. I am confident that we can get on top of these difficult challenges. We have recruited good people into the Government. Ng Eng Hen, Khaw Boon Wan and the new crop of MPs give me hope, that there are more able and committed Singaporeans out there who are willing to leave the comfort of the public gallery and the operating theatre, to serve the nation. We just have to find them and give them the reasons to step forward, whether it is to advance the Singapore Cause or to achieve their Singapore Dream. This - persuading Singaporeans that they should step forward to serve the nation - is itself a major challenge. As Khaw Boon Wan put it, the dream of younger Singaporeans nowadays is the Global Dream. They are well-educated, well-read and well-travelled. They are mobile. They can fit as well into New York, as they can in Singapore. They will be pulled by where the opportunities beckon. What can we do to keep their hearts here so that, even if they leave to pursue their Global Dream, they will return one day to Singapore? If we can achieve these two goals - secure a constant flow of good people into the Government and anchor Singaporeans firmly to Singapore - then, Singapore will endure and prosper. [Applause.]

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, do you want to wrap up the debate? 5.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, wrapping up after the Prime Minister has spoken is a challenging task but one which I will endeavour to do my best. Sir, I would like to begin by thanking all 61 hon. Members who have risen in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. Over the past five days, we have heard statements of harsh realities, treated to excellent displays of wit and humour, and even a little poetry. There is, however, strong evidence of a common will and spirit in all that Members have said. I am also happy to note that all new Members have participated and clearly demonstrated their ability to add significantly to the depth and breadth of parliamentary debate. The House can therefore be expected to witness similarly lively debates for future sittings. Sir, this whole debate has to do with change in response to all the challenges: what has brought about the numerous changes to our economic conditions, our social ties, values and the political landscape, how do we cope with change at the country and individual level, how we can exploit change using our strengths, and so on. It is now my humble duty to highlight the common threads that run through this debate, in the context of change, along the following themes: competition, human capital, adaptation, narrower divides, globalisation of terrorism, and engagement. Competition Sir, many Members have eloquently dwelt on the onslaught of competition. Increasing competition, especially from technological advances, will lead to shorter product life-cycles and, therefore, innovation and creativity are all-important. Competition is ruthless and does not discriminate. Therefore, survival means that we need to constantly offer a point of differentiation. It is no longer enough to be simply more effective and efficient. Sir, there is also an acute awareness of the need and a sense of urgency for Singapore to remain competitive. Many Members have urged the Government to review the cost of doing business in Singapore. Competition also comes in the juggernaut of China, how with its ample resources and massive domestic market, it is already competing for FDIs aggressively. Human Capital Sir, nothing strikes a more common chord than the recognition that people are our most precious resource. And many Members have made calls to the Government to do all it can to maximise the potential of all, including women, by ensuring that opportunities for education and multiple role playing are available. Sustaining a competitive edge is all about having a relevant and nimble workforce, one that can bounce back in adversity. There is no doubt that the current spate of retrenchments will come increasingly from restructuring than a pure downturn in demand. Sir, we recognise that retrenchment can occasionally be opportunistic, in the name of creating shareholder value, that it afflicts all across-the-board and is not limited to lower-skilled workers. There is, therefore, also no doubt that some jobs will never return, and Singaporeans who used to hold these jobs will simply have to be reskilled for other employment. Otherwise, structural unemployment, especially of the older workers, will be hard at the personal, family and community levels. Sir, we can build on our strengths. We have a highly skilled workforce, well-regarded for quality work and diligence, and a very strong Singapore brand. We also have solid tripartite relations which we should leverage on, to help ease transition in career switches and, more importantly, to continue to present a difference to foreign investors. Adaptation Change is also all about adaptation, in a pro-active and not reactive manner. Many Members have called for a mindset change in the way we maintain our relevance as employees whilst recognising that insecurity will be hard to shake off - in the way we view success and failure in society, even in schools; in the way the civil service can be flexible and effectively facilitate growth in the private sector. As employees, we now have to accept that contract work could be a dominant feature, and the norm will be that we go through several jobs in our lifetime or be economic gypsies, as one Member has put it. Loyalties and predictable wage growth would be replaced by rewards according to the degree of innovation, creativity and risk-assumption. Sir, as a people, we have to be psychologically prepared for strategic changes that we would have to make: changes in the tax structure, the composition of wages, as well as the CPF scheme. We would also have to rethink and review how we use our CPF as we address the aging population and rising singlehood trends. Narrower Divides Next, Sir, on narrower divides. As a people, we should strive towards narrower divides, ie, help bridge the wealth and digital divides that would otherwise characterise our modern world. And this, we should achieve through closer community bonding and mutual responsibility. We would have to be watchful of external stresses on our racial and religious harmony and move towards greater integration and understanding. We would also have to continue to build on the principle of meritocracy and equality of treatment and opportunity. Globalisation of Terrorism Sir, let me now move on to the globalisation of terrorism, which the Prime Minister has already dwelt on at length. Globalisation has made the world seem smaller. Technology transfer can be had in the twinkling of an eye. But terrorism has also globalised along the way. The "911" attacks and similar events in the region have demonstrated how the economic consequences can be so widespread. Experiencing terrorism right at our doorsteps and in the region underscores the importance of national defence and a need for vigilance. We must guard against the negative effects of extremist tendencies. Engagement Sir, last but not least, change is all about engagement. Many Members have implored the Government to engage Singaporeans with greater intensity at all levels and regardless of gender, race, age, religion or physical ability. No single group of Singaporeans should feel alienated. Sir, I believe it is worth belabouring the need to engage especially the young, to increase their sense of belonging to Singapore, to enable them to contribute their all to the future of Singapore, including, hopefully, procreating enough. This should rank high on the Government's agenda. Engagement must be genuine; feedback and participation must be seen to play a constructive role so as to address any lingering scepticism. Engagement is, therefore, vital to strengthening the sense of ownership of, and belonging to, Singapore. In turn, it will strengthen our sense of ownership and belonging to one another. As a nation, our sovereignty is absolute, and one shared by all Singaporeans. It shall also be the basis for which we relate to our neighbours. Let me now just make some concluding remarks. We have the certainty of change and uncertainty from change. Change will not wait to happen. If unexpected, change will be very uncomfortable. But change can be anticipated to a certain extent. And we have just heard from the Government, by the Prime Minister himself, that the Government will provide strong leadership and assurance that it will do just that: anticipate change, do long-term strategic planning to anticipate the shifts and leverage on our strengths, see how we can prepare our people to meet the new challenges, explain the need for change, and invest in the necessary physical and social infrastructure, so as to enable every Singaporean to contribute in his own way. Our individual response is, therefore, critical as well. So, Sir, the ultimate challenge will be the uniting of both the Government and people in purpose and in undertaking the necessary changes. It leaves me now to thank all Members once again for their support, and I would like to invite all Members to join me in thanking the President for his Address. [Applause.]

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Speaker shall be paid with effect from 25th March 2002:-

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Speaker shall be paid with effect from 25th March 2002:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, pursuant to Article 42(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, each Deputy Speaker shall be paid a monthly allowance equal to 12 per cent of the monthly salary and allowances (excluding the annual fixed bonus) payable to the Speaker with effect from 1st April 2002. Sir, the allowance payable to the Deputy Speakers had been set at a percentage of the actual salary received by the incumbent Speaker. Parliament is requested to approve the motion, which will set the Deputy Speakers' allowance rate to 12% of the Speaker's part-time remuneration.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 42(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, each Deputy Speaker shall be paid a monthly allowance equal to 12 per cent of the monthly salary and allowances (excluding the annual fixed bonus) payable to the Speaker with effect from 1st April 2002.

5.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament. Since 1989, the Singapore Constitution has provided for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). However, before they can be appointed, Parliament must so resolve to have them at the beginning of each session of a new Parliament. This is why I am back here the third time moving this motion at the beginning of the Tenth Parliament. The last two occasions when I moved a similar motion were on 29th May 1992 and 5th June 1997. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the implementation of the NMP scheme in 1990, Parliament has granted 26 individuals the privilege to take part in the proceedings in this House. While not all of them made the same level of contribution to the debates in this Chamber, they have, generally, acquitted themselves well, with some serving two terms of four years. Over the years, we have also increased the number of NMPs from two to six, and then to nine, and improved the selection process by having proposal panels to nominate representatives of functional groups as NMPs. So, in 1997, apart from inviting the general public to submit the names of suitable persons, the Special Select Committee on NMPs wrote to organisations representing three major functional groups: (a) business and industry; (b) labour; and (c) the professions - to propose candidates for this Special Select Committee's consideration. At a sitting on 5th June 1997, when we debated the motion on having NMPs at the start of the Ninth Parliament, I also said that the Government would con- sider further improving the NMP selection process, by expanding the number of functional groups invited to submit nominations. Thus, for this Tenth Parliament, the Government would like the Special Select Committee to also invite an additional three functional groups: (a) social and community service organisations; (b) tertiary educational institutions; and (c) media, the arts and the sports organisations - to submit nominations. The Special Select Committee will nominate a coordinator among the constituent organisations of each functional group. Each coordinating organisation will then consult its constituent/constituents and eventually submit up to two names of two individuals to the Special Select Committee for consideration and interview. Sir, the Government hopes that the outcome of doubling to six the number of functional groups involved in the selection process will be an even wider cross section of NMPs entering Parliament, whose diverse but non-partisan viewpoints ought to make a contribution to our Parliamentary debates. Mr Speaker, Sir, the merits and usefulness of having the NMP scheme have been thoroughly debated since the Constitution was first amended to provide for it. At our subsequent sittings of Parliament to resolve to have NMPs, we also exhaustively argued over the need to continue with the scheme and we voted for it. So I would not repeat the reasons why we should have the NMPs in this term of Parliament. For those who are interested, I would recommend that they run through the Hansard on all the debates that we have had in the last three times. It suffices me to sum up by saying that NMPs have been a plus for our Parliament. Many have distinguished themselves. Their objective, non-partisan views on a wide range of issues brought before this House have added value. Sir, when I moved a similar motion in 1992 and 1997, the Party Whip was lifted. Now, for this motion, the Whip will also be lifted. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to urge Members of this House not to support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is an elected institution and we must keep it that way. Each Member in this House fought their way through an electoral process involving nine hard days of campaigning and countering many traumatic moments of electioneering. Some who fought lost and are left out of this Chamber. There were risks taken, like giving up comfortable jobs to venture into this political arena. If we had lost in Jurong, our hon. Member, Mr Tharman would be jobless because he left MAS. I am sure that he must have some moments when he asked himself why he got into this when matters got very hot in Jurong. But he went through the hustings and I am sure he felt a sense of pride and joy when he won. He told me that he felt very humbled, just like what I felt when I won my first election in 1980. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, my good friend, fought very hard and he lost a lot of weight, but he won. So also my good friend, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay. Steve, you gave him a hard fight, but you lost. At every election, we go round to campaign for votes in trucks, lorries, we walk, we run. Every time we meet somebody, we ask them, "please vote me". It takes a lot of courage to ask somebody, "please vote for me". Those who have not gone through an election do not understand, but most of us, who have gone through would realise how difficult it is for us to ask somebody to vote for you. And when they go knocking at the doors, sometimes when people open the door to you, they do not offer you pleasantries. They call you - I do not know whether it is unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker - "PAP bastards, you get out!" But this is part of the hustings and we have to go through it. At the end of the day, we develop a certain inner strength in us. We develop thick skin, as the Prime Minister said. We learn to handle abuses but we gain the respect. These experiences will mould and change us, but also help us to tackle issues and to manage crisis. So we Members in this House deserve to come into this place because we made it, we earned it, we have the mandate. Do we want people nominated to come into this House and enjoy what you have fought so hard to earn a place here? You better think twice. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have once asked a Nominated Member of Parliament why he wanted to come to this House. He was silent. He said he was not interested in politics. So I asked him, "Do you know what this Chamber is?" In this Chamber, every discussion is political in nature. So I do not understand why a person, who is not interested in politics is prepared to come into this Chamber, which is a political Chamber, as I have said. Mr Speaker, Sir, we want men of substance, not men of words in this House. In the last four days, we have heard numerous speakers in the House giving their views on the remaking of Singapore and they addressed a wide range of issues, from high-tech to the bread and butter issues, and even to what is happening in the region, terrorists, tudung and so on. And there were no NMPs in this House. I wonder whether anyone of you felt you missed their presence. I did not. The ideas and issues raised by all of you in this House would give the Ministries a lot of work to do, and they will be kept busy for a long, long time. Yet, we were told by the Leader of the House, in the last debate, that they needed non-elected Members to give us alternative views. I have watched NMPs perform in this House. Yes, some of them were good at articulating issues, but no better than our Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Mr Tharman Shamugaratnam, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Assoc. Prof. Chin, so many of you here. So if we ask ourselves, are they better than all of us, and if they are better than any one of us here, you let them in. Because some of you are new here, let me bring up some of the things I said in this House 10 years ago. It is still relevant. We had Nominated MPs in Parliament. It was not called Parliament. It was called the Singapore Legislative Assembly and there was a recommendation by the Rendel Commission. The Rendel Commission recommended four, two to make sure that the minority interests are taken care of, and two to make sure that trade and business matters are taken care of. I am sure you can quite understand. In 1954-1955, what was Singapore? We were a third-world country. We did not have so many PhDs. Education was very low. Therefore, we can expect that these people were there to oversee their interests. We can understand that. But there was an overriding clause that that feature was to be a transient feature, and that it would not be permanent. And this non-permanent feature was later examined by another Commission. This Commission was chaired by the former Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin in early 1966, which examined whether a council of nominated people called the Council of State should be a part of Parliament. They were non-elected people, and their primary function was to make sure, again, to check on minority rights. And for the benefit of the new MPs, I quote paragraph 54, page 15, of the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966: 'It will be a body separate from Parliament, but to which Parliament can look for serious and weighty advice and while having no control over legislation, it will, to the extent of having given its advice, share with Parliament the responsibility for any legislation passed pursuant to such advice. We think the continued practice of a sound democratic system of government in Singapore will best be achieved if our recommendations leave untouched a unicameral legislature which we have at present, where all Members of Parliament are elected by the people by secret vote at elections held at regular intervals of years. In this way the many and grave responsibilities which Members of Parliament taken upon as the elected representatives of the people will rest solely on them.' Even our Senior Minister - I would not quote him - said that no nominated people can give him advice. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen these two reports and they were crafted by non-parliamentarians and yet, today, we are asking parliamentarians, all of you here, to endorse this Nominated Members scheme. Sir, 30 years have passed since those reports. This Parliament is very different. Members of the House are experts in their own field. Like I said, we have experts in finance, health, law, business and even unions. The fear of no minority representation has been taken care of. We have the Presidential Council on Minority Rights to make sure that all legislation in this House must pass through their hands to make sure that there is no discrimination against minority interests. Then we have the GRC system to ensure that minority representation is guaranteed in this House. Lack of women was one of the reasons our Prime Minister gave for wanting Nominated Members of Parliament. Now I see 10 women in this House, and Members have all listened to how our 10 women have performed in this House. They are more than adequate. They are women of substance, and we have even included single women. So, I think, we have covered the whole range of women's interests. I ask this House, what more do they want? Alternative voices? We have the Opposition parties here. We have the NCMP. If we expect Nominated MPs to give opposition views, our past experience shows that some of the Nominated MPs are more PAP than the PAP! Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot artificially create another voice in this House to represent sectoral and functional interests. We are pandering. The moment we start to pander to functional and sectoral groups, we are in trouble, because there is no end to it. Everyone will come knocking at the door every two years asking why he is not represented. And who do we select? They have a whole list of functional groups that are coming in. But I said that if we look at some of the women representatives of the previous nominations, invariably, one must come from AWARE. To me, it is proxy representation for AWARE. Why should this House be used as a platform for them to air their grievances and their views? We select lawyers. I wonder why. We have Davinder Singh - he is great. We have Shanmugam, another great senior lawyer. We have Ravindran, Indranee, Sin Boon Ann. We have so many and yet we want more. I think it is crazy. Mr Speaker, Sir, the worst - I cannot understand - is that we want unionists to enter this House. If I were an elected unionist MP, I will be thoroughly embarrassed. How can the elected unionists have a nominated unionist sitting side by side, listening to him, cautioning and advising our Minister for Manpower? Surely there must be something that is not correct. I am sure that our unionists here, Yeo and others, will all agree with me that they all can do a very good job. And yet the very people that cannot get representation - the hawkers, the shopkeepers, the taxi drivers and so on - either they do not know the system or because they are not familiar with the procedure. I wanted to know why. So I spoke to a former Nominated MP, Gerard Ee. He said that there is some eliteness in our selection process, which is quite true, because we are biased towards the professionals. So, who are they representing? We are missing a big group of people outside clamouring to come in, and we are not giving them representation. It is not fair. While listening to the Prime Minister, it suddenly dawned on me that this system could be a backdoor entry for religious and racial politics. The Prime Minister said that we are in charge. Yes, we are in charge. Let me tell you that some enlightened ones will study our selection process. They will be wise to how we select, and they will train themselves to present in a very acceptable form for this selection committee. And before long, we will get someone very well educated, but he is a proxy representation of maybe one of the terrorist groups. [Laughter] This is not a laughing matter. It is a remote possibility. But if things can happen now, it can happen later. Why do we take this chance? Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, this House, being the highest legislative body in the land, must send the right signals to Singaporeans. We must remember that in this House, we set policies, we set rules, we make laws. Singaporeans read and watch us on television. So, everything that we say and do here is examined in the living room, and they take the cue from us. So they listen to all of us. Many Members call for Singaporeans to be prepared for a change in lifestyle, to take risks, to go into business areas where nobody dares to go. And we always tell them, "Don't worry. If you fail, jump up, start again." So we are risk advocators. We have to ask ourselves how Singaporeans are going to react on the way we vote on this scheme. We are asking to approve a scheme to accept non-risk-takers as Members of Parliament. So it contradicts what many Members are saying in this House. We must think very carefully whether we want non-risk-takers to come into this House. Non-risk-takers are afraid of elections. They are afraid of being challenged by the electorate. They are afraid of abuses. But you all are prepared to go through. You went through and you came out of it strong, and you are all here. We must send a correct message to the ground. And if the ground thinks that we have a double standard, then we are all hypocrites. We cannot have a double standard. You cannot say that you can take risk, I cannot take risk. Why can I not take risk? Because I am a professional, I am well heeled, but I am afraid you can take risk. You do not belong to that category. To me, it is a double standard. Finally, this time round, the Whip is lifted. I know Prime Minister has spoken about the Whip. And PAP Members here are not stupid as to bring down the Government, but this issue is not a life-and-death issue. This issue is to bring in non-risk-takers into this House. So, if Members want to agree to have non-risk-takers, then vote for it. But I will vote against it. [Applause.] The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this motion. I read the NMP debate on Hansard since 1989. I have read many of the arguments of Dr Tan Cheng Bock in the Hansard. I think what sticks in his throat when it comes to NMPs is that they enjoy the ride but they do not pay the price. And I understand this sentiment. No one is suggesting that the men and women here are not excellent. I think they are absolutely excellent. But the key question that we must ask ourselves on this motion is whether having Nominated Members of Parliament in this House will serve the national interest. Do NMPs add to the public welfare that we, as elected representatives of the people, have been entrusted with? My view is that it does. If we take the position, which I believe is shared by many Members in this House, that a vital role of Parliament is as a debating Chamber on issues that affect the public welfare, then the addition of Nominated Members can only further this cause. To arrogate this right to debate, to review and question the Government to only elected representatives is not to add but to take away from the public interest. It is precisely because we believe the discussion on public affairs should not be the exclusive preserve of political leaders, but a right as well as an obligation of citizens that various initiatives have been launched to engage the public in matters that affect their lives and future. Feedback, dialogue sessions, the Remaking Singapore Committee and the Economic Review Committee are but manifestations of this belief. The Nominated Members of Parliament provision gives institutional recognition to this in the highest deliberative assembly in the country. "Democracy", as Clement Atlee said, "means government by discussion.". Lord Lindsay, in his classic work, Democracy and Discussion, argued that ". anyone with experience of the effectiveness of discussion in a small democratic society must recognise how valuable is the contribution of those who are not easily convinced but can stand up resolutely for their own point of view." Since the introduction of NMPs into this House, many resolute men and women had, together with elected Members, committed their intelligence, expertise and experience in the service of this nation by discussion and debate on issues that affect Singapore's future. In doing so, they helped to fulfil one of the most important aims of Parliament, which is to ensure that the Government acts in the national interest, free of partisan inclinations and local prejudices. With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to me, Dr Tan is a man of principles. I have known him as a fellow MP for the past 17 years. He is a righteous man. To him, the world is black and white, and very little grey in between. He also tends to be obstinate, which is a virtue under certain circumstances. Sir, if I were to choose just one man to go into battle of life and death, I would choose Dr Tan. I knew, with him at my side, I would not have to cover my back, as he is absolutely dependable as a friend and as a comrade. He also knows his politics very well. He is now in Parliament for the sixth term. His PAP Ayer Rajah Branch is indeed a very small branch, compared to the other branches of PAP. In fact, we have been urging him to build up his branch. And, yet, in the last General Election he polled 88% of the popular votes. How he managed to do that is something that we all should learn from. I think the speech he just gave showed us some of the things he really learned how to do it. And he had named all of us who would speak against him, making it difficult for us to speak against him. Therefore, when Dr Tan spoke about the right of representation in Parliament and spoke against the NMP concept, I believe all of us take his views very seriously. However, despite my respect for him, I think he is too obstinate in his view in this area. I believe he missed two major points in his speech. Firstly, the right of representation by ballot box - he insisted that to be in this House, one has to be tested by the ballot box. Secondly, I think he completely ignored the contributions of the NMPs in Parliament to-date, those who had served us in the past. Sir, around the world today, there are variants of democracy and democratic representation, each evolved to suit the situation of the respective countries. Enough had been said about this in the previous debates on this very topic in November 1989 and March 1990 when the Bill was tabled for the Second and Third readings. The subject was again extensively elaborated in March 1992 and June 1997 when a motion to admit NMPs in the respective term of Parliament was debated again. Basically Dr Tan argued for what I would classify as a static vision of Parliament. He would like to see that as long as possible - the concept that he had learned as a young man be perpetuated unchanged in this Parliament. I say, Sir, representation in Parliament should not be that static and should not be locked into time. Parliament is a living thing and it should evolve with the needs of the time. Just like the concept of marriage, husband and wife, that evolves through human history. Today, one man, one wife is the accepted norm in Singapore. However, under the Women's Charter, bigamy is illegal in Singapore, but it was not that way that long ago. Just about 50 years ago, it was quite acceptable in Singapore for a man to have more than one wife. Now if you really go back in time, anthropologists would tell us that most human societies were a maternal society, remnants of which could still be found scattered here and there around the world. In some of these, a woman could have many spouses. Today, in some western societies, same sex partner families are recognised by law as a basic family unit similar to the traditional family unit. So even with a concept as fundamental as the concept of family, there is no absolute. It is but a value system acceptable to all members of the community appropriate to the demands of the time. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will present to Dr Tan that this is the case with Parliament. We should be an institution that should be enhanced to meet the needs of the time. NMP to me is an innovation in the Singapore Parliament. The constitutionality of the NMP concept has already been settled. Theory aside, the question we should ask ourselves, as Mr Raymond Lim has pointed out, in this motion is whether NMPs inducted into Parliament have been positive or negative to Parliament. Have they added to the depth and the breadth of debate in Parliament? Sir, I think everyone, including Dr Tan, must agree that many of them did contribute to better debate in Parliament. Names that readily crop up include Prof. Walter Woon, Claire Chiang - I think we all missed her very much - Jennifer Lee, Shriniwas Rai, Thomas Thomas, Zulkifli Baharudin, Tay Beng Chuan, among others. I do not think these are non-risk takers. Many of them are successful businessmen in their own right. Surely, they are risk-takers. Yes, while some NMPs could have contributed more but, overall, I think we are better off with NMPs in Parliament. One of the arguments Dr Tan has as regards NMP representation is whether they represent anyone when they come into Parliament. I think, Sir, we should ask instead, whether NMPs are Members of Parliament. The answer actually lies with Singaporeans. Do Singaporeans accept them as Members of Parliament? And whether NMPs have been accepted by the international community of parliamentarians is another question we should ask. Sir, I have the privilege of attending several international conferences of parliamentarians with some of our NMPs in the past, and these NMPs had done us proud in these international forums. They were accepted by all as equal. So if a flower looks like a rose, feels like a rose, smells like a rose, it is a rose. The other argument Dr Tan has against the NMP concept is that we should not provide a backdoor for people who are non-risk takers into Parliament. And I believe he said that this is not just a debating shop; it is a political chamber where we make decisions. Surely, Sir, Dr Tan knows from the bottom of his heart that there is actually a major difference between an elected Member of Parliament and a Nominated Member of Parliament. This difference is obvious even to those who volunteered and were selected to be NMPs. In my view, an elected Member of Parliament is more than just a representative of the people in his constituency because we, the elected MPs, do not carry out an opinion poll of our constituents every time we speak. An elected MP, everyone of us - Backbenchers, Opposition Members included - is a leader in our own right. So, in a crunch, I think we are expected to step forward and to lead. Having NMPs in the Chamber does not dilute or blur this distinction. Thus, in my mind, Sir, having NMPs in the House does not provide a backdoor. Nominated Members are just a different category of Members in this House and should be recognised and accepted as such. Sir, being an NMP is already difficult enough. They have to make a mark within a very short period of time. I am already a fifth term MP and I still have a lot to learn to improve my performance in Parliament. For NMPs to leave a mark within their first two-year term, they are indeed rare individuals with outstanding abilities. Talents are hard to come by and we should not make it harder for talented individuals to step forward to serve in this capacity as NMPs in this House. We should not denigrate the office of the NMP, thereby discouraging more outstanding individuals to step forward. With all due respect to my good friend, Dr Tan, I do not think he is doing a service to this House by opposing this motion. Sir, I support this motion and urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on Nominated MPs (NMPs). The objective of the NMP scheme is, of course, laudable. As explained by the Leader of the House, Mr Wong, the addition of up to nine NMPs will add to the quality of the debate in this House. I surmise therefore that the NMP scheme is introduced not so much due to the lack of PAP MPs, but to overcome the lack of opposing and discerning views in Parliament, arising from the lack of Opposition MPs. Sir, allow me to state my case on why I feel that for this new Parliament, there is no need for an NMP scheme, in spite of the fact that there continues to be a paucity of Opposition Members in this House. I would like to bring up some new angles, instead of what some Members have claimed to be old angles, as raised by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. There are many reasons why this new term of Parliament could do away with NMPs. I think the NMP scheme has been useful in the past, but I think it will serve limited use in the future. My first point is that for this new session of Parliament, the PAP Whip will be lifted. That makes a big difference. The Leader of the House has said that in cases of certain Bills that are not critical - even the PM himself has said so - he will allow PAP MPs to speak up, which means that now, except for some critical Bills, we have a new body of MPs to take on issues - the PAP MPs. With this new Parliament, the new PAP MPs, as well as the old PAP MPs, can therefore speak with more conviction and freedom. Their views on Government policy can be more engaging. In the past, we all know that the PAP MPs' mouths had been gagged. We could not speak up, because there was a Whip behind us. Some hon. Members: No.

You can speak against it, but you have to vote for it. It sounds very illogical. Anyway, now that the Whip has been lifted for those who want to speak, I think they can speak more readily and more heartily. But, of course, they have to be responsible for whatever they say. Therefore, I think we do not need more NMPs, because we already have such a large body of PAP MPs. This is one major difference. Sir, the second difference I would like to say is that we now have a large quantity and quality of MPs, and new PAP MPs, in this Parliament. There are 24 new PAP MPs and one new NCMP. Certainly, with these 25 new faces put together, and with the old existing veteran MPs, what more views can be offered in this House and not more effective that can be covered. We have heard how well most of the MPs who have spoken - all the 50-over of them - how well they have covered their points, and how eloquent they are. As you have seen, even including a poem by my GRC colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen. And also we just saw this morning how well a new Minister of State, Dr Balaji, had fielded the barrage of questions from the other MPs. Many of these questions are from the new MPs themselves. So these are examples that we are going to have good debate in this House with this new crop of good MPs. Sir, even the hon. Member, Mr Chiam - I remember he told me just two days ago - that it was most refreshing to hear our new PAP MPs speak. Is that not right?

Right.

Sir, the other argument about having NMPs is that they represent a wider spectrum of public opinion. Once again, I wish to contend that we already have a wide and adequate representation in this House. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we have businessmen, we have Ph.Ds., we have entrepreneurs, we have unionists, we have professionals, doctors, lawyers - what else do we want? Everything is in this House. Sir, in terms of elected female MPs, again like Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, now we have increased from four to 10, and we see more colours of dresses now. So do you want more colours from the NMPs? I think not. Dr Wang had also mentioned that in the past, there were some very good NMPs. I must say I agree with him. I can single out some very good ones myself. But my contention is that for every good NMP, we have at least one good PAP MP to cover or be equal to the person. Let me cite you examples. I recall Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon - he was eloquent, penetrating in his remarks. In fact, he came out with the Maintenance of Parents Bill, which was very remarkable. We had Dr Augustine Tan, equally eloquent, equally deep and penetrating in his debates. Then we had Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, from the NMP side; on our side we had Dr Aline Wong, equally eloquent and adequate in covering points. I think in the last Parliament, we had Mr Tay Beng Chuan, a good businessman who brought up several business issues, but we have Inderjit Singh. And then we had, of course, Mdm Claire Chiang, who is a very good speaker as well. We have Dr Lily Neo who can match Mdm Claire Chiang, word for word, speech for speech, maybe dress for dress. I think she also has one up on Mdm Claire Chiang. She has her famous "Hairdo Debate". So, all the other past NMPs that we have in this House can be equally matched by our PAP MPs. So what can they add? I would like to argue against Mr Raymond Lim that, at best, the contributions the NMPs can give are marginal, not substantial. Of course, we also have the other NMP who was quite notable, Mr Simon Tay. I remember him very well. He made very good remarks, very articulate. Of course, we have on our side Dr Tan Cheng Bock himself, well matched to Mr Simon Tay. Sir, I do not want to belittle the contributions of the past 26 NMPs, or imply that they did not contribute to the debates, or the cut and thrust of this House. I said they are honourable people and I have very high regard for them. I respect them. All I am saying is that we do have sufficient numbers of elected MPs in this House to cover all the bases. In addition, there are three strong lines of attacks we have from the backbench to take on the frontbench. After listening to the speeches of the MPs in the last few days, I am even more convinced than ever that we do not need NMPs. The backbenchers are particularly pleased with the return of Mr Tan Soo Khoon, the former Speaker. He has demonstrated just by two speeches that he is a speechmaker par excellence, as Dr Wang Kai Yuen has said. Therefore, in this new House, we have three strong lines of formation of attack to take on the frontbench. The first line are the 25 new MPs which includes the "Magnificent Seven", ie, the seven new Ministers of State and Senior Ministers of State. The next line we have are the second, third and slightly older MPs, which include people like Mr Inderjit Singh, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Dr Lily Neo and Prof. Chin Tet Yung. Then we have the final line, the strongest line we call it, there we have the double Tans: Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Tan Soo Khoon. And backed by them are also good and capable MPs, Dr Wang Kai Yuen and, again, Prof. Chin Tet Yung, and of course next to him, Dr Ong Chit Chung and others. These are all very good back-up forces to support the two Tans. With all this firepower, why do we need NMPs? I do not understand. Mr Speaker, Sir, the final analysis on whether or not we should have NMPs does not depend on how well they speak, but what value they bring to the House and what contrasting views they can bring. Sir, I must say that they do bring some views. But I must contend against Mr Raymond Lim that maybe, at best, marginal. Sir, my GRC colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen, has called this Chamber a "theatre". I am sure he did not mean that this House is a theatre for shows. Not a place for wayang wayang, or play-play. This House debates on serious matters. We all agree on that. Therefore, it is not the quantity, that means the additional number of NMPs, that counts, but it is the quality and substance that count. Added to that, we need to add in "conviction". Elected MPs need to have the conviction. They speak from their hearts for the people. NMPs do not have to do that. They have no constituents. NMPs can come and go. But elected MPs cannot. Elected MPs have obligations to the people who vote for them. Elected MPs must be responsible, speak up and make their voice heard in this House. Sir, Dr Wang Kai Yuen said that roses that smell like roses must be roses. I do not agree. NMPs and elected MPs are different, and they are different. They come from a different breeding process. Sir, when this NMP Bill was first introduced in 1989, I was ambivalent and unsure of whether to support it. I checked the Hansard and noted that I did say that I could support this Bill subject to certain qualifications. But over the years and after observing my fellow elected backbenchers perform in the last few days, I would say that now I do not feel the need for the NMPs. When the Bill was first introduced by the Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong who was the first Deputy Prime Minister then, he summed up the debate by saying that he surmised that the uneasiness was not so much about the Bill itself, but with the uneasiness of the elected MPs themselves. I think this uneasiness was true, and is still true. Let me explain why. Let me use the concept of "shelf space". Parliament is an august House, not a theatre, where all the elected MPs do their serious work. This is where MPs do their work, by making laws and debating on Government policies, as the Prime Minister has just made a very important and inspiring speech for us to hear. Parliament is also a major avenue for elected MPs to reach out to the constituents they represent. Their constituents want to hear their MPs speaking out for them. They want to see their MPs at work. Now, the NMP interrupts this process of the elected MPs at work. Again, let me explain the "shelf space" concept. NMPs occupy shelf space. In a supermarket, every product is fighting for shelf space to gain consumer attention. One extra product, one extra can of sardine by another brand, takes up the shelf space. So PAP is the premium No. 1 product. The consumers decided that this is so. They also decided that Opposition MPs can only have two out of the 84 shelf space. So be it. But why do we need more? There is no reason for us to introduce a third brand called NMP. NMP is, what I call, a "generic" brand, a no-name brand, a "me too" product. No self-respecting premium brand producer wants to introduce a generic brand to the consumers just because the competitor No. 2 is very weak. I do not understand this marketing strategy. Sir, I want to reiterate that we are not against competition as such in this House. It is good to have more debates and more competition. And I have nothing against NMPs themselves. I also do not want to debase their past contribution, but I am only against the NMP scheme. Those who have accepted to be NMPs in the past have contributed, but there are other avenues for them to be heard, to voice their opinions. Of course, they can first join the elections, no matter whether they are on a PAP ticket, or opposition ticket. Or they can become an independent candidate, if they want to. If not, they can join the other processes where they can also have their views heard. They can be invited to the Economic Review Committee, the Remaking of Singapore Committee, Feedback Committee, public forums and dialogues where their views can be heard. So I contend that there is no need for them to enter Parliament. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, it is a political process, not a talking process. The elected MPs have work to do here. Sometimes, I am very saddened to hear an MP, especially a newer MP, making very good points in Parliament, but because of the limited media space, as I said earlier, shelf space, they are shut out. They did not get the media coverage they deserve, such that their constituents cannot know what he or she has to say on their behalf. Elected MPs have constituents to answer to. NMPs do not. The debate on the Presidential Address is a prime example. Over 50 MPs spoke up, not counting the Ministers, DPM and PM himself. But many MPs' speeches were not covered at all by the media. So, if we have more NMPs, it means even less coverage for the elected MPs. Sir, allow me to make a final point as to why I feel that things are a bit different now. Debate is a two-way process. NMPs may add to the debate, yes, I can agree with that. But we can have all debates we want in this House. It is no use if the Ministers are not listening. We now know that the Ministers are listening. Yesterday, DPM Lee actually assured the House that he would listen, and he would not bristle. When the Ministers are listening, at least the speeches they make are making an impact. So it is not the quantity or the numbers that count. It is whether the recipient side also makes an effort to hear and to take into account the views. With more receptive Ministers, of course capable and good Ministers, and more eloquent and elected MPs, do we need more NMPs? Surely not. Sir, let me end by saying that since the PAP Whip is lifted, I urge my fellow PAP MPs to search deeply into their hearts. Ask yourself: is there a need for NMPs? What is it that they can do that we elected MPs cannot do? With the Whip off my back, Sir, I intend to vote against this motion. Just like me, those MPs who have spoken in support of the Bill in the past, which I did, could change their minds given the new circumstances. That is precisely the purpose of the motion being tabled and put to the new term of Parliament, so that each new term of Parliament can reconsider whether there is a need for NMPs. Sir, there is no longer a need. I contend the time has now come for us, the elected MPs, to speak up, speak from our hearts. We, the backbenchers, have asked the Minister and civil servants for a mindset change. How about our own mindset? We also must change. Be prepared to say, no, if you are persuaded that a "no" is right. Say "no" to the NMP motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the speakers before me have been addressing the question as though the issue before Parliament is whether there is merit in the NMP scheme. But we have passed that, have we not? I thought the question now is whether, having regard to the experience we have had of the NMP scheme for more than 10-12 years, there is a reason to get rid of it. We have already decided, many of us still in this House, that there is merit in the scheme, that it serves the purpose and it improves the process. If this House is being asked to look at it afresh, it must be with a view to asking ourselves whether something has gone wrong with the NMP scheme for us to say that throwing it out is justified. Let us look at the record. What has happened to the NMP scheme which has degraded the parliamentary process? What have the NMPs, who have come to this House, session after session, done to diminish the standing of this House? Have they done anything which has adversely affected the interests of the people? Have they done anything which has made it more difficult for this Government to govern? Have they done anything to make it more difficult for the elected MPs to put their views across? If I hear an argument which suggests that, yes, they have done something contrary to our interests which, ultimately, affects the man-in-the-street, then we can begin a debate about casting away this scheme. But what we have is a rehash of the arguments that we went through in 1989. I looked at the Hansard and Dr Tan Cheng Bock had done a service to us by reminding us of his arguments that he made in 1989 and, to a large extent, so too has Mr Leong, although then I think he took a different position. Let us go through the arguments one by one. The NMP scheme resulted, apart from anything else, in the passage of the Maintenance of Parents Act. How many people have been hurt by that and how many people have benefited? Would that Act have come through this House and ended up as legislation on our own steam? Could it? I have difficulty believing that because I remember, when Prof. Walter Woon stood up, many people in this House spoke up against it. Let us ask ourselves honestly: would that Act have been passed on our own initiative? And has that Act operated to benefit people in Singapore, people who do not have the resources to go to court, and people who need the help of the Government to recover from recalcitrant children? Do we throw the NMP scheme out because people have benefited? Let me ask Members another question. One of the concerns highlighted by Dr Tan in 1989 was that this scheme was going to open the door for racial and religious groups to be represented in this House and, therefore, we were asking for trouble. Has that happened? In 1992, I think, Mr Tang Liang Hong tried to make a move to come in under the NMP scheme, and the people who stood up, who wrote in to oppose it, were the elected MPs. As a result of that opposition, he failed to get into this House. Since then, no other person has tried, no matter how cleverly, to get into this House so that he can advance a sectarian cause. It is one thing to say that there is a "remote possibility" - I think Dr Tan used those words - of that happening; it is another to ask ourselves: has it happened? And, really, is there any chance, given the fact that we are now talking about it, that we will let that happen? Let us go to the next argument that is made, ie, that Parliament is an elected Chamber and, so, as purists, we should retain this form. And that is the operative word - form. Having heard the arguments that Dr Tan and Mr Leong have very eloquently put across, it seems to me that they would have no quarrel with this notion. We will have a separate body, we would not call it Parliament. The NMPs - we can call them something else - will sit there with our Ministers in the Frontbench, make their speeches, get responses and have the media cover them. But so long as they are not in this House, so long as they are not in this elected Chamber, that is fine. But because this is an elected Chamber, they should not be sitting in these seats and they should not be joining us in this House in the debate. But they can do it in another forum. We are past form. We were past form a long time ago, when we brought in the NCMP. He is not elected by any stretch of the imagination. So we can either go for form or we can go for substance. And, at the end of the day, has it been substance the last 12 to 13 years, or has it been form? Mr Leong himself says that there have been very good performances from Prof. Woon, Ms Claire Chiang and the others whom he has named, and that is credit given where it is due. It has not been pure eloquence; it has been substance. It has forced the rest of us to sit up to do a bit better. It has added a dimension to this House which none of us were able to give and had the time to give. How have we lost out by that process? I have difficulty understanding how all these points aggregate to create an argument to throw out a scheme that has done well for us and for Singapore. Then the argument is made that these NMPs do not speak for their electorate, in other words, I assume, their constituents. None of us speak for our constituents. None of us do. We are brought into this House by the electoral process, many of us unopposed. My experience, four times. I do not speak for my residents in Toa Payoh. When I make a speech, I make a speech which I consider will benefit Singaporeans at large. So this argument that we are speaking on behalf of our own constituents is a fiction, and must be recognised as a fiction. And the moment we recognise it, we move away from the fallacious argument that we are only here for our constituents. We stand here, after thinking about our speech, because we know that at the end of the day there is a chance that the speech will be reproduced in the media and that every Singaporean, whether he lives in your constituency or not, is going to read you and assess you, and that he is going to take a view about your arguments. So this is not a forum for espousing views peculiar to your constituents; it is about Singapore. And if a few additional brains can come into this House to add breadth to the debate, why not?

Let me end by turning to a point which I think Mr Leong and Dr Tan made. The strongest argument they have for doing away with the NMP scheme is the quality of the new MPs in this House. I accept that. Their quality is impeccable. Why do we need NMPs when we have what Mr Leong has called, "the magnificent 7"? Let me ask Members this. Assume that despite the best efforts of the political leadership, none of the seven agrees to join politics and come to this House. We have seen the quality of what they can say. We have seen them speak, we have heard them speak, we know their quality. Assume that they refused to enter the political game and did not stand for elections. Would we be better off if they came in as NMPs, or would we be better off without them in this House? I support the motion, Sir.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I am speaking not in favour of the motion to have Nominated MPs in this session of Parliament. The PM had earlier in the debate lifted the PAP's Whip and allowed its Party Members to vote freely on this motion. This is excellent. Otherwise it is pointless for us t/o continue in the discussion. If the Whip is not lifted, the 82 Members would have only the "Yes" button to press when it comes to voting. This lifting of the Government Whip gives Members of the House a free choice to exercise their individual beliefs and philosophy. While I disagree with the PM on the Whip, I shall not debate it here. The question that is put before us now is whether there is a need for NMPs in this First Session of the Tenth Parliament. It is no longer a debate about the merits of the NMP scheme anymore. That has already been very well covered in the last two Parliament sessions, and by Dr Tan, Dr Wang, Mr Leong and Mr Davinder Singh earlier. The performance of past NMPs has also shown that the scheme works. Times have changed, however. What had worked in the past does not mean that it will continue to work in the future. The NMP scheme had worked in the past for two main reasons. First, the Special Select Committee did a good job in selecting outspoken but sensible critics. But, more importantly, there was, in my opinion, a gap, a niche that past NMPs had fulfilled. That niche is to generate debate and critical evaluation of the Bills that were presented. At most, MPs, again in my humble opinion, might have failed to perform effectively. It could be due to the Whip or the presence of the Whip, and the lack of consistency between speaking up against a policy and, yet, voting for it at the end of the day. There are probably constraints and restraints by the Party's internal rules that do not allow them to vote against their Party leaders. This was confirmed again by the Prime Minister earlier. However, we have also heard from the PM that the Government is prepared to lift its Whip more often. This will free the current batch, as discussed, "the magnificent 7" and all the other 25 new MPs to be vigorous, to be more vigilant, in asking questions and debating the important policies, as what we have seen in the last five days. And I believe the new and old MPs will be able to do a good job, speaking what concerns their heart. Given more opportunities, there will be more alternative views to be presented in the months to come. In the last four days, we have also heard many Members talk about the scepticism and cynicism of youths towards the Government. Sir, it is the youths who are sceptics and cynics, and they cannot vote. So it does not mean that the 75% of the population who voted for the Government are not sceptics. Some of these youths have remarked to me that the Government introduced the NMP scheme to drown out the voice of the Opposition MPs. I do not see how that can be the case when we are so out-numbered. If there is a reason to drown out, it will be the presence of the PAP MPs who speak against us that will drown us out. The success of the NMP scheme shows the failure of the governing Party MPs in speaking up and being critical. To a certain extent, the impression of the public is that they need the NMPs to do the job for them because they cannot do it as Party members. The question on the minds of many Singaporeans, including myself, is whether the Government, when it talks about opening up society and engaging the young, is for real. The question asked is, if the Government is not prepared to open up its Party and allow its Members to speak up and vote freely, how can it be genuine in wanting to open up society? Many Singaporeans are watching, silently waiting and hoping that the Government's action will match its words. Like a resident in Choa Chu Kang once remarked to me in Hokkien, "mai gong ka jue, zuo lai kua sheng". He said, "Do not talk so much. Do and show me first." The best action for the Government to convince its critics and the many young cynics out there is to free its Party Members completely from the constraints of the Whip. The PM had said no to this permanent lifting of the Whip. I disagree, but that is a decision of the governing Party and I have no say in it. However, I hope that it can be proven that there is no need for more NMPs to come in to help this fine team of MPs in the debates. We have already had NMPs for 10 to 12 years. Let us try for two years, for this Session of Parliament, without NMPs. If, at the end of two years, the Government MPs, ourselves included, fail to do a good job in airing alternative views or constructive dissent, then let me be the one to move the motion to have NMPs at the Second Session of this Parliament. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly believe that we must seize this opportunity to get rid of the growing cynicism in young Singaporeans. We can do it by allowing the MPs in this House to be genuinely critical. This is leadership by example. It will be the best way to convince Singaporeans that the Government is willing to stand corrected. I propose that we do without NMPs, Sir.

Sir, as I sat there listening to the speech of the NCMP, I take it that he supports, in principle, the idea of the NMP, save that we should give it some time before we propose to introduce them into this House. That is precisely the nature of this debate now and I rise in support of the motion that we have NMPs in this present term of Parliament. Sir, five years ago, during my first term in Parliament, I have spoken in support of the motion to bring Nominated Members into this House. I am now into my second term of the office and having had the experience and the benefit of engaging the Nominated Members in debates, I can say that I stand by my conviction that I believe that at the end of the day, NMPs do make a positive contribution to this House. I remember then when we debated on this issue, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had then said that I was still fresh, wet behind the ears, still green and, that we would come back to look at the issue five years later and see whether I am still of the same view. I hate to disappoint Dr Tan that unfortunately, I have come back to say that, yes, we were right when we supported the initial motion. Sir, the underlying arguments against the introduction of the Nominated Members essentially run along three grounds. First, they lack moral standing because they were not elected. They did not contest in an election, therefore, because of the absence of a contest in an election, they have no right to represent the people of Singapore in this Chamber. Secondly, the argument was made that there are enough avenues existing in this country to allow for an expression of dissenting opinions and with these avenues available, there is really no need for Nominated Members to then come to this august Chamber to debate and participate in policy deliberation. Of course, the final argument that is made that I see coming across is that in this new climate, with the partial lifting of the Whip, and the new batch of Members of Parliament with sterling qualities in engaging the rest of the House in eloquent debates, there is really a question as to whether or not you need any more Members to come in to contribute to the cacophony of sounds or as the Prime Minister puts it, the symphony of music that we now seek to generate in this House. Sir, I agree with my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, that the issue of whether or not we want to bring in Nominated Members of Parliament is not a live issue. We have gone past that. The question that we have to ask ourselves is: going forward, how do you want to see the model of democracy, and in particular, the nature of this House evolving in this country? I do not believe, Sir, that there is a single model of democracy and as such, we should not be so restricted by forms and our fixed views as to what constitutes it, who should have the legitimate right to sit in this House and to participate in the deliberations. We have to ask ourselves this basic question: what exactly is it we want that is in the interest of Singapore? I agree with my colleague earlier that in looking at this question, we have to ask ourselves, looking at the participation of the Nominated Members, is Parliament richer for it with the Nominated Members present or are we poorer? Is Singapore better off with or without the presence of these Members? My colleague has articulated these views rather eloquently when he said that if we look at the past instances of their contributions to the debates, without the presence of these Members, we would not have had such lively debates, we would not have had such a rich diversity of views coming into this House. If I may, Sir, I think we can look at this analogy. An argument that was made earlier is that we have had people of various expertise and therefore, do we need any more of such people? I think essentially, if an analogy can be made here, the question is, you have a 2.1 mega pixel camera, do you therefore need a 3.1 mega pixel camera? In the nature of things and in the nature of human beings, if you can settle for a 3.1 mega pixel camera, why settle for a 2.1 mega pixel camera? Sir, there is also the argument that they are not elected, and therefore, they have no right to speak for Singaporeans. The argument suffers from the flaw that only elected Members have the monopoly to speak for Singaporeans. Let us not forget that Nominated Members are also Singaporeans. We have to move away from the rigid mindset that the elected forum should only comprise elected Members whose sole right is to speak for Singaporeans. Nominated Members, being Singaporeans, also do enjoy the legitimate right to speak for Singapore and they represent the interest of all Singaporeans, not just constituent Singaporeans, but also functional groupings. Therefore, if you look at the Nominated Members, they come across as being non-politically party partisan and I think they perform a useful role here. As I have said before, Sir, a Government for all the people, by the people, is not premised on the functions of the elected representative people alone. The Government of the people must be founded on a cornerstone on what is best for the people, and this must surely include listening to the voice of the people in this land, including the voice of whom the NMPs seek to represent. With that, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. I support it for three reasons. First, since the NMP scheme was introduced in 1989, the NMPs in each cohort had justified the usefulness of this scheme. By and large, they had contributed to a lively debate and, as the previous Members have said, to our constant search for better solutions to the many complex problems facing this country. I have a confession: when I was a political correspondent sitting up there in the Press Gallery, I would often look forward to hearing some NMPs speak. They included Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin and we know the work they have done here. Their views were often refreshing. They added different dimensions to the issue being discussed. I think Parliament debates would have been the poorer if they had not been present. They easily outshone the Opposition. This is not to say that the PAP MPs did not make refreshing speeches. Many did. But as we have said so often, nobody enjoys a monopoly over wisdom. And the fact remains that some NMPs did add to the debate in constructive and meaningful ways. That conclusion, which I made when I was a journalist, does not change just because I have migrated down to the Chamber. On the contrary, because I am a PAP MP, I feel it is incumbent on me to support this scheme. The PAP is the dominant party in the House. One reason it is dominant is because it is a party that is constantly evolving to stay in tune with the times and that is always searching for ways to secure a better future for Singaporeans. To keep NMPs out, just because we, the elected MPs, came in the hard way, is to lose sight of the greater good. We must take the moral high ground that what is good for society must be the foremost concern. Nearly every political philosopher, from Aristotle, Confucius to Max Weber, has agreed that the provision of a good or just society is the end purpose of government. We cannot always agree on what defines a good society, but at the minimum, the people from a very wide spectrum society can all feel that they all get a fair hearing here. This gives a sense of legitimacy to a dynamic and complex society. This will also increase their sense of belonging to the country. When I stood for elections last November, I said that the younger generation wanted a greater say in policy-making, and that they wanted a more transparent and accountable system. I saw one of my roles as an MP as furthering this cause. This brings me to the second reason for supporting this scheme. It opens the door for more Singaporeans, who are credible, to have a greater say in policy-making in all areas, and at the highest levels. To that extent, it does make for a more accountable and transparent system. Recently, it was announced that the door will be opened wider to usher in a greater variety of groups. The number of functional groups will be doubled from three to six to reflect a wider spectrum of society. Besides business, unions and professional groups, they now include representatives from social and community service organisations, as well as the media, the arts and sports organisations. This is to be welcomed. It encourages active citizenship, which is one of our mantras in Singapore 21. It also reflects our seriousness in remaking Singapore, to go beyond the 5Cs and to nurture our budding civil society, as well as the arts and the sports. It would also send a signal that this PAP-dominant Parliament is a dynamic and bold one. Recently, I was involved in two dialogues with two separate groups of young Singaporeans. One group was undergraduates, the other group was Secondary 3 and Secondary 4 students from the Gifted Education Programme. Some students in both groups expressed scepticism about how ready the PAP was to accommodate alternative views. I pointed to the diverse slate of the PAP MPs, especially the new ones, as a sign of PAP Government's openness to different views and to the easing of the Party Whip. I also pointed to the NMP scheme as another example. This is not just a case of the Government being open to alternative views. This is a case of a Government going out of its way to consciously make room for alternative views. How many governments would initiate a scheme that allows non-elected MPs to speak up in Parliament, and even a non-elected Opposition Member to be here with us? It must be a strong Government, confident of the ability of its MPs to hold their own in the House as well as on the ground. Therefore, the NMP scheme should not be seen as an indictment on the quality of PAP MPs in the House. On the contrary, the NMP scheme is the by-product of the PAP's success.

The third reason I support the NMP scheme is because it could help to increase the number of MPs from under-represented groups, such as women. It is true that the number has increased in this latest batch to 10 - but we are still under-represented. It is a fact that we have a hard time finding good women to stand for elections. It exacts considerable sacrifice in both their personal, family and professional lives, as many of us have found out. Some of my women colleagues here have expressed their worry to me that this NMP scheme would only make it more difficult for us to persuade women to stand for elections. This scheme provides an easy alternative to be here. They just pop up in Parliament, all nice and neat, make a speech and the next day, they appear in the newspapers. Whereas, the rest of us have to slog it out on the ground, hair dishevelled, pumping hands, staying at MPS late at nights, attending countless grassroots meetings. And for my married women colleagues, they go home and they have also to meet the needs of their families. Often, we do our best work as MPs out of the limelight, championing the causes of our residents conscientiously. Hence, the concern that, if given a choice to women, they would probably go for the NMP scheme than to join politics full-time. I share this reservation. But I am also pragmatic. Politics, the election kind, is still seen as a male-dominated field in Singapore today. Indeed, I have heard reservations expressed that if a strong woman candidate were to contest in a single seat against a weak male candidate, it is very hard to say whether the female would win even though the merit is with her, even though she is a superior candidate in all aspects. Our society is still a patriarchal one, I am often reminded. So, given this patriarchal system that we are operating under today, I would say that if the NMP scheme will help bring in more women and for them to share their valuable perspectives with us, then let them in. With more female voices in Parliament, we can work better towards our vision of a society where all citizens, including women, live their lives experiencing justice and equality as a right and not by grace or favour. I started my speech by saying that I supported the scheme because previous batches had proven its usefulness. I would urge the Government to ensure that the quality of future NMPs is not compromised even as it widens the groups to be represented here. Presently, the selection process is not transparent. Can the Minister assure us that the selection process is rigorous enough? We must keep high the entry bar. At the end of the day, the usefulness of the scheme depends on the quality of the NMPs. They must be intellectually honest, pro-Singapore and offer useful views that will make for a better Singapore. I am glad that we have this debate, if only to remind the NMPs that if and when they sit among us, it is only at the pleasure of a strong Government and the individual elected MPs in this House. On that note, I urge my fellow MPs to vote for the motion alongside with me.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this debate. As I was listening to Dr Tan Cheng Bock, I was very disturbed to realise that I am actually a major obstacle to the NMP scheme because he said we should not have them because we have lawyers - I am a lawyer. We should not have them because now we have more women - I am a woman. And we should not have them because we have more singles - guilty also. I was very disturbed, particularly, Mr Speaker, because I am going to support the motion. Also because when Dr Tan described the degree of hassle and the heat of battle that one has to go through in elections, I was actually privileged to see him in action, because I was assigned to understudy him during the elections at Ayer Rajah. I must say that is why it gives me a certain degree of grief to be disagreeing with Dr Tan, because, in many respects, I regard him as my si fu. Si fu, te pui chi, but this unworthy student is about to disagree with you. I think that we do need to have NMPs in order to have alternative views in Parliament. And when I say "alternative", I mean alternative here to the PAP. We have 85 Members of Parliament, out of which 82 are PAP and only 3 are Opposition MPs. If we had more Opposition MPs in Parliament, my view might well be different. But because we are such an overwhelming majority, I do think it is necessary for us to have alternative views. Three arguments have been made as to why we should not have NMPs. The first is because, or as the allegation goes, the Whip will be lifted, which will encourage more debate and therefore we do not need NMPs. It is true that every Backbencher who sits here understands the need to speak up in accordance with our conscience. But there is a difference between speaking up and voting, and in some cases the Whip will not be lifted. So there is some value still in having NMPs. Secondly, no matter what we say, in the eyes of the public, we are still such an overwhelming majority in Parliament that we have 82 Members of the same party, I think, for the public, it is important for them to know and understand that there are alternative views, and that these alternative views can be aired in Parliament. Make no mistake, I do not make any apology whatsoever for being part of the majority in Parliament. I think it is in the nature of parliamentary democracy, especially party-based politics, that every party tries its best to get as many of its members as possible into Parliament. So I make no apology for being part of the majority. But if you are a majority, it is necessary to hear from others. If the NMPs agree with Government policies, so much the better, because it means that there are people, other than party affiliated MPs, who agree with Government policies. If the NMPs do not agree with Government policies, so be it. At least, we have heard from another voice. The second argument is that we do not need NMPs because we have such good quality Backbenchers, especially this new batch. Thank you, on behalf of all the new MPs who have come in. We may be good but I do not think we are that good, that we are able to cover the entire spectrum of views. I think there is always room for alternative views from different groups. The third argument is that NMPs are not elected and they therefore do not have the mandate of the electorate. That is true, but they will not be here as representatives of the electorate. They will be here, if they are invited in, as people who provide alternative views. And as long as we understand that, I think it does not matter that they have not been elected. Mr Steve Chia said that the success of the NMP scheme shows the failure of the PAP MPs. I do not agree with that. I do not think there is any other government in the world who actually takes steps to invite people that are not of their party to come into Parliament and give alternative views. So I think the success of the NMP scheme is an indication of the willingness of this Government and this party to hear alternative views and to try its best to solicit from as many areas as possible ideas that are good for Singapore. So, the crux of the matter really, as I see it, is that we are an overwhelming majority. We do need to hear alternative views and I therefore support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, initially, I did not intend to speak on the issue, because the stand of the Workers' Party is clear. We oppose the introduction of NMPs in Parliament. It is not my habit to repeat what I have said and argued, as they have been recorded in the Hansard. However, Sir, when I revisited the speech made by the then First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, on the rationale of the introduction of the NMP scheme, I find that there are some interesting points worth for the House to recall and consider before the House decides whether there should be NMPs in this term of Parliament. The MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh, Mr Davinder Singh, just now said that perhaps we should look at whether there is anything wrong with the NMP scheme in the past 10 years. Perhaps we should look at another perspective, ie, whether the NMP scheme has achieved its original objectives. First of all, let me quote Mr Goh, Prime Minister, in 1989 [Hansard, 29th November 1989, Vol. 54, col. 695], he said: 'The aim of this Bill is to further strengthen our political system by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation .' Sir, has our political system been strengthened in the past 10 years with NMPs in this House? Has the political participation of Singaporeans increased? Strangely, Sir, 10 years after the introduction of NMPs to generate more political participation, we are still hearing in the last few days about how the Government should involve more Singaporeans in the remaking of Singapore. Secondly, according to Mr Goh, Prime Minister, the need to introduce NMPs is because the Opposition is inadequate. He said: 'After nearly one year's experience, the feedback is that the two of them, ie, the two Opposition MPs, do not adequately express significant alternative views held outside this Chamber.' [Vol. 54, col. 698].

He further added: 'In 1984, despite a sharp drop in national support for the PAP, a drop of 13%, the PAP lost only two seats. In 1988, though the support level went down by 1% from 1984, the PAP lost only one seat. In fact, it recovered one from the two opposition seats which it lost in 1984.' [Vol. 54, col. 704].

But the Prime Minister conveniently forgot that the primary reason why the PAP was able to win back the seat it lost in 1984 was because Anson Constituency held by my party's former Secretary-General was redrawn into Tiong Bahru GRC. As a result, when I stood for my first election there, my team, all new faces, had to face an incumbent veteran MP, Mr Chng Jit Koon, who had been the MP for Tiong Bahru for 20 years. I believe if Anson had remained as a single seat constituency, the result could have been different. Sir, for your information, Anson today is part of Tanjong Pagar GRC. Since the PAP has found that the political system is not ideal and that there is a need to strengthen the political system, I wonder why the PAP did not face this problem squarely, as it did with most problems, instead of having NMPs. Is it because the PAP does not consider the Opposition as part of the political system? I also wonder why the PAP did not find problems with the political system and take issue with the lack of participation prior to 1984, when there was no Opposition in this House at all? Why was there this sudden wake-up call in wanting participation and the introduction of the NMP scheme after 1988 when there was a substantial vote swing against the PAP? Sir, I do not have answers to these questions. I leave it to Singaporeans to answer and to judge. The third reason for introducing the NMP scheme is that the NMP is politically non-partisan. Mr Goh said: 'Nominated MPs are not Government MPs either. They should and will be people who will vote as they think right.' [Vol. 54, col. 700].

Sir, I find that most of the NMPs voted with the PAP all these years. Of course, we have heard that it does not matter if they vote for the PAP. But what was the purpose of introducing NMPs? Yes, they have their views and they can express their views eloquently, but I find that most of the views they expressed were similar to the PAP's views, but expressed in different style. So I doubt whether the NMP scheme has achieved its non-partisan objective. However, Sir, I do find that the NMPs have one useful role to play, ie, because they are not PAP MPs, when they criticise or attack the Opposition, they would sound more convincing and would be more receptive to the public. Mr Goh, the then First Deputy Prime Minister, also revealed interesting workings of the PAP. He said: 'PAP MPs often vote on issues, but this is done in closed-door party meetings. Once a vote is taken and the decision made, they are expected to abide by the majority decision.' [Vol. 54, cols. 698-99].

Sir, it seems to me that the real Parliament is actually behind the PAP's closed-door meetings. And the problem is that they are not allowed to vote against the Government unless the Whip is lifted, and this is one of the reasons for bringing in NMPs who could vote freely to show dissent. Sir, now that the Prime Minister has decided to lift the Whip - I do not know - but just now he said maybe not. So I do not know whether the Whip is lifted or not lifted, not only on this NMP issue but for other issues for enlightened debate. If that is the case, is there a need for NMPs to show the public that there is indeed sufficient dissent in Parliament? Sir, the essence of parliamentary democracy, I understand, is representation of the people in the decision making process and accountability. I am quite surprised to hear Mr Singh say that he does not represent a constituency. Perhaps the PAP wants to explain to us their thinking and how they feel about the political system such that they can walk into Parliament without being elected. Anyway, I think they should go through the political system. My understanding is that Parliament is the highest decision making body of the country. So it is essential that those who are present in Parliament participate in the decision making process on behalf of the people and be accountable to them. I think it is not simply a question of having their views, as what some Members have said. We can have their views, yes, but I think we are here not only to express our views. We are here representing the people and making decisions on their behalf. We must have some basis for representing the people and, to me, "representing the people" means going through the election process. If not, how do you claim you are representing someone? It has got to be some electoral process that you have gone through. Sir, if the Government is sincere in wanting participation from the people, wanting Singaporeans to be concerned about the country and wanting Singaporeans to take ownership, and thereby feel that they are rooted here, and it is our home, I think it is time that it should consider seriously either a proportional representation system or a hybrid system of first-past-the-post and proportional representation system. Is the PAP open enough for the idea? Or we just shut the door immediately and say that the change is too radical and will weaken the Government and social structure, etc, etc. Sir, let us wait and see.

Sir, imagine the nine Nominated MPs are now in Parliament, and we have heard our debates for the last five days, and 61 speakers have spoken, do our Members here want to hear another nine Nominated MPs speak up? I do not think so. They cannot contribute anything else. Most of the points would have been already covered, and I would imagine more eloquently than if the nine Nominated MPs were present. I personally think that circumstances have changed. I have been here 18 years and I can see this particular session that we have just had is completely different from what I have seen before in this Parliament. The debates are not only lively but of very high quality. In fact, today we have seen PAP MPs debating vigorously against another PAP MP, which is a very, very rare thing to see in this House. So things will change with this Tenth Parliament, and I think for this particular Tenth Parliament we certainly do not need nine more Nominated MPs. I do not think they will make Parliament debates richer or of higher quality, which I think we already have. Unlike Dr Tan, who feels very strongly against NMPs because he says that he has to fight through the election hustings to get into Parliament, whereas NMPs just walk in through the backdoor without paying the price, well, I do not feel as strongly as him although I fought a hard, vigorous election. But my reason for objecting to having NMPs in this House is not because they do not pay a price for it but because it undermines the very system that we believe in, and that is a democratic system. In some countries, they do not call their legislatures "Parliament"; they call them "House of Representatives" - that is what made our legislature here democratic. Because we are representatives of our constituents, we are elected by them. As for NMPs, they are not representatives. They represent only themselves or, more likely, represent the ruling party that selected them and put them in. Sir, whatever Mr Davinder says, I still believe that we represent our constituents, and the people want their representatives in Parliament. That was clearly proven by one NMP who was highlighted in the papers. He had a high profile, and he thought he could win easily at an election. He went to have a try - I think it was at Chua Chu Kang - and he just got off by the skin of his teeth in not having his deposit forfeited. I think he obtained only 14%. So what does that tell us? That tells us that the voters do not want an NMP, although he had performed so well in Parliament. He was rejected outright. Singaporeans do not want Members of Parliament who are not voted by the constituents. That was a very, very clear signal that the people do not want MPs who are not elected by them. Right from the start, from 1989, I disagreed with this scheme because I think that the real reason for the PAP wanting NMPs is part of its election strategy. They want the NMPs to dilute the Opposition in Parliament, and I think they also read the ground rightly that people do want the PAP to rule them but, at the same time, they still want Opposition voices in Parliament. So they say, "All right. PAP is ruling, and at the same time we provide you with Opposition voices in the form of NMPs.". But when the NMP scheme was announced, the NMPs were supposed not to take sides, either with the ruling party or the Opposition. They were supposed to be the third voice, to be on neutral ground. But I have said before, there is no such thing as a third voice, or neutral. Either you are for or against an issue. The other day we heard that the person who stands in the middle of the road gets run down by a motorcar. And during the time of the cold war, some nations sided the Soviet Union and others sided the US and the west, but some Asian countries conveniently said that they were neutral. And the one time Secretary of State of the United States, Mr Dulles, said, "neutrality is immoral". If neutrality is really immoral, then there is no place for NMPs in Parliament because they cannot take the neutral ground or be the third voice. We have debated for five days on the remaking of Singapore. It would appear that the Government hopes that things will change, Singapore would open up a bit, people will speak up, entrepreneurs will be bred and help Singapore out. But this NMP scheme is not in sync with this whole concept of the new Singapore. NMPs are, firstly, not elected MPs; they do not have to win the battles to have their own right to be in Parliament; they are appointed. We are in a way going back to the authoritarian style - appointments rather than open up and be democratic. I think the NMP scheme does not fit in with the times. Times have changed. We are going to see a new Parliament and it is going to be changed. As the Government has said, they are going to lift the Whip more often and, I think, circumstances have changed and therefore it will be for the greater good of Singapore if there were no NMPs in Parliament. Mr Raymond Lim also argued that today NMPs are here for the national interest. I can say that they are not for the national interest for the simple reason that they will erode our belief in democracy, in representation, because they do not represent anyone. And if you erode democracy and make people think that you do not need to elect your MPs, let the Government appoint them, it is going to be a wrong signal sent to the people of Singapore, and I do not think that it is good for Singapore. As for the contributions of Prof. Walter Woon in initiating the Maintenance of Parents Act, actually, to me, as a nation, I think we should not have this Act at all. He thinks it is good; but I think it is bad. What sort of society will we become when the parents have to sue their children to get maintenance? I think in Israel and England, they have this Act, but after a while people became so shameful about the whole thing that that Act just died a natural death. I hope the Maintenance of Parents Act will also die a natural death. [Interruptions]. I suppose you are waiting for the next NMP to do it. [Interruptions]. I said "you", not me. Mr Davinder Singh has said that the quality of new MPs is impeccable, and I entirely agree with him. In fact, these few days, I look forward to hearing many of them speak. So if we have such good quality elected MPs, I certainly think we can leave NMPs out this round. I think they will just be redundant, occupying unnecessary spaces here. Sir, before I end, I call for a division on this motion.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to raise a point by way of clarification. Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong have both misunderstood the point I made. I did not say, as Mr Low claims, that I do not want to represent the residents of Toa Payoh and I did not say, as Mr Chiam claims, that we are not here because we were not elected by the residents of our constituencies. My point is a different one. My point is that when you stand up and make a speech in this House, you are accountable not only to your constituents, but you are accountable to every single Singaporean. You are accountable to yourself, to your family and to every single Singaporean. So the proposition that you are only accountable to your constituents and therefore only elected Members should sit in this House is a fiction. Accountability is to everybody. And in the way that Mr Low and Mr Chiam spoke about this motion, Mr Chiam and Mr Low did not speak on behalf of the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir in rejecting this motion. They spoke, I believe, in what they considered to be in the best interest of all Singaporeans when they speak against that motion, not your residents only.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot resist taking up a point by Mr Chiam just now when he said he was going to wait for the next NMP - if I heard him telling correctly - to introduce a Bill to repeal the Maintenance of Parents Act.

I say probably the next MP will repeal it.

You said "next NMP".

They asked me.

Yes, but you did say the "next NMP" which suggests that you are in favour of the scheme. And I have to say that I have to address Mr Chiam's very serious point about Nominated Members of Parliament undermining the system of democracy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think anyone with even a casual knowledge of democracy and models of democracy would realise that in Westminster, for example, we have the House of Lords which comprises non-elected Members and, in fact, they do have even non-partisan members sitting in which they call the cross-benchers. So the notion of Nominated MPs, as it were, is not unknown to the world of democratic governments. So we have to say that these two arguments would not wash in relation to whether we should have NMPs or not. Sir, if I may address the motion. I have to say that when I first came to Parliament in 1997, I recall listening to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah against the NMP scheme. And I remember, with some trepidation, how I am going to be able to match such eloquence, or even come close to such eloquence. I remember, in particular, the array of reasons he gave as to why we should not have such a scheme. And I took the liberty to list them out and, strangely enough, they also comprise the "magnificent seven" reasons. If I may digress a bit, Mr Speaker, when some Members of this House referred to our new MPs, the "magnificent seven", I have to say that, if I remember the movie The Magnificent Seven correctly and the Japanese version of Seven Samurai, I think at the end of the film, only two survived. So may I wish the magnificent seven good luck and may the best man win. Let us turn to Dr Tan's seven magnificent reasons. May I be so bold as to take out the rhetoric and the eloquence and just take them for what they are. First, he said that the NMPs are not risk-takers. Second, that they come in through the back door without having to go through an election. Third, they seldom, if ever, raise issues that are not already raised by the elected MPs. Fourth, that they represent no constituency and know very little, if anything, about the feelings and views of the people. Fifth, there is ample supply of lawyers, accountants, doctors and we do not need more of them in this House. And, sixth, that the couple who did well, Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin, cannot be taken as evidence of the success of the scheme, and I remember the hon. Member saying that two swallows do not make a summer. Finally, the seventh argument is that, which he mentioned again just now, there may be difficulty in choosing the right NMPs, or, for that matter, ensuring that the various interest groups are represented, or vice versa, that extremists may find their way in through such a scheme. Apart from these magnificent seven reasons which I think we must try to rebut if we want to support the scheme, I think Mr Leong referred to the idea of shelf space and that as NMPs are not bound by the Party Whip, they are often given much better coverage, make a better impression on the media, than the elected MPs; in other words, they make the elected MPs look dull, ordinary and even boring. Sir, these are very powerful arguments indeed and they have to be taken into account. However, I have to say that I have great personal discomfort in having to disagree with the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah and state why I support the scheme. First of all, we must be clear why the NMP scheme is of such value to the House. To be clear about that, let us first look at what the elected Members are here for. The elected Members represent their party in the House, both Opposition as well as the PAP. We are elected on the party's manifesto, with promises made to the party as to what the voters can expect if they voted for us, the candidates of the party. That is also the reason why we have the Party Whip because it is necessary to keep party discipline in the House so as to make good on election promises. For those who are elected on this basis, we must in general believe in supporting the party's programme. Otherwise, we might as well run as independents or apply to be NMPs. Given that this is the case, I think it will be on very rare occasions when the Whip is lifted, or on where personal conscience dictates, that we, PAP MPs, would not support a piece of legislation proposed by the PAP Government, especially when it is attempting to carry out the programme promised to the people. And if PAP MPs make speeches in support which are then not given as much prominence as the NMPs who project a different point of view, I do not think we need to feel apologetic. That is something which we should expect the media to do, even though we may not agree with it. The Minister's speech supporting such legislation is usually taken to state the policies for such legislation and the MPs' speeches in support are just seen as excess baggage, no matter how interesting the speech might otherwise have been. We can only hope to persuade the media to give us more attention, or as much attention as they give to the NMPs. If we look at the NMPs, the NMP scheme is intended to add value to the debate precisely because they offer the opportunity for non-partisan voices to be heard. In answer to Mr Chiam, it is not really wrong for NMPs to agree with the Government if they have good reasons for doing so. The point is that they are not bound by Party Whip, that they can express their personal opinions as to what they think is the value of such legislation. So it is not that they are sitting on the fence if they agree or disagree. They will take a position. And I do think that NMPs take risks when they decide to put themselves up for Parliament. I remember saying so to Prof. Walter Woon, who was a colleague of mine at the Faculty of Law, when he came to talk to me about his intention to be put up as an NMP. I remember telling him that the public would scrutinise him and that he would definitely lose privacy and that, as an NMP, as any MP, he would run the risk of looking ridiculous in public if he were to come up with quirky ideas. He had not. But we have on occasions seen NMPs coming up with strange ideas. But the point is that they take individual responsibility for their views and indeed can be said to be at more risks because they do not have party support. And as for not having a feel of the ground, sometimes, not always, I think that is a strength. NMPs can concentrate on the merits of legislation instead of being preoccupied with the political consequences which may impact adversely. Much has been said of the Maintenance of Parents Bill, which Prof. Walter Woon introduced, and Mr Chiam himself pointed out that there were some fierce adverse comments from Members of this House as well as from certain sectors of the public. But, as an NMP, he can afford to do so because he is responsible only for his views, he is himself, but he is acting in the interest of Singapore. NMPs also take an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and to the people of Singapore to serve Singapore. We can expect them to give off their best and, if they do not, then it is quite obvious what consequences will occur. But the success or failure of the scheme depends very much on the quality of the candidates willing to put themselves up for this. Here, I would put it this way. For example, it is a common perception of many that those who entered the Miss Singapore competition may not be the most beautiful, charming or eloquent women in Singapore. There are many we know who prefer not to display their beauty and brains in competition. In the same way, if our most intelligent, independent and non-political minds were not persuaded to come forward to participate in the NMP scheme, then it would be time to re-examine the scheme. But, as of now, I would agree entirely with my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, that the time has passed for questioning whether on principle such a scheme is correct. The scheme has produced excellent MPs who have added much value to the debates in this House and we should, in this Parliament, continue to support the scheme so long as there are good people who can contribute their non-partisan views publicly. Their non-partisan support for Government policies and legislation will be reassuring to Singaporeans. And if they do object to legislation, then Ministers would have to take that into account. All in all, I believe very strongly that it can only improve the general quality of Parliament and Government in Singapore. And to borrow an analogy from Dr Wang Kai Yuen, if we can have a rose garden, why not have different types of roses, rather than just red roses or white roses. Why not have yellow roses also? It makes for a nicer garden. For these reasons, Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): To put it frankly, just as Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we, the elected MPs, have come in from the main door. We have gone through very vigorous battles and had to fight off the Opposition candidates to win our rights to represent our constituents here. Put it in a more dramatic way, we were like what the Chinese classics would describe, guo wu guan, zhan liu jiang - crossing five strategic passes and slaughtering six generals. On the other hand, our Nominated MPs were carried in on sedan chairs. They need not go through the battles. Honestly, seeing them coming in in such a glamourous and easy manner, if you say you are not envious and feel like banging your chest, I think you are probably not telling the truth. However, we have to think very seriously about it. What contributions have Nominated MPs made to Parliament? Are they hua she tian zu (draw a snake and add feet to it) or jin shang tian hua (add flowers to the brocade)? If it is to add something to the existing system like adding feet to the snake, it is like what the Hokkien will say: "kay kiang" - pretending to be smart. Having drawn a snake, why would you want to add some legs to it? You are doing something superfluous. But, if it is jin shang tian hua, that you are adding flowers to a beautiful piece of brocade, we are making it even more beautiful with 3-D effect. The Nominated MPs and the elected MP have raised different voices, coming from different backgrounds. To me, elected MPs and Nominated MPs are like people holding pink ICs and blue ICs respectively, that is, citizens and permanent residents. The NMPs are contributing to our parliamentary system like the permanent residents contributed to our nation building and both are adding value to us. I do not agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock that, as a labour MP or union leader, I had to feel bad when Nominated MPs are invited to come into this House as representatives of the labour movement. Does it mean that I am not doing my job? I do not think so. Having other union leaders here as Nominated MPs, will only make our good work here even better. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we need to have people from different educational and family backgrounds coming here. All these union grassroots leaders who were promoted from the rank and file are in a better position to reflect the opinions of the workers. If you look at the previous batches of NMPs from the labour movement, we can see very clearly that they have brought in alternative views and constructive suggestions from the workers. I think it is value added to our whole parliamentary system. Their contribution is definitely not like adding legs to the snake. However, since the Nominated MPs come in by a sedan chair, we have to be very careful when we are carrying them. They are different from us because they do not have to go through the General Elections and win the mandate of the voters to come in. So, I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock that we have to be more stringent in our selection system, so that there will not be any black sheep slipping in from the crevices.

Sir, may I have your permission to seek a point of clarification?

Yes.

(In Mandarin): Mr Yeo has said that the Nominated MPs are adding value and they are not redundant. If you look at these two idioms he uses to illustrate his points: jing shang tian hua and hua she tian zu, can he tell us what is the difference between them?

(In Mandarin): If you draw a snake and put legs on it, then it is no longer a snake.

Sir, I have just got one small point to make. I support the motion. We have heard that there are NMPs who have made useful contributions and many did not too and they just occupied the seats in this House. So I would urge the Special Select Committee and the Leader of the House that when we implement the NMP system in this round, let us not just fill up all the nine seats that we have. If it means it is two, it means two. If there are four who qualify out of five, then let it be that, and not just stretch to nine to make up the number. Because in the last round, I think we have seen the quality dropping.

Can we have one last speaker, please?

Sir, I know it is getting late, so I will keep it very short. As I hear the arguments and the debate itself, it appears to me that the issue of the NMP scheme sounds a bit like the issue of foreign talent. I think Mr Chiam said that NMPs drown the voice of the elected Members. So it is the same argument, that foreign talents dilute local talents. Some said that the NMPs have no constituency and, therefore, they cannot speak for the people. It is the same argument that the foreign talents do not know Singapore and, therefore, cannot work for Singapore. There is also someone who said that NMPs have never fought the GE itself and, therefore, they do not have the emotional rootedness, which is the same argument that foreign talents would just pack up and go. But I disagree with these arguments because I support the foreign talent issue itself. The NMPs, by adding them on, will not drown out the voice of the elected Members unless, of course, the elected Members themselves choose not to speak. In terms of media space and so on, if they can stir up a very good argument that promotes debate itself, then perhaps the media can consider giving us more space, rather than limited to that number of pages. In terms of constituency, I would say that although they do not represent a constituency, they do come from certain associations or representations. In that sense, they can be contributing to the debate itself with perhaps a little bit more depth on specific issues. As for the fact that they never fought GE and, therefore, they do not have the emotional rootedness, we also know of the same NMP who then went to fight the elections and garnered only 14 votes. I think he must have gone through - An hon. Member: 14%.

14%, yes, I am sorry. I did not mean to insult him. 14% of the votes. He must have thought that, after going through the parliamentary process and so on, he has more to contribute. I do agree, however, that the process of selection itself has to be more diligent. We have to be careful about whom we want to speak for and which constituent is not represented. I think Mr Steve Chia actually mentioned that the youths and so on are not represented in the voting process because they are under 21 and perhaps they are the group of people whom we want to represent. Then, of course, there are other minority voices that we need to hear. So I would think that, yes, if we can broaden some of these selection criteria on the one hand and make sure that it is not just based on some people who have academic excellence but that they have really done something in some associations, even if they do not have that kind of academic excellence, we can bring them into this House, so that the various groups have a voice. Last but not least, I would like to remind this House that, earlier on, Mr Chan Soo Sen spoke about "lu san dian", ie, the three points that he talked about, that we have to be "xin xiong kwang yi dian", "guang huai duo yi dian" and "dan zi da yi dian", which relate to taking risks. In that light, I would say that, yes, one, let us be "dan zi da yi dian", ie, take some risks. In retrospect, the NMPs have indeed contributed to the debates in this House. Will they do more harm? I think we have to be "dan zi da yi dian" and take a little bit of risk there. Two, "xin xiong kwang yi dian". I think if we do not view it as a zero-sum game but that the net result of this debate itself can add on to the validity of some of the Bills that are passed or even the debates in this House, then Parliament and Singaporeans at large will actually benefit. Last but not least, "guang huai duo yi dian". If in a spirit of wanting to involve more people in the process itself we involve more people in the form of NMPs who will also be getting the voice from their own represented groups of people, then I think we will all strive towards a much better society and a much better Parliament. Sir, I support the motion.

Sir, can I make three clarifications? Two are in regard to the last speaker, Miss Penny Low. What I said was that the NMPs dilute the Opposition in Parliament, and not dilute the elected Members. The purpose of my bringing up the instance of an NMP standing for election where he obtained only 14% of the votes and of course lost the election was not to show his contribution, but the fact that he was rejected by the electorate. In other words, my point is that NMPs are rejected by the voters. The other clarification is with regard to Assoc. Prof. Chin. I do not support the NMP scheme. I brought up the point that the next NMP, if he comes along, could move a motion to repeal the Maintenance of Parents Act because I think the Leader of the House asked me to repeal it and I said no. I said the next one who comes along. I assume that this motion will probably be passed.

Sir, can I have a clarification on Mr Chiam's point? Sir, Mr Chiam said that NMPs dilute the Opposition. I am from the Opposition. I do not feel that way. Sir, I am prepared to face whatever challenge, whether NMP or whatever.

Sir, I did say that Parliament will be different from now on.

Sir, that is one. Secondly, he mentioned about the NMP who participated in the election in Chua Chu Kang and was rejected. Sir, I have a different point of view. For the MPs who have been here for 10 years, we have seen many NMPs. At least there is one NMP who was prepared to say, "OK, I am prepared to stand for election since I am somehow interested in politics." Sir, the point is - I was in the Special Select Committee for NMPs - sometimes, when we go through the interviews, what crosses my mind is: why are these people prepared to be NMPs but are not prepared to participate in the political process?

Mr Low, do you know that you are making another speech?

No, Sir, I have a clarification on the points made. What I am saying is that perhaps we should not look at the NMP who only had 14% of the votes as being rejected. The last thing we want is for the NMP scheme to become something that encourages NATO, ie, no action, talk only.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my name keeps cropping up every time when -

Dr Tan, are you making another speech or are you asking for a clarification?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there are certain points that have been raised, at least I must respond.

No, you cannot. Either you ask for a clarification or you do not.

Can I seek clarification?

If you seek clarification, yes.

Thank you. I do not know who spoke. There were so many. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a difference between personality and policy. Some Members who addressed this issue to me, did mention some of the good -

Dr Tan, I am still waiting for your clarification.

Sir, my clarification is that these people must make a clear distinction between personality and policy when they bring this matter up. The other clarification is that I am not so obstinate as Kai Yuen said. I support the NCMP, so I am not so stubborn as the Member thinks I am. The other point is that there are many avenues -

Dr Tan, I must insist that you clarify or I will rule you out of order.

I do not know who spoke -

Point of order, Sir. I do not think Dr Tan is quite clear about what he wants to ask. Maybe he should go back and think about the kinds of clarification he wants to seek, whom he wants to seek from and then ask that person. Otherwise, we can be here befuddled about what he is thinking about.

Yes. Mr Wong, do you want to wrap up?

I am quite clear, Sir. This is the third time I am doing this, and I have heard many of the arguments before. I spent the whole of last night going through this fairly thick file which the Parliament Librarian was very kind to photocopy for me, and I am very familiar with the arguments. In fact, if Members were to go through the same Hansard, they would have noted that Dr Tan made these same arguments in the Hansard reports in 1989, 1992 and 1997. So I will not go through all these points again because Members can find my answers there too. But there is one point which is not quite clear to many Members and that the Prime Minister himself has answered it quite eloquently way back in 1989 when he was explaining the meaning of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. And the Prime Minister took some time to research into the meaning of these terms and quoted one paragraph from this book by Mr Stanley de Smith on the Constitutional and Administrative Law, which said: "At common law, Parliament, as the legislative body, consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Queen", and that, of course, is in reference to the British Parliament, the mother of all parliaments. In other parliaments, eg, in Malaysia, they too have a similar provision in Article 44 of the Constitution, where it says: "The legislative authority of the Federation shall be vested in Parliament, which shall consist of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and two Majlis (Houses of Parliament) to be known as the Dewan Negara (Senate) and the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives)." Of course, in our case, we have the Constitution that provides for the legislature that consists of the President and Parliament, and we have a unicameral Parliament. We do not have a two-tiered Chamber. In the other parliaments, eg, the British Parliament, Malaysian Parliament or even, if I may call the Canadian Parliament the daughter of the mother of all parliaments, they too have an unelected Chamber called the Senate. 105 of the Senators are totally unelected. In fact, in the British House of Lords, 713 of the Lords were totally unelected and yet they have as much or, if not, a lot of authority, including coming up with new Bills and passing Bills in the House of Lords. Sir, I will not belabour this point. I just clarify that, indeed, there are different ways that we can structure a parliament and, in our case, it is just a unicameral Parliament and we have devised a scheme to allow unelected Members to be brought into this Chamber. That is an interesting device because we have allowed others to come in and take part in our debate, which otherwise they would not have been because we do not have a second Chamber. It is because of the way that we have been evolving our parliamentary system that we have NCMPs too. So I am quite puzzled as to why Mr Steve Chia would want to object, because, following the same purist principle, which he so strongly supported Dr Tan for, then he should not be here, because he is also unelected. He came in by the grace of the PAP Government that changed the Constitution that provided for the NCMP system that allowed him to be here. And I also hope that Mr Steve Chia would not begin to speak like a PAP MP because, if he does, then people will really be confused. The Whip is not applied to him. He does not need to talk about the Whip at all. So whether we have a Whip or not is our internal Party business. So he does not need to remind our MPs that they are not subjected to the Whip. He himself is not subjected to any Whip at all at any time, unless Mr Chiam wants to impose it on him. Mr Chiam's argument, about people rejecting the NMP, is really a great leap of imagination. I do not understand how an individual, having been here as an NMP, eventually went out and contested in an election and got rejected by the people, rejected him because they do not want him to be an elected MP, means that they do not like the NMP system, that is beyond me.

Can I clarify?

Sure.

Sir, I would like to make two clarifications with the Leader of the House. The first is regarding the NCMP. The Leader says that an NCMP is not elected but the issue is not whether he is elected or not. The issue that I brought up is that democracy is representation. But, in his case, to some extent, he has representation, about 35% of the votes. Even the first NCMP, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, I think, had 44% of the votes in a GRC. The issue is representation, and not whether he is the first to pass the post and he has obtained 50%. That is my point. The other point is regarding Chia Shi Teck. He lost when be obtained only 14% of the votes. My point is not that he dares or he wants to present himself in the electoral process. My point is that he was a high profile NMP, and the newspapers gave him a lot of coverage. So he went to stand for elections on the strength of his reputation as an NMP, and on that score, he lost. So my conclusion is that the people do not want an NMP.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify?

Mr Wong, are you giving way?

Yes.

Sir, the Leader of the House said I am a purist. I am not a purist. I did not object to the scheme of NCMP but my argument is that: do we need to have NMPs in the House in this first session of Parliament? My argument is that we do not need to, because the Government could show their sincerity in their action by allowing their people to speak up even more.

If I remember Mr Steve Chia correctly, when he was talking about this point, he said that we do not need the NMP scheme at this time and that after two years, if it shows that the elected MPs did not prove themselves, then let us bring back the NMPs. Maybe he should read the Constitution. The Constitution, in the Fourth Schedule, says that at the beginning of every term and within six months, which is now, Parliament must resolve to have NMPs. Once we go beyond six months, and we do not so resolve, we cannot have any more NMPs during this Tenth Parliament. He would have no chance to come back here and introduce a motion to get back NMPs unless he gets elected in the Eleventh Parliament. Now on the issue of representation. In our system, representation means "first-past-the-post". It means that a candidate must get 50% plus one vote, then he gets into Parliament. He may get 49.99%, but he is still voted out. So he has no representation at all. Mr Steve Chia does not represent 34% of the people who voted for him. He just received 34% of the votes and, therefore, he has not the same right as Mr Chiam has to be here. And he came in here because we have a system to allow NCMPs to come in here. Mr Low Thia Khiang raised a more serious point. Apart from the reasons he cited, he said that the original objectives why we should have NMPs were not really fulfilled. I do not think that is the case because, if that is the case, we would not be talking about NMPs here. If NMPs show up the inadequacy of the Opposition, then that has got nothing to do with us. It just means that the Opposition just does not have enough numbers. And if the NMPs outshine the Opposition, then the Opposition has got to work very hard the next time. They have got to find other ways of convincing people. Following the same argument that Mr Chiam is worried that NMPs dilute the Opposition, I think that is a real reason for him to fear why we should not have NMPs, which also means that he has got to work very hard the next time round to find people to join him and be convinced to their cause. But Mr Low's serious point is that if we want to talk about getting more representation and more views, why not change our political system to proportional representation or have a mixed system. Do not forget that Singapore is a small country, a multi-racial and multi-religious country. The moment we have a proportional representation system, we are going to have different sectional, communal, religious interests represented in this system. Then we are going to have a very unstable system. In Western Europe, many of the Parliaments there do have a proportional representation system. As a result, you can see that, as far as policy-making is concerned, and as far as the government is concerned, it has not progressed that far. It becomes very difficult for decisions to be made, for laws to be passed and a lot of trade-offs and compromises would have to be made. There is one country that attempted a mixed system, which is proportional representation plus the first-past-the-post system, and that is New Zealand. In the same way, they have almost ground to the ground - very difficult for policies to be passed and laws to be made. In a small Singapore, where we have so many constraints, we have so few alternatives and choices and only one or two ways of deciding on a policy, we do not have that luxury of choice. We should think very seriously before we change the system. But that does not mean to say that political systems should not change. We have. We have evolved over the years to allow for NCMPs, NMPs and GRCs where all races can be represented in this Parliament. Were there further changes? Of course, we changed the Presidential system. We have an Elected President to ensure that certain safeguards are in place to protect our reserves, veto key appointments and certain key decisions of the Executive, like the ISA detention. We would change, but we should not rush into just overhauling and changing the system completely that we become unbalanced to the detriment of Singapore. I have just covered very briefly the few points made by Members. I have to come back here every term to ask for this motion to be passed and even then, in the Fourth Schedule, it says that NMPs can be appointed for two years, which means if Parliament lasts the full five years, then we have to start the process of selecting NMPs three times during the full five-year term. I am going to propose, at an appropriate time, a change to this 2-year term, to stretch it out to 21/2 years or 3 years so that, within one Parliamentary term of 5 years, we only need to do it twice. Otherwise, if you remember, like the last term, we had NMPs who only served about one month or so, yet we have to go through the whole process of public advertisement, inviting members of the public to send in nominations and interviewing them, and so on. This is an administrative change which I will have to put forward to Parliament at an appropriate time when we amend the Constitution.

May I make a point of clarification, Mr Speaker?

Make it short.

Sir, I expected the answer from the Minister on proportional representation. But I would like to ask him: do we not have confidence in the people because you are worried that the system will generate issues such as race and instability? Eventually, does the Minister agree that it is a process and it is a question of whether Singaporeans are mature enough? Secondly, he talks about other countries having the system. I thought the PAP always says we are different. When are we different and when are we the same with other countries? Is it at your convenience, you cite examples and you decide?

Sir, it is not a question of whether we have confidence in our people or not. I believe our people are sophisticated enough. But in every society, there will be extremist elements who will try and there will be groups of people who will believe in them and, therefore, we must not provide such opportunities for groups and for people like that to gather together and find a seat in this place. That is precisely the worry that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has, that when we select NMPs, we may invariably or unwittingly bring in an extremist. We hope that will not happen because every time we have a list of NMP candidates, we circulate the list to all MPs for their comments and views. If by any chance, Members know any of them who holds certain views that we should not entertain in this House, then they must register their points strongly with the Special Select Committee. That vote, in a sense, is with Members to tell us who the NMP candidates are and why they should not be here. As far as standards are concerned, we will maintain the standards. We have to maintain standards. Of course, much depends on the kind of people we have coming forward. If we cannot find nine good men or women, then we shall not have nine of them. We shall have a fewer number, so be assured. Last time round, we only have eight. We will make sure that our standards are maintained. If, unfortunately, one of them did slip in, because either we do not know the person's background or he did not show it earlier, then in one term, we will find that out and he will not be around the next. That is very simple. When do we learn from other people and when do we not learn from other people? We cannot have hard and fast rules about what to take and what not to take. We have got to see whether it is useful for us. If it suits our circumstances, our social context, then we should take these ideas. If they do not, then we should not graft them into our system. Otherwise, we will be the worse in for it.

The Question is, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section (1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament." All those who are of the opinion say "Aye". Some hon. Members: Aye.

To the contrary say "No."

Division, Sir.

Will hon. Members who support a division please rise in their places? Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong, Mr Chiam See Tong, Mr Leong Horn Kee, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Dr Lily Neo rose.

Yes, we will take a Division. Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, Members are reminded that they are to press "Present" on their electronic unit located at the left armrest before indicating their vote. Those who fail to press "Present" will not have their votes recorded. Voting will be open for 45 seconds from the time "Voting in Progress" is flashed on the display board. Members are reminded to check their names and vote indications posted on the display board after the close of the voting. If a Member is of the opinion that his vote has been taken in error or has been recorded wrongly, he may rise and request the Chair to have his vote taken correctly, provided that such request is made before the Chair declares the result of the Division. You may now proceed to vote. Division taken: Ayes, 58; Noes, 5; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Khalis Bin Adul Ghani Ahmad Mohd Magad Balaji Sadasivan Chan Soo Sen Chay Wai Chuen Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Tet Yung Chong, Charles Chong Weng Chiew Davinder Singh Fong, Arthur Foo Chee Keng, Cedric Gan, Andy Gan Kim Yong Halimah Yacob Hawazi Daipi Heng Chee How Ho Geok Choo Inderjit Singh Indranee Rajah Iswaran, S. Khaw Boon Wan Khor Lean Suan, Amy Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee, Warren Lim Boon Heng Lim T.E., David Lim Hwee Hua Lim Swee Say Low, Penny Mah Bow Tan

Ayes - (cont.) Mohamad Maidin B P M Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman Neo, Lily Ng Eng Hen Ng Phek Hoong, Irene Ong Ah Heng Ong Kian Min Othman Haron Eusofe Phua, Cynthia Seng Han Thong Sin Boon Ann Tan Boon Wan Tan Keng Yam, Tony Teo Chee Hean Teo Ho Pin Vivian Balakrishnan Wang Kai Yuen Wee Siew Kim Wong Kan Seng Yaacob Ibrahim Yeo Guat Kwang Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zainudin Nordin Zainul Abidin Rasheed

Noes

Chia Kiah Hong, Steve Chiam See Tong Leong Horn Kee Low Thia Khiang Tan Cheng Bock Abstention Nil Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament.

Sir, my colleagues are very kind to me to wait until 8.06 pm to listen to this last motion. Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Dr Balaji Sadasivan Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung Mdm Halimah Yacob Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Swee Say Dr Wang Kai Yuen Mr Wong Kan Seng. The purpose of this Committee of Selection is to appoint Members to this Committee so that they can appoint Members to the other Sessional Committees. Sir, I beg to move. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Dr Balaji Sadasivan Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung Mdm Halimah Yacob Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Swee Say Dr Wang Kai Yuen Mr Wong Kan Seng.

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