Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, That this House, noting the concern of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong as highlighted in his National Day Rally Speech on "stayers" and "quitters" and in view of the increased mobility of third-generation Singaporeans, urges the Government to review its policies and programmes thoroughly and to take meaningful measures that will help to strengthen their sense of belonging to Singapore. The motion also stood in the names of Dr Chong Weng Chiew, Ms Indranee Rajah, Dr Mohamad Maliki bin Osman, Dr Ong Seh Hong and Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong. Background Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister's speech at the National Day Rally touched on a very crucial and sensitive issue, that of stayers and quitters. The PM asked, and I quote, "Will Singaporeans be rooted to Singapore? Will enough Singaporeans stay here, to ensure our country's long term survival?". He was concerned about fair weather Singaporeans who would run away whenever the country runs into stormy weather. He called them quitters. The speech sparked a series of spirited debate over the issue of stayers and quitters in the media and among many Singaporeans who cared about the issue. Some Singaporeans resented the labels of stayers and quitters. They were quick to offer reasons for people wanting to leave the country. They rigorously defended their decision to move out. Some even went to the extent of stating their intention to leave but complained of their inability to do so. On the other hand, there were also Singaporeans who were passionate about the country and pledged their loyalty and commitment publicly. There were even foreigners who felt strongly enough to join in the debate. Judging from the public reaction to PM's speech, the issue of stayers and quitters is close to the hearts of many Singaporeans, if not all Singaporeans. The PM has clearly achieved his intention "to jolt Singaporeans into thinking about the issue". Sir, as we endeavour to re-position our economy and remake Singapore, we cannot lose sight of the fundamental issue of Singaporeans' identity and commitment. As we strive to create a new Singapore, we must be certain that Singaporeans do want this new Singapore and are committed enough to be willing to make personal sacrifices to defend our ideals and to realise our dreams. Given the gravity of this issue, I felt that it should rightfully be debated in Parliament, being the highest governing authority in the country. We, as leaders, must make a stand and lead the way to strengthening our commitment to the shared vision. Therefore, after discussing with a few of my parliamentary colleagues, we decided to table a motion on stayers and quitters at this sitting. The Objective By moving the motion, we hope to provide a formal and official forum where this issue can be thoroughly debated. Both the backbench and the frontbench will have an opportunity to express their views on this subject. We hope that, by doing so, we can identify and clarify the real issues that are confronting us today. We can then begin to examine our policies and programmes from a balanced perspective to see if there are weaknesses that need to be addressed in order to help strengthen Singaporeans' sense of belonging and commitment to the nation. The transparent process of parliamentary debate will also create greater awareness among Singaporeans of the issue of stayers and quitters and will undoubtedly send a strong signal to them on what it would take for us to meet the challenges ahead. The Motion Defined Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to explain the motion. First, let me say what it is not. The motion is not about identifying who are the stayers or who are the quitters. The labelling does nothing productive. The focus of the motion is to debate on the possible causes of people wanting to quit Singapore and what we need to do to make them stay. What do Singaporeans want? Can we give them what they want without compromising collective national interests? What do we need to do to achieve that? I am not naive enough to believe that we can all agree on the same answers to these questions. But if we can find some common ground to start working on, we would have made good progress. Well, what is the issue then? I think the key issue facing us today is not about Singaporeans leaving Singapore, not about them going overseas, be it for studies or for work. Singapore is fast becoming a global city. It is inevitable that more and more Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, or the 3G Singaporeans, will be going overseas to work. This, in itself, is not a bad thing. The Government has been encouraging our companies to go global. To do so, we must be prepared to send our managers and workers overseas. In fact, given that overseas operations are often more complex than the home ground, we usually end up sending out the best of the breed. Going overseas to work does not make Singaporeans quitters. In fact, many of our forefathers came from China, India, and other countries. They came here to make a living and most of them did not even have a chance to return to their motherland. However, I have no doubt that deep down in their hearts, many of them felt that they were more Chinese or Indians than Singaporeans even till their death. It took us more than one generation to change this migrant mentality. Surely, our forefathers were no quitters when they left their motherland. Similarly, many Japanese have worked overseas for many years as their industrialisation programme took them to where the markets were. They are still very much Japanese in their hearts and they all look forward to the day they can return to Japan, although they will invariably find great difficulties in adapting to the lifestyle at home. The real issue, Sir, is an affair of the heart. It is about our emotional linkage to Singapore. It is about our sense of belonging, our sense of ownership and our sense of responsibility to the country. Regardless of where we are physically, will we stand up and be counted when Singapore needs us? Are we willing to make sacrifices for the interests of fellow Singaporeans or would we give up instead at the first sign of trouble? Do we take Singapore as our home, or do we treat it like a hotel? That is the question. I believe that many Singaporeans are committed to Singapore. However difficult the situation may seem, they will stay and fight. The introduction of the NEWater in response to the threat by Malaysia on our water supplies is a good example of the "never say die" spirit. For this, I must applaud the Minister for the Environment for his efforts. However, I think we cannot take this commitment for granted. While there may not be a major problem today, we need to be conscious of the issue and continuously work at it to prevent it from becoming a major problem. As our economic restructuring and remaking of Singapore pick up momentum, the need to address Singaporeans' commitment to the country has also become increasingly urgent. The Issue Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last 30 years, we have built ourselves a world-class infrastructure. We have one of the world's best airport and sea port. We have one of the most efficient transport and telecommunication system. We have the best hardware. We have also built ourselves a world-class workforce. Our productivity has been the main attraction to foreign investors. We have the best software. Now, we must also build ourselves a world-class citizen, what I call the HEARTware. We need to understand what are the issues at the hearts of Singaporeans. What cause them to think about quitting? I think there are three main issues that concern most Singaporeans who are sitting on the fence. Firstly, they feel that Singapore's lifestyle is too stressful. Their children face a lot of stress in schools. They themselves face a lot of stress at work. This stress is then brought home and they face stress in their family relationship which may eventually lead to the breaking up of their family. They believe that by quitting Singapore, they may be able to find a less stressful lifestyle in another country, another environment, and they will be happier, their children will be happier and they can keep their family together. Whether they are right or wrong is not the issue here because they may never be able to find out whether the pasture is indeed greener over the other side. What is important is their perception. Sir, stress is inevitable. In fact, I would say stress is sometimes healthy, if given the right dosage. Singapore is a unique country with no natural resources and no natural advantage. It was a miracle that we could get as far as we did. We need to continue to strive to stay ahead of our competitors. Therein lies the origin of stress. However, perhaps we could examine whether the level of stress has exceeded the safe dosage. Are Singaporeans suffering from an overdose of stress? We can also look into how we can help Singaporeans better cope with stress. Can we put in some relief valves? Secondly, some Singaporeans think that there are greater opportunities elsewhere where they can make better progress than the competitive environment in Singapore can offer them. Instead of being a technician here, he can be an engineer in another country. Instead of being a worker, he can be a manager. As we bring in foreign talents, Singaporeans also can become foreign talents to other countries. The truth is Singapore will always remain competitive, given our unique situation. The key is whether we can offer equally attractive opportunities to Singaporeans. The question is whether we can offer them more than economic opportunities. Can we convince them to look beyond personal career achievements? Thirdly, many Singaporeans complain about the rising cost of living here. They accept that this is the result of providing a higher standard of living. However, they feel that the higher standard of living does not necessarily translate into better quality of life. They may have three golf clubs, but they do not have time to play golf. They may have a big bungalow, but they are hardly at home. They hope that in a different world, the cost of living may be lower and they can afford to have lower income. Even if the standard of living is lower, at least they may have more quality time for the children, the family and themselves. Their intention may be quite noble. While cost increases may not be avoidable, we may be able to manage the process better and to ensure that better standard of living does translate into better quality of living. The Approach Sir, to address these issues, we need to focus on three aspects, and I would summarise it with three Cs - Committed, Connected and Concerned. First, the Committed people. We need to get Singaporeans committed to our cause. We need them to be committed not only to themselves, but to their family, to their community and to their country. Commitment to Singapore goes beyond the property and assets that they have. Many Singaporeans have houses in other countries, Australia, Canada, UK and more recently, China. House ownership is no longer the key to commitment. We need to create in them a sense of ownership not just of the house, but of the nation. Then they will have a sense of responsibility towards the country that they own and from there comes a sense of belonging. Second, the Connected people. We spend millions every year building covered linkways to connect all the HDB blocks. We must also build linkways to connect the hearts of Singaporeans. I believe that Singaporeans do have a heart but they need to be linked up. We need to encourage and build stronger relationship among Singaporeans. Very often when a person is contemplating quitting Singapore, the one last thing that ties him back is the relationship he has with his friends and his relatives here. The stronger that sense of relationship, the more determined he will be to stay and fight. This relationship must start at home. A strong family bond will help spur a strong sense of belonging. This sense of belonging will then motivate us to strengthen our community bonding. With this, we can begin to build relationship with the nation and the individuals. There is no short cut. To try to develop a strong sense of nationalism without strong family and community bonding will be an uphill task. Third, the Concerned people. We must change the bo-chap attitude of Singaporeans. I believe that most Singaporeans do chap. Judging from the heated response from Singaporeans to PM's speech, I think I am right. And I hope I am right. The question is whether we can further encourage this sense of ai-chap. Can we get Singaporeans engaged? Can we get them concerned? Can we get them involved? It is always difficult to walk away from something you have helped to build up. Proposed Initiatives Mr Speaker, Sir, with these three themes in mind, I would like to urge the Government to consider three initiatives: Firstly, I would like to urge the Government to review our education policy to give greater emphasis on building a strong character in our children. Education is fundamental in nation building. The learning institutions have a vital role to play in the remaking of Singaporeans. They carry with them the great responsibility of shaping our future generations. In this regard, I would like to make four suggestions. One, greater focus on character building in our curriculum. Our strive for excellence in today's knowledge-based economy dictates that our school curriculum has to focus primarily on knowledge and skills, subjects that can equip our children to participate in the new economy, subjects that matter. Our children too will focus on subjects that matter, namely, those that will be tested and scored. Other subjects, such as Hao Gong Min are given much less emphasis. The schools must provide more than just knowledge and skills. It is where our character is moulded and developed during the early days of our lives. It is also where we first derive our values and principles. If we focus only on the hard subjects, we will produce an army of efficient workers, but we will not produce citizens. I can still recall the story of Yuefei, which I read during my primary school days. His patriotic and heroic story has inspired many, like me, to feel a sense of duty to the nation. Yuefei was born in the year 1103. When he was young, his mother tattooed four words on his back, "jing zhong bao guo", which means "be loyal and repay your country". He later became the general commanding the armies of the Song dynasty. During the 12th century, when China was attacked by invaders from the north, he led the Song armies in defence of his homeland. His attempt to push north and recover all the lost Chinese territory was opposed, however, by a peace party within the capital headed by Minister Qinhui, who believed that further prosecution of the war would be too costly. Qin's faction proved more influential and, in 1141, Yuefei was recalled to the Song court and imprisoned. Later, he was executed, after being framed by Qin. Yuefei's dedication and commitment to his country serve as a model for many Chinese patriots. Many songs and poems written by General Yuefei are still cherished by the Chinese today, and there are even movies made about Yuefei, eg, "shi er jin pai", and I am sure many Singaporeans of my vintage are also familiar with the story of Yuefei. Real historical stories like these will inspire readers to develop a sense of patriotism. Yes, it is a story from China, but I am sure we can find similar stories from other places as well. I would like to suggest that some of these should be incorporated into our school curriculum, especially in the language lessons, so that there is no need to add on the load. For example, instead of talking about the Tail of a Squirrel (one of the passages I read in my daughter's Chinese textbook), we can tell stories about Yuefei or about George Washington and his cherry tree. This way, we can help build the character of our students. My second suggestion is to introduce activities that encourage teamwork and inculcate a sense of accountability and responsibility in our schools. These can either take the form of sports and games or project work. It is important for our children to learn from young that he is not alone and he cannot work alone. He is part of the team and part of the big picture. There is a Chinese saying, "xi sheng xiao wo, wan cheng ta wao", which means to sacrifice yourself for the interest of the greater community. These activities will be able to demonstrate that only by making individual sacrifices - be it time, interest or money - can we succeed and, ultimately, all will benefit from it. Through these activities, they can also learn that while others depend on them to do their best, they too depend on others. This interdependence is the beginning of relationship building and community bonding. Let us not underestimate the impact of some of these seemingly simple and childish activities. They leave a long lasting impression on the minds of our young ones. Three, develop greater tolerance for failures in our schools. One of the causes of the kiasu syndrome stems from the fact that we have very little tolerance for setbacks and failures. In our competitive system today, it is natural that failures are costly, whether in schools, society or the economy. However, there is again a Chinese saying, "shi bai shi cheng gong zhi mu", ie, failure is the mother of success. If we cannot accept failures, we cannot achieve success. As we develop a gracious society, we must also be mindful to create greater capacity for failures. This way, Singaporeans will be assured of acceptance by the society and the nation, despite their shortcomings, and they do not need to run to another country. Our children in schools must be taught to expect failures, and that perseverance will eventually lead to success. I remember when I first went to the UK for my university education, I had great difficulties in handling the laboratory sessions. The instruction sheets given to me had no instructions at all. They merely stated the requirements. It was up to us to figure out what to do. My teammate - another Singaporean - and I tried every other way but could not get the results. Finally, after some four hours and after all the other students had gone home, we figured it out. We did not fail. We merely found a dozen ways that did not work. Our schools should also consider introducing open-ended activities and programmes like these that require our children to try and keep trying. This way, we will build a strong character in them that can accept failures of others as well as of their own. Four, revamp our National Education Programme. The objectives behind the NEP are good. But if the programme cannot effectively reach out to our children, it could not serve our purpose. I believe that the subject of National Education is a subject of the heart, and it cannot be taught by simply reciting to them our nation's short history. Colourful as it may be, the younger generation may find it hard to relate. Unlike the first and second generation Singaporeans who have lived through the early years of separation from Malaysia and the struggle against communist infiltration, the 3G generation has grown up in relative security and prosperity. I believe that to be successful in our National Education effort, we need to take a more practical approach. I would like to suggest that we enhance and expand the Community Involvement Programme for this purpose. If we allow our students to be involved more actively in community and national development, no matter how big or small it is, it will give them a greater sense of ownership. We can even encourage our tertiary institutions to organise groups that discuss and debate about Government policies. This will generate greater awareness and engagement. There are risks no doubt, but the reward of having a committed citizen is well worth the risks. The second initiative: I would like to urge the Government to review our social policies to build a home, and not a hotel. A hotel may have 5-star facilities compared to my small apartment, but it is not my home. What makes a home? A home is a place where I have a relationship with my family members, my parents, my spouse and my children. A home is a place where I have some say in how it is run. A home is a haven that I long to return to for safety and security and, when it is threatened, I would not hesitate to defend it with all I have got. I am almost certain that all of us would agree with this perception of home. The issue is: how do we make our nation our home? I would like to make three suggestions. One, strengthen our family bonding. If we do not feel at home in our own home, we cannot feel at home in our country. Therefore, we must start with strengthening our family ties. In one of my dialogue sessions with my residents, some of them suggested that we need more space and avenues for family outings and activities. Today, one of the most favourite family pastimes is window shopping. This does nothing to strengthen family ties. In fact, it weakens the pocket and creates more stress. We must create more affordable and convenient destinations for families and friends. Some of our attractions, such as the zoo, the bird park, etc, are designed for tourists, and may not be resident or family-friendly. For example, can we make a conscious effort to review the entrance charges to promote family tickets or season tickets? Or we can even have a universal family pass to allow discounted entries to all our attractions the whole year round, so long as they come as a whole family. This way, we will draw them away from all the shops to spend time with each other in wholesome activities. Sir, we have a Children's Day, a Youth Day, a Mother's Day and a Father's Day. Maybe, we should have a Family Day where families take centrestage, and make it a public holiday. This will go a long way to reminding Singaporeans of the value of our family. Two, strengthen social and community bonding. Yesterday's newspaper quoted Mr Wee Cho Yaw as saying that there is little meaningful interaction among the various racial groups despite the peaceful co-existence for many years. I hope he is wrong. But we must have realistic expectations. The differences in our cultural and religious background are not easy to bridge. It may take several generations before progress becomes apparent. But we must not quit. We must continue to build on social and community bonding. We must develop individual's relationship with the community. From my experience, I find it most effective when people work together on certain projects and they develop an esprit de corp as they go through the process. They learn to respect and accept one another. They develop a special bonding among themselves. As community leaders, they can then help to expand this same bonding to other residents. I would like to urge the Government to give more resources and greater mandate to the Inter-Racial Confidence Circles for this purpose. The need for social bonding is not just among different races. Even within the same race, there is also a need to strengthen our bonds. When we lived in kampongs in the old days, we were much closer to one another, although we were physically further apart. We need to re-kindle that kampong spirit to re-build the depth of community bonding. Recently, I attended several lantern festivals within our GRC and I was pleasantly surprised by the large turn-out, from different races, not just the Chinese. This is due in no small part to the hard work of the grassroots leaders, and I must also thank our Mayor, Dr Teo Ho Pin, for his support. But it leads me to ask the question: what is in it that attracts the people? Perhaps it is more than just the makan and the goodie bags. Some of them simply brought their kids along and joined in the fun. They lit up candles on the pavement, much to the annoyance of the town councils, and they chatted with one another. If we can promote more of these traditional and festive cultural events, it will help foster greater interaction among our residents. Perhaps the Government can consider sponsoring a few major events like these, in order to give them the resources and the recognition. Three, let people have some say. There has been much criticism of the Government for failing to take in feedback seriously. I agree that we cannot govern the country based on feedback alone. The Prime Minister's example of seeing a doctor on slimming pills is a good one. But I would suggest that Singaporeans' relationship with the nation is not that of a patient consulting his doctor. It is a family affair. Singapore is not my clinic but my home. In the past, whatever my father says goes. Now, whatever I say, my daughters will ask "why?" and my wife will go "why not?", and a debate will ensue. Eventually, my wife or myself will make a decision, but not without painstakingly explaining to my children the rationale for the decision. They may not always be happy with the outcome, but they are usually satisfied that due consideration has been given to their views. Similarly, it is important for the Government to explain its decisions carefully and thoroughly to the people to minimise misunderstandings. The recent fare increase is a case in point. While the people accept that cost increases may be inevitable, the communication process can be improved. Singaporeans need to be assured that the Government understands their current difficulties and have factored them into their decisions. Communication and mutual understanding is the basic foundation of a closely-knit family and a loving home. I would therefore urge all Government agencies to make the extra effort in obtaining feedback proactively and to take pains to explain tough policies to our people, so that they can feel part of this big family. Mr Speaker, Sir, other than education policy and social policy, the third initiative relates to the need to review our economic policy to strike a balance between economic progress and social cohesion. As our economic restructuring progresses, there is a risk that an increasing number of Singaporeans may feel left behind. They either cannot adapt to the new economy or may find it very painful to do so. They feel that they can no longer fit into the family and they have no choice but to quit. Worse, some of them cannot even afford to quit, given the limited resources they have. So even if they have not physically quit from Singapore, they have done so emotionally. This is a real problem that we should not ignore. To this, I would like to make three suggestions. One, make space for every Singaporean. We must ensure that all Singaporeans have a place in Singapore, not just for the elite, so long as he tries his best and regardless of his achievements. We cannot abandon the meritocracy philosophy as it is the very basis of our existence and success so far. But if we continue to tell our people that there is no free lunch and that they either wake up or lose out, the message we are giving them may be interpreted as telling them to fend for themselves and that we will do whatever it takes to move on. We cannot say that to a family member, even if he is handicapped and, especially, if he is handicapped. One day, my 6-year-old daughter came home from a cartoon movie, Lilo and Stitch. She quoted to me a phrase from the show. She said, "Dad, Ohanna means family." Family means nobody gets left behind. As a family, we must give every member a fair chance, fair in relation to each person's ability. If one of them is slower but he has tried his best, we cannot abandon him. We must assure him that there is a place in Singapore for him because this is his home. He may not get the job he wishes but there are always job opportunities for him so long as he tries and is willing to be flexible. So instead of telling our people that there is no free lunch, perhaps we should change the tune and tell them that we will help them to find their lunch. We must tell them that every Singaporean matters, whether you are a taxi driver or an SIA pilot, whether you are a mechanic or a biochemist, whether you are a professional or an entrepreneur - you have a place and a role in Singapore. You can always contribute meaningfully. You matter to us. And in return, Singapore will matter to them. Two, create alternative career opportunities. Not all Singaporeans can fit into the main stream. Some of them may not be as good academically but they may be able to excel in other fields, arts, sports, etc. If we can open up new avenues for these people to pursue their career development, it would help to demonstrate that we care about them and help persuade them to remain committed to Singapore. I believe the Remaking Singapore Committee is addressing this issue and I eagerly await its report. Three, balance economic progress with social progress. As we pursue economic excellence, we must balance it with strengthening of our social fabric. Those doing better must have a sense of responsibility to care for those who may need an extra hand. The Government needs to take the lead. We are rightly concerned that our help may be abused. But those who abuse the system are quitters because they have already quit trying to do the right thing but, thankfully, these are the exceptions. The EDRS, for example, is a meaningful gesture to show that we care. Although there were abuses, to the majority who have benefited from it, it was a huge success. I am not suggesting that we open up a floodgate on our welfare schemes. However, I am suggesting that perhaps we can afford to be more helpful and not deny help to those who really need it simply because we are fearful of abuse by those who may not need it. This may be a fundamental shift from the Government policy today but this is what family is all about, mutual help and support. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, the Motion on stayers and quitters is intended to spark debate in Parliament on issues of Singaporeans' commitment to the country. The process of nation building has no short cut. It will not happen overnight. But it is a crucial issue, particularly at this point in time when Singapore is at the crossroad. PM's speech was a timely reminder that we cannot take this for granted. As we rebuild our economy, we must also build a home, not a hotel. This will take not only the efforts of the Government alone, but the efforts of all Singaporeans, of all the members in the family. Together, we can build a home where Singaporeans have a say in its shape and size, a home where Singaporeans have a part in building, a home where Singaporeans have relationships with one another, and a home where Singaporeans will stay to fight and defend. We must build a home that is uniquely Singaporeans' home. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.