Hansard, 2002-10-02

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: FromTo Name(2002)(2002) Dr Mohd Maliki Osman30 Sep06 Oct Mr Charles Chong3 Oct6 Oct Mr Chay Wai Chuen10 Oct17 Oct Mr David T E Lim17 Oct20 Oct ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what proportion of the 13.4% foreign direct investments (FDIs) pulled in by ASEAN has come to Singapore and in what forms; and (b) how will these investments help to create jobs and what are the types in the immediate and the near future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe Mdm Ho is referring to the figure reported by the ASEAN Secretariat that foreign direct investment into ASEAN has increased by 13.4% to US$13 billion last year. The figure comes from the World Investment Report 2002 published by UNTAD. In that report, Singapore attracted US$8.6 billion or 65% of the total FDI into ASEAN. These figures, which show international capital flows, do not have breakdown by industry. To see the breakdown by industry and gauge the impact on job creation, it is better for us to look at investment commitments in the data compiled by EDB. Last year, Singapore attracted fixed asset investment commitments of S$9.2 billion in the manufacturing sector. 50% of the commitments were in the electronics industry. Another 21% were in the chemicals industry. The other commitments were in the petroleum, precision engineering, transport equipment and other industries. In the services sector, S$1.8 billion in total business spending was committed last year. This was largely in projects for the info-communications, media, logistics and transport clusters. These investment commitments are expected to create 17,000 jobs in manufacturing and 7,500 jobs in services over the next two to three years, when the projects are fully realised. Professionals and skilled workers account for about 70% of the total jobs created. Our target this year is to attract investment commitments of S$9.2 billion in manufacturing, and total business spending of S$2 billion in services. Most of these investments will continue to be in the electronics and chemicals clusters. If achieved, this would further create more than 20,000 jobs in the coming three to four years.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [1st October 2002], "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.". - [Mr Gan Kim Yong]. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Member, Mr Gan, and his team for moving the motion for this debate. Indeed, I recognise that this issue has been thoroughly debated in the public media and in the House yesterday. But this issue must be clearly addressed in this House, because policies passed by this House will affect how many Singaporeans ultimately decide to become stayers or quitters, or, more importantly, contributors. Thus, it is crucial that this debate gets its proper airtime. The Prime Minister has presented Singaporeans with a stark question: "Are you a quitter or a stayer?" Several MPs tried to clarify the distinction yesterday. But I find the distinction irrelevant. It is something that changes with time and individual circumstances. A quitter then, maybe 20 years ago, can be a returner now and contributing, like Mr Hsieh, the Chairman of McKinsey Asia, or Mr David Gerald, the President of the Securities Investors Association, Singapore, whereas a stayer now can become a quitter when the crucial time comes. No one can predict and we will never know. Some citizens may quit Singapore for various reasons, but still will be our country's spokespersons, ambassadors or business links while remaining overseas, and Singapore is better off for it. Hence, I would like to elaborate on the more important term "contributors". What is important are not people who stay back or quit Singapore physically or emotionally. The crux is people who contribute, so long as they are willing to contribute, whether based locally or overseas. This then should be the question: Are you contributing in any way to Singapore - to the country, economy or society? All Singaporeans - whether based locally or overseas; whether working, unemployed or retired; whether speaking out for or against Government policies - so long as their words and actions promote, build and improve the image, standing and welfare of our multi-cultural Singapore, they are all contributors. Whether one is a cleaner or a CEO, one has a part in the growth and success of our small beloved Singapore, and should be recognised and respected for this. Only a few radicals who plan to bomb installations or crash into the Changi Airport control tower are not contributors, and we are better off without them. Sir, almost all Singaporeans, regardless of age and other factors, such as education or social mobility, are contributors to the success of Singapore. Thus, it is not correct for this motion to urge the Government to review its policies and programmes in view of the third generation of Singaporeans only. Yes, we may have many concerns with the younger generation and may want to give them greater attention. But, Sir, all Singaporeans - whether young or old, past, present or future contributors - should be treated with equal concern, and serious steps should be taken to strengthen every Singaporean's sense of belonging to Singapore. In this respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the original motion: In line 4, to leave out the words "third-generation". The Clerk will have copies of the proposed amendment. [Copies of amendment distributed to hon. Members.] Sir, the amended motion reads as follows: "That this House, noting the concerns 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 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.".

According to a Straits Times survey, the reasons that cause people to consider leaving include children's education, high cost of living, lack of emotional attachments and the high stress of keeping up with society. These are factors experienced by everyone, every single Singaporean, not just the young. Most Singaporeans are mobile these days, not just the 3G. So, any programme and policy review must be wide-reaching and responsive enough to cater to the changing needs of citizens of all age groups, not just the 3G. As Ms Chua Lee Hoong of the Straits Times (ST) rightly pointed out in today's ST, the chatter is loudest still in the educated middle and upper-middle classes, for whom quitting is a real option. Thus, the Government needs to seriously review its thinking and role to encourage Singaporeans to be more than stayers, ie, be active contributors. Other than this small amendment, I give full support to this motion to urge the Government to review its policies and attitudes, so that it can take bold and more meaningful measures to strengthen our residents' sense of belonging to Singapore. Sir, Singapore is still a young nation. Despite being the most economically successful among younger nations, it is still a small child when it comes to nation-building. We are in the pioneering stage, trying to find and evolve our own uniqueness. We will take at least a few more generations before we can even start to consolidate and define what we are about. We have taken three decades to move from Third-World to First. It is high time now for us to spend more effort and resources to discuss, define and build up our own unique culture and values. When that is established, everyone who identifies with this culture and cherishes these values will naturally be drawn to participate and contribute to this society and call it home. Indeed, the time is here now. As the hon. Member, Mr Gan, has also pointed out, the Government needs to give more focus on building our heartware and EQ, and not simply hardware. In this respect, I would like to suggest four measures to help strengthen Singaporeans' sense of belonging. They are the four Rs. One, redefine the definition of success. The current path to success is too narrowly defined. Do well in school, get a scholarship, gain admission to a prestigious university, get a good job, own a car and buy a nice house. In themselves, there is nothing wrong with this path. But problems arise when individuals choose to deviate from this narrow path. Success is now framed in terms of economic wealth and prosperity, and parents expect and demand their children to strictly follow this narrow path towards success. Sir, success must not be so narrowly defined. A person should have the assurance from society that that society respects whatever it is he or she does for a living and recognises their contributions, be it in arts, sports, civil society or even opposition politics. As an example, are we able to redefine success to include a low income social worker who enjoys working with a drug addict, or a factory worker who has built a loving family and lives happily in a small flat? Unless society broadens its views of success and respects the various kinds of contributors, there will always be people who will feel no sense of belonging. Two, review the Government's action and role in leading and directing society. As citizens are always observing and modelling the behaviours of their leaders, the kiasu and kiasi attitudes of Singaporeans can be traced straight back to Government leaders and their attitudes. Its hard-nosed social and economic policies and its push for excellence have created wealth, but they have also contributed to the ugly Singaporean who lacks culture, grace and identity. Also, the Government is always trying to lead and direct society in the way that it desires. But is that also where the rest of society wants to head? And at that pace? Are Government leaders pushing our citizens too hard? Will the Government consider slowing down and take the time to listen to what the people really want instead of constantly directing and telling Singaporeans what is best for them. The Government may have made some correct decisions in the past, but it does not mean that all future decisions will be wise and correct ones. The Government has no monopoly on wisdom. More discussions are needed to bring the citizens on board and along. Three, recognise the efforts of contributors, even those whose contributions the Ministers may disagree. While the Government or a Minister accepts or adopts a suggestion, it is always a good practice to give recognition, praise or even a pat on the back of the contributors and say, "Good work". Everyone likes to be recognised and praised for good work. So such positive reinforcements will help to promote active citizenship. Even if the Government disagrees with an idea, it is not necessary for the Government leaders to tear it down immediately and harshly at times. Such negative responses from the top leaders only help to associate being engaged and speaking up with pain, not pleasure. This ultimately leads to the conditioned response of being disengaged, not contributing, and no sense of emotional attachment to the issues concerned. Finally, and most importantly, reduce the high cost of living here in Singapore and lower the indirect contributions to the coffers of the Government. All Singaporeans work hard to earn a good living, build up their nest-egg to start a family, get out of that and hope to retire peacefully. However, with the Government and its linked agencies constantly taking the lead in raising the cost of goods and services and depleting whatever limited savings one may have, is it any wonder then that Singaporeans are complaining and planning to call it quits, citing high cost as a reason. The Government should take a more considerate approach, and not ruthlessly and relentlessly try to recover cost and expenses in this period of economic difficulty. When times are good, these corporations spend the huge profits on big acquisitions and big buildings, incurring high expenses. But when the economy turns bad, they start looking to the public to recover cost. This is not the way to service and care for the people. If the Government will learn to take care of the interests of the people in this difficult period, there will be more appreciative stayers who will be willing to contribute more than their fair share to the nation, without more carrots or more sticks from the Government. Otherwise, to quote our former Speaker, "When it comes to the next election, the people will not forget", and I believe that this time round, they will not, no matter how many New Singapore Shares will be given out. To conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, as the dominant force in society, should take a stock-take of all its actions over the years and determine how these have contributed to our current situation. Be it little acts, measures or comments, these can send out more wrong signals and attitudes than the most massive campaigns. Be more tolerant of differences in views, ideas and expressions. We, Singapore, are not a homogenous society. The Government needs to learn - to agree to disagree, and yet make efforts to work together with the detractors. The Government also needs to free up more space for civil society to flourish, while allowing the citizens to learn how to exercise greater social responsibility. Consider reducing the role and influence of the Government, which indirectly require less expenditure and less funding and thus, less taxes from the people. A successful economy may be built with the right investment decisions. But a successful society can only be built by a Government forging a good partnership with the people. It cannot be the case where the Government does all the dictating and ordering and the people doing all the obeying. Finally, a creative, prosperous and vibrant society is most evident in an open and mature democracy. Is the Singapore Government prepared to give this a try? I and many others hope so. Sir, I seek the support of the House on the proposed amendment.

It has been proposed as an amendment: In line 4, to leave out the words "third-generation". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." May I remind hon. Members that they should restrict their speeches to the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek your indulgence to allow me to respond to Mr Chia's proposed amendment to my motion. Sir, the original motion was very carefully crafted to focus on the key issues at hand, and I went through at great length yesterday in this House to explain the wordings and why the motion was moved. I also explained why we need to take into consideration the challenges facing particularly our third generation Singaporeans. And with your indulgence, Sir, I would like to reiterate and elaborate for the benefit of Mr Chia. Mr Chia, in his speech, although he proposed the amendment, did not go into detail why the amendment was necessary. Let me explain our position. Firstly, we must look at the historical factor. I said yesterday that the first and second generation Singaporeans fought shoulder to shoulder against the threat of communist infiltration and they have built amongst themselves a mutual trust that will bind them together. They also went through the anguish of separation from Malaysia and they have struggled together to find a way for Singapore to survive. Having gone through the difficult times together as a people, they will stand united as a people. In comparison, the third generation Singaporeans grew up in relative peace and prosperity. We are blessed with the fruits of our forerunners. There is nothing wrong in that, Sir. We too would want our children to have peace and prosperity. But the question is whether we can replicate the same kind of bonding and commitment as our earlier generations while we enjoy the peace and prosperity. Secondly, the present factor. I also explained yesterday that more and more Singaporeans have to go overseas to work. This is part of the globalisation policy of the Government and our companies. The majority of these are likely to be the younger generation or the third generation Singaporeans. On top of that, they are better educated. They are more mobile and they have greater exposure to the opportunities that await them in other countries. On the other hand, we are remaking Singapore today for the benefit of this third generation which will inherit whatever we create. Should we not be concerned of their views and perceptions? Thirdly, the future factor. The third generation Singaporeans will be our future leaders. They will be our future people. In fact, they will be our future hope. I would therefore suggest that we cannot ignore the aspirations and the concerns of these third generation Singaporeans. For a motion to be vague and too broadly-based will be meaningless. I would like to suggest therefore that we remain focused in this motion to deal with our people in the third generation Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reference to the third generation is an integral part of the motion. I would therefore like to urge the House to reject the amendment proposed by Mr Chia. I would like to move that the House now takes a vote on the proposed amendment. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put and negatived.

The amendment therefore falls and we return to the original Question that is before the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Prime Minister's National Day message was for the young Singaporeans to reflect and make a reality check for themselves. Sir, how should the 3G Singaporeans respond? To respond to this call, the 3Gs must be given opportunities to be involved and to understand issues at large. At the same time, the 3Gs should take an active role in activities and developments around them. More importantly, we need a mindset change, where people will provide alternative suggestions and viewpoints and engage in constructive criticism. This will add value and allow views to take place. Sir, the debate on this motion should not just revolve around Government policies and measures that will keep quitters from quitting. To answer our NCMP, Mr Steve Chia, we worry that our 3Gs lack a sense of crisis and resilience as they practically grew up in the era of prosperity, as mentioned earlier by the hon. Member, Mr Gan Kim Yong. Proceeding into the future, what is evolving around them will throw them directly into the global market place. Their competitors are no longer local and regional. Today, the global village is their competitor. That being the case, how tough can current local pressures be compared to what they would have to face with in the global village? Our challenge really is how can we facilitate them to develop the coping mechanisms to cushion the so-called crisis of life. If they could handle that, they would have developed this sense of crisis management. We should put in place measures that would enable and facilitate their adaptation. Is it possible to incorporate practical learning into the academic syllabus? For instance, to educate our 3Gs on the realities of the commercial world and the issues in society, can we consider some form of apprenticeship in these fields? Such exposure would serve to mature them through the experience that they will face. There is no apology needed for Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. Since time immemorial, societies had always been made up of stayers and quitters. This is not a new phenomenon and not necessarily a bad thing to happen. This stock and flow process is healthy to a certain extent because it provides a mechanism that will calibrate an eco-system balance in the environment where those who remain or come in to join us do so because they can find their own comfort level and have found a reason for staying. In other words, a small percentage of attrition may not necessarily be bad. The challenge to us is how can we retain the different talents across the strata of society to hang on and play their part for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that the issue before us today centres around the angst that we all feel about the Singaporean identity, as articulated by various hon. MPs. Is there such a thing as a Singaporean identity? Is the Singaporean identity slowly taking shape as the nation becomes more rooted to its soil? Have we cultivated a strong enough and deeply-rooted enough sense of identity to provide ourselves with enough cultural ballast to withstand times of stress and tensions in our national fabric? Perhaps it is timely that we take every opportunity to reinforce our cohesiveness as a people, so that we feel, we talk and we act as Singaporeans in the midst of the multi-cultural and multi-religious setting that we are in. We started 10 years ago with the concept of self-help groups which saw the spawning of the CDAC, SINDA, Mendaki, Eurasian self-help groups. These groups have served their roles well. Going forward, in view of the potentially divisive factors that could arise from the JI developments, perhaps we should review the model of the self-help grouping and consider amalgamating them under an umbrella body without disrupting the individuality of the self-help groups. We can do more, for instance, within the resource sharing areas. Or is Singapore just merely a nation of opportunistic mercenaries, populated by people with a grab-and-go mentality? Some recent surveys published in the newspapers would seem to indicate that Singaporeans, especially the 3Gs, are especially prone to the notion of seeking better climes for themselves elsewhere. Our younger ones are able, educated, talented, and they have a good command of English. As such, opportunities abound for our people who want to carve out a niche for themselves elsewhere in the world. Mr Speaker, amid the rounds of speeches and reactions to the stayer-versus-quitter debate, I would like to bring a value added dimension for the stayers and quitters. Whether stayers or quitters, they all are boosters for Singapore. What do I mean? Well, boosters are Singaporeans who may be working or studying overseas. Some of them may even have migrated to another country and taken on citizenship elsewhere. However, boosters are people with a heart to do things that will benefit Singapore's society and economic well-being. For example - and this is to assure Mr Steve Chia - that we are still connected with our overseas so-called Singaporeans. There are some Singaporeans in the United States and elsewhere who have taken on jobs as research scientists, engineers and business people. These Singaporeans have "made it" in their adopted country. However, many of them still maintain ties with Singapore. These boosters have forged close economic and business ties between companies in the US and those operating out of Singapore. So, rather than harp on the fact that these Singaporeans have found life too disagreeable in Singapore to prompt them to move overseas, we could leverage upon the expertise, talents, connections and business potential of the booster population all over the world. Sir, the Singapore Overseas Networks (SONs) and the Singapore Contact are strategic bridges in linking the boosters to Singapore. What we must continue to do is to provide the boosters with an easy passage back to Singapore, even if it is just for a stint. Internet and globalisation have brought the world to our doorstep. Singapore may just be a transit hotel to many Singaporeans who are moving beyond the Singapore shores to seek employment and opportunities. So, there will arise new 3G boosters whom we will cultivate for contribution each time they transit in Singapore. The challenge is how can we lure them back for these intermittent contributions. It must surely be their family and their friends as well as the easy access. The motion is concerned with the mobility of the 3Gs. We are concerned that 3Gs are vulnerable to become quitters because of Government policies to date. I support the notion that we can put in place measures and programmes that will inculcate values and encourage our 3Gs to take ownership of their stake. These measures can perhaps commit them to stay in Singapore. Sir, two weeks ago, upon my return from the AIPO meeting, I had an interesting encounter with a 15-year old boy who told me that he was not pleased with an article entitled "The 911 overload" published in the Today newspaper of 12th September 2002. He had written on his own volition to the editor of Today to offer his views. At this juncture, I would like to seek the Speaker's permission to circulate a copy of the letter by this boy, that was published in the Forum page of Today newspaper, dated 16th September. I would also like to seek Mr Speaker's permission to circulate the original full text of the boy's letter to the Editor. [Copies of letters distributed to hon. Members.] It contains the full details of his thoughts. I have obtained the boy's permission for this. And I would like to declare at this point that this boy is my son. What I am recounting would give an interesting insight of what goes on in the mind of a 3G 15-year old on the 911 tragedy and deducing from his letter and his thoughts, I think there is hope in our 3Gs. There are thinking 3G individuals who would not hesitate to defend Singapore when it comes to issues of sovereignty and security. Reading the text of the letter, it would seem that when this boy's sense of right or wrong was put to a judgment call, when he felt that it was time to speak out, surely after some internal reflection of the tragic events which took away many innocent lives, he did not hesitate to join in the discussion. The article, "The 911 overload", was published at a time of mourning when the whole world was remembering the tragic loss of lives on 911, 2001 with the Americans. In a balanced response to the article, the boy described the terrorist act as a cruel attack on humanity and freedom, and disagreed with the author's view that we are "putting Americans on the pedestal". He reminded that we should remember "the victims of the international community, not just Americans". He then condemned the terrorist acts and chided "peoples' indifference," and asked, "Do we just sit on the fence and do nothing and just watch the events unfolding around us?" If this 15-year old can stand in front of a mirror, reflect and take on a stand for what he believes in, I think our 3G Singaporeans offer hope. They do care. What struck me more in the letter he sent to the Editor was his subtle realisation and a reminder of sorts about Singapore's vulnerability and obligations in its international relations. I quote him: 'Singapore is a small nation, and we have to contribute and play our part in order to survive. We have diplomatic ties with the US, and thus it would be right to offer our condolences and support from a political viewpoint. We cannot isolate ourselves and say we do not care about what is happening around us.'

Perhaps this 15-year old, like many of his peers, has inherited that sense of urgency and survivality from his forefathers who had laboured and stayed on in this island state despite the early years of difficulties, because of their sense of rootedness and their wanting to carve out a stake for themselves in Singapore. How can we similarly cultivate "stayers" who are committed to Singapore, and will fight for Singapore's survival? In the article, I also detected several facets of a 3G Singaporean's value system and views. He wrote about terrorism as an act against our national security and terrorists as a common enemy of the world; about standing up for patriotism, being brave and putting our foot down instead of trying to appease others; about denial of one's country. To quote him, "I am unable to contemplate on what has driven some Singaporeans to actually plot with Al Qaeda." Today's print media and world of connectivity and relatedness have imprinted powerful images on the young minds. 3G Singaporeans have and will continue to have wider and deeper access to a wide array of information about the world, values and peoples. Together with technology innovations and a dearth of distance, 3G Singaporeans, with their increased mobility, will continue to live in a tighter and closely knitted world with all its inherent risks and opportunities. Therefore, it is important that 3G Singaporeans continue to develop their critical thinking and analytical skills and examine hard their stakes in Singapore, not just for themselves, but for their families and fellow Singaporeans. Whether "stayers" or "quitters", they must have their stakes in Singapore! Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no lack of suggestions to address the stayer/quitter comment from PM, but we need to move on. There was a time when we placed too much emphasis on the Singapore Dream of the 5Cs. The Asian financial crisis and the persisting recession have dissipated the Singapore Dream somewhat. While it is all right to have dreams, it is also a timely wake-up call for Singaporeans to examine how we should realise our dreams. It is more important to create the sort of vision or stake that Singaporeans can hold onto, not in the materialistic sense, but in the emotional and psychological spheres where permanent bonds to the country can be established. Thus, what stakes can we create for the 3G Singaporeans? Coming back to the 15-year old boy, if his views and sentiments may represent the up and coming 3Gs, then not all is lost where the 3Gs are concerned. The two generations ahead have not laboured in vain for Singapore and its people. We know that well connected branches to the vine and regular pruning of the fruits will ensure good offsprings. So parenting plays an important role, in nurturing loyalty. Our concern over quitters may just be transient and their sense of disenchantment may not necessarily trigger their mobility if they remain connected to their vine. Nonetheless, I agree that the quitters need managing and there still remain the expectations of people to be fulfilled. But alas, expectations vary and are relative. This begs the question of responsibility ownership. I would like to ask Mr Steve Chia whether it must always end up on the Government's lap. If we really look carefully into the profile of people who have come back to Singapore and are willing to speak about it, we would see one common denominator - they already have a job waiting for them, or are successful businessmen or professionals who can relocate their offices anytime or move back without difficulties or those who are financially very stable where being with or without a job would not make any difference to them. And there is, of course, the other group of Singaporeans who have quit on Singapore, but have come back as they cannot make it on the other side as well. Do you see them coming out and tell it as it is and, if so, how many of them? Does that make them a booster or quitter? I think if they have another chance, they probably would leave again. We may want to consider using good slogans and catchy words with good PR campaign on TV and newspaper to aggressively change the younger generation's mindset, which seems pretty negative judging from the number of people commenting on the issues and those silent observers as well who really do not want to say too much! As in the boy's letter, there will be 'fence-sitters' in our midst. Where Singapore is concerned, we must try to swing the 'fence-sitters' from being quitters and influence both the stayers and quitters to be boosters for Singapore. Deducing from the boy's views, a comforting point is that there is an indication of a sense of awareness amongst some of our 15-year olds of what is happening around us and an ability to discern, evaluate and form opinions. Most reassuringly is that there is care and concern for Singapore amongst some of the 3G 15-year olds. We would like our 3G Singaporeans to be articulating confidently and candidly, so that our leadership would be able to take cue from such expressions. I understand that, in reality, not all 15-year olds would have the opportunity to do that, but many of our schools can do more to encourage and nurture the awareness and interests of our 3G on events around them. For example, we could encourage the schools to allow their students space to express their views and grant them a say in policies affecting their performance and participation. We should extend the feedback mechanism to the students as well. Sir, the fact is that we do have caring and thinking Singaporeans in our midst. In January this year, the grassroots leaders and residents, comprising three generations of a multi-racial cast of 80 people of the Boon Lay Division of West Coast GRC, got together to produce a musical production for Boon Lay's National Day celebration on 10th August. The theme and title of this production was "My Heart is still @ Home: Boon Lay.com.sg" The message of this production was that as Singapore globalises, our children might leave our shores to seek opportunities elsewhere, but they would still come home because their roots are in Singapore and they want to return to their family and friends. This is where the emotional bond of the family and friends would play a crucial part. Sir, Boon Lay is a real heartlander constituency and, in its midst, is this awareness among the old and young that we want our children to sink roots in Singapore, ie, the branches will remain connected to the vine. How can the family partner Government's efforts to make this happen? Is the Government forthcoming in this? In this, I am happy to note and share with the Members of this House that the Government agency is beginning to support families in their efforts. There was a MPS case which I handled, where a quitter, who is a professional, gave up his citizenship to migrate to Australia some 12 years ago. He decided that he wanted to quit Australia in November last year and to return to Singapore where his family is. After at least seven times of meeting up with myself and appeals to MOM, he succeeded in returning on employment pass. Today, he works for a business venture that he has established in Singapore whilst he was in Australia. Sir, this is an interesting case study of why a quitter who is a professional wishes to return home and how accommodating Government agency makes it possible for him and his family. Sir, he has remained connected to his family in Singapore. This is where I would like to advocate for a one-stop Check and Chat Centre to be set up, to help those in crisis, to counsel those who wish to quit to remain connected to the family and, in this instance, Singapore, and to learn more from those who have decided to return to Singapore. This supports what hon. MP Gan Kim Yong had talked about when he mentioned helping those in crisis by having more connected Singaporeans. Sir, we have one-stop centres of all sorts to assist with economic and commercial matters. It is just as necessary that we provide such support intervention centres to assist before these potential quitters call it quits. The soft aspect of dealing with human capital must be quickly put in place. Sir, if we wish for our 3G to stay on, we must not spare helping the many retrenched middle-aged Singaporeans return to the workforce. Many of their children who constitute the 3G would take cue from their parents' employability and fortunes to decide whether there is hope for them to stay or they should quit. Today, the WSTP has been well responded to but funds are drying up and I understand that there is a long queue for enrolment. Lest this turn into a long march, I urge MOM to review the continual financing of this programme as the retrenched middle-aged group still needs that emotional support. Sir, I wish to reiterate that at this time, the real issues facing Singapore and the world at large are about our sovereignty and security in the wake of the JI arrests and the looming war in Iraq. At the home scene is the question of employment and the ability to be flexible, to be ready and prepared for new economic fronts that Singapore would be engaged in. There must be stress on teaching family values to the 3G for after all, society at large is made up of individual family units. In this, I urge the Government to initiate a yearly family value campaign on "My Heart Is Still At Home", reminding Singaporeans of their roots and the need to remain connected to the family, especially in the midst of the recent JI developments. This can be carried under the banner of the Public Education for Family Committee. At the same time, Parent Groups can be trained and equipped with the necessary skills to deliver programmes on family values. Such a subject complements the National Education programme in school. Sir, in conclusion, I stress that we want Singaporeans and our 3G to be boosters for Singapore. To engage the young, the game will no longer be solely direct control through policies. Rather we have to win the hearts and minds of our young. Our young 3G appreciates a story quite different from the well-worn hard sell. Is there a tune around which our 3G can be engaged in a romantic song and dance with the Government? In addition to the frequent economic rhetoric, the 3G must be engaged from the heart. I would like to end with a phrase that has stood the test of time. A phrase, which upon reflection, makes me recall the many instances of how the old guard truly reached out with hearts convicted by a desire to bring about a better life for all: "People do not care about what you know until they know you care." In this, the family structure and the Government have never failed us. Perhaps, now, it is the 3G to also show that they care. On this note, I support the Motion.

Sir, I would like to thank Members for their contributions and suggestions on how the Ministry of Education can help build desirable values in our students. I agree with them generally. The fact is that our schools are already attempting to instill such values and characters through co-curricular activities and other activities like the celebration of festivals of the various races and communities by our students and for our students. But we all know that it takes time to build that strong character that we want to see in our students and in the younger generation, and this is not just the job of our schools or our teachers. Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested that schools organise activities that encourage teamwork and inculcate the sense of accountability and responsibility and develop a strong character in them that can accept failure of others as well as their own. Mr Gan and Mr Chan Soo Sen have proposed the inclusion of more stories on patriotism and loyalty in the textbooks. I thank them for their suggestion. Our schools today place good emphasis on developing the character of their students. This is carried out through a wide range of activities and programmes, both within the class and outside. There is thus no need to cut down the curriculum time for Mathematics and Science to emphasise character development in our schools. Apart from the teaching of civics and moral education in class, participation in co-curricular activities or the CCA, such as uniformed groups, sports or games, would enable students to imbibe sound moral values like accountability and responsibility. CCAs like band, choir, orchestra and dance, where pupils need to work together as a team to produce that harmonious synchronisation, teach students the importance of teamwork. Our students are also actively encouraged in Community Involvement Programmes (CIP) that give them an opportunity to contribute their efforts to the good of others. These projects could include taking care of a school gardening plot, sprucing up the void deck of a neighbouring apartment block, spending time with the aged and even building a school in a neighbouring country. Through the CIP, we help to instill in our students a sense of obligation to give back to society and develop them into socially responsible adults. Mr Gan suggested introducing programmes to develop our students' tolerance for failures. In schools today, students learn about dealing with failures and other lessons in life not only in the classroom but also through their participation in co-curricular activities and lifeskills programmes. Coaches and teachers in charge of CCAs also impart values like perseverance and determination. That is why MOE places high emphasis on CCA programmes and students are required to participate in at least one of them. To illustrate the importance placed in CCAs, from 2003, bonus points for CCA participation will also be taken into consideration for university admission. Mr Chan Soo Sen and Mr Gan Kim Yong also suggested using stories to transmit the desired values to our students. Teachers are encouraged to use a variety of teaching strategies to inculcate desirable values in our students today, including story-telling. Such values as patriotism, sacrifice and responsibility are brought through the use of stories, poems and proverbs. For example, at the primary level where civics and moral education (CME) is taught in the mother tongue languages, local heroes like Lim Bo Seng and Lieutenant Adnan are featured to illustrate personal sacrifice and love for the country. Teachers are also encouraged to use traditional cultural stories, poems and proverbs to teach the value of patriotism. For example, Chinese students are introduced to stories of heroes like Su Wu, Yue Fei and Wen Tian Siang. A poem about a warrior, Laksamana Bentan, who was willing to sacrifice himself for his king and country is taught to Malay students. Examples from Sangam literature also inculcate patriotism in Tamil students. However, as I said earlier, schools alone cannot do the job. A child's education is a responsibility shared by the school and the family as well as the community. Schools can only succeed in developing good character and instilling sound values if parents and the community reinforce the same values imparted in school. This was the reason why MOE set up COMPASS (Community and Parents in Support of Schools) in December 1998 to actively encourage parents and the community to work together with schools to help children learn better. Here, I would like to thank Mr Ahmad Khalis for highlighting the successful partnership between schools and their stakeholders, like the Parents Support Groups, Parent-Teacher Associations, and the old boys' or old students' associations. Mr Ahmad Khalis knows the success and the value of COMPASS very well because he has been a member of COMPASS for some years. National Education is a responsibility shared by the school, community and also the family. Here, I would like to thank Members who give their comments on the National Education programme and how the programme can be improved. But schools can only succeed in developing good and responsible citizens if parents and the community reinforce the same values imparted in school. On the part of MOE, we are aware that an effective National Education programme must enable our students not only to understand but also to internalise the National Education values as well. That is why MOE has put in place programmes in the curriculum and in the CCA to promote National Education. National Education is infused in subjects such as social studies, where students learn about Singapore's road to nationhood, the principles of good governance and, through case studies, understand the dangers of racial and religious divide, and appreciate the importance of racial and religious harmony. Besides the imparting of National Education knowledge through classroom lessons, schools also conduct a wide variety of programmes such as the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) to enable students to internalise the National Education values. Implemented since 1998, the CIP nurtures our pupils to be socially responsible and helps them understand that every Singaporean has a role to play in enhancing the well-being of the community and the neighbourhood we live in. All students do a minimum of six hours of CIP a year. In some schools, students have done more than that. And in one school that I have visited personally, many students, working with community organisations, have clocked more than 20 hours this year alone. This is commendable. So, I would like to encourage Members of Parliament, who are also advisers of grassroots organisations, to work with schools to encourage our students to do their bit for the community that they belong to, developing in them the sense of responsibility and common partnership. Since year 2000, schools have also been introduced to the concept of service learning. Service learning is an approach where the CIP participants not only serve the community but also learn to identify the needs of the community and to reflect on the community involvement process, so that they can better appreciate their service and the community that they serve. In addition, schools actively enhance pupils' awareness and understanding of mulit-racialism, and it is important by celebrating the different festivals. National Education has also been infused into the uniformed groups' training programmes in varying degrees. Those of you who were involved in uniformed groups in schools can appreciate that sense of camaraderie and sense of purpose among the cadets and members of the uniformed groups. And we have also included in the uniformed groups' programmes the infusion of various training that can help them understand their role in the community much better. For example, the formal training programmes include topics and activities aimed at teaching and instilling in members the values of being responsible and caring Singaporeans. So they do not just learn about how to march or how to perform their duties as cadets better, but they also learn how to be more responsible and caring Singaporeans. As part of National Education, the Learning Journey Programme was launched in 1998 for school students to visit relevant places in Singapore, so as to sensitise our students to our history, reasons for our success, and our constraints and vulnerabilities. For example, by visiting places, such as Jurong Island, which they have now learned to have been targetted by members of the JI, students get first-hand glimpse of how Singapore has managed to succeed, despite her constraints of size and limited resources. So they have also learned why we, as Singaporeans, have to continually find new ways to survive. Students in our junior colleges and centralised institutes are also exposed to the thinking and principles behind Government policies and actions through dialogue sessions with senior civil servants. These sessions not only give the students a chance to hear from the senior civil servants themselves their experiences in policy formulation and implementation, but also provide them with an opportunity to ask questions and voice their opinions and concerns. Sir, Mr Gan said that National Education indeed is a subject of the heart. It was formally introduced to our schools five years ago, and we should not expect results quickly. It is also important that the dosage of National Education be calibrated and appropriate for our students. Excessive dosage of National Education may be seen as overbearing by all students and undermine the National Education effort. So far, the response received from teachers and students has been encouraging. MOE will continue to work with parents and community organisations to inculcate the desired national values in our students. We will continue to welcome Members' views on how we can improve our National Education Programme. But I would, as I said earlier, also welcome Members to work more closely with our schools so that our students can benefit more from the service that they give to the community. Ms Irene Ng also asked about citizenship education. Civic education is a major component in civics and moral education. Students at the secondary level are taught that citizenship is more than just legal status. It also involves rights and responsibilities. They are introduced to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and how it safeguards their fundamental liberties. Students also understand the shared responsibilities and inter-relationship between Government and people. They learn about the electoral process, their responsibilities as voters, the roles of the President and Members of Parliament. The goal of civics and moral education is also to nurture a person of integrity who acts responsibly to the welfare and interest of others and nation in mind. The syllabus is based on our Shared Values, Singapore family values and universal values. It emphasises commitment in serving community and nation, respect for people of different races, cultures and religions, and care for others and the environment. Students are taught to understand that putting the interest of society above individual needs is a major factor responsible for Singapore's success. They are encouraged to explore the need to develop a sense of emotional rootedness to Singapore so as to ensure our survival as a nation. Sir, let me conclude my remarks on this point by thanking all MPs who have spoken on the National Education Programme and the character development in our schools. I would like to encourage Members to work closely with schools again so that they can help develop in our children and our pupils good character. Let me now turn very briefly, Sir, to another point raised by Ms Irene Ng. She wondered why we should be dealing with the Malay community more and more as a separate group, to be led by the Muslim political leaders. She argued for a more inclusive and multi-racial approach in helping the different groups in Singapore. Sir, I appreciate her views, but we should also acknowledge the fact that the different communities, just like different groups in Singapore, have their peculiarities and their different aspirations. Where we can help them aspire for the common goals, we should work together. I appreciate Ms Irene Ng's offer of assistance to the Malay community, if I were to consider myself as a political leader of the Malay community, so that the Malay community can raise their level of performance as other communities in Singapore. But, as I said earlier, we must also acknowledge at the same time that different communities have different issues, different aspirations and different problems, just like different groups in Singapore - the better off and the poor, male and female, young and old. We all have to help the different groups in Singapore, as we are trying to do in this House. I am glad to tell Ms Ng that the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, has plans to inform and brief Members of Parliament about his concept and vision for a Community of Excellence. I think in time, you will know what it means and how you can play a role in helping the Malay community improve on par with the others in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Motion. "Stayers" and "quitters" have been talked and written about by our citizenry more frequently since August this year. And it would appear that these words have brought about unhappiness and uneasiness in our Singapore society generally since they were highlighted on 18th August 2002 at the National Day Rally speech by our hon. Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. I am sure he was sad and concerned when he said it, and our people were sad when they felt some of them were being labelled, in some ways, unfairly. I am sure our Prime Minister meant well. However, on hindsight, it could be argued that such a topic need not be raised, especially at a National Day Rally speech. It does not help our people at this stage, when the spirit of the nation is down and not shining as it used to in yesteryears. The Prime Minister was careful in his speech when he restricted the ambit of "quitters" by saying "fair-weather Singaporeans will run away whenever the country runs into stormy weather. I call them "quitters". Fortunately, "quitters" are in the minority. The majority of Singaporeans are "stayers". "Stayers" are committed to Singapore. Rain or shine, they will be with Singapore." Perhaps, this topic, having been raised and discussed, might give us some insights into our citizens' hopes and aspirations whilst staying in Singapore. Thus far, from information readily available to the public, that is, from the press, television, radio, Internet websites and Government statements, it does not appear to be a problem or a major problem. If it is a problem faced by the Government, it has not been felt too strongly by the people. More transparent evidence is required to convince the man or woman in the street that there are many quitters - a percentage that is too large for the nation's good. The public should be given more information and statistics of people migrating from Singapore, in terms of race, sex, age groups, educational level, income level, those with relatives who are already abroad, where they are migrating to and why they wish to migrate. On the contrary, there seems to be more "quitters" from abroad coming to Singapore to work and live and try and apply to be "stayers" - even permanent stayers by trying to be permanent residents or applying to be citizens of Singapore under the Constitution of Singapore. "Stayers" from Singapore, or abroad, are a good thing for Singapore as a whole. "Quitters" are, we are told, bad for Singapore. Is the basis for "good" or "bad" measured mainly by "economic" yardsticks? Some people may argue that, in certain quarters, it is perceived as an insult to Singapore and our Government leadership for any citizen to leave Singapore because the Government cannot understand why some of our citizens do leave Singapore to go abroad temporarily or permanently, although the Government has put in so much of hard work to make Singapore a success, and internationally recognised as such. It is best to leave human beings alone on this matter - let them decide what to do with their lives. Quitters may not be disloyal to the nation. Also, stayers may not be the greatest of loyal citizens. Quitters may want to leave Singapore for various reasons - and the reasons are very personal and subjective. And the Government need not and should not decide for them, nor should they judge them. The Government should be less interventionist in their approach towards governing Singapore in this context. The preferred way to ensure that not too many caring Singaporeans leave Singapore permanently or temporarily is to ensure that our Government (the Executive and civil service), the Legislature and the Judiciary run the country and our national institutions fairly, justly, equitably, compassionately and democratically - giving space and choices wherever possible to all our citizens and residents in Singapore. And therefore, there would be less opportunity for complaints amongst disgruntled citizens. A government that is self-disciplined with responsibility towards the nation and its citizens, having compassion and kindness, doing their level best to give as much happiness and peace of mind as possible to its people, creating friendship between government and its people (whether PAP or opposition supporting), encourage better work, respect and dignity given to each worker and improved wages for them, spreading of wealth amongst citizens more equitably, having a sense of honesty and loyalty to citizens, creating space for non-politicians - these are the areas the Government must review and improve upon - and more citizens who are thinking of migrating, may decide to stay in Singapore. Generally, they want more political space and that the Government should have less power and control of their lives. Generally, most people will accept that our Government has done well in bringing about economic prosperity, security and a comfortable life to most people in Singapore compared to ASEAN countries as a whole. How about other sectors of activities in Singapore? Will the way Singapore is run and managed make its people truly happy and contented? What about culturally, in terms of liberalisation of the arts, theatre, plays, films, forums, seminars, night life and leisure-related activities; what about political freedom, removal of OB markers, less fear of defamation suits by Ministers against opposition politicians. There may be more complaints in these fields. The Government may need to be more enlightened and more liberal so that our citizens are exposed to and allowed to experiment more. They need to be given that choice. Citizens should not be made to feel restricted, disorientated or alienated. Further, there should be less stress in life. The sector that feels so may want to leave the country for good. It is a major decision to leave one's country for another. It is preferable if he or she is not labelled. Ask ourselves why they are leaving. Very personal and subjective reasons will be given - for greener pastures, perception that there is too much of stress at home, school and workplace, greater opportunities for them and especially their children's future, get away from high cost of living, high cost of medical care, no social or welfare care compared to other countries, like Australia, Canada, England or United States of America, too competitive to get to tertiary institutions, no space for different forms of liberal recreation, get away from over-regulation, over-governance, too much of paternalistic governing, too rigid laws and too harsh punishments, too much or overzealous prosecution in court, perceived unfairness in treatment of opponents, opposition parties, non-political party individuals, non-governmental organisations, school system and ranking system causing trauma, tension and unhappiness amongst children, parents, teachers, principals, etc. All these and many more reasons are subjective and very personal (and they may be real or perceived) - and the Government may not have all the expertise to resolve these issues, or the moral or legal authority to stop these thoughts and therefore movements or migration from Singapore to especially Western, ASEAN or Asian countries. Just like so many foreign citizens from these other countries are coming to Singapore to make it their temporary or permanent home. Perhaps we should just leave these people to decide whether to leave temporarily or to migrate permanently. We should not have double standards - on the one hand to invite foreigners to come to Singapore and not be happy when Singaporeans leave Singapore. One might guess that it is the better off citizens (financially and education-wise) who are leaving and therefore the Government is concerned and unhappy. It is part of the fear of brain drain syndrome. These people may also be, relatively speaking, more critical and cynical citizens who have exercised their own preference. And unless the above-mentioned complaints are addressed and remedied, migration by Singaporeans might not diminish. What the Government can do to try and attempt to minimise the outward flow, if really necessary, is to review the mindset of the political and other leaderships, to see if they are able to accept these facts of life. And if the people give feedback that there must be changes and the powers-that-be do not wish to make changes, then there is an impasse. The problem would then remain and it would be sad for the nation as a whole. Many citizens, especially our younger people, are more internationalised, having been better educated beyond O-levels, A-levels, polytechnics and universities, having studied locally and abroad. They have more open and liberal minds. They want political and social freedoms. And they want politicians to open up and be less powerful and paternalistic. They have greater options. They are more mobile and are more confident and ambitious. Their parents are wealthier and have fewer children to support - two or three today, compared to larger numbers in the 1950s and 60s. Most of our top civil servants and Government officials, Ministers included, studied abroad. They may have been on scholarships and, therefore, bonded and had to come home. I would like to think they came back to serve our nation besides their own families. All our citizens who go abroad temporarily or permanently should be treated as Singapore's "ambassadors", and they can serve Singapore as our external friends, both in the region and globally. They will be Singaporeans at heart. Treat them well. It is never too late. Keep in touch with them. Help them where possible. The current exercise of remaking Singapore must be carried out across-the-board in all sectors of Singapore society. In discussing remaking Singapore, citizens, residents in Singapore, senior civil servants, the Cabinet, legislature and judiciary must all come to one level playing field and toss their ideas and long-held beliefs to be tested by others. The top echelon should not only receive reports from the various main and sub-committees of the Remaking Singapore Committee. Their ideas must be tested and approved also. If not, the result may not be very effective for Singapore for the next lap. The Remaking Singapore dialogue sessions have seen many good and innovative suggestions which, in many instances, have been voiced by citizens, including professionals, non-governmental organisations, think-tanks and grassroots leaders in the last decade or even longer. These ideas must now be seriously considered by the top and elite Government leaders fairly and justly with an open mind. A national debate for, say, one or two months, on television, radio, newspapers, seminars and conferences, with all sectors participating, without exception, might do good for the soul and spirit of Singapore. It will create a greater sense of togetherness, comradeship, camaraderie, gelling of minds and consensual style of life in Singapore henceforth, and anyone who is against proper discussion and debate should be enlightened and led to see the light in proper dialogue sessions. It must not be a top-down system of accepting views and suggestions. Singaporeans may be tired of this style of government and want a change, preferably a more liberal, democratic way of governance. We should also review and, if thought fit in today's context, amend the relevant legislation in Singapore to create the right spirit and way of life in Singapore, so that people who are thinking of leaving Singapore for good could be persuaded to change their minds, and stay and contribute towards the well-being of Singapore. These include, inter alia: 1) the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, especially Articles touching on fundamental rights and citizenship; 2) the Societies Act, to liberalise activities of our more than 5,000 civic and non-governmental organisations, sports organisations, religious bodies and voluntary organisations, and less control of and sanctions against them; 3) the Internal Security Act; 4) the Vandalism Act; 5) the Penal Code and other criminal laws; 6) the Criminal Procedure Code, and review of Singapore society's need to adopt the preferred principles of sentencing, such as deterrence, rehabilitation and reformation, and modes of punishment like imprisonment, fines, caning, probation, etc; and 7) Statutes governing the press and mass-media and the need to liberalise these and have less governmental control. We should also consider the merits of introducing the equivalent of the Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, a Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information Act, and amend the various "stifling" legislation touching on life in Singapore as a whole, so that we will have a more fair, just, compassionate and more participative society, where citizens and residents are given more say and power in deciding the future of our lives in Singapore. Finally, Sir, it may be prudent to set up a machinery to interview citizens who are migrating from Singapore in order to obtain frank disclosure and genuine feedback from them as to why they are leaving. The Government can then take remedial measures to minimise this perceived problem. This would, in some way, reflect the compassionate side of our Singapore Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek a clarification from the hon. Nominated Member of Parliament when he said in his opening remarks - I think the word used was unfortunate - to bring up this phrase on stayers and quitters?

Yes.

Did he mean to imply that it was wrong for the Prime Minister to talk about rooting Singaporeans to Singapore?

Not at all. I think it was unfortunate in terms of the timing. It was a mood in which the country was progressing, and when a term like "quitter" is used and some people are affected by it, they get a bit concerned and disappointed. But I am sure the Prime Minister, when he addressed Singaporeans, he meant well, and that is what I have stated in my speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of the debate, a number of Members have elaborated on issues related to education as a push factor that could turn Singaporeans from stayers to quitters. I am not sure what the hon. Nominated Member of Parliament, despite his answer, means. I am not sure whether there is ever a best time to discuss when one should stay or quit. And I had originally intended to be an appreciative listener in this debate. But I find so much rubble thrown and accumulated at my feet in the Ministry of Education that I feel compelled to join in the fray, lest I get buried in the rubble. Not that this feeling of being buried is novel. Since day one at the Ministry of Education, I have been subjected to an avalanche of feedback from family, friends, Singaporeans and foreigners in every committee that I sit - CEOs, technicians, line operators, all sectors of society. It is safe to assume that there are at least twice as many views as there are people in Singapore on the Ministry of Education. In fact, if you ever wanted to start a conversation, all you have to do is utter the eight magical words: what do you think of our education system? You will excuse me if I do not use that line often. Well, Minister of State for Education, what are you going to do about it? I think, first, listen carefully. And I want to assure Members that I do listen, as do the Ministers in Government, Permanent Secretaries, directors and, more or less, 24,000 teachers that we have in the system, many of whom also have children within the school system. We are not impervious or blind to the current system - unaffected nor detached - because we too are stakeholders. And I assure you my stakes give me feedback every dinner. In a sense, this angst among Singaporeans about our education system is healthy. It implies a measure of ownership, that Singaporeans see themselves as co-travellers and co-builders in our great education enterprise - our investment and legacy for the future. As I sat in this House yesterday and today, this is what I heard. Despite all the good in the system, the hon. MPs said our education system is too stressful. I think most of them said that - not holistic, not focused enough on academic attainments, too narrow in its definition of success, too prescriptive, it gives too little choice - whether it is in the choice of a second language or even in the choice of schools - that we do not allow mainstream Singaporeans to enter international schools; not inclusive enough to address those with special needs and learning disabilities; our system does not endear our students because we make them feel second or, even worse, third-class; too elitist. Many of us will remember the ITE debate in this House. Make people feel good, they say, about themselves; discover and play up their strengths, not their weaknesses; create more opportunities to allow people to progress, especially the polytechnic students to enter the universities, the ITE students into polytechnics, and the like. All these recommendations seek to enrich Singaporeans. So let us ask the obvious: why would we not want these egalitarian outcomes? If it is so obviously good, why has it not already happened? Indeed, why not? I know for a fact that the new MPs, who spoke so passionately on this subject, are not so arrogant as to think that enlightenment has only been endowed on their vintage, and that the past leadership was myopic in its policies. After all, the World Yearbook on Competitiveness repeatedly ranks the Government and the infrastructure that it has built as first in the world. So why have we not approached an educational utopia? I think we can forget ourselves; who we are. By dint of geography and a capricious twist of history, all we landed up with were 640 square kilometres of land and each other. Dr Ong Seh Hong's point bears repeating: who owes Singaporeans a living? Indeed, we are an economic anomaly. Nothing in our constellation projected or predestined us to enjoy prosperity. We now spend about 4% of our GDP on education. About 25% of total Government spending goes into education, the largest component, somewhat on par with defence. In absolute dollar terms, we spend equal amounts on our tertiary students, as do countries in the OECD. How is this possible for a small country? We could do so because we took extremely hard choices in our educational policies, to survive economically and, indeed, socially. Can we afford to continue spending vast amounts in education? Is it a given? Many hon. Members here, including us new ones, experienced first-hand the effects of this recent economic downturn. If the recession stretched longer, would we have had the luxury of this debate on education and, indeed, would people care? So, as much as we malign our economic underpinnings in our educational system, it has served us well. With limited resources, we focused on educational fundamentals. We said let us build great schools in all sectors and across the island. So, whether it was primary, secondary, junior college, ITEs, polytechnics or universities, they had to strive to be the best in the world, teaching not some Singaporeans, but all to be literate and numerate. Stated so glibly, but think of what the realisation of that vision entails - the thousands of teachers we have to attract and train, made no easier by an increasingly fractious and demanding public; the schools we have to build and the curriculum we have to devise. Have we succeeded? Unequivocally, yes. This very debate is symptomatic of that success. Many other countries debate for generations how to arrive at what we have achieved, and then some more. Let me illustrate. Let us look at our PSLE results - the percentage of students who get an "A" or "A+". More than 40% get an "A" or "A+" in English, Mathematics and Science. And despite the furore over our mother tongue, 80% get "A" or "A+" in Chinese. It is because we have managed to raise the tide across the island, giving opportunities and good teaching to heartlanders and cosmopolitans alike, that we now have a problem of what we call "stress". We have made our system school-proof. What do I mean? It means that if we have the aptitude and are willing to work at it, any school in Singapore will get you there. That is what creates the pressure. This is the pressure-head. So when I do my walkabouts in Toa Payoh, or at Pei Chun School, which is one of the leading schools in my constituency, and see the drive of some students and their parents, I shudder for my children because of the competition. Is this drive to excel and compete counter-productive? Should we try to equalise it and distort educational objectives to reduce stress? How? If I lower the bar, more just clear it. If I introduce more subjects or events, can I be sure that the same driven students, who excelled previously, will not try to excel in those new subjects and add even more pressure for themselves and others? Should we do away with examinations? It is a rhetorical question. How do you and should you stop parents and students wanting to do well and get ahead of others? Can we, for instance, legislate limits to studying hours or outlaw or close down all tuition centres? My point is that the education system is a lightning rod for stress but the tensions emanate from society. Society filters what it deems important. MOE routinely publishes information on schools that have achieved awards in CCA as well as academic results. But more attention is paid to the latter. In our assessment of schools using the School Excellence Model, academic results only count for 15% of the evaluation. As much as our processes are aligned to do what many of the MPs have called for, society steers itself towards a preferred direction. Society places a high premium on certain jobs such as lawyers, doctors, etc. And it is not a passive receiver. Even if you change the system, it will respond. It is a problem of success and should be seen as such, not certainly with the angst, chest-beating and hair wrenching that we see. In fact, we get more praise about our successes from foreigners than Singaporeans which, if we think about it, must discourage many of our teachers. Some Members of Parliament have encouraged Government to say to Singaporeans "Well done" if they do. I wonder how a teacher feels listening to this debate. Consider this. In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 93% and 80% of our Secondary Two students were above international average for Mathematics and Science. Schools in the United States are using our textbooks on Mathematics and Science and MOE recently signed an MOU to facilitate transfer of expertise. In my recent trips, the Deans of the top USA universities said this, "There is only one thing wrong with the Singapore students. We do not get enough of them." I asked the programme director and lecturers of our SMA Alliance, which is the Singapore-MIT alliance. We met in MIT. This is a programme that they teach on video, so it is cross-distance. They have students in NUS campus, NTU and MIT - same lecturer delivering to three different groups across the globe. I asked the programme director in SMA, whom we met in MIT recently, if the Singapore students they teach were on par with their students in MIT. I was not trying to fish for comments. This was a serious question and it was asked in that tone. This was among the programme director and the MIT lecturers. The reply was instantaneous and unanimous - definitely so. Our students are on par with them and they want more of them. MNC, CEOs in Singapore tell us that we have the best polytechnics in the world and how they wish their government and electorate would follow our model. These are not CEOs from under-developed countries. They are from developed countries like Germany and other parts of Europe. The sum total of their feedback is this. Our educational system prepares the majority of our students to succeed anywhere in the world. We have been able to do this because we focus on educational fundamentals, building great institutions and teachers, rather than trying to satisfy all aspirations. We knew our limitations and our constraints and we are reaping the fruits of our success. Unfortunately, some fruits are not as sweet as we like, which is this debate. It is symptomatic of our success, as I said. Prof. Chin Tet Yung pointed out yesterday that what was enough for him appears inadequate for others, something which he and I find inexplicable. Take the example quoted by our MPs of the polytechnic student who is able to get his degree overseas in a shorter time but feels aggrieved towards Singapore because he cannot enter public universities. Thankfully, they are in the minority. A lot of polytechnic alumni do recognise the academic and rigorous education they receive at the polytechnic, help them get a degree and remain committed to Singapore. How then do we progress having succeeded so far? Firstly, focus on the fundamentals that have served us well and let us not get distracted. Secondly, accommodate diversity. Yes, we have reached a point where we should and must respond to individual needs and talents. Thirdly, involve partners in the education process. Mr Ahmad Khalis and Mr Hawazi alluded to COMPASS where schools, parents and communities synergise their efforts and inputs to plot direction and pace. I agree with him that this process of engagement is a winning formula and we could do more of it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend at the outset to answer specific queries about the Ministry of Education, or issues raised about education. I do not think that this debate will end here. Some of the older parliamentarians said they asked the same questions 15-20 years ago and we are asking them now. And I suspect 15-20 years hence, they will be asking the same questions in this House. But let us see the debate as a positive one. This engagement in the process where we contribute to the building of our educational institutions is in the very spirit that the motion calls for, which is a process of engagement, stakeholdership and ownership. We have reached a stage where there are no easy answers and we will have to plot our future together. In that spirit, Sir, I support the motion.

Point of clarification, Sir. Would the Minister of State not agree with me that our students do well in examinations only because they prepare for examinations and it does not necessarily mean that our students are well-trained and prepared to be analytical and questioning?

Sir, if helping to prepare them well and do excellently in our Ivy League colleges is not considered analytical, or to have the ability to stand on par with the top institutions in the world, then I would concede the point.

Would the Minister of State not agree that the people who qualify for these Ivy League universities are not necessarily representative of the majority of students in Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member would be pleasantly surprised if he saw the number of Singaporean students that has entered these universities. It is said that for Stanford and UPenn, Raffles College sends the largest number of students in any school across the world. The truth is, even in our other institutions, for example, the polytechnics, tracer surveys showed that as many as 50-60% get degrees five years from the time of graduation. In our educational system, the tide has risen so high that the majority of our students, not only the cream, can enter any educational system in the world and succeed.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State to clarify his measure of success. From what I have been hearing in his speech and also from the questions that he had answered, his measure of success is entry into top universities around the world. But my question is: does the Ministry measure success by the performance of Singaporean graduates, whether they study in Singapore or overseas, in the workplace and how do we compare our graduates with those from the rest of the world? Do we have examples of very successful Singaporeans outside Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I rephrase the question back to the hon. Member? Is he suggesting that our students have not succeeded?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my question is: what is the measure of successful graduates or students out of the Singapore system? Yes, they are very successful when they make it into universities because they score very well in examinations. But whether they are better off in their working life, I have my doubts.

I would take offence to that statement, Mr Speaker. I graduated from a local university. I have been told I am quite successful and I do quite well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. Our Prime Minister's National Day Rally Speech was a call to our people to huddle, to understand and to find ways to tackle the challenges that we have identified. It was a call to be on guard and to expect new challenges that will crop up as a result of situations that we have no control over. It was meant as the occasion was for, to rally our people at a time when racial and religious tensions could make a tear at our social fabric that we have so painstakingly built over the last 30 years. The speech was a call to have people come on board and for those who are already on board to stay on board for the Singapore cause, and that is the continued survival and success of our young nation. Along the way, the social contract between the Government and the people will ensure that we continue to create new opportunities for our people. The use of labels of quitters and stayers sparked off fiery debates in the press and touched on reasons why some Singaporeans think of emigrating. We read of many testimonies of stressed Singaporeans, the cry for a lack of space for individual expression, and the demanding education system all thrown in for good measure. I asked a friend, a foreigner, who has since become a Singaporean, what did he think about the labels - quitters and stayers. He said that during a recent crisis in this country, he had to push his cupboard to block the window so that people could not break in and loot. Then, he went to a bedroom and an adjoining wall with the house next door and used a metal mallet to hack a hole in the wall to go into the other house. A family member peeped out and saw his neighbours kneeling in front of the house being whipped, spray painted and taunted. He said that he became a Singaporean because our Government spent the last 37 years thinking of such a scene and thinking of such scenarios so that our citizens do not have to think about it every day for the last 37 years. The use of labels, while I will not classify Singaporeans broadly into quitters or stayers, I cannot ignore the phenomenon revealed by PM's use of these two labels. This is the crux of this motion today. These are real concerns. The reality is that some Singaporeans are stressed either by the pace of life or stressed by worrying for their children whom they feel are unnecessarily stressed. Hence, for this group of Singaporeans, they feel that migrating to another country will resolve and take care of these problems. They are merely making choices and deciding that they may not want to keep the kind of frenetic pace at work. They may decide to earn less or they are at a point, where they have enough savings and earning capacity, for them to make the move. It may even be all right for them to pay a little bit more tax but have their children learn at a more relaxed pace. They are not quitters, but merely Singaporeans who ironically have benefited from the political and social stability that afforded an economic growth and an education system that helped give the same people that global mobility that they now wield. They may become Australians or Canadians but they will still be Singaporeans at heart. Our best wishes to them and hope that they can afford to come back often enough to keep the links. Of course, there are those who have left due to attractive job offers. For that, we are proud that they are representing Singapore in a foreign land and hope that they too will return one day and contribute their wealth of experience they have gained while being overseas. However, I am also consoled by the fact that many who had considered migrating for these reasons have stayed as they felt that some of the difficulties they faced at a point in time can be overcome and the emotional aspects and familial ties that bind them existed. And they are strong enough to keep them home. They make adjustments and indeed work on reducing stress on both themselves and that of their children. They ponder about how life would be like, as many of their friends and family are here if they had emigrated. As Senior Minister of State, Mr Matthias Yao, had said in 1997, it is actually a good thing that these Singaporeans go through the mental process in deciding whether to emigrate or not. They would have become more aware of the benefits of life in Singapore than those whom the thought of leaving is furthest from even their wildest dreams. Some may even realise that the preparedness of their children for the future can be best achieved here. They realise that their children are not just competing with their fellow classmates in Singapore, or for that matter in Australia. But the time will come when they may be competing for a job, say, in Shanghai, with his peers named Nguyen from Vietnam, Minh from Myanmar or Zhang from Beijing. On stress faced by children, many have expressed the uphill task of tackling Chinese in school. I wonder if the Education Ministry can entertain the possibility that the Chinese language education in lower primary be more focused on conversational than anything deeper. Let the child be comfortable in conversing in the language so that he is not overwhelmed. Many of the parents citing this problem are probably English educated and find that they are unable to teach their children but to employ a tutor. This adds to the stress level of both parent and child. As my hon. colleague, Mr Gan Kim Yong, mentioned in his speech when he moved the motion yesterday, that through stories, strong values and character building can be taught to our children. Interest in the Chinese language would not be killed off in the process to master a higher standard of Chinese. This can perhaps be later developed and achieved through the child taking on the subject as an elective perhaps in upper primary or secondary school. In the area of creating an emotional bond to Singapore, I hope that the Government can continue to play a part in promoting family and community events that bind all with a common experience. Many of us will remember outings with our family along Elizabeth Walk in the 1960s. Our children will probably remember the surrounds of the Esplanade or the sound of the shutters in the concert hall adjusting to suit the next piece of music to be played by world-class musicians performing on our shores. The experiences, the senses, the images of an ever changing Singapore must find a way into the hearts of our people. This is the kind of connection and engagement that my hon. colleagues have all talked about. I believe this will play a part in instilling some sense of belonging in our people. I am told that the 3G Singaporeans are born after 1965. I was born a few months before 1965 and I would classify myself as one. Like my other 3G Singaporean parliamentary colleagues here, the 3Gs are used to almost instant responses, like e-mails, the SMS and, in time, MMS. The work environment mostly functions on a "you are as good as your last deal" framework. We can be and are often irked by some responses from Government departments to our questions and, on occasions, by Ministerial responses in this House to our questions. Speaking to many 3G and some 2G, they feel that they have no voice, no space to express their viewpoint, and when told that they can join the many feedback channels, they feel that it is hopeless and they express disbelief that it is of any efficacy. The Government must work at changing this perspective of the 3Gs. One way to do that is maybe through engagement and the participation of young Singaporeans in the policy-making process. That way, an insight into the constraints that policy makers are faced with, will let the 3Gs understand what are the larger and other stakes that are involved and the concerns that are to be considered. Perhaps we can consider forming a youth Parliament. Whilst the 1Gs and some 2G Singaporeans would probably say that we trust the Government to do their best as they have done for the last 37 years, going forward, I do not realistically think that the 3Gs will feel that same way. I think that if more Singaporeans, particularly younger Singaporeans, or what we call the 3Gs, are made more acutely aware of the concerns of our country, we may have more constructive participation and people will not feel that policies are dished out, and you just follow them, because, as a matter of fact, you do not know any better. That way, the connectivity with these younger drivers of the Singapore cause will be enhanced. The engagement or perhaps the social contract with them will thus be stronger. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is interesting that my hon. colleague, Mr Chandra Mohan, mentioned that our Ministers and top civil servants went overseas to study and had to fulfil their bond and come home. I was not good enough to have that Government scholarship. I went overseas too, and I came home and my bond was with Singapore. Few of us students got together to put on a Singapore Night for our foreign students. By default, because of skin tone, I played the role of Raffles. There was a Mr Farquhar, and we found three gentlemen - two of them very tall with very pronounced foreheads - to play SM Lee and Dr Goh Keng Swee. And the other, we found a person with very thick-rimmed glasses to play Dr Toh Chin Chye. What happened was that the fire played by these three characters made our American friends very, very interested and impressed. Back stage, I asked myself, "After this play, what's my role for Singapore?" My bond was to come home and to be engaged. Mr Speaker, Sir, the journey and the task before us are long and arduous, but not insurmountable as long as Singaporeans have a heart to commit their time and their passion for Singapore. With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion proposed by my hon. colleague, Mr Gan Kim Yong. I would like to pose four questions to Members of this House and, in essence, to all Singaporeans. The four questions are the following: (1) Who are we? Do we have a sense of identity? (2) What do we stand for, or what are our ideals? (3) What do we owe Singapore? Or do we have a sense of gratitude? (4) What role do we play in Singapore? And this is a question which perhaps is especially so for the younger, 3G Singaporeans. Let us look at the first question - identity. Singapore and Singaporeans are a 37-year old fluke of history and geography. In the eyes of some people, this is a joke. Are we just the southern tip of Malaysia? Are we just another island in the Riau Archipelago? Look around this House, were all of us born here? Do we all speak the same languages? We do not even believe in the same God. Singapore and our identity only exist because of an act of will. Singapore citizenship is not based on genetics, history or geography. Singapore citizenship is based entirely upon allegiance to a set of ideals, which brings me to the next question. What are our ideals, and what do we believe in? Because, if we cannot answer that, then we cannot be Singaporeans. The issue is do we have a set of ideals that we believe in? These are ideals which, in a sense, have been encapsulated in the Pledge written by Mr Rajaratnam and our Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew. The ideals of a Singaporean Singapore, a multi-racial democratic society, meritocracy, justice and equality. And all these in search of happiness first - for those of you who are worried about us being too materialistic - happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. It is this set of ideals which defines Singaporeans. And it is the belief and allegiance to this set of ideals which has created a unique way of life and a common destiny for us, fellow Singaporeans. In this debate, a lot has been said about emigration. Let me give Members a personal take on it. Every Sunday, I see buses choked, full of people, foreign workers, on their way out to enjoy their only day off in a hard week. I remind my children when I pass these buses, or when I pass certain parks where they are congregated, that we are entirely of the same genetic stock as these foreign workers. The only reason some of us will have the privilege of migrating as a professional, not as a maid or as a labourer, is not because of any inherent superiority in ourselves or in our genes. It is due entirely to the fact that we were blessed to be born in this place called Singapore and to have enjoyed the environment which has shaped us, for better or for worse. And in our case, certainly, for the better. Everything that I am and all that I have are due entirely to the Singapore system, and the fact that Singapore exists. So, for those who have considered or are considering leaving, all I am asking is, leave with some gratitude in their hearts and we wish them well, and we will continue to hope to be connected with them. But, as my good friend, Ahmad Khalis, said yesterday, do not use emigration as a threat to us. And, as Mr Chandra Mohan says, if indeed all the people who are considering leaving Singapore are doing so because of unhappiness with the PAP and the Government, and if indeed these are the same people who would be likely to vote against us at the next election, then if we were to be purely partisan about it, we should say, "That's fine. That improves my votes at the next election." But Members know that this is not a game that we are playing. The crux of the issue is not how many people go, or who goes, or to get the details for their exact reasons that anybody makes such a heart-wrenching decision. The crux of the issue for us, as a country, is how many Singaporeans will willingly exercise their freedom of choice to decide to commit themselves to their families, their friends and fellow Singaporeans. If we do not have a critical mass of local committed Singaporeans, then who will be responsible for our collective destiny? Who will be responsible for Singaporeans who do not even have an option to migrate? In fact, it is this unique role of local committed Singaporeans who cannot be replaced by expatriates. The survival of Singapore depends on the quality and quantity of these hardcore local Singaporeans. I will move on to the fourth question. What is the role, especially of younger Singaporeans in all this? There is one key difference between the first and the third generation of Singaporeans. The first generation had to fight for independence. They then had to unite a potentially explosive mix of disparate ethnic enclaves. They had to build an economy and they had to create a first-world country. These are really big hairy goals, worth several lifetimes of effort. These challenges and the very real prospect of failure and the consequences of failure enhance that sense of participation, obligation and, ultimately, bonding in that pioneering generation. Now, we fast forward to today. The question that many young Singaporeans ask themselves is: Do we collectively have any big worthy goals to achieve for ourselves and for our country? Because if younger Singaporeans feel that they have no role to play in going after those big goals for the society, then the only thing left is to focus on themselves and look after number one. So, I feel that in order to sharpen this sense of obligation in this group of Singaporeans, we also need to enhance our sense of ownership, belonging and participation. Because if we allow younger Singaporeans to feel alienated from society, then they will lose that sense of obligation. I believe that if we can show young Singaporeans that they are needed and that there are avenues for participation, then that natural deep-seated imperative to do something worthwhile with their lives will surface. And I think we can count on them to continue this process of nation-building and not let the past and the future generations down. If we accept that there is a role, we then have to decide whether this role is in any way going to be different in the future. And that perhaps is as good enough an excuse to discuss superficially some of the aspects of Remaking Singapore. This is not the time to discuss the whole laundry list. But I want to say a few things. It is a process. As Ms Irene Ng yesterday asked, "Why aren't there instant answers, instant responses, from the Government?" It is not so easy. We are not just deciding that we shall raise your tax on loyalty by 3%. It does not work that way. It is not a panacea for all ills. In any case, there are very many different perspectives, and some of these perspectives are contradictory. I want to reassure Mr Chandra Mohan that we have consulted very, very widely, if you look and count the number of people we have met, if you look at the number of emails, letters and telephone calls, which all of us and the sub-committee members have been involved in. I have stopped counting a long time ago, because it is no longer a question of quantity. We have consulted local voices. The overseas Singaporeans have contributed both to the Economic Restructuring Committee as well as to us. There is no question of lack of commitment. It is not a question of geography. It is not even a question of partisanship. Having said that, what are some of the signs or signals that have been transmitted to us? Firstly, we have heard a loud reaffirmation of one of the key taglines from S21 that "Every Singaporean matters". Mr Gan Kim Yong yesterday said this was not a doctor-patient relationship. Nor is this even a commercial relationship. He said, we are a family. Singapore cannot be a corporation that just recruits the best members and retrenches everybody else. Even if you were to take a business analogy, this is a family-owned business. Yes, we have said repeatedly that there is no free lunch. Nobody owes Singapore a living. But I would like to remind all of you that regardless of your station in life, all Singaporeans have a place at the family dinner table. This is something the Government has not forgotten. Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Steve Chia and some of the other Members have accused the Government of being materialistic, single-mindedly obsessed with money. You know, my mother used to tell us, "You can't live on love and fresh air." We need money to buy food to keep body and soul together. But you buy food for your family not for the sake of buying food but because of love, and because you want to keep the family intact. Yes, we are very careful with our economy. Yes, we want to make a living. We want to make a good living. But it is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. And I would like to remind all Singaporeans that when the Government says, "I need to ensure a reasonable surplus at the end of the year", it is not for the sake of keeping score. We run a system in which the economy has to work. The Government budget has to be reasonable. And we need a surplus because without that surplus, we cannot look after the people who may fall behind in this race of life. So, yes, it is a hard-headed approach to life and in making a living, but it is one based on heart, compassion and love. I think the sooner people stop treating the Government as a separate agency, and that the Government's surplus is somehow money which otherwise would belong to them, the better. Because we are all on the same side. We are all part of the same family. Another recurrent theme we have heard is - enlarge space for individuals. I hear that, and I sympathise with that. Yes, we have to stop micromanaging choices. What do I mean by that? We have this temptation to manage, say, manpower planning, that we can look in the crystal ball and tell you exactly how many engineers, doctors and lawyers we need. You and I know it is not so straightforward. In the name of distributing talent, we even have quotas on ensuring that not too many top people enter one or two disciplines. But, again, in the name of doing that, we affect people's freedom of choice. We affect, in their eyes, the whole concept of free competition. Even yesterday, we talked about the quota on women entering medical school. Let me tell you that I am sympathetic to it, not because I am a feminist, but because of the more important message behind that, which is that at an individual level, we are all of equal worth and that we will compete fairly and squarely for limited resources and limited places which are available. It is about reaffirming the primacy of free choice and free competition in our society. The corollary of increasing space for the individual and giving more free choice is that you cannot expect the Government to guarantee success for you and say, "Look! You told me to do this course. And now that I have done this course, you make sure I get a good job, and it is a good living." It is like the young student who says, "Look! Since you say art and music is now important, you must guarantee that when I graduate from the university, I will have a job as a musician or an artist, and I will make as much as my engineer colleague." This is still old thinking. Young Singaporeans need to wake themselves up. There is no guarantee for success. The role of the Government is to give you as many opportunities as possible to maximise your interest and potential, and then you take your chances in the game of life, and we wish you all the best. There will be a safety net. Nobody in Singapore is going to starve, to be without a roof, to be denied healthcare, or to be deprived of any educational opportunities for his children. But beyond that basic, everything else, you have to make a go for it yourself. If you want to dance on a bar-top, some of us will fall off that bar-top. Some people will die as a result of liberalising bar-top dancing, not just because they have fallen off the bar-top. Because usually a young girl, with a short skirt, dancing on a bar-top, may attract some insults from some other men, and the boyfriend starts fighting. Some people will die. Blood will be shed for liberalising this policy. While I support the liberalisation of the policy, I also want all of us to be aware that there is a price to be paid for liberty. If we are convinced that our society is ready to pay that price, or that price is a necessity, then let us go in, but go in with our eyes wide open. My colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen, has expounded on the educational issues. I do not want to go into that, except to remind Members that the Ministry of Education is providing more choices. There will be a sports school. There will be greater opportunities for people in art, music and so on. We will look for your strengths rather than your weaknesses, and we will try our best to give you marketable, employable skills. But, again, do not expect the Ministry to wave away competition. Do not expect the Ministry to give equal pay and equal results, regardless of talent, regardless of input. If you want such a system, it died a long time ago when the Berlin Wall came down. Another theme we have heard - re-engage Singaporeans in public life, give greater franchise. I think Mr Chandra Mohan just spoke about that as well. Mr Arthur Fong talked about a Youth Parliament. We are not going to have a Youth Parliament, but we are considering a National Youth Forum where there will be a formal platform for youths to engage themselves and their minds on national issues, provide them enough information to think it through and work out solutions. Regardless of whether their solutions turn out to be superior or not, that is not the point. The fact that they are engaged in the process of dealing with national problems and finding solutions, I think, will awaken them and remind them that they have an essential role to play in Singapore's future. There has been much said about the Government's need to review its regulatory approach towards public expression. Yes, I agree that we need to have a system which allows expression of diverse views. Yes, Singaporeans have a right to be heard. Singaporeans need to develop that capacity for dialogue to disagree and yet ultimately to agree to move along as a united whole. We need all this in order to achieve our goals of a creative, entrepreneurial society. Yes, all that is correct. But let me put in a caveat first. If you say you want less shackling by OB markers, if you want a less prescriptive pre-censorship type of regime, if you want to be able to say what you want to say, act out the plays you want to act, engage in performing art that you want to perform, and you do not want us to censor it beforehand or to tell you beforehand, then you must also be prepared to have a system in which there are heavy penalties which will kick in if you engage in activities which are inimical to the safety and stability of society. Freedom of expression must come with responsibility. And you cannot say, "Let's take away defamation laws", and suddenly, the debate will be wonderful and all great truths will emerge. That is not the way life works. You want more freedom, yes, there will be more freedom, but the penalties must remain in place. Because, at the end of the day, the system and Singapore must still continue. Having said all that, in fact, I was pleasantly surprised that there have been moves in some areas. Let me give you an example. Since January this year, and I suspect most of us are unaware of it, the Registry of Societies (ROS) has implemented a pilot project to register certain categories of societies on a fast-track basis. Under this pilot scheme, societies, such as alumni associations, performing arts groups and reading clubs, would only need to fill in a registration form and they are deemed to be given in-principle approval. They can proceed to conduct their activities. The Registry of Societies is currently refining this fast-track process to make it easier for other types of societies which pose minimal security considerations to also register on this fast-track basis. So for those of you who said you want more freedom to be able to form your own societies, get on with it. We have. In fact, this avenue has been there since January this year. However, in the light of the heightened security situation which we are in, I would also have to tell you categorically that, if you want to form a society that is of a religious or an ethnic nature, it is still safer that we continue with the normal registration process for the time being and I think all of you would agree with me on that. I give you another example, public entertainment. Since March 2000, the Police have applied, what they call, a "class exemption" approach to licensing public entertainment. Under this approach, certain types of activities are exempted from having to apply for a Public Entertainment Licence. For instance, organisers of Chinese opera or getai no longer need to apply for a Public Entertainment Licence provided that they comply with certain conditions. For those of us who have been attending the Seventh Moon Festival, we will know. You have got to pipe down at 10.30 pm. As long as they stay within these guidelines and rules, we exempt them from having to apply for a Public Entertainment Licence. So you can see that we have made moves. But we will make moves cautiously, deliberately in full cognizance of the potential consequences and in full cognizance of the potential benefits. That should be our approach in this area. Another example we heard is, increase the stakeholding of Singaporeans. If you think of the Community Development Councils, Residents' Committees, Neighbourhood Committees and Residents' Associations, there is a whole plethora of committees which we have created, which we keep begging people to join, "Please help out. We want to devolve responsibility and decision making." For those of you who are involved in this they know that it is not so easy. But we have provided avenues for people. I want to end with emotional rootedness because, at the end of the day, it is one thing to talk about identity and ideals. But we also need to remember that it is a matter of the heart. As Mr Gan Kim Yong said yesterday, yes, we have to look for avenues to provide for more family time, family opportunities, more avenues for alumni and other social groups to get together to support each other. Yes, we want to have a familiar environment, and I agree with Mr Chiam yesterday. Yes, we must have some landmarks which will remind us of our past. That is why we have set up things, like the Conservation Advisory Panel, that is why we engage in conserving heritage buildings and, last week, we inaugurated the Heritage Trees Scheme. All these are attempts to preserve for Singaporeans emotional signposts and landmarks for us to fall back on. So, Mr Speaker, my take-home message to all Singaporeans is that this is an artificial nation in a hurry, built in a very short time. Let us not be too harsh on ourselves. Let us remind ourselves, however, that we only exist because of an effort, a conscious exercise of will. And if our younger generation loses that will, then we will perish. So that is why today's Motion is relevant, and that is why I support it.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.50 pm until 3.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

Debate resumed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the call for measures to strengthen Singaporeans' sense of belonging to Singapore. I do realise that I am the last speaker and it must be quite a relief for all. I am quite relieved to tell you frankly. I am not 3G for sure, and I have listened very carefully to the definition for "3G". Let me start by setting the issue in some perspectives. Firstly, on the one hand, it has been said and acknowledged that there is a problem. For whatever reasons, there are Singaporeans who have left, are leaving or, at least, are thinking of leaving Singapore, and this has caused concern and has caused the Prime Minister to make certain remarks during his National Day Rally speech. Indeed, his remarks have generated a great deal of debate and some strong responses from Singaporeans, especially those who are living overseas. Some of these remarks or responses can be considered quite emotional and whether or not they are justified in their reaction is beside the point. What is important is to understand why they feel that way. Secondly, on the other hand, these few weeks have really witnessed quite a revolution in our country. And almost on a daily basis, we read about some new recommendations made by the Economic Review Committee as well as the Remaking Singapore Committee. And they cover just about everything and anything ranging from our economy to education, to laws and regulations as well as sports, and so on. And some of these recommendations are quite radical, recognising that today's world cannot be remodelled based on yesterday's memories. So it would be fair to say that it is not as if the Government is not doing anything. On the contrary, a great number of people, as has been confirmed, had been involved in trying to think of ways and means to improve the quality of life in Singapore. So as we talk about how to review thoroughly our programmes and policies, I do believe that process is well underway. Perhaps, there should be some focus, and this has been greatly debated upon, on this, what you call, sense of belonging of Singaporeans to Singapore and how to create the bonds within this great family about us. Maybe we should start by looking at mindsets and attitudes, I think, not only of the Government but indeed of Singaporeans, ourselves. We should re-examine our own attitudes towards Government, towards our country, and maybe start by not complaining so much. I think both sides, for sure, have to come together. Both sides have got to be part of the solution together. A sense of belonging, or a lack of it, has two aspects - the push factors as well as the pull factors. And, invariably, these factors always come into play as one considers or exits from a relationship, be it one's job, family, friends, social networks or country. One of the most major push factors must be this feeling of alienation. There is no doubt about it that we are a hard-driving and yet a high-achieving nation. There is nothing wrong with it. The strategy that has helped to produce this state is correct and should be continued. But this strategy, this process, also produces on the one hand the high achievers whom we want because they are the drivers and, on the other hand, people or groups who might just feel marginalised, disenfranchised or disenchanted, as had been described. So, really, our challenge is to develop policies and programmes which will accommodate this diverse range of expectations and aspirations, ranging from high rewards, philosophical expressions as well as just mere basic needs. We, therefore, need to create an environment and strive to create even a better environment which does not label people and which makes everybody feel needed and welcomed. That way, we avoid that feeling of alienation. That is of course the most ideal situation to achieve and, needless to say, we must always try to achieve it. Everyone counts and everyone matters, whatever their abilities and disabilities, whatever they have done or not have done. We must welcome, as done, all members of our family, because they belong to our family. We should also embrace those who, for whatever reasons, have left Singapore, and we must maintain good relationships and good ties with them because we are a small country. This way, we enlarge our virtual family. And, it is an asset. There are good reasons why Singaporeans choose sometimes to leave the country - because of personal reasons, opportunities or survival, like in the business world. Businesses may take flight to low-cost regimes in order to stay competitive. This way, we should applaud and encourage them, because they have moved on, seeking that proverbial cheese, so to speak. This is not to say that we shall quit and seek cheese elsewhere because we have got plenty of cheese in Singapore and we know that the Government is constantly trying to increase that cheese supply. What I am just trying to say is that we should embrace all Singaporeans who have left us temporarily or permanently, and include them in this family of ours. And I would add that we should also include new members or foreign talent, because if they want to, are willing to and are able to improve our lives, why not? Why should we criticise them? We should welcome them because they are part of this global intellectual capital - this is 3G - which is so mobile, they go to where they are wanted, they stay where they are well treated and valued. This brings me to my recent visit to the US. I am reminded of how patriotic that country is. The Americans are so proud of themselves. They loudly proclaim they are Americans, whatever their country of origin might be. The minute they receive their green cards, they announce that they are Americans. Why is this so? We all know that America is a very rich and prosperous country. It is lauded as the land of opportunity. It is proclaimed as the champion of human rights as well as democracy. But so is Singapore. Singapore is a highly successful country, and there are a good number of reasons why we should also be proud and loudly proclaim ourselves as Singaporeans. But I think the Americans have a great symbol of their country which they can relate to, and this is their flag. Americans proudly display their flag on every occasion, not only on national occasions, not only during community gatherings, but also during family as well as business gatherings. Many Americans fly their flag throughout the year in their homes and their offices, not only on Independence Day. And they also wear their flag literally - on hats, clothes, T-shirts, mini-skirts, hot pants, mugs and so on. It is not disrespectful at all. In fact, the flag is a strong symbol of freedom, democracy, pride in their country, as well as loyalty to the country. Indeed, the strength of a country, or creed, lives very much in the true sense of loyalty it can arouse in the hearts of its people. And, therefore, the value of the flag is so powerful in uniting a country and its people, making them believe in the country and what it stands for, I think we should develop a great sense of loyalty for our country. In that way, we promote that sense of belonging to our country as well. But this sense of loyalty or a sense of belonging must also be founded in the value of the family, and this has been articulated by a lot of hon. Members here because, however the world changes, the power of the family remains in shaping and nurturing the citizens of tomorrow. It is within this family relationship that values as diverse as love, responsibility, communication and respect for the authority gets forged. It is within the family that we learn about how to live to the fullest of our potential, how to do the right things and do things right as well. So we can spend more time and more efforts in developing the family and developing policies and programmes which are much more pro-family. Already, we have a number of factors against us - the smallness of our family unit, the growing number of singles and childless couples. So I think it is worth our while to continue to really put in all our efforts in making and developing pro-family policies. There are also quite a few lessons which can be learnt - or I learned it - from Rudy Guiliani, who is the ex-Mayor of New York City. He was the keynote speaker at a recent event which I attended, and he was talking about Managing a Crisis. And it was not just about the September 11 crisis. He was talking about the difficulties he faced when he first became the Mayor of New York and how difficult it was for him to galvanise New Yorkers together. So he carried out a survey and was dismayed to find that 64% of New Yorkers would rather quit New York, if given the chance. That is a very high percentage. New York is one of the most successful cities in the world in one of the most successful countries in the world. Yet, they too have their fair share of potential quitters. So, we are not in this alone. Mr Guiliani changed that to a large extent. What he did was to establish the reasons as to why New Yorkers were unhappy. Not surprisingly, one of the main reasons is the high rate of crime in New York. Just imagine, there is an official list of tips on "How not to be a victim of crime" in New York! One of it is not to talk to strangers, and the other is not to have eye contact with anyone. This is much worse than our bo-chap policy; it is bo-chap policy with fear, ie, walk around with your eyes closed! What Mr Guiliani did after identifying the problems was really addressing the problems with great vigour. He developed a strategy, communicated the strategy, fought the battles with great focus and commitment and, as he said, with a great deal of optimism. That way, he succeeded in achieving what was thought to be impossible. I think we, too, can start by looking at the reasons why Singaporeans are unhappy, and much of it has already been articulated. I say it again: we are a country with a low rate of crime. We are a city which is clean, safe, efficient as well as affluent. We have great food. People are telling us that we are fun and an enjoyable place to live in, and yet Singaporeans are unhappy. Why is this so? A lot of reasons have already been articulated by many hon. Members here, but I would like to dwell on three. Is it due to our inherent complaining nature, to start with? Or is it due to what the Prime Minister said, that we are a bo-chap, couldn't-care-less society? Or are we a kiasu society as well? All these attitudes are not desirable and, indeed, they should be reversed. They should be replaced by values which will make us a much happier society. So, instead of being kiasu, I think we too should have a good dose of optimism, because it is in optimism that we see solutions, and pessimism simply obscures solutions, even as they stare us in our faces. I think we should also stop complaining and become a much more self-reliant society. That way, we take greater pride in our work. That way, we become much more entrepreneurial as well. As for bo-chap, I think that is terrible. We must chap. We must care. That way, we will have a more caring and more gracious society, not only for ourselves but for everybody else as well, because democracy is not just about rights, it is also about respect and responsibility for others. On that note, I would like to conclude by saying that I do believe that as we remake Singapore, these values - of inclusiveness, loyalty, family, responsibility and optimism - get woven into our policies and programmes. 3.28 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I set the debate in context by sketching out the major issues which are behind this debate about stayers and quitters. We are really talking about two distinct but related issues here. One, rooting Singaporeans emotionally to Singapore, in other words, developing a national identity, patriotism, a sense of belonging, a sense of pride in being a Singaporean. Two, getting Singaporeans to stay physically in Singapore rather than emigrating, working or living overseas. The first is a crucial long-term issue; the second is an important medium-term one. Rooting citizens is a critical but very difficult task for many new countries, especially those which have not been born as nations to start off with. A Professor of Government in Harvard, Rupert Emerson, gave a definition of a nation which is relevant to this, and I quote him: "A single people, traditionally fixed on a well-defined territory, speaking the same language and preferably a language all its own, possessing a distinctive culture, and shaped to a common mould by many generations of shared historical experience." So, there are many ingredients - a single people, well-defined territory, same language and preferably a language of its own, possessing a distinctive culture, and shaped to a common mould by many generations of shared historical experience. This definition by Prof. Rupert Emerson and was quoted by Prof. Robert Tilman from the University of North Carolina who wrote a book about "South East Asia and the Enemy Beyond" which was published in 1987. Prof. Tilman also pointed out that by this definition, Thailand is the only country in South East Asia which is a nation, and even then, only if the Thai Muslims in the South are excluded. All new countries which are not born nations have this problem. Myanmar, with its two dozen different tribes; Indonesia, with its many different races and languages, spread over 10,000 or more islands; Malaysia, with Malays, Indians, Chinese and others. If we look beyond South East Asia, India has the same issue of identity, because India was never one country before the Raj. And their separate local identities which had to be blended together and harmonised as one Indian identity. On top of which, they had their religious divide between the Hindus and the Muslims, because India has a large Islamic minority - 100 million. Or take Pakistan. All Muslims, but West Pakistan was different from East Pakistan. The Punjabis, Sindhis and others in West Pakistan are different from the Bengalis in the East, and there was a civil war after which Bangladesh was born, and Pakistan was split into two. So many countries have this problem, and Singapore too. If you examine the definition, we did not get born as a nation either. Therefore, how do you root people to the country? That is the challenge. What has this Government done to do that? We have built a meritocratic, multi-racial society. We have given every citizen a stake in Singapore. Through home ownership, through HDB, 90% of Singaporeans now own their homes. We have generated economic growth and prosperity, and given every Singaporean a share in Singapore's success. We emphasise education in national schools, to inculcate values, to imbue students with knowledge of their mother tongue and also to equip them with skills so that they can make a living for themselves. Therefore, today Singapore is a success, and we have a much stronger sense of nationhood today than we did in 1965. So when Mr Low Thia Khiang made a rousing speech in Chinese saying that it is all the Government's fault, it sounds good but it is not so. The second question, which is not rooting Singaporeans, but the question of getting Singaporeans to physically stay and work here, is slightly different. There was no issue of Singaporeans leaving in the previous generation. The question never arose because for that generation, which country to belong to was not a matter of choice. Either they were born in Singapore or they had come here out of economic necessity. Many of them did not speak English and could not easily uproot themselves and their families and go off to some other country. And even if they could have gone, they would have felt out of place, uncomfortable and yearning for something more like home. But today, it is different. Today, Singa-poreans have many opportunities. There is globalisation. Other economies have opened up. There is a global market for talent. Many countries now emphasise talent and open their doors to welcome people who have skills and talent. Because we have given them education, because Singaporeans speak English, because Singaporeans are prosperous, so if they want to move, many Singaporeans will be welcomed in many places. So there is a choice. Our pattern of emigration has changed. In the 70s and 80s, we used to worry about people who would leave Singapore as mature adults in their 30s and 40s. They have grown up, they have started working, they have a family and they have bought a house. Now, they are thinking of selling their house, cashing out, bringing their families, and moving away to Canada or somewhere. Today, we are worrying about students going overseas, studying overseas and not returning. They have found a job overseas. They are staying on. It is so exciting and they put off coming back till another time. It is a real problem. We had a group of overseas Singaporeans who came to brief the Economic Review Committee a few months ago from Hong Kong, Stanford in San Francisco, and Harvard and MIT in Boston. They told us that they had done an informal survey of themselves and their predecessors over the last 10 years, the Singaporean students who had attended Stanford, Harvard, and MIT. What had happened to them? How many had come back? They said that, up to today, only about half have come back, and that would have included the students on scholarship. So many students are going overseas, many Singaporeans are going overseas, and we have to ask: will we have a problem? We acknowledge that not all Singaporeans will stay here in a globalised world. Just as we welcome foreigners to come to Singapore, so too other countries invite Singaporeans, and some will go. Apart from that, there would be reasons why Singaporeans need to go overseas to work, to learn, to be posted, to do a job. In fact, I would encourage Singaporeans who have this opportunity to go abroad, to take it up, to learn about the world, expand your horizons. But, at the same time, I hope that when Singaporeans are overseas, they will maintain their links back home and after spending their time overseas, and after some time, come back to Singapore. We cannot afford to lose too many people overseas, whether they are emotionally quitting or not. It could be, as one of the MPs said yesterday, "sheng zai si fang, xin huai zu guo". If everybody is north, east, south and west of Singapore and there is nobody in the centre, then the centre is going to have a problem, which is like Ireland which, for centuries, sent millions of people overseas to the English-speaking world - America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. Because the home country was poor, and there were no opportunities, they left. There are far bigger communities of Irish prospering overseas than there are Irish living in Ireland. The home country stayed poor, the daughter communities abroad prospered. It is only in the last 20 years, as Ireland, in the EU and benefiting from EU aid, started taking off, that now Irish are returning, and Ireland has net immigration for the first time in a very long time in its history. And that can happen to Singapore. The PRC is in a different position. They have 1.2 billion people, many, many talented ones, and they have been sending students overseas in big numbers - 20,000 a year, and an estimated 380,000 since they opened up about 20 years ago. So far, only one-third have returned. But they are still allowing students to go abroad because they need the students to go to learn, and some to come back and bring back the technology, the knowledge of the world, that instinct and feel for how modern economies and modern societies work, to modernise China and take it forward. Not only are they allowing the students to go, they are facilitating the students to go. Because to go to America to study, you need a bank guarantee to get a student visa. And a Chinese student from China cannot get a US$ bank guarantee. But the Government has instructed the banks in China to give US$ bank guarantees to Chinese students to go overseas, to America, to study. Only one-third will come back, and they are prepared to accept that. But if that happens to Singapore, if we send 20,000 a year overseas and only one-third come back, we will not be Singapore. Therefore, we cannot afford to lose too many. We must keep a hard core in Singapore who will make Singapore work, as Dr Vivian Balakrishnan pointed out just now. At the same time, we acknowledge that the Singapore diaspora overseas is growing. I do not know how many, maybe 100,000 overseas now. We have to keep links with this growing diaspora and make the most of them, tap them for what they know of the world, of the countries which they are in, tap them for their networks, make them be part of the Singapore family spread abroad. Of course, while we keep in touch with those who are overseas, we must look after those who have not left. What more should the Government do to root Singaporeans here? The MPs have given many constructive ideas on how to improve policies and how to strengthen our sense of belonging. The Government will consider all of them, and in wherever they are workable and practical. Mr Hawazi and Dr Ng Eng Hen have responded on the education issues, on how we have a good system, but we can improve it. And particularly, I think we have to deal with the specific difficulties which caused this to be one of the push factors, which caused some Singaporeans to leave the country. We also have to think about our overall approach to engaging citizens and involving those who want to be part of the national debate. For that, we have the Remaking Singapore Committee which Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has been chairing and which he told you about. We have to engage the energies of our citizens. Singaporeans say they are not quite satisfied because they do not have enough say in what goes on in Singapore. I think we can create more say but, most important of all, we will have to be realistic about it. Singaporeans can have more say here in Singapore than they can have anywhere else. If you go to China and you want to change the system, it will take you several generations, and your great-grandson may succeed. If you go to America and you want to change the system, it is not so easy. It is a very complicated and large society. But in Singapore, if you have an idea, a dream, something which you want to achieve, you can make a difference. It is 3 million people. However modest your intentions, you cannot hide your light under a bushel, it will be seen and if it makes sense, it will be taken up and implemented. So in Singapore, we can do that. One idea which we have developed, arising out of the Economic Review Committee's experience with the students and the Singaporeans overseas, is to set up what we would like to call the "Majulah Connection". Our exercise with the students in America and Hong Kong involved, I suppose, a few dozen enthusiastic Singaporeans working overseas, activating their friends and colleagues, meeting late at night, discussing over the Internet. They called themselves the Singapore Overseas Network (SON). Now that we find that it is working, we would like to institutionalise this and set up what they have decided to call the "Majulah Connection". The vision is for the "Majulah Connection" to be a global business network of overseas Singaporeans. It will also include the friends of Singapore, which means expatriates who used to work here and foreign businessmen who are friendly to and want to help Singapore. The Government will also participate as a member. We are likely to start it off in seven cities where there are many Singaporeans working - in Beijing, Hong Kong, London, New York, San Francisco, Shanghai and Sydney. We will leverage and build upon the existing Singapore Clubs. Our idea will be to facilitate networking and interactions among the members. We will organise events and activities, including an annual homecoming event here. Through the network, we hope we will generate business opportunities, share ideas and knowledge and help Singapore companies to internationalise. This effort was a spontaneous one. Mr Khaw Boon Wan suggested trying it, and I agreed. It was a success. It demonstrated that it is both feasible and also worthwhile and valuable to maintain links with overseas Singaporeans. It also shows that for many overseas Singaporeans, their hearts are still with Singapore. But, at the same time, I would like to sound a note of caution or realism. There is a limit to how far modifying policies will solve our problem of rootedness, for several reasons. First, when we modify policies, there are trade-offs. For example, in education, even from the debate, you will know that there were those MPs who wanted more things in the curriculum such as National Education, Moral Education and Civics, and there are those who want less things in the curriculum, including less mother tongue, less stress. And we have to make a choice. There are trade-offs to make in the balance. So, we cannot satisfy all requests. Secondly, we cannot view all policies from the angle of how they will affect Singaporeans' commitment; will it cause some people to be unhappy; and if they are not happy, will they leave? In other words, humour me, or I quit. Mr Ahmad Khalis, yesterday, gave two vivid examples of meet-the-people session cases, constituents who had personal problems, and because they could not get satisfaction from their MP, threatened to go. I do not know how he dealt with them. He must be a very skilful and diplomatic MP by now. But those are just the most extreme examples of this problem. There are many issues which we have to deal with. We have to discuss them. We have to consult. We have to involve people. We have to take views. At the end of which we have to decide what we have to do. What happens then? Ideally, most people will agree with the decision. But if some do not, then if you are a Singaporean, you should stay on and fight, argue your case and persuade more people to believe you, and one day change the policy, not opt out and leave. Because no policy is set in stone forever, no consensus lasts permanently. And if you think the Government is wrong, argue it, pursue it, persuade others of it, take it up in elections. That is what a good Singaporean will do, even the Opposition Members. Even Mr J B Jeyaretnam will continue doing that, even though I think, in many cases, he is doing the wrong thing, but he believes in it and he will fight for it. The problem of rootedness is much deeper than having favourable policies. I point out one observation by Chen Hwai Liang in the Lianhe Zaobao this morning. In this debate, there has been a clear difference in the views of the Chinese educated MPs and the English educated MPs. Both made the same analysis of the problem of rootedness. But both came to diametrically opposite recommendations. The Chinese educated MPs wanted more moral education, Confucian values and such approaches. The English educated MPs wanted more freedom of choice. Therein lies a profound truth about Singapore society. And the fact that this was noted by a Chinese journalist in the Zaobao is a further confirmation that that is how Singapore society is. So it is not an issue of policies. It is an issue of rootedness, of identification, of deep values. Why do people want to stay in a country or in Singapore, whether he is emotionally committed or whether he is physically here? I think there are different levels to this. One level is rational reasons. They make a cost benefit calculation, it comes out positive. We can look for the rational reasons why it makes sense to be here, and then we can say, well, there is a good living, I have a chance, my children have a chance. I can afford a car or I cannot afford a car. Check the bottom line, and it all adds up. And, indeed, rational reasons are relevant, because if conditions are really hard and life is miserable, if the family is starving and there is no future in the country, then people will leave, ideals, loyalty or patriotism notwithstanding. But rational calculations alone can only make fair weather citizens. The next question is: do we have a moral obligation to others? We cannot leave. Why? Because we grew up here. We drew sustenance from this society. We gained the opportunities to advance ourselves, and to have the education and skills and the marketability to move and to opt out. Had we been born in almost any other country in Asia, we would not have enjoyed the same opportunities and our lives would have been quite different. You can be very talented. If you are in some inner province in China or somewhere deep in Indochina, or elsewhere in South East Asia, I think you would not have the opportunities that you have had. You have made it. This society has made you what you are. It has given you what you have. Therefore, we have an obligation to the country and to the system to contribute back to the society, and to help others succeed as we have done. It is a rational argument in a way, but it is an altruistic argument. It is also an abstract argument, which every individual has to consider how it applies to himself. Do I or do I not feel that I owe Singapore this? Or can I say, "Thank you very much. Now, I am off. Good luck to you." I think we would like to bring up Singaporeans who feel some moral sense of pride when they look at themselves in the morning in the mirror and say, "Yes, I have not let others down." But the third and deepest level of motivation for staying are the emotional ties - the family, the friends, the places where you grew up, the memories, both individual and shared, of things you have done, things which your society has experienced together, or even things which earlier generations of your society have experienced together. This is the fundamental glue which binds a people together - a deep emotional commitment. And this is the fundamental problem for Singapore, because of our short history and also because of our ethnic diversity. Compare Singapore with other societies with long histories and strong senses of commitment and belonging. Take a Japanese - maybe 3,000 years since the sun goddess - Amaterasu. He is a Japanese wherever he goes in the world, the way he speaks, dresses, his attitudes, he bears a life-long permanent imprint. And if he leaves Japan permanently, he will feel deep pain cutting his ties with all that it means to be Japanese, and all the things which he holds dear. You look at the Jews in Israel and all over the world with their powerful sense of shared history and a common future, going back to Moses and the Exodus, the Books of the Torah, the Holocaust. If you are a Jew, you will never forget it. And if there is a problem with another Jew somewhere else in the world, you feel a sense of obligation and you will be there to help, if necessary, with your life. So, when they have an emergency and they press the button to mount a mobilisation, Israelis from all over the world go back to Israel in order to fight. We have mobilisation exercises, but that is a test. If the mobilisation is for real, if we ever go to war and press the button, will people come back, or will people leave? But they have the Torah. They have 5,000 years. They have Masada. When they dedicate their national servicemen, they bring their tank corps recruits up to Masada and they hold a night-time ceremony with lamps and present rifles, and you remember Masada and the sacrifices. When we have national servicemen dedication ceremonies, we hold it in our camps. We spread a blanket over the table, we put out some lamps. What is the resonance? It is what we can do. But it is not 5,000 years old. So, it is different. Or you take the Palestinian Arabs - refugee camps scattered all over the Middle East, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Gulf - scattered more than a generation but determined to go back to Palestine - not the West Bank of today, but the Palestine as they remembered it in 1947 before they were chased out when Israel was formed in the first Arab-Israeli war - to villages which no longer exist. But that ideal, that drive, that determination, that hatred for their enemies, that holds them together. In Singapore, we are all of 37 years old. Furthermore, our loyalty has to be based not on race, language or religion, which are the most powerful loyalties, but on shared ideals and shared history. That takes time. We have history before independence, yes. But they were separate histories before independence - multiple histories. The Malays identified with nationalist movements in Indonesia and Malaya. Before the war, and even after the war before independence, it was not uncommon to see pictures of Sukarno and Hatta - Sukarno was the first Indonesian President and Hatta was another freedom fighter - hung on the wall of honour in the homes of those who originated from the Indonesian islands. They may be Javanese, Boyanese or Sumatran, but they would have pictures of Sukarno and Hatta. Mr Hawazi told me this. He lived in a pondok in Crawford area. And even as he was growing up in the 50s, in the hall of honour, there were pictures of Sukarno and Hatta. They looked upon the brave Indonesians as heroes and freedom fighters and idolised them. Even the Malay intelligentsia who had no roots in the Indonesian islands looked upon them as leaders who should be emulated. And it is not surprising, because these were freedom fighters putting themselves on the line as anti-colonialists to fight the Dutch and gain independence. On the Malayan side too, we were really one society. The Jawi version of Utusan Melayu was first published not in the peninsula but in Singapore in 1939 by Ambo Sooloh and Yusof Ishak. They were members of Kesatuan Melayu, a quasi political party for the Malays - not Malays in Singapore but Malays in Malaya including Singapore. The Indians looked to India. Therefore, in 1942, after the Japanese had come, the Indian National Army was formed in Singapore to support the Indian independence struggle.

Order. Mr Lee, can you please allow Mr Wong to move the motion for exempted business?

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

Debate resumed.

The Chinese in Singapore were also patriotic, but not to Singapore. They either sided with the Kuomintang or the CCP in China. So, Sun Yat Sen visited Singapore and Penang to raise funds for his tong meng hui, for his revolutionary activities. And so when the Japanese took over and captured Singapore, they massacred the Chinese, not because of what the Chinese did here, but because they saw these Singapore Chinese as helping the Chinese in China fight them, as indeed they did. We had Mr Tan Lark Sye, as Mr Low Thia Khiang pointed out, but Mr Tan Lark Sye was a champion of Chinese culture and language, and he was motivated by the success of Communist China. So, the different communities all had different objectives and loyalties, but none strove for or were loyal to an independent multi-racial, multi-religious Republic of Singapore. In fact, such an idea did not exist and would have been dismissed as being ludicrous. Today, we have closed these chapters, more or less. Those loyalties and struggles have all become part of our history. Yusof Ishak became our first President. We have an Indian National Army Memorial at Connaught Drive. The Sun Yat Sen Villa has been restored by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. And in the Nanyang Technological University, there is a Tan Lark Sye Professorship. So, it is a phase of our history, but that was not Singapore yet. If you go back beyond that, then we inherit from the great Asian civilisations - the Chinese, the Indians, and the Malay civilisations - valuable and essential for us, part of our being, but not a complete basis for nation-building. For example, Mr Gan Kim Yong cited the story of Yue Fei and Qin Hui. I knew exactly what he was talking about. He asked: Is it still taught in schools? I checked with my children. Yes, it is still taught in schools, and to my relief, yes, they do know about the story. These are events 900 years ago in China, a dynasty long gone and extinct, but still a powerful impact on all Chinese-educated Chinese everywhere - in PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, even, I am sure, in the West. In 1991, I visited China. I had some MPs with me. And we visited Hangzhou. Hangzhou was the Southern Song capital. At that time, they called it Lin An. And that is where Yue Fei was murdered, and that was where his temple is. We visited his temple. I wanted to visit it. Outside his temple, there are two statues of Qin Hui and his wife, kneeling, asking for atonement. And generations of Chinese have gone there to spit on these two statues out of utter contempt. And they put out signs there saying, "Chinese Government says, `You shall not spit down here anymore.'", to no effect whatsoever. Mr Chiam was with me, and he will remember. I had Chinese-educated members in my delegation and, I can tell you, I could see the powerful influence it had on them. It was an emotional moment. In fact, it was a noble ideal which makes Chinese-educated Singaporeans better citizens of Singapore. I remember, when I was small, I used to have at home a statue of Yue Fei, having the words "Jing Zhong Bao Guo" carved on his back by his mother. It was given to the Senior Minister by an admirer on one of his constituency tours, and we had it at home for many years. I studied in Chinese school, and we memorised all the poems. We know the history, we know the story, and we identify with them. We all did. Liu Thai Ker, recently reporting on arts, on behalf of the ERC, quoted "Ba Qian Li Lu, Yun He Yue" - it comes back to the same root. But, unfortunately, this is not a history shared by Singaporeans of other races, or even by most English-educated Chinese. So, it is valuable, but it does not go far enough. Furthermore, regrettably, its impact on the younger generation will be less. Yes, we teach it in school. Yes, they know it. I asked my children what did they know about it. They said, "Well, the mother carved some words on his back." What does it all mean? Where does it fit in? Into what world view? That is not the same. I discussed this with George Yeo. George Yeo is more optimistic. He says, "Let them learn the story first. Maybe the significance will sink in later." I hope so, but I think that the generations are changing, and we have to move. Inherit this, but we have to move forward and develop our own heroes over many, many years. We have made English our common language. That is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, we bring the different communities together; on the other hand, we merge into the greater globalised world, the Internet world, and we lose our moorings unless we have some knowledge of our mother tongues and our roots. It is different. Hong Kong wants to keep Cantonese. The Taiwanese want to keep Min Nan Wei, not Guo Yu (the standard Mandarin), to be different from the mainland, to have a separate Hong Kong and separate Taiwanese identity. We sometimes half seriously ask ourselves, should we learn to speak Singlish? But if we did, where is our future? So, we are back to English, and back to this dilemma. But our society is still evolving, still progressing. We are building something rare and precious here. It is a secure, stable society in an uncertain world. It is a harmonious, multi-racial society in a global environment where race and religion are rising and disruptive forces. It is an honest, clean and efficient Government in a continent where corruption is an endemic problem. It is a system based on equal opportunities and open competition, and one which has delivered a high and rising standard of living for 3 million Singaporeans. So, I think it is precious and it offers individual Singaporeans something special. In this environment, each one of us has the maximum opportunity to develop ourselves to the fullest, and to make a difference to society, much more than anywhere else in the world. At the lower end, Singaporeans enjoy a standard of living better than nearly any other country, certainly better than China and India with their billions, probably even better than the US with the many homeless and destitute. In Singapore, you can be poor, but the chances are you have a roof over your head, and there will be help available. For all Singaporeans, rich or poor, there are exceptional opportunities - through the education system, through the scholarships we give, through working with companies, big and small, through public service, to develop ourselves and to be exposed to what is going on in the world. Because of our small talent pool, we go to great lengths to develop our people. So, when we go overseas, the quality of our people is not in doubt. Many top universities in the US and the UK have disproportionate numbers of Singaporeans. In fact, Stanford University in their intake, of all the high schools in the world, the one which sends the most students to Stanford every year is Raffles Junior College (RJC). So, our standards are high, and the opportunities are there. It is not just for the few. Recently, A*STAR gave a scholarship to a young girl to do a PhD in the life sciences. Her father is a butcher. In Singapore, if you have talent, in one generation, you can make the leap, and "Li Yu Tiao Long Men", become a dragon! So, I think this is a cause well worthwhile fighting for. We are beginning to develop a national identity, but this is far from complete. But you see the signs of it, sometimes in crisis, sometimes in moments that you do not notice. When Michael Fay happened, Singaporeans in the US were stout hearted. They stood up, and they were not ashamed of themselves. They were not afraid to say, "I am a Singaporean. We are doing the right thing." When we send SAF and Police officers overseas, on UN missions, peacekeeping operations, they do us proud. They are multi-racial contingents. They all wear the Singapore flag with pride, and they serve with pride. And people know that, when you have Singaporeans in the contingent, they do real work! When East Timor became independent, one of the soldiers lowering the UN flag before midnight, the man in front, blue beret, blue uniform, but red and white Singapore flag on his shoulder patch. Our hearts go with them, and they mean something to all of us. So, I think we have a long journey. If you look up, it is far and steep. If you look back, we have come a long way. So, let us work together, year by year, and as we do so, we will strengthen our sense of nationhood and shared destiny. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we tabled this Motion with the intention to identify possible causes of people thinking of quitting Singapore, and an attempt to look for solutions. As we prosper and excel in our economic development, we cannot afford to lose sight of the need to also develop a sense of belonging, a sense of ownership, and a sense of responsibility. The issue of stayers and quitters cannot be resolved overnight. Like Mr Lee has mentioned, it is a long process, and it will take time. I hope that we will not stop at this debate. I hope that this debate will serve as a road sign, a guiding post, for us to work towards building a Singapore for Singaporeans, a home that we can all call our own. Mdm Deputy Speaker, it leaves me to thank all the MPs who have spoken on this Motion. They have spoken passionately because this is an issue that is close to their hearts. Their participation has undoubtedly helped clarify and crystallise the issues at hand. Many of them have made specific and useful suggestions, all with the single purpose in mind - to root Singaporeans to Singapore. I would also like to thank the Government for responding to the Motion - Mr Hawazi, Dr Ng Eng Hen, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. I would also like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Lee, in particular, for his insightful remarks. Having heard his comments, I am heartened that the Government is taking a serious view and making serious efforts to look at this issue. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am glad that the Motion has been thoroughly debated in this House. Madam, we have achieved what we set out to do. Finally, I would like to thank the Speaker and you, Mdm Deputy Speaker, for giving us this opportunity to table this Motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, 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.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to 31st October, 2002." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes past Four o'clock pm to Thursday, 31st October 2002.