Abdullah Tarmugi
Singapore
“As I have said, in most, if not all cases, we have a multi-disciplinary team to assess. In other words, even the protector himself or herself is subject to the assessment of this team. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“Sir, I think that is a convenient tack to say. But AMP and others must also realise that the new policy applies to all NGOs which are co-located at community buildings, and not only to AMP. TRIPARTITE COMMITTEE ON PORTABLE MEDICAL BENEFITS (Progress report) 5.”
“Sir, this is precisely what we are talking about, ie, it is not just a question about numbers per se, and I would like to refer to what Mr Noris Ong said, about having three or more children, if we can afford it. This means, as I mentioned just now in my speech too, that we do not want children to be a burden.”
“At present, Sir, the policy is we will support up to three children. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi].”
“My Ministry will continue to look into ways of removing the obstacles couples face in having children. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, we already have had eight days of long debate. I would be concise and you would be very relieved if all other speakers after me would be concise.”
“So we would leave it as it is and we only pay for working women. It is really to compensate the loss in income. He asked about the provision in the Bill on "lawfully married to the child's natural father". This is, as I said earlier, because we want to encourage child birth within wedlock and the family remains intact.”
The complete record
Every one of 726 lines we hold for Abdullah Tarmugi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 15.
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, we should take a fresh look in terms of promoting more community activities. Community groups such as RCs, CCCs and voluntary organizations should be given more support so that they will be able to undertake more localized activities and programmes to build a better neighbourhood. This is essentially important because by doing so we will be able to build a better network of support in the local neighbourhood of the housing estate. Through this network of support, we will be able to encourage the more able to help the less able living in the various localities. Sir, the various advisory councils have also suggested that community groups and organizations should take steps to organize more programmes for the aged, disabled, the families and youths. Whilst these recommendations are important, it is not possible for community groups and organizations to carry out such projects on a continuing basis without an initial capital support for their projects to be implemented. Most of these groups depend on voluntary manpower. However, besides their best will and intention, they do require some initial capital to start off the various projects that they wish to undertake. May I suggest that the Ministry look into the possibility of establishing a community development fund which could be made available to the various community groups seeking support for funding various projects that they wish to initiate in the neighbourhood.”
“Sir, the work of the Advisory Councils has been completed and I believe most of the Councils' reports have been submitted to the Government and I do not intend, to go into detail into each of their recommendations. Suffice it to say that my GPC has gone through most of these reports and we concurred with most of the recommendations. But I would like to ask the Minister some questions, that is, what is the Government's position vis-a-vis these reports, namely, has Government completed studying the various reports (at least those which have been submitted), if not, when? What are the recommendations which have been accepted and the time targets for their implementation? What are the recommendations that are not accepted and why are they not accepted? And who, or which Ministry, will be the coordinator to implement these recommendations since many of them will involve Ministries other than Ministry of Community Development?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, in February 1988, this House agreed and adopted the Agenda for Action as the basis for Government policy and nation building. Six Advisory Councils were then formed and they were to chart programmes in part implementation of the Agenda for Action for us to be able to achieve the kind of society that we want at the end of this decade. All this, Sir, showed Government and the people's ability and readiness to go beyond bread and butter issues which were our priority during the 1950s and 1970s and determined Government policy and the ethos in this country. That was long time ago, Sir. Now we have developed to a point where we can pay more attention to the finer things in life, to go for higher aspirations and to fulfill the higher expectations of the people. In other words, to raise the quality of life in Singapore. Sir, the work of the six Advisory Councils concerns matters under the Ministry of Community Development and also under the purview of my GPC. Sir, they will set the direction and guide the work of the Ministry up to the end of this decade. Many man-hours and thought have gone into the deliberations of the Advisory Councils and the recommendations. Expert opinion has been sought, research has been done, feedback from the public has been gathered. My GPC, Sir, is of the opinion that the implementation of the various recommendations of these Advisory Councils would perceptibly enhance the quality of life in Singapore and we would, certainly push for their implementation.”
“It is not that they do not want to live together but circumstances determine that they live apart. It would therefore appear unfair to their filial children to be penalized by the living-together ruling before they can be allowed relief from their income taxes for supporting their aged parents. I do not think, Sir, that allowing reliefs for such children will result in many ensuring that their aged parents live away from them. But in all, Sir, I think it is fair to say that the budget now before us is a fair one, and I support the motion.”
“But I wonder, Sir, just how many households would benefit from this, given the proviso that such dependants do not earn more than $1,500 a year, which is only $125 a month I would have thought that if we were to achieve the twin objectives of helping families with handicapped dependants and encourage the disabled to be more self-supporting, the ceiling for annual income could have been much higher. Should we peg the income ceiling too low, it would, be more beneficial for some families to keep their handicapped dependants unemployed than breaking this ceiling and hence become ineligible for relief, which is $1,000 higher than the disabled income's ceiling. The other, Sir, is the relief for wives. I am sure the Minister has heard of comments many times before that the raising of this relief from $1,000 to $1,500 is indeed too low. Sir, I do understand that we want to encourage more women into the labour force but there are also those who, either out of choice or out of necessity, remain at home to take care of their families, and their role is no less important in keeping the family stable and well taken care of. As for the relief for aged parents, I am personally glad that it has risen by 150%. This will go a long way to encouraging children to take care of their aged parents. But, Sir, what about those with parents who do not live with them but who nevertheless continue to support them.? I know that this matter has been raised again and again before but I believe that this is one way of encouraging children to live with their aged parents. However, I personally have cases brought before me, and I believe also brought before many MPs, of parents out of necessity having to live away from their children but are supported by the latter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the budget unveiled by the Minister is a commendable one. It is, however, different from many previous budgets ones in that it contains no shocks, certainly not those speculated by car owners and car dealers alike. Nor has it attracted many adverse response and in some respects could even be considered generous and innovative in our context. Sir, as Chairman of the GPC for Community Development, I am particularly heartened by the reliefs provided to bolster to the family and alleviate some of the burdens of supporting children, the aged and handicapped dependants. The package of incentives and reliefs will be welcomed by families and in line with our stress on the importance of families as a building block of our society, a point made earlier by Mr Chin of Aljunied GRC. I am, Sir, especially appreciative of the incentives provided for modifications at the workplace to help disabled workers. It is a bold step and I hope that employers will respond positively to this incentive so that it will make it easier for our disabled to be employed and to get around in their place of work. It also dovetails Government's policy of making the disabled as self-sufficient as they can be and thus give them the dignity and respect due to any human being. It may be long overdue, Sir, but it is a step in the right direction, and I sincerely commend to the Government and to employers to look into the question of increased and easy mobility not only for our disabled but also for our elderly citizens in a wider and a more comprehensive perspective. Let me, Sir, come back to income tax reliefs. The increased relief for disabled handicapped dependants from $750 to $2,500, a three-fold increase, seemed very generous at first glance.”
“Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament." COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (Appointment of Members) 5.15 pm.”
“In other words, openness, flexibility, a more softer approach to govern should not rest only in commitment but should also be visible to the population. Apart from these three main issues, Sir, Members also brought up many other concerns but impossible for me to mention one by one. There was, however, a continuous thread weaving in and out of the fabric of the debate during these last five days and that is the concern for the low income, less fortunate, the poor of our society. There were calls for attention and help to be extended to them and to ensure that the goods and services that they would have to consume would be available to them and affordable to them, especially in the fields of education, health and housing. Sir, the proceedings in the debate will give us many things to mull over and many will, I am sure, surface again during the Budget debate in March. The President has indeed given us valuable food for thought. All that leaves me now is to close this debate by again thanking Members for their valuable contributions and the effort that they have taken in preparing for this debate. As for me, I cannot forgive myself if I leave this table without thanking you, Sir, for bearing with us and our ubiquitous text of speeches from your side of the Chamber. I know how you must feel and the restraint you must subject yourself to. Sir, you have presided over this 5-day debate with dignity, with firmness and with fairness. Much obliged, Sir. [Applause] Question put, and agreed to.”
“The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and also the Member for Changi especially devoted virtually their whole speeches on what should and what should not be done by the civil service. For after all, it was seen by the people as synonymous with government. And rather ominously, the Minister of State for Communications and Information and Trade and Industry declared that there were indications that all was not well in this country; when more and more of our citizens, especially the more educated and talented ones, uproot themselves to settle in more congenial and preferred atmospheres in other countries. The challenge, as he put it, was how individuals could realize their personal aspirations within the constraints that we have. I agree that this will be one of the issues we have to seriously address ourselves to. Sir, the unanimous view was that our population has changed and so too have their aspirations and expectations. We will have to be, according to the Member for Bedok GRC, Dr Hong, "spiritually and psychologically in tune with the people" and that perhaps our macho image needed a bit of restyling. I am glad that the Minister for Communications and Information has assured us that he and his Cabinet colleagues were committed to the spirit of consultation. What we would need to do now is to clearly demonstrate to the public that this commitment will be practised. This is especially important for younger Singaporeans. Again, as the Member for Toa Payoh GRC stated, we must continue to assure younger Singaporeans that we are sincere in wanting more openness and participation from the public. In his own words, there must be a visible interplay of contending forces.”
“Sir, this is not to imply that Chinese Members are less committed but that it is natural for the former to wish, to reiterate, to restate, these principles. For it is more comforting if these principles are indeed subscribed to by the whole society. So tolerance, understanding, sensitivity, these were the three ingredients mentioned and necessary for us to be able to live peacefully together, no matter what our heritage. Each of us will therefore have to reach out to the other, trust each other more. In the long run, I am of the conviction that we will need to desensitize racial issues and concerns. Sir, there was a suggestion by the Member for Potong Pasir whether it would not be better for us to adopt the melting pot approach rather than for us to aim for an integrated society with each community keeping its own identity but remaining Singaporean in its perception of the country's goals, challenges, priorities and the sharing of a common destiny. To be fair to the Member, the melting pot may well be the utensil which this society ends up in, albeit not by design but by the natural run of things. But then again, the reality indicates that each community wishes to retain its own identity and uniqueness. Our job will be to ensure that this is met and this does not jeopardize the harmony, progress and stability of this nation. Let me now sum up the views on Government's style. The debate on this issue evoked a wide range of responses and stance, from plaintive pleas to more pointed and vociferous demands for people and MPs to have more say in running the country, for less Government control and for alternative, even dissenting views, to be heard without harassment. The civil service too was not spared and this was not the first time; neither will it be the last too.”
“We should be mindful of the fears expressed by the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh, on the impact of the National Ideology on our youths. For unless they too accept the National Ideology, it will run the risk of rising and falling within just one generation. There is much to be done. Already Members who spoke had come out with a multitude of values which they deem worthy of inclusion in the National Ideology. Apart from the four proposed by the President in his speech, many more were put forward that I had really lost count. Among them were parliamentary democracy, honesty, community welfare, concern for the poor, the list goes on. There were suggestions for the National Ideology to include values for workers, values in the workplaces, values in the home, values in the family, community, nation. And, Sir, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It occurred to me that we will not be short of suggestions on what values should be entrenched in the National Ideology. On the contrary, our job will be to choose from the array of suggestions, some of which may even conflict with each other, digest and distill them, those which are necessary and sufficient for us. As asserted by the Member for Bedok GRC, the National Ideology should be simple, relevant and practical. And according to the 1DPM just now, it has to be no less fundamental. On multi-racial, multi-religious, harmony, Sir, the clear and unanimous message from Members is that they are crucial to our country. Not only must we retain our record of harmony and co-existence, it will also be beneficial for us to improve such harmony and stability. Understandably, the strongest and most articulate proponents of this harmony are Members from the minority communities.”
“But I can perhaps narrow the ground by asserting what it is not. Firstly, as has been indicated by the Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence, it will not have the force of law. And indeed, Sir, it should not be. For how does one compel citizens to imbue something as abstract as values and ethos through fines and jail terms? Rather it should be likened to a doctor's prescription which the patient is not legally bound to follow but nevertheless ignored at the risk of his health and even his survival. Second, it will not be a mechanism to impose the values of the majority community on the minorities, a fear often voiced by many Members in this House. Third, it is not intended to stifle individual freedom, initiative and creativity through the introduction of more communitarian values. And certainly, it is not meant to bury democracy in this country. The Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs had argued eloquently yesterday why it should not and he saw no reason why it should not enhance democratic principles in our society. Neither, Sir, is the National Ideology anti-West, or a total denial of everything western, even those elements which are good for us and for all human beings. Rather it is to insulate us against what the Minister of State also aptly described "as the elevation of self over all societal considerations". Indeed, we should not sell ourselves short by shutting ourselves to good, wholesome values, regardless of where they hail from, so long as everyone here can be comfortable with them. These last two aspects should especially be made clear to, and understood, by younger Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, over these past five days, more than half the Members of this House spoke on the motion which I had the privilege of moving on Monday. All but one supported the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address. I wish to thank Members for their contributions and I would like to particularly acknowledge the contributions of the new Members of the House. I now know why they call "maiden speeches" thus. For they have been, as the adjective implies, fresh, often scintillating, sometimes even provocative. And we can certainly look forward to more exciting debate in this Chamber in future. Sir, it will be very difficult for me to do justice to all the speeches in my summing up and I hope certainly I will be forgiven if I fail to refer to Members individually their signal contributions to the debate. The inadequacy, of course, Sir, is entirely mine. The debate on my motion centred on three main areas: the National Ideology, which is a new topic: multi-racial, multi-religious harmony, an evergreen subject, and our style of government, an increasingly favourite and fashionable theme. The National Ideology drew the most enthusiastic response from Members and Ministers too. I suspect this is not merely because it is new but more so because it is still an elusive subject, both exciting in what it purports to serve for us and in the questions and reservations on what it should indeed be. To be sure, the final word has yet to be said on this subject. Perhaps it is opportune for me at this juncture to put the National Ideology in its proper perspective and context, if at all to clear the mist that has surrounded it when we started on Monday. I certainly cannot and do not want to pre-empt what it would be.”
“Tomorrow, Sir. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Five o'clock pm. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION HDB REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TIONG BAHRU 1. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to redevelop the old housing estates in the Tiong Bahru GRC and when these plans are likely to be implemented.”
“Tomorrow, Sir. BEST WISHES FOR THE HEALTH OF THE PRESIDENT With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House expresses its best wishes for the health of the President following his recent operation and wishes him a speedy recovery. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock pm.”
“This will indicate to the Government and to the rest of society that the community is serious and positive and committed to respond to the schemes beneficial to the community and, by extension, Sir, to the nation. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“A case in point is the unequal rates of progress among the different communities here. The need for the Malay community to keep up with the others must be the concern of the community itself. But it has to be viewed, as has been pointed out, as a national issue and problem. No society can remain unaffected for long if one of its component communities perceives itself as being far behind the others and left with only a meagre slice of the economic pie. I am therefore gratified with the President's assurance that Government will continue to assist the Malay community to further progress into the mainstream of national life. And reading between the lines, Sir, I hope I am right in concluding that this includes assistance to the proposed Mendaki II project to uplift the Malay community. I concede there may be political costs involved. But then again, such costs can be minimized if everyone can see the issue as a national rather than a purely communal one. To be sure, the Malay community itself must play its part and is a more crucial one too. The opportunities which present themselves must be grabbed, worked at and snowballed to further upgrade the community. For no amount of assistance will help unless the community itself makes its own efforts to progress. Without this effort, it is like gorging on cake and ice-cream while running on a treadmill to reduce one's weight. The community must therefore support the proposed institution and participate in the programmes it intends to organize, and indeed all other Government and community programmes and policies aimed at improving the community.”
“For keeping it a forbidden subject would mean each of us continuing to live with our own preconceptions, our own prejudices and our own stereotypes. We will continue to live in ignorance of one another, depending on hearsay, on rumours, and act as such and pass on our own values and attitudes to our children and theirs. I do concede, Sir, that in the initial stages such openness could heighten our consciousness of race and its various issues. Many will be uncomfortable and even feel hurt. But I believe that if we proceed carefully and cautiously, all this can come to pass. The potential explosiveness of the subject will be diffused and we will emerge more at ease with our own individual differences. It may take some time and it will need a lot more effort and the right frame of mind. While we are being increasingly open we will still have to maintain our sensitivities and indeed increase our tolerance. And for the time being at least, there will still be ethnic issues which many of us are still unprepared to deal with openly but discussed only among the informed and only behind closed doors. Openness, Sir, must be comfortable for all. It must be to seek better understanding. It must be to clarify. It must build; never, never, Sir, a licence for indiscriminate or irresponsible comment or accusation. On the other hand, sincere and constructive comment or statement should be viewed in like manner and taken positively. I do realize that this may be easier said than done but a beginning will have to be attempted if any headway is to be achieved at all. Sir, sensitivity does not stop at mere avoidance of unwanted utterances and unwanted acts. It also implies taking into account ethnic factors in every field of endeavour, as the President rightly pointed out in his Address.”
“This is because we have seen nations, previously models of multi-racialism, crack or crumble almost overnight because of breakdown in racial relations. This is because there are still chauvinists and communalists even among the educated among us. This is because should we be divided by race, the country may never ever recover from the destruction. So it is imperative that we be sensitive when it comes to discussing race or when we handle issues which impinge on race. Sir, brought up in an atmosphere where open discussions of race were taboo, I found the recent statements on racial issues at first unsettling. It was just like standing up to walk immediately after having sat cross-legged for hours on end. Never before had issues on race been discussed that openly and often with candour. I must confess that I had felt uneasy and even chagrined by the emerging frankness with which references to my own community were made. It appeared that we did nothing right. It seemed that we were singled out for regular unmeritorious mention. The reaction and perception of the Malay community, Sir, were not unsimilar and even many non-Malay friends asked me for the reasons for this new phenomenon. Indeed it came to a point when some members of my own community were on the verge of disowning my Malay parliamentary colleagues and me for not openly championing their interests or challenging strongly enough the perceived indignities aimed at the community. Sir, I have used this episode and personal experience to illustrate the sensitivities and the realities of our multi-racial society. Like an eggshell, it is so easy to crack, immensely difficult to patch up. Yet, I do not propose that we stop the trend of discussing race openly and frankly provided we know and accept the limits.”
“This, Sir, is an education in itself, for as we examine the validity of our own assumptions, our own premises and conclusions and judge them against those of others, we increase our awareness and understanding of the social, political and emotional environment in this country. And provided we conduct this process honestly and constructively, I am confident that we can arrive at a consensus on what the national ideology should contain. And we need not do so in a hurry, Sir, for we must be seen to be working with rather than for the people on this project. Already some have dismissed this whole process as merely going through the motion and that Government has already determined what the NI should be, all completed and stashed away somewhere merely awaiting announcement at the appropriate moment. One final point, Sir, on this subject and that involves the term "national ideology" itself. One organization feels that the word "ideology" invites misinterpretation. It has political connotations and could create discomfort for some who may feel that they are ascribing to some political thought. And this organization suggests the word "philosophy" instead as a possible alternative. This may be a matter of semantics and does not stray from the form and purpose of the set of values that we seek to build for the nation. But if it makes for a more acceptable final product, the Government should consider looking into this suggestion. Let me now go on to multi-racialism which, to my mind, is a cornerstone of our nation. Sir, we speak tirelessly of the need for the various communities here to live in peace and harmony with each other. But after doing so for so long, I believe we still have to continually remind ourselves of this crucial need for the country.”
“And given the distribution of communities into the majority and the minorities, the natural and expected question from the latter would be: will the majority determine and impose their will on us? The reaction is understandable. Sir, it is one thing for people to dress in others' national constumes or to partake of other culinary traditions. But to adopt from elsewhere and call one's own something as personal, as deep and powerful as a value, is a different and more serious exercise altogether. I am therefore gladdened first, by the views of the Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs who cautioned against cultural chauvinism and then, more recently, by the Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence, who assured us that the national ideology was not a ruse for imposing Confucian values on the minority communities. Now that the game rules have been established, I hope we can get on with the search for the values which will be included in the NI. I therefore urge everyone, and the minority communities included,to participate fully in this search for there is much that everyone can contribute. And my appeal, Sir, is for everyone to keep an open mind, sceptics and crticis alike, about the NI and give our sincere and honest input. Indeed, the national ideology is for the future, something which we will bequeath to the generations that are to come. However, I can see an immediate benefit in the very process of the search for the set of values, for it would require the whole nation to consciously bring its mind to bear on the whole range of ideals and their sources for possible inclusion in the NI. In so doing, each of us will have to define our own concepts and ideas and compare and contrast them with those of our neighbours.”
“We therefore must proceed carefully and unhastily. The bottom line, Sir, is that the Government will have to be more responsive to the expectations and aspirations of Singaporeans. But at the same time, the Government will have to continue to remind Singaporeans of our constraints, our limitations, and the challenges that lie ahead for the nation. The latter must accept that we are unique in many respects and what works in other countries need not necessarily be workable in our context. And so long as our fragility and constraints are recognized, changes within these boundaries need not be feared and our political stability can be assured. Let me now proceed, Sir, to the subject of the National Ideology. The proposed formulation was first introduced by the First Deputy Prime Minister in October last year. This was prompted by the need to institutionalize a system of core values to serve as our national ethic in view of the continuing drift of our people, especially the younger ones, towards more liberal western values and attitudes, and to build a more united and cohesive Singaporean society. As with all things new, the proposed formulation of a National Ideology (NI) has its share of sceptics and its share of critics. Do we really need one? Why now? Will it not impose certain values on our citizens? These are some of the questions asked and indeed they must be answered satisfactorily. But the most daunting task, Sir, will be the search for and choice of values that will be part of the NI. The inherent nature of the NI and the heterogeneity of our society inevitably begs the question: Whose values do we adopt?”
“The Government should therefore be more forthcoming with explanations on policy proposals and decisions and provide the public with more information wherever possible. Feedback should continue to be sought and acted upon. More innovative carrot-and-stick methods should be looked into. Till now we have depended heavily on monetary rewards and penalties to achieve our aims and solve our problems. To slow traffic growth, more taxes; to discourage increase in foreign maids, we up the levy and make all employers pay the security deposit cash, regardless of whether or not they abuse the system. Sir, the danger of monetary penalties is that they can be easily overcome as we continue to prosper, without the objectives of these penalties being necessarily achieved. But worse, they may imbue in our citizens the impression that money can solve almost everything and rankle those without the means to pay. Let me touch briefly, Sir, on the Elected President proposal. I am heartened by the President's assurance that the issue would be discussed fully before it is implemented. This is important because we should not be seen to be bulldozing the proposal, beneficial as it may be, onto a reluctant and sceptical population. My own experience in the recent General Election indicated that the method has yet to be conclusively resolved. There are people who do not agree with the proposal even among those who claim that they voted for the PAP. We may proceed to equate voting for the PAP as a package which includes assent for the proposal. But there are nevertheless voters who make a very clear distinction between support for the Party and agreeing with the proposal. This we must not dismiss altogether, otherwise they will feel cheated if we do not make this distinction too.”
“Sir, the entire memory of local politics among youths is filled with relative political calm in a one-party dominated government which, to quote an academic friend, "benevolently regulates every niche in one's life". Compared with the liberalism seen and read about in other countries, it is therefore understandable if our youths, especially the well-educated ones, should feel constrained and restless, and their expectations of local politics different from the generations before them. This trend is already discernible and this trend is becoming stronger. But the trend is also no less significant among the older age groups. Some perhaps have forgotten their earlier political experiences; some perhaps think that our political history and methods have no bearing on the present and on the future. Yet others want changes because of perceived personal injustice done to them. The sum total of all this, Sir, is that more Singaporeans wish for a more participatory form of government, less regulation, more flexibility. I remember the then Member for Changkat had alluded to these growing sentiments in a similar motion at the last session of Parliament, and I am reiterating her point as I see the trend gathering momentum. To be sure the Government has responded to these changes. The Feedback Unit was established, GPCs were formed, the Institute of Policy Studies was set up, Advisory Councils were formed. We should therefore continue and even enhance our consultative and more open style of government. More ways should be found to accommodate dissenting views and to seek out alternative suggestions so long as they are constructive. This process, Sir, may mean slower but, I am sure, more acceptable decisions for the people. The conditions are right, the people want it.”
“All these serve to heighten the political awareness of our population and will no doubt have a deep and lasting impact on our future. The success of a new political contract between government and the people concluded at the last General Election and of the new political leadership will depend on how we proceed from here, how they are accepted by the people, how practicable and effective they are. There is no doubt, Sir, that our people have become more politically conscious and discerning. They are now more prepared than previously to articulate their views and criticisms, more eager to participate in the running of the country. Sir, one section of the population that we have to pay particular attention to is the young among us. Those between 15 and 30 years old make up about 32% of the population. This is a significant proportion, judging by their numbers and considering the role that this group would play in shaping our future. About 8 in 10 are below 25 years of age, which means that they have grown up in a period of increasing affluence and political stability. Speaking to many young people left me with the impression that few really appreciate the constraints, limitations and challenges that dictate our lives here. Many also feel that we have exaggerated somewhat these challenges and limitations without realizing that they have not inhibited our progress because we have so far managed them effectively and efficiently. And unfortunately too, some of the youths who do appreciate these challenges would rather leave for other freer and bigger countries than stay on to contribute.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed privileged to be given the opportunity to speak and to move the Motion of Thanks to the President. Sir, I beg to move, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.". The Sixth Parliament saw a period of significant changes and emerging trends in our nation. This Seventh Parliament stands on the threshold of a society that could well be markedly different from the one that we have known. Our job, as a government, would be to consolidate those changes which seek to bring our country to a higher level of economic, social and political development and to arrest or reverse those trends with the potential for instability and possibly chaos. The President's Address provides us with the broad direction that this Government should take. And I therefore urge my colleagues in this Chamber to consider and debate the speech carefully and seriously. Sir, economic concerns have taken a somewhat lower profile in the speech. The emphasis has been on moulding values and institutions in preparation for a qualitative change in Singapore. It is in the political arena that changes and happenings have been most dramatic. We introduced the GRC concept, town councils, the proposal for an Elected President and saw the change to a younger political leadership. We launched the National Agenda, set up Government Parliamentary Committees and mooted the formulation of a National Ideology. We witnessed the passing of a Minister, the disqualification of an MP, and the resignation of a President.”
“The demands from such leadership, Sir, will be great. I would like to suggest that we monitor closely our selection of such leaders from the ground. To be sure, the MPs will have to lead and be the catalyst in the community. But it is the local leaders who live in the community and who presumably knows the fabric of that community better, who will have to assist in the guiding, persuading and explaining and, do much of the footwork on the ground. Because of these onerous tasks, Sir, perhaps society could think of ways to recognize and reward their services, not necessarily monetary ones. In all, Sir, I can see the Town Councils, if proceeded wisely and with care, contributing to community development by bringing about a greater sense of belonging among residents, greater social cohesion and a more socially robust environment in our housing estates. Even if this is the only reason for supporting the Town Council concept, I think this is enough for us to do so. I support the Town Council Bill now before us, Sir.”
“This may not be easy at the beginning, but I believe that with experience and strong and wise leadership we can succeed. And this, to my mind, Sir, is another plus point in Town Councils, ie, the development of local leadership in the estates. This point has been alluded to by 1DPM yesterday and it bears repetition and elaboration. Sir, for nearly 30 years the Government has provided citizens with most of their needs to a point where some quarters argue that the Government has indeed over-provided. In the process, the bureaucracy has crept into almost every aspect of the citizens' lives. All the citizen needs to do is to ask or to complain. The development of local leadership is therefore stifled as decisions are taken at higher levels and the various rules and regulations restrict the exercise of local initiative. Following this, Sir, is the growth of a kind of the dependency syndrome when citizens begin to depend on the Government for everything they wish for, even unrealistic demands. So there is much to be said for the development of local leadership if we are to be more self-reliant and able to take care of ourselves without having to continually rely on the Government all the time. In times of stress and disorder especially, the existence of such a pool of leadership will be an asset to the country. Given the kind of society that we live in, Sir, the kind of leadership that needs to be developed is important. That they will have to be honest and committed are prerequisites. But more than this, they will also have to be men and women who understand the sensitivities and differences that exist among us. They will have to be fair, firm and above all, be able to manage conflict when it occurs. They will also have to be more realistic.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, eight in ten Singaporeans now live in HDB flats and surrounded by all manner of rules and regulations which, though necessary, are perceived to be restrictive and inhibitive. If residents show little interest over the condition and quality of the physical environment in the estates, it could be, Sir, because they feel that they could not do anything to change it even if they wanted to, for they have no control over or any say in shaping the kind of environment they want. It is for this reason too, Sir, I think that anti-social acts against common property in the estates continue because there is no sense of ownership and the sense of belonging is still weak. So the proposed setting up of Town Councils can change all this. Looked at from the viewpoint of community development, I see them as having a tremendous potential towards building a greater sense of belonging among residents, more cohesive communities and a certain kind of consensus among dwellers. If residents and councillors are given greater leeway in determining the kind of environment that suits their needs and wants, there is an increased possibility of them taking more pride in their surroundings and thus treat them with more care and respect, as they are the inheritors of their own decisions and participation. Town Councils will mean that our citizens will have to participate in discussions on what has to and can be done. Invariably there will be needs which differ and views which vary or even conflict. It would therefore be up to the leaders of the community to seek commonly acceptable alternatives and arrive at some compromise or consensus. In the process, our people will begin to understand and be aware of each other's needs and peculiarities and learn to work with one another.”
“Then there are pressure groups mentioned by the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Member for Kaki Bukit last week who paint Singapore in the darkest of colours, even those who have not yet stepped foot on our country. Is the picture fair? They have exaggeratedly cite the lack of individual freedom, individual rights. What about the freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, so long as one is willing to work, freedom from lack of shelter in Singapore? Are these not important? Let us not be naive. Let us not idolize, as some do, all things western or everything that shouts "freedom". We must be more discernible. It is not that I respect freedom and rights less. It is just that I love Singapore more.”
“More or less. I agree, Sir, but why? It is because we uncovered it in time before it could do any damage to us. It is because we have been vigilant and that is why I support the motion by the Member for Braddell Heights. Sir, Singaporeans must realize just how open our society is, how exposed we are to influences and actions from outside. To be sure, this openness, this very exposure, have had their benefits and have played in no small way to the development of our nation. But we must also recognize the dark side of these attributes. In our cosmopolitan atmosphere wherein nationalities move and mingle about without sticking out like sore thumbs, imagine just how fertile this place is for intrigues to carry on, subversion to be hatched in hotel lounges. There are issues galore for the picking, to be raised, to be distorted and captitalized upon, running the whole gamut of race, religion, different concepts of freedom, different aspirations and so on. We can only be vigilant without stifling, firm without being inhibiting. Sir, our businessmen go abroad for business, our citizens go to foreign tourist spots for vacation and our students study in foreign universities. They are exposed to different ways of life, different shades of politics, different views. I am told, Sir, that even now Tan Wah Piow seeks out some of our students in the UK, invites them for tea, for lunches. I leave it to you, Sir, what could have been discussed at these meetings. These students return to Singapore. Could similar meetings between our students and the likes of Tan be held in other foreign countries too? I do not know. Perhaps. Will we therefore stop our students from going abroad for their studies? We cannot, Sir. This is how open we are, how exposed we are.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall be brief. Sir, much heat and rhetoric has been generated in and outside this Chamber over foreign interference in our domestic affairs. That our people should feel aggrieved, even angry, over such meddling is understandable. But let, Sir, our objections be registered calmly, firmly and objectively and not flay about wildly, lest views turn into passion and words into regrettable action, for there may be groups which would gladly capitalize the situation to achieve their own ends, even here. I too, Sir, am all for putting the Hendrickson affair behind us and I hope the episode has served to register unequivocally our wish and resolve to be left alone in determining and managing our own affairs. I hope this has been just like two friends who have had a tiff and, emerging after it, understanding each other better, respecting each other even more. Sir, when he moved his amendment to this motion, the Member for Potong Pasir pointed out that the Hendrickson incident had not hurt Singapore. Have I heard you correctly?”
“This Bill not only protects the political rights and interests of the minorities, hence reducing the unstable factors in the multi-racial politics, but it also goes a step further to institutionalize multi-racial politics, hence strengthening the foundation of our democracy. There- fore, I do not agree with the Member for Potong Pasir's views that this Bill would lead to the institutionalization of racialism. He gave some countries as examples. He mentioned Cyprus. I do not accept his argument because the situation in Cyprus is not the same as what is suggesting in GRC. There, the ethnic Greeks and Turks elect MPs of their own respective races. We have a different ethnic compositions. His example is irrelevant to the contents and concept of this Bill. He also mentioned USA. Although it has a history of 200 years, at its Presidential primary of the Democratic Party held recently in New York, the three candidates had to canvass for the support of the whites, the blacks and the Jews. This shows that race is an important factor in its election. At the Second Reading of the Bill I had said that we should seek concord among diversities. On the one hand, we should promote national identity among various races. On the other hand, we must also recognize the differences among our different races in language, in culture and in other aspects. Otherwise, if we close our eyes to these differences, we shall be deceiving ourselves. Once we can recognize these differences, we should try to accommodate one another. We should all support this Bill, as it is worthy of our support. There is a saying in the book of history "Lu's Chronicles" that "The world and time change, so must laws change too." ( ) Therefore, in this spirit, I support the Motion moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister.”
“In the Book of I-Ching there is a saying that "When in peace one should not forget danger, when in a stable situation, one should not forget disturbances. Only in so doing, one may be safe and the nation may be preserved". ( ) I hope all our countrymen will be able to bear in mind this maxim. On the definition of "a person belonging to the Malay community", there are different views. But the Select Committee thought fit to amend it so that it is left to the Malay community itself to decide. It is a judicious method. Some suggested that religion, language, tradition and customs be used explicitly as criteria. If these were to apply to the Chinese MPs here, I wonder how many would have qualified as Chinese. In fact, it is no simple matter to give a precise definition to a race. Therefore, the said amended provisions are the most practical. The Select Committee has another suggestion, ie, the number of GRC MPs should be at least one-quarter and not more than half of the total number of MPs. In addition, 60% of the GRCs should include Malay candidates. That means to say that at least one-twelfth or 8% of the MPs should be non -Chinese or at least one-twentieth or 5% should be Malay. On the other hand, although the GRC MPs should not be more than half the total, non-Chinese MPs need not be limited to one-sixth of the total. They can still stand in the non-GRC constituencies. So, compared to a rigid implementation of GRC system throughout the country, this stipulation has much greater flexibility. Today, after the Bill has passed the Third Reading, it marks a milestone in our political history.”
“Whereas the Malays who form 15% of the total population, submitted 20% of the total representations. And the Indians, who form only 7% of the total population, submitted 37% of the total number. Besides this diverse ratio of representations and what the 1DPM earlier termed as power of the majority, there could be other reasons. This perhaps reflects the different racial characteristics. Generally Chinese do not like to dispute, nor do they want to vent their views in the open with a mass audience. Another interpretation is that most of the Chinese accept, given the political reality, that there is a with need for multi-racial representation in Parliament. However, many Chinese have some reservations about the new system as contained in the Bill; for example, some of them think that this would give too much power to the minorities to bear upon political parties. Table 3 of the Report shows that out of the 34 representations by the Chinese, 11 are against any change to the system. The ratio is almost 1 to 3. This is higher than that for the other racial representations. So, while attending to the reactions of the minorities to this Bill, we should also be mindful of to the feelings of the Chinese. We should convince the Chinese that for the long-term benefit of the nation and long-term interest of the society harmony of Singapore, it is necessary to give this kind of political concession. This is a price to pay in exchange for racial harmony and political stability. We can come to mutual agree- ment in times of peace and stability when we are cool-headed and rational. This would be far better than being forced to reach a compromise after some racial trouble or turmoil.”
“First, there were as many as 99 representations from the public, which is the largest number ever received by a Select Committee. The number of representations is unprecedented. This reflects the concern of the people for the political reform and their serious concern for this Bill. However, the ratio of the representations by to race is disproportionate to the racial distribution of the population. Moreover, different races express different views on the Bill. The second point is that the great majority of the representors agree that in an election, race is a factor to be considered. This means that the race of a candidate and the racial proportion of the voters can affect the result of an election. The third point is that the majority of the representations accept the concept that there should be multi-racial representation in Parliament. More than half of the representors also accepted the GRC system. Although there were other suggested alternatives to GRC, the Committee thought that their demerits weighted their merits, or they are no better than the GRC proposal. The fourth point is that the Select Committee, having heard the views of the representors and with the benefit of collective wisdom, amended certain important provisions of the Bill, which include the definition of a Malay, the explicit inclusion of "Indian" as one of the minority communities, and the stipulation of the minimum number of GRC MPs. As regards the first point, namely, the racial composition of the representors and their reactions can be seen in Tables 2 and 3 of the Report (Pages IV and V). Although the Chinese form 76% of the total population, only 34 submissions were received. This represents 37% of the total number of submissions accepted.”
“So be it. This is where the Malay Community Committee comes in as the arbiter who have to set its own clear and comprehensive guidelines and endorsed [I repeat "endorsed"] by the community. And for that matter, the composition of this Committee is crucial if its authority and credibility are not to be questioned. It is for this reason that I welcome the proposed amendment to require the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to consult organizations in the Malay community before making nominations as to who should sit in the Malay Community Committee. I also welcome, Sir, the amendment to the original definition on who could belong to the Malay community in clause 6. Feedback has it that not only it is simpler, but it also removes the unhappiness associated with the lengthier and more contentious definition originally put. I have earlier argued why its apparent looseness and therefore invites the risk of including almost anybody, as some alleged) need not be a worry at all. Lastly, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendment specifying that three-fifths of the total number of GRCs will have to be those with Malay candidates. This should put to rest any uncertainty on the number of Malay candidates to be in the GRCs. However, I assume that this is not a limiting provision in the sense that there could still be Malay candidates who stand in single constituencies. For while I too accept the argument that they need not be representative, a proportional number of Malays as MPs, if no suitable or quality candidates are to be found, the three-fifths rule should not be taken as the maximum number at this point. Sir, I support the Bill. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Select Committee on GRC contains fourimportant points.”
“This, Sir, is the politics of accommodation by both the majority and the minority, a more rational if not safer brand of politics than the politics of communalism or politics of confrontation, given the sensitivities that exist in and around our nation. Let me now, Sir, come to two specific issues on the Bill. Sir, as the Committee hearings progressed and after reading its Report and after hearing the Member for Potong Pasir, it occurred to me that there is still some confusion over what is ethnicity or commonly referred to as race and what clause 6, section 27(A), subsection (7) hopes to deal with. The latter, Sir, does not seek to define ethnicity, does not seek to define who or what is a Malay. It merely specifies two necessary conditions to be fulfilled before anyone could be taken as one belonging to the Malay community. These two conditions, Sir, are that the person considers himself to be a member of that community and is accepted as such by that community. To me, it is rather facetious to suggest that a Maori who merely marries a person who leads a Malay way of life would fit the bill, for it grossly over-simplifies the issue. Even if in the remote theoretical realm this could be possible, I cannot see it happening in reality. It is not, Sir, as if one could simply become a member of the community and to be accepted by that community as such overnight and by such simple acts as marrying one from that community or merely declaring that one considers himself to be a member of that community. Acceptance, Sir, is much more complex. It depends on a whole bundle of values, attitudes and attributes which the community itself, in turn, determines, defines, and accepts. And it is the spirit and intent of the Bill to leave it to the community to decide.”
“Sir, 99 representations were sent to the Select Committee on the proposed GRC legislation, the biggest number so far received by a Select Committee and representing a good cross-section of the population. That the Bill should arouse so much interest is understandable as it impinges on how the people's representatives are to be selected and elected in the future. Now, whatever imperfections it may be purported to suffer, they do not overwhelm the benefit that accrues to this society, and that is, the institutionalization of a multi-racial Parliament, not racial politics, as contended. Sir, the need for us to perpetuate this characteristic in this country has been widely accepted and amply argued these past few months and reiterated again during the deliberations of the Committee. If it is a concession by the majority to the minorities, as some representors have stated, it further proves, Sir, the boldness, the seriousness and the commitment that this Government has to multi-racialism and to ensure that every commmunity here has a place in the sun. Then, Sir, there are those who argue that the minorities would, under the proposed system, wield undue political leverage. And while it may seem that way on first examination, it glosses over the more complex and perhaps less pessimistic position. The actual mechanics of getting a minority into a team of three would involve a bargaining process that would mute or moderate extreme political positions among the potential candidates. It has to be, and not as has been suggested by the Member for Potong Pasir that it could lead to an increased clamouring of rights and privileges by any group.”
“Sir, at the opportune time, I will certainly remind the Minister of what he promised this House. On that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JG 1000 of the Main Estimates. Sir, when my GPC visited the National Library sometime last year, we revived the issue of Sunday openings for our libraries. We were informed then that the issue would be considered. Perhaps the Minister can inform the House the consequence of our request. Sir, I still get requests from members of the public for us to continue to urge our libraries to open on Sundays and I am told that my colleague, the Member for Yio Chu Kang, also receives similar requests from his constituents now. We are aware of the pilot project at the Marine Parade Branch Library but we are somehow unconvinced that the libraries should not be open on Sundays. Apart from making it more convenient for the public to go to libraries, our view is that Sunday openings could be used as another measure to encourage the habit of reading among the population. Also it is definitely a much better way to spend Sundays at the library than at shopping centres. Our stand, therefore, Sir, should not be, "OK. The library is open on Sunday. Let's see how many people can use the facility." Rather, Sir, it should be, "Look. The library is open on Sunday. Why not bring your family to the library? Read together, explore together." The GPC feels that the project should not be dismissed that easily and that quickly. The impression we get is that manpower or rather the lack of it is one of the reasons, if not, the main one for not pursuing the project. Can the Minister clarify but, more important, can the Minister reconsider the request for libraries to be open on Sundays?”
“Sir, in view of the comprehensive reply, at times more than what we bargained for, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I was wondering whether the Ministry could consider the following: (1) Send more local performers and groups to participate in art and cultural festivals abroad, or to perform abroad to acquire the necessary exposure and as an incentive for them to improve; (2) Invite more foreign experts to conduct workshops for our local talents; (3) Send those with potential for classes and courses abroad to acquire higher and new techniques; (4) Pay more attention to the development of music and its performance. As unlike drama and dance, it appears that music has somehow lagged behind in development.”
“One way perhaps, Sir, is for us to increase the services to families through the setting up of neighbourhood counselling and care centres in all constituencies to provide day care for the chronically ill and disabled aged or the very old to provide some relief for family care-givers. This could be supplemented with the home visit service and to provide medical health and advice to such families. The Member for Ulu Pandan, and a member of my GPC too, has some ideas on this and perhaps she could elaborate on it later or we could consider writing a report for submission to the Ministry later. In the context of a higher dependency rate in Singapore, the increasing pressures of working life and the need to ensure that we have enough people in the workforce, we will need to look into this issue seriously and comprehensively. If I may have, Sir, the Minister's comments on this?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his lengthy exposition of ways to achieve cohesiveness. Before I go on to my next topic, if I may add that precisely because the measurement of social cohesiveness is difficult because it is so intangible, that perhaps we have to find some way of trying to measure and ascertain it. You cannot see it easily, just like flats or houses. Sir, allow me to go on to my next topic on the preparation for an aging society. Much has been talked about the coming of an aging society in Singapore. Many of its attendant problems have been highlighted but much more has to be done and I am glad to note that the MCD has a programme planned to focus attention on the problems of the aged. This is as it should be and perhaps the Minister could inform the House what his plan is. Apart from this, Sir, I would like to bring his attention to one aspect of the problem which, in my view, should be given serious consideration and attention that is, the problems faced by the care-givers, especially those who look after the very old, the chronically ill or even disabled aged relatives. It is right for us to encourage members of the family to care for and look after these elderly relatives but we must also be cognizant of the stress and the strain that such care can cause to the family and ways must be found to relieve them of some of these difficulties. Some of these problems have been highlighted in the press recently and only yesterday there was a letter in the Straits Times Forum Page emphasizing the difficulties of the care-giver.”
“Have we ascertained, Sir, whether these acts mean anything to our students? Or for that matter, to the teachers? Do they relate to and believe in the words that they utter everyday? If not, why not? Or, Sir, have we done enough to encourage those who have never had any contact or even any interaction with anyone outside their ethnic group, let alone have a friend among them, to do so? Improbable as it may appear, Sir, I believe that there are Singaporeans who go through life this way. These are some of the issues involved and there are many others. The Minister may say that not all these methods used originate from or are under the purview of his Ministry, and that really the business of ensuring a cohesive community is everybody's business. Whilst this may be true, it seems only logical to me that somebody or someone has to do the coordination, the monitoring. As community cohesiveness is an element in the mission statement of the Ministry, but not in those of the other Ministries, perhaps the Minister could inform this House of his assessment and his views of the situation vis-a-vis citizen cohesiveness and of his Ministry's plans to achieve this.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates to be reduced by $100. Sir, the subject of citizen cohesiveness and the sense of pride for, and belonging to, the nation rarely gets discussed when we debate on the work of the Ministry of Community Development. Attention is often focused on welfare, culture and the arts. This is a crucial area, Sir, and one in which all of us should be paying more attention to. Perhaps it is time for us to make a serious assessment of all that we have carried out towards the objective of building a cohesive society filled with citizens who have pride in and love for the country. I am talking, Sir, of the work and activities carried out by the grassroots organizations, the plethora of campaigns, rituals and symbols, even policies, that we have employed towards the achievement of this objective. Now I do not know if there has been any effort to ascertain the effects and success of these methods. And if there is not, I would like to suggest that some mechanism be put in place to monitor these. For instance, are we more cohesive now than before? Where have we succeeded, and where have we gone wrong? Are our methods and the way we implement them achieving the objectives? I say this, Sir, because there appears to be enough feedback to suggest that there may be a need to fine tune or even review some of the methods that we use. Take, for instance, the singing of our national songs. The other day the Member for Ayer Rajah alluded to the possible counter productive effects of almost incessant playing of these songs. I share his observations, Then, there is the ritual of reciting the pledge, the flag-raising ceremony and singing of the National Anthem by our students every day.”
“At this point, Sir, let me stress that I am not for one moment suggesting that we go along as if we are free from the challenges, free from the constraints outlined in the Green Paper. And I certainly hope that Singaporeans share these concerns with us. But I believe, Sir, that even within these limiting boundaries we still have some considerable leeway to act in consonance with our goals. To be fair, there is already a discernible trend in this direction. I think this holds a lot of promise. We can do more, and I am confident that we can succeed. As I said earlier, Sir, this Agenda is like a breath of fresh air.”
“But now, Sir, these urgencies are no more and the Vision in this Green Paper is testimony of our desire and readiness to achieve beyond our basic concerns. The scenario has changed together with the attributes of our population. And so must our methods. Sir, no one can seriously quibble about the general goals we have set for ourselves. What we will have to consider now is to see whether the means which we adopt - our policies and the way we project and implement them, our civil servants and the way they deal with the public - will enable us to achieve these ends. Some Singaporeans generally doubt that these goals can be fully achieved unless the conditions, and atmosphere, for their achievement are present. If we want to develop, and I quote from the Paper, "into a lively, vibrant nation, full of ideas and creativity" or, to quote from another section, where "we want Singaporeans to make decisions for ourselves and have a stronger sense of control over our own lives", then, Sir, an environment for these to happen must be put in place. Someone said to me, many times Government's good intentions suffered (yes, suffered) because it tries too hard and too seriously. He was, of course, being facetious with his words. But, Sir, his message was serious, more serious now than it has ever been because of changing circumstances and because of the very characteristics we wish our society to possess in future. Now the means may be just as crucial as the ends. We should not therefore dismiss this viewpoint. So while we accept these goals, and these are excellent goals, in my view, we should also in tandem prepare the suitable means to reach them. This is one area we will have to seriously address ourselves to.”
“However, I would like to emphasize that in our being frank and in our being open in our discussion of religion and race, we should do so with great care and sensitivity. Inter-racial and inter-religious harmony is so fragile, so unpredictable. The evidence around the world underscores this. It takes very little to spark off trouble because we are essentially dealing with something we are born as and cannot get out of, or something which we believe determines our eternal salvation. So our attitudes when dealing with race or religion should therefore be to seek to understand, not to prejudge; to soothe rather than to hurt. We will need to shed whatever prejudices or stereotypes we may have, because as long as we cling on to them, there can never be real openness or any solutions. I feel it is not enough for us to merely accept multi-racialism, and multi-religionism. We must want it. We may be a little awkward in our initial attempts at handling ethnic and religious issues openly. But I believe that with the right attitudes, enough experience and commitment, we can succeed in our goals. For me, Sir, my own dream is for a Singapore with its multiplicity of races and religions without any form of chauvinism, without any form of bigotry; diverse yet one. Let me now come to the next issue, and that is on means and ends. Sir, in the 60's and 70's when we strove to build proper homes for Singaporeans trapped in slums and squatter settlements; when we had to clear land for the needed factories and offices; when we had to start a credible defence machinery to fill the void left by the British, our needs and our goals were urgent. Our very survival was at risk. The ends justified the means we employed then, painful as they might have been to many Singaporeans.”