Singapore Government PRESS RELEASE Media Division, Ministry of Information & The Arts, 36th Storey. PSA Building, 460 Alexandra Road, 0511. Tel 2799794/5

Embargoed Until After Delivery Please Check Against Delivery

SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER IN PARLIAMENT ON TUESDAY. 18 JAN 94

Review of 1993

I look back on 1993 with some satisfaction. Our economy grew strongly. It was the best performance since 1988.

2 We also put in place policies which will sustain our robust growth - going regional, tax reform through the GST, autonomous schools, health care reform, and raising retirement age to 60.

3 We introduced practical schemes to increase Singaporeans' assets - upgrading HDB flats, selling HDB shops to create a new class of commercial property owners, the CPF Share Top-up Scheme, selling Singapore Telecom Group 'A' shares to make Singapore a nation of share-owners.

4 The upgrading of HDB flats and sale of HDB shops are one-off programmes: the recipients benefit only once, although the programmes will be stretched out over a number of years. In contrast, the CPF Share Top-up Scheme and the sale of shares of privatised statutory boards will benefit Singaporeans each time the economy does exceptionally well, and each time we privatise another statutory board.

5 We will periodically top-up Singaporeans' CPF accounts, provided we enjoy good growth and exceptional budget surplus. This will achieve two objectives: one, increase the assets of Singaporeans, and two, bring home the message that our individual prosperity is linked to the collective prosperity of the nation. If all of us work together to increase the wealth of the country, a portion of it will be redistributed to the people in the form of CPF Top-up or shares sold at a discount. This way, Singaporeans will understand, in a most vivid way, the linkage between their personal contribution and the country's collective performance - because better national performance brings dividends for each and every one of us.

4 Strengthening Cabinet

6 I have one big regret for 1993 - the loss of many good men from Cabinet: the late Dr Tay Eng Soon, Ahmad Mattar, , Dhanabalan. And later this year, Yeo Ning Hong and Ker Sin Tze. Their departure from Cabinet, along with 's, has left a gaping hole in Cabinet.

7 My priority is to build up the younger Ministers quickly. They will be tested and stretched, groomed and developed. They will take on more responsibilities and in many instances, double ministries. Singaporeans who think that Ministers are overpaid should bear this in mind. We do not appoint Ministers just to fill vacancies. We appoint them only when we think they can carry their own weight, and pay, as Ministers. And when they take on two Ministries, they do not get double pay. The savings go to the government.

8 We all know 's qualities. He is an ideas man, a conceptualizer, an effective communicator. He looks at problems from a fresh perspective, and has built up MITA from scratch into an influential ministry. But MITA's line responsibilities do not include many painful policies, like COEs or medical cost increases. Now that George Yeo is in charge of the Health Ministry, in addition to MITA, he will have to show that he can implement unpopular policies, persuade Singaporeans to accept bitter medicine, and be tough enough to absorb and counter public criticism. He has already started, with yesterday's Ministerial statement on Medishield Plus and CO-PAY ASSIST.

9 George knows why I sent him to the Health Ministry. He accepted the challenge.

10 Lim Hng Kiang in a way is a contrast of George Yeo. He is a very effective nuts and bolts man, quick, impatient and decisive. He does not share George's keen interest in history and abstract ideas. His posting to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will give him a new dimension.

11 Teo Chee Hean is a cross of George Yeo and Lim Hng Kiang. He has impressed with his chairmanship of the Committee To Promote Overseas Enterprise. Come July, he will help Lee Boon in the Ministry of Defence. After he has proven himself, which I think he will, I hope to appoint him to succeed as Minister for Defence. 3

12 Abdullah Tarmugi has moved quickly, quietly and confidently to fill the vacuum in the Malay leadership. He is reaching out to the Malay grassroots leaders, and unifying the different factions to work for the common good of the Malay community. But he has to show that he can both run a Ministry as well as lead the Malays before he is made a Minister.

13 I believe Lim Hng Kiang, Teo Chee Hean and Abdullah Tarmugi have the potential to be Ministers.

14 Barring unforeseen circumstances, like ill health, the present Cabinet members will realise Vision 1999 for Singapore, and see it into the 21st Century. u 15 But we will still need to find 3 or 4 new Ministers before the next GE. We need to lighten the load of those Ministers with dual ministries as well as to prepare a new crop who can take over from the older Ministers in the 21st Century. This is a national priority, not just a task for the PAP. For if we fail to find and induct the best to serve in politics, Singapore leadership will lack the strength and experience to face the challenges in the new Century.

MPs in NTUC

16 There is another group of leaders whose political contribution should be better recognised. Their contribution to Singaporeans' prosperity has been largely unnoticed and grossly unappreciated. They are the union leaders and MPs in the NTUC. Without them, we would not have a union movement which seeks first to co-operate instead of rushing to confront, which pursues productivity instead of merely demanding more pay, which re-trains workers instead of rejecting the introduction of machines, computers and modernization. They form a bridge between Government which looks long term, and workers whose concerns are short term. Their task is not a simple one: they have to persuade workers that policies are correct, and at the same time persuade Government to modify policies to suit the rank and file. Of necessity, much of their work is not made public, as such public airing can unnecessarily poison the industrial relations atmosphere. Because the public is unaware of the bridging work they do, they remain largely unappreciated.

17 Like the Government, NTUC too is facing difficulties in recruiting good men into their leadership ranks. Hence, the need for the Government to parachute 4

in MPs from time to time. These MPs need to be paid a fair market wage and be rewarded for their contribution. Certainly, they will have to be paid what they would earn outside NTUC.

18 I intend to recognise the importance of the labour MPs by bringing some of them into Government from time to time. This is different from the practice of seconding Ministers to run the NTUC at the unions' request. It is for those who have decided to make a career in NTUC and who in our view can also contribute as a Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of State or Minister. When circumstances permit, we will also ask those whom we intend for political office to serve first in NTUC, so as to sharpen their feel for the ground.

19 I started this scheme with Lim Boon Heng, followed by Goh Chee Wee. Chee Wee will return to NTUC after a while. When he goes back, others like Othman Haron Eusofe will be taken into Government, on a rotational basis. The aim is not to appoint every labour MP into government office, nor to let them hold ministerial title when they return to NTUC. Otherwise, NTUC will be saturated with Government office-holders. It is to broaden the experience of the NTUC MPs who can contribute in Government, and benchmark their public status.

20 To recruit and retain the services of MPs in the labour movement, NTUC must pay them their market worth, just as we are doing for civil servants and Ministers. Otherwise, NTUC will not have the leadership to advance workers' interests along constructive line.

21 At the same time, NTUC must also find ways to accord due recognition to other union leaders who rise from the rank and file, or who join as professionals. Together with the labour MPs, they are responsible for making the industrial relations system work.

Formula for Minister's Salaries

22 has re-opened the subject on Ministers' salaries. Personally, I find it distasteful to discuss how much ministers are worth and how they should be paid.

23 After my speech on the salary revision for civil servants and Ministers on 3 Dec 93, Senior Minister rang me up. He apologised for not being in Parliament to show support. He had misjudged the time when I would speak. He added that he would choose an appropriate occasion to 5

show that he endorsed the policy to pay Ministers near market wages.

24 He showed me the draft of his speech. I agreed with his suggestion of finding a formula to fix and revise Ministers' pay. I do not know at this stage what the best formula will be. But there is merit in having the formula published, openly debated in Parliament, and adopted for the long term. Then Ministers' pay can vary with market conditions without our having to re-argue the need and rationale for a revision every few years. It will go up when the economy does well and come down when it does not.

25 In Singapore, Ministers have powers. But their powers are exercised for the public good, never for personal gain. To give you an example - Ministers create the conditions for companies to do well and their shares to boom. But they do not enjoy the benefits. They do not trade in shares. They may apply for shares through IPOs (initial public offers), but they neither trade in the market nor speculate.

26 Dr sold off all his shares upon his appointment as Finance Minister. Nobody told him to. He just did, to avoid any conflict of interest, and any misperception that he might benefit from inside information. Other Ministers invest their savings through investment managers in the form of blind trust. Like Mahathir, I don't play shares, not for week-day expenses nor for week-end entertainment. I have not bought any share from the market since becoming an MP except Singapore Telecome Group 'A' shares. How many bull markets we have all missed!

Two Other Priorities

27 My two other priorities this year are: 1. To address the problems resulting from an ageing population; and 2. To extend the spread of our second wing.

Ageing of Population

28 Ageing of population is a universal problem. Many societies are ageing, but we are ageing the fastest. I have prepared some charts to illustrate this problem. They will explain why I am focussing on this issue this year. 6

29 CHART 1 shows the percentage increase of the population aged 65 and older for selected countries.

30 For UK, the population aged 65 and older will increase by about 30% between 1991 and 2025. For Singapore, our rate of increase will be about 250%, 8 times the rate in UK.

31 Now look at CHART 2. It will take UK 85 years for their proportion of aged to grow from 10% of the population to 20%. But it will take us only 17 years. Japan will take 25 years, and the others more than 50 years to become an elderly society. The ageing of our population is therefore not a long term problem. It has already descended upon us and we have to address it now, not 10 or 15 years later.

32 Why is our rate of ageing much faster than the developed countries? We had a baby boom after the Second World War, like many other countries. Then our birth rates came down sharply in the 1960s and 1970s, as living standards went up, as a result of rapid industrialisation, economic development and urbanisation. We also had an effective family planning programme. Birth rates also fell in the developed countries, but they did so more, gradually, over many years.

33 At this rate of ageing, Singapore will have 592,000 people aged 65 and above in 30 years' time, (or nearly 600,000), as compared with 164,000 now. It will require 10 Marine Parades to house these 600,000 elderly Singaporeans. Their acute hospitalisation needs alone will fill two new SGHs.

34 Our ratio of working-age persons to retirees will drop sharply. This is measured by the aged dependency ratio, ie. the ratio of population between 15 and retirement age to the population above retirement age. This is shown in CHART 3. The current aged dependency ratio is 11 if retirement age is fixed at 65. By 2025, it will go down to 4. The working population then will have to be extremely productive to look after themselves, their children, and their parents.

35 CHART 4 compares our aged dependency ratios with selected developed and ASEAN countries. Our ratio of 4 is much lower than our ASEAN neighbours'.

36 CHART 5 shows another way of measuring the youthfulness of a society. It shows the median age of 7

Singapore as compared with selected countries. The median age divides the population into two equal halves.

37 By 2025, our median age would have gone up to 42, closer to the older, mature societies like UK and France. In contrast, our ASEAN neighbours will still be relatively youthful. Malaysia, in particular, will have a young population.

38 A young population has an advantage in international economic competition. Young workers acquire skills more easily. When the market situation changes, they can be retrained more quickly in new technology and production processes. I worry that in 30 years time our economy may lose some of its drive, vigour and competitiveness.

39 If companies and young workers then will have to be taxed heavily to support the large number of elderly Singaporeans, that will be disastrous. Companies will lose their cost-competitiveness. Workers will have less take-home pay.

40 We must never burden companies and the workers with punishing income tax. That is why we have reformed our tax system and introduced the GST. If ever we need more revenue, which I do not anticipate for quite a long time, we will raise GST instead. GST is a tax on consumption, not on production.

41 In anticipation of the rapid ageing of our population, last year we raised the retirement age to 60. We will gradually raise it to 65, and eventually to 67 as life expectancy increases.

42 Our CPF withdrawal age . at 55 is totally out of step with today's reality and life-expectancy. Several European countries have recently raised their pensions withdrawal age, ie. the age from which pension benefits begin. Japan has upped it from 60 to 65. Germany and Italy did likewise. France has increased from 37.5 to 40 the number of years people must work to collect their full retirement benefits. Sweden is also planning to increase its retirement age.

43 Look at CHART 6. It compares the Pensions Withdrawal Age with Male Life Expectancy in selected countries. On average, for the developed countries, pensions are payable for only 8 years. Our CPF, which is equivalent to the pension scheme, is expected to last us 19 years, and the Minimum Sum 14 years. I am amazed that some workers are courageous enough to start a second family in Batam or Haadyai with their retirement savings. I think the Malays would call them Pak Sanggup - someone who imagines he is more capable than he really is and accepts a position of responsibility he cannot fully discharge.

44 "Life expectancy" data actually refer to "life expectancy at birth".

45 We should actually be talking about "life expectancy at age 55" or "average life span of those aged 55 and above". This figure is not the same as "life expectancy at birth". It is higher, because "life expectancy at birth" data have to factor in infant mortalities, and those who have died before 55.

46 In 1992, while average life expectancy at birth was 76, average life expectancy at age 55 was 79, or 3 years more. So we should add 3 more years to the retirement period when a person lives on his CPF savings.

47 Can a person who stops work at 55 live on his CPF savings for another 2 2 years? Just think what will happen if his savings run out.

48 Our CPF withdrawal age of 55 was fixed in 1955, nearly 40 years ago. We have raised our retirement age but not the CPF withdrawal age. Ideally we should follow the example of the developed countries and link the CPF withdrawal age to retirement age. Then, we will all have to work beyond 55. This was what the Howe Yoon Chong Report recommended. But instead, we decided in 1987 to solve the problem by a different route: the Minimum Sum Scheme. This requires CPF members to set aside a Minimum Sum at age 55. Currently, the sum is set at $34,600. Members can withdraw it as an annuity starting from the age of 60.

49 We do not need to raise this withdrawal age for the Minimum Sum for the time being. But we will link it with the retirement age. As people live even longer, and we raise the retirement age above 60, the withdrawal age for the Minimum Sum will have to go up in step.

50 However, we should start to increase the Minimum Sum now. There are two compelling reasons. Firstly, the present Minimum Sum was set for a subsistence living, and is insufficient to meet the expected standard of living for future retirees. Secondly, no retiree should become an economic burden for future generation. He should depend on his own savings, supplemented by allowances from his children. With nearly 600,000 elderly, and only 4 workers to 1 retiree, the country will not have the resources to fund welfare programmes for the elderly.

51 We cannot expect Singapore to grow at more than 6% per year in the 21st Century. As our economy matures and our population ages, we are more likely to grow at 3 to 5% per year, like the developed countries.

52 We have to prepare now to make sure that the old of tomorrow can look after themselves. Otherwise, they may find themselves left high and dry if the economy cannot generate sufficient growth to look after their welfare.

53 I propose that we double the minimum sum in real terms. This will not be done overnight, but slowly over 10 years. With adjustment for inflation, the final number should be about $80,000.

54 Presently we allow the entire Minimum Sum to be in the form of a pledged property. MPs have pointed out that property is an illiquid asset, and we do not want to force people to sell their properties to live on the proceeds. Some MPs have suggested that we introduce reverse mortgages on HDB properties. MND will study this.

55 Meanwhile, I propose a more direct approach: we will require part of the Minimum Sum to be in cash. I propose that of the $80,000, up to half can be in a property, and the remainder must be in cash, so long as the person has the cash in his CPF account when he reaches 55. Most will.

56 We should make this adjustment gradually, over a decade. This way, we will not force large unanticipated changes on those who are presently nearing 55. For example, we can raise the Minimum Sum by $5,000 per year, starting next year, until it reaches $80,000. In parallel, we can phase in the cash requirement, increasing it by $4,000 or $5,000 per year, until it reaches $40,000, i.e. half the target Minimum Sum of $80,000.

57 After the Minimum Sum reaches $80,000, it should be adjusted annually for inflation, as we have been doing. 10

58 As the Minimum Sum increases each year, we will proportionately raise the annuity amount which can be withdrawn monthly. The monthly withdrawal will be based on the total Minimum Sum, including the property, as at present, rather than the cash amount. However, the monthly withdrawal will have to depend on the amount which the member has set aside in his own Minimum Sum. It will therefore vary from member to member, unlike at present where all members make the same monthly withdrawal, even though they put aside varying amounts in their Minimum Sums.

59 Most CPF members will have no difficulty meeting the revised Minimum Sum requirement. Most young CPF members will probably have bought a house by the time they retire, and will have accumulated more than $40,000 in cash in their Special Accounts. By raising the Minimum Sum gradually, we minimise the impact on those who are about to withdraw their CPF savings.

60 To help CPF members build up the cash amount needed for the Minimum Sum, the CPF will pay a higher interest rate on the Special Account and the Minimum Sum (Retirement Account) than on the rest of members' balances. This is justified as these balances are held for the long term, and cannot be taken out for investing in properties or shares. The Ministry of Finance will work out what this higher interest rate should be.

61 Low income members may not have $40,000 in cash to put aside when they reach 55. We will allow these CPF members to withdraw at least half their cash balances when they reach 55, even if the remainder will be less than the $40,000 needed for the Minimum Sum. This is the present arrangement. But we should reconsider the rule which allows members with less than $11,000 in cash to withdraw the whole amount at 55. I suggest we reduce this floor from $11,000 to $5,000.

62 Ministry of Labour is studying the details of this scheme, and should be ready to announce its findings within a few months.

Spreading the Second Wing

63 Now, let me deal briefly with the other priority for this year - spreading the second wing. Senior Minister has already spoken on this. There is no need for me to elaborate. Our emphasis will be on implementation, finding suitable projects and partners, 11

and helping countries in the region grow as we benefit from their growth.

64 Other than the ASEAN countries, we should concentrate on China, Vietnam, India, and Myanmar. Pakistan and Cambodia are also possibilities. I am visiting India later this month and Vietnam in early March. I also plan to visit Myanmar this year. I have been invited to visit Pakistan and Cambodia and will do so at a convenient time.

65 We are setting aside a portion of our reserves to invest in the region. If the region grows strongly, as we, others and the World Bank expect it to, we will have a steady stream of income from our external economy to supplement our domestic earnings. This will be especially useful, given our large number of elderly in the 21st Century. Had we not built up these reserves, we would not be sought after. And we would not be able to benefit from the growth in the region, and generate additional income to look after our old.

Civil Service Pay and Medical Benefits Revision

66 I have followed the debate on the President's Address closely. There was general support for the Address - going regional, and focusing on the problem of an ageing population. I note that MPs support raising the CPF Minimum Sum. I hope that they will support the proposal to raise it to $80,000 gradually to prepare Singaporeans for their old age.

67 Unfortunately, the debate has been clouded by the concern and confusion over the change in medical benefits for civil servants.

68 Civil servants are part of the Government. They help to formulate and carry out Government policies. We have one of the best civil services in the world. And we are proud of our civil servants.

69 It is foolhardy for us to upset the civil servants, especially the older ones. There is no reason to, and it is silly for the political leadership to sour up their feelings.

70 The current widespread unhappiness amongst the civil servants is totally unnecessary. It is the result of poor understanding of what the salary and medical benefits revision amounts to. 71 The Government has two objectives in the current exercise to revise salaries and medical benefits. First, to ensure that the remuneration package for civil servants (or compensation as the Americans call it) stay in line with the private sector's.

72 This remuneration package has two components - salaries and benefits, like leave and medical benefits.

73 The salaries of civil servants have fallen out of line with their counterparts in the private sector, but the medical benefits are ahead. So instead of just adjusting salaries alone and leaving the medical benefits untouched, we decided to adjust it as a package to secure a second objective.

74 The second objective is to remove the buffet syndrome in the use of medical benefits. We are trying to remove this syndrome for the general public and we in the public sector must set the example. It is not tenable for us to reform the health care system for the public but not for ourselves. The problem is not that the country cannot afford the health care expenses now but that it will not be able to afford it in future. Our economy is maturing. We will become less competitive. Advances in medical technology is prolonging lives. They are also expensive. We will have more old people in absolute numbers and relatively fewer younger people to support them. These are huge problems - not of the long future of 50 to 60 years, but in the near future of 15 to 20 years. To forestall these problems we have to tackle them down.

75 We must change the system where once you have paid for a buffet of medical benefits, you can use them as freely as you like. The civil service must lead, not follow in this change.

76 But in changing, we must not make any serving civil servant worse off. They may not be better off, but they must not be worse off. If any civil servant finds himself worse off in this salary and medical benefits revision, he should take it up with his departmental head or Permanent Secretary. His problem will be put right because it is an unintended result. I repeat my assurance. No civil servant should find himself worse off in this revision exercise of salaries and medical benefits.

77 I was extremely annoyed at the mistake made by the Ministry of Finance in implementing the revision of 13

Medical Benefits. The Public Service Department (PSD) issued two Finance Circulars dated 21 Dec 93 and 31 Dec 93 stating that civil servants who opt to stay on the old medical benefits scheme would not be entitled to future salary revisions. This was a mistake. It was a quite unnecessary threat to civil servants.

78 I did not know that the Ministry of Finance had done this. When I heard that civil servants were unhappy about this, I immediately wrote to the Minister for Finance. Dr Hu explained that the Ministry wanted to induce serving officers to opt for the revised medical scheme rather than stay on the old scheme, and felt that this would be consistent with the principles enunciated in the Health White Paper. The mistake has been corrected and revised. Circulars have been sent out.

79 I reassure all civil servants who may decide to stay on the old Medical Benefits Scheme that they would be eligible for future salary revisions, and certainly promotions. But the future salary revisions must factor in the value of the medical benefits they will then be receiving as against the lower value of the revised Medical Benefits Scheme. In other words, they will be entitled to future salary revisions but these revisions may not be the same as for those who have opted for the revised Medical Benefits Scheme. For example, if the difference in the value of medical benefits is calculated to be 0.3 per cent of salary, they will get correspondingly less in their future salary revision. We have to be fair to the civil servants who have opted for the revised Medical Benefits.

80 During the debate, many MPs spoke about the concern of civil servants who fear they are worse off under the new Medical Benefits Scheme, despite the concurrent salary revision. George Yeo and Aline Wong explained yesterday why this is not so, and why civil servants are much better off opting for Option B, the new comprehensive co-payment scheme, instead of sticking to the old medical benefits and the old salary scales. Despite this, there may be some MPs and members of the public who have not fully understood the details, and are still worried.

81 I will not go into the details again. The basic logic is simple. Under the old scheme, civil servants enjoyed free outpatient treatment, and co-paid only a small share of their in-patient hospitalisation expenses. Under the new scheme, they must co-pay for their 14

outpatient treatment, and pay about twice as much as before for in-patient hospitalisation expenses.

82 To find out whether they are better off, they must compare their incremental expenses, ie. the expected outpatient expenses (between $30 and $180) plus additional expected hospitalisation expenses (average $200 for Division I, $40 for Division IV), against their salary increase (Typically $2,800 for Division I, $1,000 for Division IV). They will find that their pay increase is generally 5 or 10 times larger than their incremental expenses.

83 Civil servants may counter-argue that these are only averages, ana that if they are particularly unlucky, and are stricken with renal failure or cancer, then the extra medical bills would be much more than their pay increases. This is a valid concern, but they need not worry because most of them are already protected by basic Medishield. Nevertheless, to reduce their risk, PSD has worked out with NTUC INCOME a special supplementary insurance scheme, CO-PAY ASSIST. This will pay half the hospitalisation expenses of civil servants on the comprehensive co-payment scheme. Since these hospitalisation expenses are twice as large as they used to be, with CO-PAY ASSIST civil servants and their dependants will end up paying about the same hospitalisation bills as before, and therefore will not be exposed to any additional risk of hospitalisation expenses.

84 Civil servants who want to be completely safe can buy CO-PAY ASSIST. To check whether they are better off than before, they should compare their salary increases with their new expenses; which are their expected outpatient treatment, plus the premium on CO-PAY ASSIST. (They will not have any other incremental expenses because CO-PAY ASSIST will restore their share of hospitalisation expenses to about what it was under the old scheme) . PSD has done this comparison for individual officers, for an officer and his wife and for a family of four - the officer, his wife, and two children. Again, in almost all cases, the salary increase is much larger than the new expenses, and generally 5 or 10 times larger. Table 10 circulated by Aline Wong yesterday, summarises the figures.

85 I have instructed PSD to go over the detailed figures with the public sector unions. If they find any anomalies, where the salary adjustment is not enough to compensate for the increase in medical costs to the 15

officer, PSD will put them right. No civil servant need be worse off under the new co-payment scheme and the new salaries than he was before 1 January 94. And if he has basic Medishield, and buys NTUC INCOME Insurance under CO-PAY ASSIST, he will not be worse off however unlucky he is with his illnesses, whether renal failure or cancer.

Conclusion

86 I have one nagging worry about Singapore's future. Senior Minister said that Dr Winsemius had observed that Singaporeans wanted more. I agree with Senior Minister that so long as Singaporeans are prepared to work for what they want, there is no harm in their wanting more.

87 My worry is: in their impatience to have more whether they will kill the goose to get at the golden eggs.

88 The goose is the government that we have laboriously built up with the best and the most able for each generation. It is a government which meticulously plans for Singapore's future, and tackles problems long before they are obvious to the people. It is not a government dictated by short-term interests. Nor is it one which yields to popular demands which are against the long-term survival of the country.

89 Yes, we are concerned that the ballot box is increasingly being used as a weapon to pressure the Government. I have received reports of some civil servants saying openly, "Just wait till the next election". This is not new to me. I have heard it each time a person is unhappy over a policy or a rule which affects his immediate interest. Each time I hear it, I shake my head.

90 This is a democratic country and Singaporeans are free to choose the kind of government they want. None of my Ministers is interested in his job because of pay or power. We are not interested in hanging on to our jobs. You do us a grave injustice if you think we are. I speak for most, if not all, the Ministers when I say that our happiest moment will be when we can hand over our job to someone suitable.

91 Our mission is clear. It is to keep Singapore going and to enthuse others to join us in our mission. We will keep on going as long as we can make a useful contribution and are wanted. 16

92 We hope to keep the goose laying golden eggs, by planning for tomorrow so that you can enjoy not just today, but also in the future. Had the Old Guard leadership not done likewise, we would not be enjoying today's affluence, and the problems of success. We want you to live today to the full. But you can do that only if you have carefully planned for your future. Short- term issues are important. We will deal with them, but not in a way that will create bigger problems for the future.

93 You have a bright future. I would say, exceptionally bright. East Asia is being transformed. In 10 to 15 years time, it will be unrecognizable. Singapore is right in the midst of this booming region. Go out and seek your fortunes. You solve nothing by grumbling how high COEs have become or how betrayed you are by the change in medical benefits scheme. Change is a fact of life. He who can adapt to change best is the most likely to succeed in life. This applies to both individuals and nations. Singapore will prosper and so will you, provided you anticipate change and adapt to it. This is the hallmark of the Government - the ability to anticipate problems and deal with them decisively before they suffocate us. We will sharpen this ability, to lay you golden eggs, year after year.