Ladies and Gentlemen:

First of all, let me welcome all of you here today to the National Youth Seminar. I look forward to listening to your ideas about how we can build a better future together, and to discussing these ideas with you.

A little more than a year ago, we kicked off our quest to develop a Vision for youth development. I am glad to say that through a co-operative process, we worked out a vision that is both inspiring and practical. But what is just as valuable is the process that has brought us here today – a process that included brainstorming, interviews, discussion and debate. Thank you, all of you, who participated and helped to shape this vision.

We want to develop "World Ready Youth" - to make youth that are ready, prepared, having the skills, knowledge, insights, values and energy that will enable them to meet the myriad challenges coming our way.

The spirit of youth all over the world today is a spirit of adventure and dare. It reflects the new environment of the 21^st century, which rewards enterprise, and applauds innovation. In Singapore, we can do no different if we are to stay in the global race, to do well economically, and to grow more gracious and whole socially. We must change to keep up with the times.

We need new attitudes to risk taking. We need new rules and regulations that encourage this, that reward the winners, and give losers a chance to come back again. But these changes also herald a more fundamental change, perhaps the most fundamental change at the national level – and that is the role of the people sector, and its relationship with the government.

Singapore’s rapid and successful development over the last three and a half decades could not have taken place without strong government. But as we transition into a more entrepreneurial society, the role that government is expected to play has changed. People want more say in policies. The government has to take into account a wider spectrum of interests and concerns. Various groups are emerging, and each has its own set of goals and wishes. They want a bigger say in setting national priorities.

In recent months, more people have joined this debate, such as through letters and articles in the newspapers. In the workshops running up to today’s seminar, you too have debated the role of Youth and Nation, Youth and Globalisation, and Youth and Active Citizenship. I see new and bright faces at today’s seminar. We have made progress.

But each of us has different ideas about how we should move ahead. How then will we make progress? This morning, I would like to examine two issues with you that I hope will help us take a couple more steps forward. The first is the form of relationship between people and government sector. And the second is how we should build up this relationship.

Firstly, let us look at the relationship between government and the people sector. In some countries, relationships between civil society groups and governments have become antagonistic. For example, when the WTO conference was held in Seattle last year, violent demonstrations by non-governmental groups disrupted the meetings, and brought discussions to an early and disastrous end. I do not think that Singaporeans would want to adopt this as a model for relationships between our government and the people sector.

A confrontational approach generally results in a win-lose outcome, or worse, a lose-lose outcome. In Seattle, the demonstrators felt that they succeeded by setting back the WTO meetings. But what did that achieve? The failure of the talks only means that the world has lost an opportunity to settle problems and differences that could have created more trade, investments and jobs. No one gains from this.

In a recent article regarding civil society, Simon Tay, Zulkifli Baharudin and Cherian George suggested that the demonstrations in Seattle, and activist actions in other cases, demonstrate the growing legitimacy and influence that non-governmental groups have achieved. I do not believe that by drawing this conclusion they are endorsing the bully tactics or demands of these groups. If this were their intent, it would carry the argument too far. NGOs have a role, but this does not give them legitimacy to displace the role and authority of an elected government. They may raise issues of concern, but this should not be through violent means or through pressure tactics. Because when non-governmental groups resort to force to get their way, this destroys the very principles of co-operation, democracy and rule of law that they also claim to support.

We should ask ourselves whether there is a better way. It is up to us how we want to order our society. There is no reason why the relationship between government and people must be based on a culture of confrontation, rather than co-operation.

We should look for an alternative. A better way for people and government to work together is for both parties to focus on common goals and interests. We have examples of how this works in Singapore. The Singapore Environment Council works closely with the Ministry of Environment to raise public awareness on the protection of our environment. The Necessary Stage joined effort with the NYC in 1999 to stage a play to warn youth on the consequences of drug abuse and juvenile delinquency. The PAGi or Parents Advisory Group for the Internet, was set up recently to help the Singapore Broadcasting Authority manage the risks that children are exposed to on the Internet.

Instead of thinking in terms of "us" and "them", such efforts are based on thinking in terms of "we". This is not an unreasonable model for building a strong people sector in Singapore. Because if we search for it, but find no common ground, then we really cannot work with each other, and we might as well not try. But if there is common ground, this is a far more promising place to start, than to focus on our differences.

Such an approach may not always yield a result that pleases all parties. Every decision that the government takes is done for the benefit of the country. But there are bound to be some who disagree. But by focussing on our common goals, we achieve at the very least the benefit of working together, rather than at odds with each other.

Let me therefore move on to my second point, which is how we can make this relationship work between the government and the people sector.

In the "us and them" model, whoever shouts louder wins: "No you can’t" versus "Yes we can". Issues are ultimately settled by force, not logic. Such a process seldom leads to the best outcomes, because the best ideas and arguments are blocked out of the discussion by preset positions and mindsets.

We need a better process for dialogue and discussion to succeed. I would like to suggest two ideas how we can make the "we" model of co-operation work.

Firstly, we should base our arguments on facts and thoughtful reasoning, and not resort to the use of force and pressure to enact change. Well-structured arguments help everyone to understand an issue better. But conversely, wrong assumptions or exaggerations, presented as facts, can mislead, confuse and bring about defensive responses. This is not to say that our arguments must all be dry and colourless. We can champion ideas with passion and panache, but emotional arguments disconnected from real life situations only cause us to sidetrack and become distracted from the real issues.

Secondly, we need to recognise that not having our ideas accepted in full does not mean that this co-operative process has failed or that the government is not sincere in wanting to work with the people sector. If we think about it, the more this process works, the greater will be the number of alternative ideas that will be raised. But having more ideas means that some of them will be incompatible with each other. Some may want more parks and gardens, others more buildings and facilities. So not all ideas can be adopted. But having more ideas on the table on any particular policy helps us to see the issue from many different angles. So even if some ideas are not accepted, each idea would have contributed to the outcome and helped to clarify and shape the final decision.

These are some ideas on how we can develop a more mature process of co-operation between the government and the people sector. Of course, it would take much more than this to build a strong working relationship. I hope that as you think over these ideas, you will be able to suggest yet more ways to improve this process.

The government is committed to make this process work. But it will take some time to shift mindsets and learn new behaviours, across the civil service, as well as in the people sector. In the article I cited earlier, the civil service was also criticised for its reluctance and refusal to engage. This is not true. The Civil Service has replied and given their account of the events. While the organisations concerned may not have engaged the issues to the satisfaction of everyone concerned, it overstates the case to say that they were unresponsive.

The Civil Service is well aware that it must do its part to make communication a two-way process, and demonstrate in tangible ways its willingness to work with the private and people sectors. It also recognises that misunderstandings and the occasional unfounded criticism, will occur along the way. But this is a worthwhile journey, and the government will continue to walk this path with all who are willing to walk together with it.

Ladies and gentlemen:

There is so much energy in the new economy. Some of you here today may well be millionaires in a few years’ time. Perhaps some of you already are.

But economic progress can be sustained and these opportunities fully unlocked only if we also progress socially. We are well positioned to grow economically. Now, we also need to put in place processes to build our society at an equal pace.

The principles are different. In building the economy, the principle of the market rules supreme. The economy runs on Adam Smith’s principle – that everyone working to maximise his own benefit makes the marketplace work. But societies cannot be run on this basis. If everyone looks out only for his own interest and champions ideas that only benefit himself or his interest group, then the government will not be able to build national cohesion. We would have no common ground on which to build our society. For societies to work well, we need the reverse principle from that of Adam Smith – that is, each one looking out for the interests of others will eventually build a cohesive society that benefits himself. What we need therefore is a "Musketeer" principle – All for one, and one for all.

At first glance, this looks like a paradox. On one hand, we are encouraged to pursue self-interest. On the other, we are expected to subsume self-interest for the sake of the community.

But there is no conflict. We are a competitive country today, but we have not lost our sense of cohesion and community. Looking around at the many new faces, and reading your workshop reports, I am optimistic that this will continue to hold true. You are idealistic, but also realistic and pragmatic. Sober, yet willing to take risks.

So let us count our blessings, and also redouble our drive to do even better. Let’s strive to be economically successful, and also to build a new society based on co-operation and trust between the government and the people sector. And let us embrace the future in the spirit of World Ready Youth – and dare to dream, do, serve and live.

Thank you for listening to me. Now I look forward to listening to your ideas, and to our discussion after that