Augustine H.H. Tan
Singapore
“There are instances when reserves should be used, but the govern- ment has to make a case to the President and if good arguments are used, the President is expected to concur. I therefore end by asking you, as you have done in your speeches, to support this Bill with a very loud "Aye" when it comes to the vote. [Applause].”
“We must have confidence that in the end, as Singaporeans, we know what is overall best for ourselves. We are a community of free citizens committed to making Singapore a great city to live in and for foreigners to come visit and admire.”
“There is such a thing as initiative. Who initiated the project? What was the objective of the project? And there is such a thing as economies of scale, the benefits of which are passed on to the taxi drivers. Let us not forget those elements. An hon. Member: They do not pay tax on their income.”
“They can still enjoy the seafood regardless of the indigestion. They can do the shopping and do other things in Johor Baru. I believe that what is important for us is that we do not preclude ourselves the option of setting our own national policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister stated that it is undesirable to employ foreigners to run child care centres because they affect the values of our children. Is it not also true that by having foreign maids in our homes that they too directly impact upon the values of our children?”
“It was a point which I brought out much earlier when a similar matter was debated here in Parliament. Because the government could borrow on the basis of the reserves even though the President has one key to the reserves because there is such a thing as credit-worthiness of the country.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,269 lines we hold for Augustine H.H. Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 26.
“At that time, did the Barisan Sosialis Party object?”
“Point of clarification. Which Party is the Member referring to?”
“Has the Minister made a survey to find out how many of our children already have Filipino accents?”
“Is the Minister aware that many parents leave the house before the children are up and come back after the children have gone to bed? And therefore the maid is dominant in terms of influencing values of the children.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister stated that it is undesirable to employ foreigners to run child care centres because they affect the values of our children. Is it not also true that by having foreign maids in our homes that they too directly impact upon the values of our children?”
“Therefore, for the sake of the future of the future generations of Singapore, I support this proposition to amend the Constitution.”
“They will be able to survive as they are strong and sound, whereas Singapore is a small country without natural resources, if one day our reserves are squandered away when we want to raise loans or borrow from others they may not want to lend us. The other point is about the second function of the elected President, ie, approving the appointment of key personnel, safeguarding the integrity of the civil service. Some people even the newspapers have understood wrongly that the President may appoint key officers of the civil service. In fact, according to the White Paper, the President only consents to the appointments recommended by the Prime Minister. Even if the President does not concur on the nominations of the Prime Minister, say, after once or twice, then the government can announce this position and ask the people to decide. Therefore, I feel that there are two main factors why Singapore can survive and progress. We should not take these two main factors for granted and think that the future generation will also be enjoying our present progress and prosperity. What two major factors to our advantage are that we have good political system, independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and clear-cut demarcation of division of power. In some countries, even big ones, there is no rule of law or system of law, no clear-cut independence of the judiciary. So they cannot prosper. The merchants cannot even do their business because there is no commercial law. Secondly we have a just, capable, clean political leadership of integrity and efficient civil service to serve us. So, the elected President can supervise over and enhance these two kinds of assets of ours.”
“But if the President does not concur, then the government can apply pressure on him or resort to the people's decisive voting for a decision. So I feel there should not be such worry. Another reason is that this proposal arose because in a democratic country where everybody has a vote, usually an irrresponsible political party or an opportunistic politician would use sweet words and blandishments to snare befuddled voters who may make the wrong choice. Perhaps during the general elections opportunist politicians may use the reserves and giving of subsidies and tax free as a kind of political bait to win votes. If there should be such a possibility or situation then the elected President's exercise of curbing power will be very important because the Government formed by such candidates may not be able to carry out their schemes and cannot play their political games as their resort to the reserves would likely be blocked by the President. With such provisions, opportunists may not have an opportunity at all. Just look at the general elections of some industrialized countries such as USA. When the candidates are having a Presidential election, they dare not touch on some touchy problems such as tax increase to meet budget deficit or reduction of welfare handouts, while they may raise certain policies in order to bait the voters. But such a country like USA could survive even in difficult times when they spent their reserves because they have large land masses, bountiful natural resources and huge population of some two hundred years of nationhood.”
“While we are having a good life now we should also think of possible perils of the future. We are discussing the question of future safeguard, not for the present but for the future, for generations to come, as to how to preserve Singapore to be a stable, safe and prosperous country. On the face of it, $30 billion seems to be a large sum of money. If an irresponsible government should turn up, within the short space of four or five years, it can squander away this sum of money. So now the most important question before us is how we could devise a system of balance between the government's power and the elected President exercising curbing power. When the Government thinks of touching the reserves it will have to consider that the elected President has this power. Some people say that there is the worry that the elected President may interfere with the government's use of the reserves, so that the government may be paralysed. But I would say that such fear need not arise because if there is a government like the PAP, which is able to create new avenues of income and able to spend $5 billion on the building of the MRT without resorting to the use of the reserves, it would be proof that if a government is capable and efficient, it would be able to create new revenues of income and need not resort to the accumulated reserves which are mainly CPF savings from the people. Should there be a natural disaster or when there is worldwide economic depression, then for the survival of Singapore when there was no other recourse, I suppose the President and the people would concur with the government's use of the reserves to overcome the difficulties.”
“From the debate yesterday and today, I feel there is a question which is very important. That is, under the elected President system, there may be conflicts between the President and the Prime Minister. If we can delineate clearly the powers respectively of the President and the Prime Minister respectively, then such conflicts may be avoided. It can be just like the Judiciary being independent. In other words, we could stipulate that the civil service should be entirely independent and free from interference of Party politics. We all know that Singapore is a small country without any natural resources. The two proposals of the elected President system are for the safeguard of these two assets, our reserves and the integrity of our civil service, which are very important to the survival and long term interest of our country. Thank you. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by the Member for Kebun Baru. In discussing this question, we do so in a serious mood and in a comfortable environment. We are discussing how to safeguard our reserves and maintain a clean, upright and efficient civil service. When we look around at other countries, we see them talking about how to solve the problems of corruption and poverty in their organizations, civil service and in their systems. So today we are able to discuss this question in a better condition and situation, and we should be glad about this good fortune. At the moment we have already accumulated some $30 billion of reserves and we have built up over 23 years of independence a civil service with integrity and efficiency. Therefore, now is a very opportune time for us to review this question as to how we can ensure we continue with this good system in future.”
“After four years, now we are convinced that we have enough reserves. So, not only is there no such problem, we even need an elected President to safeguard the reserves. About four years ago when we debated on the problem whether we had enough CPF money to return to the retirees, the Government found it difficult to produce all the accounts to show whether there was enough reserves or not, whereas under the present proposal there is a means to prove whether the reserves are intact. There is another advantage in the proposal. That is to say, if we have an elected President to safeguard the reserves, then Opposition candidates cannot make use of the reserves as an issue in the general elections. They would promise the electorate that the reserve funds can be used to subsidise them or for their other benefits. there would not be grounds for sduch promises to be made if it is known that the elected President has to approve of such use before the reserves can be touched. There is the second function, that is, the safeguarding of the integrity and efficiency of our civil service. It is very important because a clean, incorruptible and efficient civil service is our national asset. We have the system of civil service for a long time. It takes a long time for us to build up, with much effort, such a civil service. Recently I read from the newspapers that China is also now implementing a kind of civil service system. In the past, they mixed the Government and the party together and the party cadres had been doubling up as Government officers. Now, they are trying to implement a system of civil service and to separate the Government from the party. This shows that they also value the integrity and efficiency of the civil service.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the White Paper was announced, I discussed with my friends this topic of an elected President. They thought that there should be no controversy about the safeguarding of the reserves. In other words, they agreed that an elected President should have a role in the safeguard of the reserves. But on the second function of the elected President, they did not seem to understand well. On being asked about it, their reaction was that if the candidate for President is to be Prime Minister Lee, then there will be no problem. But I feel that this kind of perception is wrong because we should not look at the issue by the choice of the candidates. We should judge the matter on its merit. On the candidate. On the contrary, some people disagree with the proposal also because of the candidacy. Their reasoning is since Prime Minister Lee has been the head of the Government for some 30 years, his influence over the future Government would be very great if he were to be the President. They are of the view that the power of the second generation leadership would be eroded if the PM is to be the elected President. This view is the same as the earlier one. I have said that we should judge the matter on the system itself and not on the candidate's personality. I remember that at the last general election there was the suspicion expressed by Opposition candidates about the sufficiency of CPF funds for the refund of CPF savings to retired people, especially when the Report on the Problems of the Aged was published. This question of whether there was enough CPF funds to refund to the retirees became an issue at the election.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before the lunch break I was talking about financial prudence. That is one of the strong points of our Government, and I see this White Paper as an attempt to institutionalize policies relating to financial prudence. Another equally important pillar of our country is an efficient and incorrupt civil service and towards this end too, I think the White Paper is an attempt to make sure that in the future Singapore will continue to enjoy such a civil service. Sir, I would like to suggest, regarding this proposal for a Presidential Committee for the Protection of Reserves, that this Committee be enlarged to assume the role of a Council of Economic Advisers that will provide the Government with an independent overview of the economy and to make recommendations accordingly that would benefit the country. At the same time too, regarding the role of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau: we might consider whether they should be vested in the Presidency as well because if the President has the power to deny appointments in the civil service, then equally he should have some safeguard powers over the incorruptibility of the civil service. Furthermore, since we are also discussing the prequalifications of Presidential candidates, we might also usefully discuss whether we should not have prequalifications for Members of Parliament. At the moment anybody can stand as a Member of Parliament, whether they have got police records or not, and is it desirable for this to continue or should we not have a special committee that will screen candidates for public office at all levels, including Members of Parliament. In that case we can rule out bicycle thieves and people of undesirable character.”
“It was a point which I brought out much earlier when a similar matter was debated here in Parliament. Because the government could borrow on the basis of the reserves even though the President has one key to the reserves because there is such a thing as credit-worthiness of the country. So with $31 billion worth of reserves, we are credit-worthy and any government of the day can borrow from abroad. But our assets can be attached by foreign governments and by foreign banks, even though the government has no right to withdraw the reserves by itself. Next, we also need to be conscious or aware that the size of the Government in relation to the GNP is critical to the health of the economy. When the size of the public sector is too large, even though you have a balanced budget, it could be to the detriment of the economy. So that may be something which the Government would like to look at for the future.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whether it is one man or several men, the point is you get many governments in such a situation. And we are trying to devise ways and means to prevent such a situation from occurring. I invite him to visit Rangoon and other parts of Burma to see for himself the decadence, the decay that is there, the inflation, the stagnation, the external indebtedness. The point is this, Sir. The power of any government to destroy the economy is enormous unless proper checks and balances are built in. And we are not unique in this, Sir, in seeking some new mechanism in order to ensure the viability of our country. Many countries are seeking similar mechanisms. The United States Congress a couple of years ago passed a special Bill to force the President to balance his budget. And over the course of a number of years, the Executive would have to balance its budget and the provision is automatic. If the President failed to trim his budget deficit, the law itself would do it for him. And he would find himself with no funds to pay salaries of civil servants. That is even more drastic than what we are proposing here. What is important for us to realize, Sir, is that we have to ensure that Government economic policies will benefit the country and not the reverse. We need to ensure that governments, unless there are special exigencies and for a very short time, should always have a balanced budget. Because to have an unbalanced budget, to have a budget deficit, means that the government will have to borrow. And I am very glad that one of the provisions of the White Paper is that the elected President will be able to block the power of the government to borrow, whether internally or externally.”
“So many countries in the world, developing and developed, have got huge government budget deficits. They have borrowed huge sums from abroad. They have high rates of inflation, low savings, low investment. They have currencies that are continually being devalued. How would the hon. Member for Potong Pasir like to be a Burmese, where for 30 or 40 years, he would have experienced an economy not only stagnating but going backwards. And it was only last year or a few months ago that the government ordered that the currencies above a certain face value would no longer be legal tender. By one stroke, the government wiped off millions of dollars.”
“Has the system worked because it is a good system? Or has the system worked because history has thrown up a group of men with that integrity and the ability to govern, the farsightedness to govern and to govern well? And that is why we must examine this White Paper and the issues very carefully in this light. There is a lot of debate as to whether the provisions will end up paralyzing the Government or whether they merely delay and exercise a moderating influence on the Government. This is something we can debate and we should debate. But we already have checks and balances in our system. We have the Judiciary, we have the Executive and we have Parliament. So it is a matter of giving more power to one or to the other and altering the balance as we go along. And other countries are doing the same thing. They have to make changes to their system of government from time to time. But ultimately, as I said earlier, no matter what system we devise, we have to have the support of the people and the people themselves must want to do the things and to accept the policies that the Government is trying to sell. That means building consensus. This is what the Government has set out to do in the last few years through the Economic Committee, through the National Agenda, through the Feedback Unit, through the Government Parliamentary Committees and the resource panels, through the Advisory Councils and through various grassroots organizations. The attempt has been to build a consensus, to instil certain values which are sufficiently common that will enable us to proceed as one nation with distinct objectives. When we look at what has happened to many countries throughout the world, what do we find? You read the IMF reports. You read the World Bank reports. It is very depressing.”
“Let us address the questions such as: are the safeguards necessary? Are the safeguards sufficient to achieve the objectives that they purport to do? And, thirdly, what is the best mechanism for achieving the objectives? The Member for Telok Ayer made the point that our system of government has worked over the last 30 years. So why change? But it is precisely because of what the Member for Braddell Heights said yesterday that no matter what system of government we devise, whatever checks and balances we build into the system, the best constitution in the world cannot guarantee that the right type of people, incorruptible, honest, able to govern, are elected by the people, whether it be the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and Members of Parliament or an elected President. Ultimately, it is the people of Singapore that must decide. Sir, when a Singaporean travels abroad, he comes home realizing a lot of things about Singapore in comparison with other countries. When you queue up at an airport to get your ticket checked, your bags checked, you realize at once that there are very few countries in the world where we can virtually get the ticket checked in a matter of minutes. In many countries, we have to wait half-an-hour, one hour. When you arrive at an airport, it may take you an hour, two hours, to get out of the airport. In Singapore, in a matter of minutes you are out. Singapore works. It is an efficient Government. It is an efficient system. It is a Government that has dared to take a long-term view and there is virtually no patronage in Singapore. Pork-barrel politics does not exist in Singapore. I find this to be a very unique feature of our system. And the question is: how do we preserve these features for future generations?”
“He said that under the proposal for an elected Presidency, all potential candidates have to be screened rather carefully. And in the light of the proposed qualifications, President Reagan himself would never have qualified to be President of the United States or to be Governor of California. But, Sir, look at the mess the man has made to his own country. And that mess is threatening the stablity, the viability, of the world economy. Yes, because he was an actor. He did not have administrative experience. Sir, when MPs debate this White Paper, some of them appear to be confused or appear to take the view that this White Paper is already a Bill before the House. And they debate the provisions in minute detail as though we are about to implement a Bill on the presidential election. It is a White Paper meant for discussion. The issues ought to be discussed widely and I support the proposal by several MPs that this White Paper and its provisions be made an election issue. The Member for Rochore wants a referendum instead. But I suggest that the best way is to discuss the issues during this coming election. Because behind this White Paper are issues that go beyond the question of electing a President and I shall refer to them very shortly. The Member for Ayer Rajah made a very significant point earlier this morning. He said we should distinguish between personalities and principles. And I suspect that those who love the Prime Minister may be blinded to some of the provisions in this White Paper and those who hate him may similarly be blinded as well. I would suggest that whether we love him or hate him, let us all love Singapore. And let us debate the issues as to whether they are the best provisions for the viability of Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Kebun Baru. First, may I dispose of certain points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. In the first place, this man is full of fears. And my recommendation to him is: do not act out of fear because the more you fear something, the more it will come to pass. In expressing his fears, he also expressed a number of contradictions. He wants more democracy. But when we have provided two measures that are going to create greater democracy because there is greater decentralization of powers, namely, the Town Council and now an elected Presidency, he claims that both of these are anti-democracy. And he does not like the idea that an elected MP would also be responsible for the affairs of Town Councils. He also made the point that the Government has detained people because they wanted changes in the system. And here we are advocating some fundamental change in our system. He should bear in mind that there is a very real difference between trying to change the system via subversion, via revolution, via violent means, and changing the system through the open political process. The Member for Potong Pasir would not be here if we did not have a system that allowed for open political discussion. In fact, he organizes public rallies freely. He was extolling the American Constitution. But as the Minister for Trade and Industry pointed out, the American President himself is an executive President. And you have so many checks and balances in that system. In fact, it is a system which is really proving itself to be impossible for any government to exercise any authority or to govern the country successfully.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought he drew the House's attention to the fact that had there been non-constituency MPs admitted to this House after the 1984 general elections, we would have had to introduce such an amendment earlier. But you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, part of the fault lay with the Member for Potong Pasir. He would not let us have one non-constituency MP from his party.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I shall have the pleasure of addressing the Member for Potong Pasir as the honourable Mr Chiam See Tong in the near future. Sir, we are not honourable Members just because we address one another as "honourable". We must earn that designation for the hard work that we put in for our constituents, for the respect that we gain in pursuit of our work as Members of Parliament. But I have a question for clarification by the Member for Potong Pasir. As I listened to his speech, I was drawn to the conclusion that he is now a supporter of the provisions for non-constituency MPs and for GRCs. Am I correct, Sir?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill and at the same time to seek some points of clarification with the Hon. Minister. Sir, during the last recession, it was the large contribution to the CPF on the part of employers of 25% of a worker's wages that enabled the Government to cut 15 percentage points from wage cost in order for the economy to recover very quickly. But once we have made the cut, it is no longer possible to do so in future because we are restoring in small percentages. This year we are restoring 2 percentage points to the CPF contribution. In future, in view of the fact that there is a monthly variable component to wages as well as the 13th month non-pensionable annual allowance component, will the Government forgo any changes in the CPF contribution rate? I raise this question because the last time the CPF was cut, there were some problems posed for those who had bought houses and incurred housing loans and adjustments had to be made. If the Government does not intend to use the CPF as the adjustment mechanism in future, then a worker would know that out of the wages that he receives, the disposable income that he has, he has to make whatever adjustments in future. Then he can plan accordingly. Perhaps the Minister can inform this House of the intention of the Government in future. In other words, in varying the wage of workers, whether CPF will remain intact and only the wage components which are variable will be changed.”
“May I, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, ask a few questions of clarification? Would the President be in charge of investing the reserves? Secondly, would the Government be free to incur a budget deficit without the approval of the President? Thirdly, would the Government be allowed to borrow from overseas without the approval of the President? Fourthly, in the event that there is an attack on the Singapore dollar and reserves are necessary to defend the dollar, and the President refuses to give his approval, would the dollar then have to be devalued?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can we continue to assume that the people of Singapore still want Opposition MPs in this Chamber after the very dismal performance of the ---”
“It is not too late. You know, when the Prime Minister gave the money away, it was good, politically, for him. So it is good politically for you to give the money away. It is not too late.”
“Sir, I mentioned one deficiency earlier on. But now I detect another deficiency - of hearing. I said things he never listened properly to and now he comes up and accuses me of all kinds of things. Of course, besides stable, good government, there were other factors. Yes, we are a hardworking people, like the Member for Potong Pasir.”
“May I amend it to say that his intelligence quotient is less than what I would like for myself? The connection between the Marxist Conspiracy and the Hendrickson affair is simple and obvious. Here is a pot of trouble brewing away, exploit it for political advantage. It is as simple as daylight. Now, if you want me to say outright that the Americans are trying to sabotage us, of course I cannot say. I do not have the evidence. In the nature of black operations, you only see the results. You do not see the motives. You do not see the agents actively doing things. You see things moving, shadows. That is why we need the ISA. And if he is really for Singapore, he should come up and say, "Yes, we need ISA for the security and stability of Singapore." Now, please, what about my $7,000?”
“No, wait a minute. And he cannot see connections. I cannot make up for his mental deficiencies. But I can at least try to explain.”
“I won't let him off so easily. We will take one issue at a time. I mentioned various groups. The Member for Potong Pasir the other day made a statement in the press that he considered the Marxist Conspiracy a laughable matter.”
“Sir, the motion by my colleague calls for a vigilant government but I believe the public needs to be vigilant as well. I would urge the public of Singapore, firstly, to be suspicious of fly-by-night politicians. Secondly, to be aware of foreign attempts to steer our political direction. Thirdly, to report any attempt to instigate, subvert or buy politicians or would-be politicians. In these ways, we can help to safeguard the integrity of Singapore. Finally, a word for the Member for Potong Pasir. Yesterday he mentioned that I paid him $6,000. I am glad he did. But I am not sure he will be glad he did shortly. What I did shows very clearly that laws in Singapore apply to everybody, whether we are PAP MPs, opposition MPs. I was advised by Joe Grimberg whom I went to see that I should settle. I made one mistake. I thought he charged $200 for one letter but he said he wrote several letters. So I paid. I got into trouble defending a poor constituent of mine. But when the Prime Minister won his libel suits, he gave the money to charity. May I challenge the Member for Potong Pasir to give the same to charity, including the $1,000 I paid him for legal fees? $7,000 in total. I want him to reply to me, Sir.”
“Seventh, foreigners may discuss local events but must not interfere with the political process. Eighth, no one is above the law. The laws of libel, corruption, arson, riot, will be used, whether for MPs, Ministers, priests or whatever. Ninth, the ISA will remain an integral part of our security system. Here, I must disagree with my colleague, the Member for Ulu Pandan. We must not give way on this issue. The Prime Minister has stated very clearly the historical reasons for the birth of the ISA and for its retention. We need it to govern this place. It has been used judiciously, wisely. There has never been any abuse and I believe there are sufficient safeguards. The No. 10 element of this political model - religious leaders are not to meddle in politics by using churches, temples and mosques. May I just say something about the liberation theology which is so popular in the western countries, and it is being propagated in many developing countries. This is the theology from the pit of hell. It is really covetousness of power, contempt of authority and licentiousness that are hidden beneath the clerical robes of those who preach this kind of theology. Biblical theology teaches submission to all authority, even unfair authority. There is no biblical warrant for riot or revolution or using the church as a political platform. The injunction is, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things which are God's." By all means, let us do the good works that are the evidence of living faith - visit the sick, feed the poor, educate the illiterate, whether we are christians or non-christians. There is so much social good that we can all do as Singaporeans.”
“Destabilize these countries if you want them to grow faster. South Korea and Taiwan have given in to this kind of pressure because they are client states. But we refuse to concede. The result: South Korea today is in turmoil. And Taiwan, there are strikes. Farmers are agitated, and two Ministers in Taiwan have publicly stated that they blamed the political liberalization for the economic dislocations that have come about in their nation. What are the aims of these pressure groups? I believe it is a three-fold aim. Firstly, it is to build an effective opposition that could be an alternative government amenable to manipulation. Secondly, to pressurize existing governments into giving concessions. Thirdly, economic sabotage. These attempts happen to coincide with the economic stagnation of the West. It also happens to coincide with the rise of protectionism in the West. But the sad results of the efforts of these groups are that politicians of flawed characters are nurtured, promoted and put into office, and puppets like Noriega of Panama are put in power. Do we want such a situation in Singapore? Sir, as I have observed our own political developments, it seems to me that we are developing our own political model suitable for Singapore, and may I just list the elements. Firstly, the people are the supreme arbiter every five years. Secondly, we have free competition among legitimate political parties. Thirdly, no society is to be used as a means of political or social agitation. They are to be used only for their own legitimate objectives. Fourthly, the mass media is to have an informative, educative role. Fifthly, no appeals to race, religion or language. Sixth, protection of the rights of minorities.”
“The Asian NICs, in particular, were a cause of adulation when economists wrote about the economic success of these countries. Few queried the political system. Fewer mentioned human rights. Now these same Asian NICs are labelled "dragons and tigers". For the Chinese, the dragon is an auspicious mythological animal. But for westerners, this House might like to know, the dragon is an evil symbol. And the tiger, of course, is a ferocious animal. So to describe us as dragons and tigers is not a compliment. It is meant to disparage us. The very institutions that have brought about the economic success are now under severe attack. A disciplined political system, a hardworking population, responsible trade unions - these things take time to build. They took the lives of people who invested themselves in the nation and yet we find in the Far Eastern Economic Review of 19th May 1988 three articles about Singapore. I have got three quotes from those articles to show you the kind of campaign that has been mounted against us and what is the thinking behind it. First quote, it says: 'Further economic development depends on political liberalization.' Second quote: 'Singapore has been moving against the political trend evident in the other NICs in East Asia progressively restricting freedoms and plurality.' My third quote: 'Where is Lee taking Singapore? If not to a more liberal democracy than most South Koreans and Taiwanese seem to assume is the reward and flower of economic progress and beyond a certain point a necessity for further economic development. How long can the PAP stay in unchallenged power without succumbing to toddyism and corruption.' See the thinking behind. Political stability is no good if you want further economic development.”
“I think they do not like our government. It is one of the few governments in the world that dares to exercise authority. It is incorruptible and it happens to be very successful and popular and it cannot be manipulated. When I meet journalists I have the distinct impression that most of them prefer government leaders who are stupid and who can be easily influenced. They do not like it when we are able to tell them exactly the solutions that we have devised to our problems. They also, I think, do not like our economic success. By all human reasoning, Singapore should be a broken-backed nation. It should be like a banana republic in Central America. It has got no good reason to be successful the way it is. It has got no good reason to have a reputation much bigger than the geography of Singapore, the natural resources of Singapore allow. But we are successful because we have a government that cares for the people. And the label "authoritarian government" has been attached to our Govern- ment. I looked up Webster's Dictionary and it has the following meanings for the word "authoritarian". It says: 'Relating to or favour blind submission to authority. Relating to or favouring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.' This is a Government that has to be judged by the people every four to five years. It is a gross insult to the people of Singapore to say that the people of Singapore blindly submit to the Government. Outsiders do not realize that Singaporeans appreciate the Government because it has given good policies to Singapore. Sir, as recently as five years ago, economists noted that there is a close correlation between political stability and economic growth.”
“The SPA which was the ruling party, 20.4%; Liberal Socialists, 8.1%; Independent, 8.1%; UMNO-MCA, 6.3%; others 3.5%; PAP, 53.4%. What does this illustrate, Sir? That even at that time when Singapore had barely achieved self-government, the people were already opting for a government that is truly independent, ie, a government of integrity. It was an anti-puppet vote. It was an anti-corruption vote. We have come a long way since 1959 and I am pretty sure today the voting will be even clearer - that the people will decisively reject those who are puppets of foreigners. A letter was sent to the Prime Minister from Dean Rusk, dated 15th April, 1961, about the whole affair. After much denial, a letter was finally written, and the Prime Minister revealed this publicly on 2nd Sep- tember 1965 and I quote Dean Rusk's letter: 'Dear Mr Prime Minister I am deeply distressed to learn that certain officials of the United States government have been found by your government to have been engaged in improper activities in Singapore. I want you to know that I regret very much that this unfortunate incident has occurred to mar the friendly relations that exist between our governments. The new Administration takes a very serious view of this matter and intends to review the activities of these officials for disciplinary action. Sincerely yours Dean Rusk.' I have a very simple question. Will history repeat itself? We have been hearing a lot of denials recently but finally will there be a letter of apology? But for us here in Singapore, the principle is clear and must be established. The message is to friend and foe alike. Do not meddle in our politics. My next question, Sir, is why are there so many groups outside Singapore against us? I will venture some answers.”
“I took a look at an article written about the 1959 Singapore General Election, published in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, March 1975, by Dr Ong Chit Chung, and I quote: 'The first shot was fired by Dr Toh Chin Chye, the PAP Chairman, who charged at a pre-election mass rally on the 15th of February 1959, "that Income Tax investigations into a half million dollar account at the National City Bank of New York, in the name of a Minister was quickly choked off ... Americans [this is still Toh Chin Chye] are very slow in learning that those who can be bought for money are not worth buying". The United States Consulate-General and the General Manager of the American bank immediately denied involvement in any such deals. The SPA (Singapore People's Alliance), the ruling party, denounced this charge as "completely unfounded" and "as false as it is stupid". Subsequent events showed that although the charge did not present the full and accurate picture, it was not "completely unfounded" and definitely not "stupid", for it was the PAP's coup de grace. The SPA's house of cards collapsed with this blast.' Further on: 'The whole affair was added with more international intrigue when Chew was linked to Dr Liu Ssu Yeh, a businessman and ex-Minister of Finance in the Kuomintang government of China, and Archbishop Pau Yu Pin, who was the leader of the Catholic hierarchy in China till the fall of the Kuomintang. The disclosure that one of the shareholders of the company in which Chew had invested the "political funds" was Kartini binte Abdul Mulok, the wife of the Deputy Chief Minister and president of UMNO in Singapore, put the integrity and the modus operandi of the whole coalition government into question.' The voting was interesting at the general elections.”
“Sir, as I listened to the Member for Potong Pasir, I had to ask myself the question; who is the wronged party? Is it the United States or is it Singapore? And as I read the newspaper about the reactions of State Department officials, I ask the same question: did we do them wrong, or did they do wrong to us? Let us be very clear. This incident may be only a minor diplomatic flap for the United States. But for us, it involves our dignity, our integrity as a nation. It involves issues of life and death. The debate must not proceed on false assumptions, on false equations, on false conclusions, because the consequences can be very dangerous. As an example of two false assumptions, people are asking: the US is a friendly country, even the Government has said so. How can it have evil intentions towards Singapore? What is wrong with promoting an Opposition even when the US is behind it? People do not know history - that subversion attempts have been made in Singapore and elsewhere by both friend and foe alike. Sir, countries may have common interests and become good friends. But friendship stops when interests no longer coincide. There is room for opposition in Singapore of a legitimate kind, of a home-grown kind, but there is no room for puppets subject to manipulation by others. As we look at our own political history, I am tempted to ask the question: does history repeat itself?”
“I was asking an innocent question, whether he considered himself to be the category that the First Deputy Prime Minister referred to. It is a very innocent question. But let me add something else. 1984 we had a general election. But we had our first recession in 1985/86.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister agree to include useful data such as those presented in Table 2 in future Economic Surveys? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have always tried to do that, but we will try harder in future. LANDS NEAR HDB NEW TOWNS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT The following Question stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting - 10. To ask the Minister for National Development when the Housing and Development Board can make available lands near HDB new towns to the private sector for residential or other development.”
“Sir, before the lunch break, I said that I was against the Education GPC Chairman's proposal despite his persuasiveness. I pointed out that the real problem is not the use of CPF for education but the increasing demand for higher education. It would be unwise to satisfy that demand by using CPF funds to send students abroad. Individual CPF balances will be inadequate and parents would have to supply private funds. Why not allow the setting up of one or two private universities? These could be branches of foreign universities. Government could help by supplying the land and the buildings. And the graduates from such universities would have to be prepared to accept lower starting salaries and prove themselves eventually. CPF funds could then be considered for use in a limited and carefully controlled way to finance such tertiary education in Singapore.”
“Sir, much of the heat of the debate, I think, has arisen from the increased demand for higher education. I think that is really the root of the matter. As a society grows richer, higher education is demanded not only as an investment in human beings but it is also demanded as consumption because of the status symbol that comes from acquiring a piece of paper or a Bachelor degree or a Diploma of whatever kind. So we have got to clearly isolate that increased demand and determine how to satisfy it. In the Education Ministry's debate, much has been said on the issue. I think the main thing is: should we satisfy that demand locally, or should we allow large numbers of students to go abroad, and how many students overall should we allow to have tertiary education? The consideration must be that whoever gets educated at tertiary level will eventually find a job. I think that is a duty of the Government. And as long as that is the consideration, we have to look at the quality of the education. I think the Minister for Labour rightly pointed out that foreign education is a very expensive matter nowadays. The Government could very well say yes to the use of CPF funds, but the parents are in for a rough time if they have to foot most of the bills. I am against the use of CPF for education abroad.”
“This coming year Government is subsidizing $9.4 million. So I assume there is some increase in TDB expenditures. But even in spite of the increase, that $40 million plus the 0.5% cess which would have netted about $5 million or so, would be more than ample to finance all of TDB's operations. So why is he so hungry looking around for revenue, causing trouble to our manufacturers, raising their costs. I mean, the businessmen in Singapore were very happy when he took over as Minister for Trade and Industry, with his Economic Committee Report and his cost cutting measures. He became the most popular Minister in Singapore. Now he is in danger of losing some of that popularity.”
“Members may know that the US manufacturers, in fact, have been clamouring to change the export quota system, which is the present system, to an import quota system, which would be controlled by them. In other words, whatever economic rent would then go to the US Government or to the US importers who manage to get hold of the quota. What I am afraid, Sir, is that all this bickering among ourselves may cause the US and other governments to decide to change the system, from an export quota allocation to an import quota allocation. Then not only would our manufacturers be the loser but we as a country would stand to lose. Furthermore, latest reports indicate that the US is tightening up on the yearly increase to these quota allocations. These used to be 3-4% per annum. Now they are going to restrict it to no more than 1% increase a year. Sir, if one looks back at the recession in 1985, this sector in Singapore suffered quite severely along with the rest of the economy. We have just barely recovered. I would like to urge the Minister to be a bit more reasonable. If he wanted figures (in fact, his figures are wrong), the auction brought in $40 million. But $40 million does not represent 4% of that one-quarter of the export sales. With $1 billion of export sales, one-quarter is $250 million. So $40 million out of that is 16%, not 4%. I hope he does not think that gives him much more room to increase the levy for the poor textile manufacturers. I urge caution. We have just barely introduced this textile quota auctioning system. Let us give it a year to see what happens before we touch the levy. We do not need the revenue any way. If one looks at the TDB expenditure in its latest annual report, 1986/87, $21.7 million per year of which the Government financed $6.8 million.”
“Sir, may I have your indulgence to relate a little bit of the history behind this controversy to which we are referring. The Textile and Garment Manufacturers Association of Singapore saw me twice some months before the actual quotas were auctioned. I gave them some advice. But I heard no more from them until 15th February 1988, when I received a letter from them together with their previous submissions to MTI and TDB. I learned from the grapevine that they had been discouraged by some officials, probably from the TDB or MTI, discouraged from continuing to see me in my capacity as Chairman of the GPC. If this is so, and I think the Minister should check it out, it would be wrong for these officials to intimidate anybody. It is also wrong for the members of the Textile Association to be easily intimidated. So, Sir, when they wrote to me in February, I was disinclined to take up the case. Why should I or my GPC fight for those with no guts to fight for themselves? But after further consideration of their memoranda, I have decided through the Member for Boon Lay to support this amendment. Sir, the real question boils down to who owns the quotas and how valuable they are. Sir, let us note that the textile industry worldwide is a highly protected industry. It is a highly protected industry because it is a vulnerable industry in the advanced countries, hence, the Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA) which is really outside the GATT. It is also a highly competitive industry internationally. Sir, the question is: even when these quotas are set for each country, is there a premium? Is there an economic rent attached to it? Or is this rent easily competed away internationally?”
“For the Member for Potong Pasir, I recommend Peptobismal for his indigestion! Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, on the value added figure. The chart on page 23 clearly shows that the figures I quoted excluded petroleum and petrochemicals. So the problem is more serious than he imagines. And the contribution of the local private investors, the net investment commitments, has gone down not only in dollar terms from $600-plus million to $295 million, it has gone down percentage-wise from 34% to 17%, again a cause of concern to me. Sir, the Minister claimed that there is no lack of money in Singapore. That is true for the public sector - the Government, statu- tory boards run surpluses. But is it true from the private sector's point of view? Is it true from his personal standpoint? Does he have money to invest in a million-dollar factory, let alone $10 million? That is precisely the point. If the Minister does not have a million dollars to invest, then who has? If I may also mention the EDB's effort in the service sector. Sir, we welcome the fact that the Services Promotion Division has been set up and that it has had some success - some $200 million worth of total business spending per year being promoted; $300 million in fixed asset investments plus 13 operational headquarters being set up in Singapore. My concern has to do with a paucity of data regarding the service sector. If one looks at this Economic Survey Report, year after year the only figures we get for investments is in terms of manufacturing. But the service sector, which is the larger part of the economy, we have got very little data indeed. I think it is something which we need to pay attention to if we are going to have proper planning. At the same time, one can also see what scope there is for local entrepreneurship. So if they cannot make it in manufacturing, perhaps they can make it in the service sector.”
“As for the value added per worker and fixed assets per worker, I think the explanation here is also because of petroleum and petrochemical investments. The Member tells me it is not so, I would have to look at the figures again. But that was part of the explanation. Local investments and their proportion in the total amount, we will look at it but I do not believe that availability of funds is the constraint. Our problem with investments has never been where to find the money. Our problem has been where to get the projects, where to get the know-how, the technology and the markets. If you have that, then the investments will follow and the funds can be found. In the last couple of years we have greatly expanded our foreign investment. As a result this in proportion,the local investments have gone down, but in volume terms the local proportion has not really diminished. My assessment is that in order to get a higher volume of local investments, we really need to raise the quality, the technology level, the expertise of our local companies, get new markets, find new projects, and the investments will flow. You are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, not tens of millions. And hundreds of millions of dollars means big projects with fairly sizeable, well-established companies. We need to nurture them, to help them to find the opportunities and to put in the investments. We are doing that. It is still not as quick as we would like to be, but we will try to do better.”
“But before one can qualify for a loan, one has to have some equity of one's own, and it is this really that could be the bottleneck in the development of local entrepreneurship. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, the Member for Whampoa has asked whether EDB is operating offices and branches which are uneconomic and whether we should not trim back the EDB operations in some offices. EDB has in the last couple of years greatly expanded its overseas operations. We used to have offices only in the key cities - London, Frankfurt, even in America only Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. During the last recession, we decided to make an all-out effort to bring in foreign investments because our foreign investment volume was dropping. It had gone down to about $1.1 billion from $1.7 billion. if we could not get our investments up, we might spend our way out of a recession but we would not get growth back again. Therefore EDB moved offshore on a big scale. We set up in Osaka, we set up in Texas, we set up all over the south of United States, to reach out to new catchments and try and bring in new investments. We succeeded. Last year we had $1.7 billion of investments again and a better composition this time - more manufacturing, non-petrochemical related, less of it petroleum and petrochemicals, which have very large dollar values but actually employ very small numbers of people. Whether we should continue with the large number of little offices overseas or whether we should, after a few years, consolidate and contract our ground again - we are reviewing that. It is possible we may pull back and concentrate in a few key locations once again, once we have established a new pattern of operation.”