Chan Chun Sing
Singapore
“Since 2002, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has worked with the autonomous universities (AUs) to establish arrangements that minimise disruption to National Servicemen (NSmen) who are pursuing full-time studies up to the undergraduate level, while meeting the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) operational and training needs.”
“Secondments help to build up the range of competencies and work experiences of public officers to strengthen their longer-term employment relevance and resilience. The Public Service Division's guideline to agencies is to support public officers even while they are on secondment.”
“The priority of our National Servicemen must be their military duties and operational training, to meet the Singapore Armed Forces's (SAF's) operational requirements.”
“In January 2026, I had informed this House that the Government had convened an independent committee to conduct a review of the political salary framework that was laid out in 2012. The Committee has completed the review and submitted its recommendations to the Government in April.”
“All countries seek to develop mutually beneficial partnerships, and the United States-Indonesia Major Defence Cooperation Partnership is one such example.”
“Since the Singapore Armed Forces Volunteer Corps (SAFVC) was established in 2014, over 1,500 men and women have completed training and served as SAFVC Volunteers (SVs). Presently, there are about 1,100 in-service SVs, comprising 52% male and 48% female. About seven in 10 of our in-service SVs are new Citizens or Permanent Residents.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,624 lines we hold for Chan Chun Sing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 53.
“Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was pursuing another specific investigation. Due to operational considerations, CPIB does not, as a general rule, comment on the existence or non-existence of investigations. For the ongoing investigation involving Mr S Iswaran, CPIB has made an exception to disclose that he is being investigated by CPIB as he is a Minister.”
“We will continue to do what is right and right what is wrong, because the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans must be at the forefront of everything that we do. I thank everyone for your support for our Public Service in these difficult moments. You can have my assurance that the Public Service will continue to learn from the recent episodes, apply the lessons and strive to do even better for Singapore and Singaporeans. 4.07 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Patrick Tay for the question, and his support and concern for our colleagues in the Public Service. It is an important point. I am acutely aware that these recent developments that we discussed at length in the House today may have caused uncertainty and dented overall confidence in our Public Service and also among some Singaporeans. Indeed, I have received similar feedback from our Public Service officers. Some wonder if the recent incidents had impacted confidence in our Government and, at the same time, created doubts in the work of our Public Service officers. Others have asked me if they can still do their jobs well and without fear, especially amidst greater scrutiny. As the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, I have assured all our Public Service officers that they do not need to fear, as long as they continue to do their jobs conscientiously, professionally and faithfully. I said this during Public Service Week, "Maintain our conviction, uphold our integrity and aspire to the highest standards for Singaporeans and Singapore." So long as they do the right thing, they need not fear, because if they fear or if they start fearing, then this will be the end of the Public Service as we know it today. I strongly believe – and I share this with my colleagues in the Public Service – that our work in the Public Service is not measured by the here and now, but over the long term. Our commitment to all Singaporeans is that this Public Service of ours will do right, not just for the short term but also for the long haul. We will also acknowledge like anyone else that we are not perfect. But if there are things that we need to improve on or work on, we will do so and not hide behind excuses.”
“Mr Speaker, indeed, thank you for the chance for me to make this clarification. I would say the following things in response to both Ms Lim's comment and, I think, Ms He's question on whether we need permission. So, first, if CPIB seeks the Prime Minister's permission and if the Prime Minister denies that, our rule says that the Director of CPIB can go to the President. And if the President gives his or her approval, CPIB can proceed. So, that is the first point. The second point is that in our record, over the last many decades, the Director of CPIB has never been denied by the Prime Minister – this Prime Minister or a previous Prime Minister – to continue and proceed with his investigation. So, that is the second point I will make. The third point and I have confirmed with the Director of CPIB – when the Prime Minister says no, they can proceed with the investigations and make the case to the President. So, as the Prime Minister enunciated just now, there are two keys: one, is the Prime Minister, whether he agrees; and then after that, the President. Then, the question posed is, what if the Prime Minister and the President, both do not agree with the Director of CPIB, and I think the Prime Minister has made that clear. So, I just want to make these points on record.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think both the Prime Minister and myself have set out the process of investigation. When we use the word "investigations", I think the Prime Minister and myself have gone through the different stages of investigations and what are the associated actions that we may take in accordance with the needs of that stage of investigation. It does not mean that just because somebody is under investigation, all things will follow immediately. I hope we have made that clear in our presentation. That is the context of how the Prime Minister has judged what duties Minister Iswaran can undertake at different stages of the investigation process.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make three points in response to Mr Zhulkarnain's suggestion. Today, the Code of Conduct is gazetted, but the sanctions are not spelled out. So, it is gazetted. The second point is that we take the point. We will continue to regularly review the Ministerial Code of Conduct and all the other regulations that safeguard our system. We will do that. The third point follows on from what the Prime Minister has said, and I think I have also shared this. We need to have good rules. But ultimately, the rules, by themselves, cannot be sufficient. We need good people – good people that will abide by the spirit of the rules; good people that will interpret the rules; and not people that will try to go around the rules. And what is the ultimate sanction? In my mind, I think in our political culture, the ultimate sanction is not whether someone has committed a mistake and pays a certain fine or others. The ultimate sanction is what will the public think of us as legislators, as part of the leadership team of this country. And we must do what we can to uphold the standards whether the sanctions are codified or not codified.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Carrie Tan for her exposition. I think we can understand where the Member is coming from. We have clear rules of propriety and probity. They do not conflict with the aspirations for our personal and family lives. We know the public's expectations for public figures are high. We aspire to live up to them. Where we fall short, we seek to improve. Where we have done well, we must remain vigilant and not complacent. There will be personal sacrifices. Ultimately, the will to answer the call to serve is deeply personal. And I agree, we can all do our part to encourage a positive political environment and engender a more constructive political culture so that we do not deter good people from stepping forth to serve.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Mr Don Wee's question is, it depends on the circumstances. The PSD together with the head of Civil Service and if need be, the Minister in charge of the Public Service will have to make a decision in context.”
“The Director of CPIB only apprised the Prime Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just to put on record. An MP's allowance will be withheld once the MP is suspended from the service of Parliament, as provided by section 29(3) read with section 19 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962. A Motion would have to be moved in Parliament to suspend the Member from the service of Parliament. His or her allowance would be withheld thereafter. On Ms He Ting Ru's second question, can you repeat your second question, or the second part of your question?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the second point on the quality of CPIB's investigations, all our law enforcement agencies learn from one another. They also learn from best practices from other parts of the world to make sure that our systems are up to mark. But the most significant test of whether our investigations are up to mark is really this – that when CPIB or any of our law enforcement agencies submit their case to the AGC and it goes to the Courts, are our investigation methods up to the mark? Because if they are not up to the mark, they will be rejected by the AGC and the Courts. So, the final arbiter, if you like, of the quality of the work that our law enforcement agencies do is actually our Courts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the second question, I have explained the protection of the civil servants in terms of the non-retaliation laws, which basically say this: if anybody thinks that they have a case, they report it in good faith, and even if subsequently the so called "accused" or alleged accused is found to be innocent, there will be no retaliation against the person who made the initial report. That is the spirit of the non-retaliation law and it is in our Public Service rules.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my answer, I have laid out the current rules that the Public Service adopts in terms of whistle-blowing and also the non-retaliation policy, so, I will not repeat that. I will just add that the Public Service will continue to make sure that our rules are relevant and current to the circumstances and needs of the time. We will continue to do this regularly to make sure that our rules are updated, that our people are kept updated and that they have the confidence to do what is right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will reiterate two points. First, the Code of Conduct. Any code of conduct will lay out the broad principles and the guidelines for people to follow, but they must be complemented by good people who must abide by the spirit of the rules and not just the letter of the rules. And this is how we run our system. Three things: we need good rules, we need good people, and if any of these things fail, we must have the third limb, which is that we must have a system to make sure that we put things right. So, in setting out any rules or code of conduct, we are mindful that the rules must be clear, yet, at the same time, not so prescriptive until it becomes paralysing for the system to work. But that is only the first step. The second step – it is very important. It is to have good people with good values who can interpret the rules, abide by the rules and the spirit of the rules, and, if something goes wrong, we must have the system to put it right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the simple answer to Mr Gerald Giam's fourth question is that we do not track such declarations and add them up, but if there is a declaration that warrants attention by the Permanent Secretary or the Head of Agency, they will take the actions necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me clarify just one thing. Just now, what I said may not be entirely accurate; I will check that and I will get back to the House, as to the hypothetical situation which has not happened, whereby the Prime Minister and the President had not given permission for CPIB to proceed. I withdraw that. I will check that and I will get back to the House. On Ms He Ting Ru's question, the question is, once the investigation has started, CPIB will submit its report to the AGC and it will be taken to its logical conclusion. There is no requirement for subsequent approval.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned, CPIB seeks the Prime Minister's concurrence to open up investigation because it involves a standing Cabinet Minister. Has the Prime Minister ever denied CPIB permission to conduct any investigation throughout its history? The answer is no. And the second answer to Mr Louis Chua's question is that: what if the Prime Minister and the President do not concur? CPIB has the right to proceed with its investigation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish not to repeat what I have said in the Statement. On 12 July, Minister Iswaran was asked to assist in investigations and — sorry, it was on 11 July, Mr Iswaran was asked to assist in the investigation. And as the investigation progressed, CPIB made the relevant operational judgements on what to reveal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I will answer on behalf of the Prime Minister as this relates to the CPIB technical issues, which I thought we will address in the second bucket of questions. The short answers to Dr Tan Wu Meng's questions are as follows: one, would CPIB have revealed more information earlier than what it has done? As I have explained, what CPIB revealed from 12 July to the subsequent days, is all dependent on its operational considerations – to preserve the integrity of evidence, the confidentiality of the investigations and also not to adversely affect the progress of the investigation. So, what CPIB revealed at any point in time would be CPIB's operational decisions and that has nothing to do with HPL's declaration or otherwise. Second, will CPIB or, for that matter, any law enforcement agencies take a retrospective review of all decisions made by any officers being investigated? That is a decision entirely dependent on the investigations required by the respective law enforcement agencies, including CPIB. Third, on Dr Tan Wu Meng's characterisation that this is a reputational crisis, as the Prime Minister said, "Yes, we have taken a hit", but I have always believed this – circumstances do not define us. Our responses to circumstances define us and how we respond to circumstances will define us and we have every determination that the way we handle this must restore confidence, by the Singaporean public and our international partners.”
“May I suggest that the House seek clarifications in three segments: the first segment is on our principles of governance and Ministers' conduct; the second segment can be to address the technical issues relating to the CPIB investigation; and the third segment can address questions relating to the Public Service. Should the queries be sufficiently addressed, it may not be necessary for Members to pose identical Parliamentary Questions for future Sittings.”
“They may accept when there are legitimate work-related reasons or when it is impractical or impolite to reject the meal. Unlike gifts, it is more difficult to ascertain the value of a meal. In such instances, civil servants should declare and seek approval from their Permanent Secretaries if they receive any meal invitation either before the meal or, if that is not possible, immediately after. This is especially if they assess that the value of the meal or hospitality is incongruent with the professional nature of the meeting and may give rise to perceptions of influence peddling and conflict of interest, real or perceived. I should share with this House that civil servants are sensitised on these matters that even when they receive gifts of fruits or sweets – as is customary on many of our festive occasions – such gifts are usually distributed in the agency or to a community organisation. We do not keep them. Political office holders adopt a similar spirit and principles in their official activities. There are specific rules spelt out in the Annex of the Code of Conduct for Ministers on the acceptance of gifts and services. In general, all gifts should be refused and returned to the donor without delay. If the return of the gift is impractical, the gift must be handed over to the political office holder's Ministry to be dealt with in accordance with official guidelines. If political office holders want to retain a gift, they will have to pay the Government for it at the valuation price. Otherwise, the gifts have to be surrendered to the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have come to the end of my responses.”
“Between 2020 and 2022, no report which surfaced through this channel was referred to the CPIB for investigation. In addition, there is a Public Service Protocol for the Reporting of Corruption. Under this protocol, public officers are expected to directly report to the Police or the CPIB at the earliest opportunity when they learn of any act of corruption or have reason to believe that such an act may have been committed in their Ministries. The identity of the person making the report will be kept confidential. This is provided for under the Prevention of Corruption Act. CPIB also accepts anonymous reports. CPIB treats all reports received seriously, whether the complainant is named or anonymous. Of the 83 cases registered for investigation in 2022, 13 cases – or about 16% – were from anonymous sources. Public sector cases form a small portion of the cases CPIB investigates each year. In 2022, four public sector officers were prosecuted in Court for offences investigated by CPIB. Mr Gerald Giam asked about the rules for declaring meal invitations and the threshold values for doing so. The rules for the Civil Service on accepting gifts and hospitality are designed to maintain incorruptibility and to prevent officers from becoming beholden to any person or organisation. Civil servants must declare to their Permanent Secretaries any gifts they receive from external stakeholders on account of their official position or work. Officers may be allowed to retain gifts that are valued below $50 if doing so does not affect the integrity of the Civil Service. If officers wish to retain gifts valued above $50, they must pay the assessed market value of the gift to the Government. In the course of their work, officers may be invited to meals by local or foreign stakeholders.”
“It is periodically refreshed to ensure that the integrity and high standards of the Public Service are upheld. In the course of their work, public officers may come across different requests, be it from colleagues, friends, members of the public or political office holders. When handling these requests, officers are expected to maintain a high level of professionalism and safeguard the confidentiality of official information as well as the political impartiality of the Public Service. Should an officer be unsure of a request because it seems inappropriate or unrelated to official work, he should consult and seek guidance from his supervisor. If the request comes from his supervisor or a more senior officer, the officer can escalate the matter appropriately through the chain of command, including directly to his Permanent Secretary, the Head of Agency, the Head of Civil Service or the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service. The Code of Conduct is reinforced through various channels, such as annual quizzes, declarations, induction programmes for new entrants, milestone programmes and regular Service-wide reminders. There is an established Internal Disclosure Policy framework within the Civil Service where officers can report any wrongful practices that they have observed in their Ministries to their Permanent Secretaries. Statutory Boards have their own equivalent processes. All reports are treated with utmost confidentiality and every effort is made to protect the officer's identity. There is a non-retaliation clause to further protect the interests of the officer who made the report. If a report is made in good faith, no action will be taken against the reporting officer even if the investigation finds no wrongful practice.”
“In these circumstances, the Prime Minister's assessment was that it was necessary to suspend Minister Iswaran from his official duties while the investigation took place. Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether Minister Iswaran's gazetted leave of absence from his duties from 7 July to 9 July was related to the CPIB investigation. For the record, Minister Iswaran took leave of absence from 7 July to 9 July for personal matters. Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat covered his duties during that period. The leave of absence arising from the CPIB investigation was effected only on 12 July. Next, on the Code of Conduct for Ministers. Mr Zhulkarnain asked if there will be a review of the Code. The Code of Conduct for Ministers has been in place since 1954 and was last updated in 2005. The Code sets out the principles and rules on how Ministers should act and conduct their personal affairs. The general principles remain valid. We will continue to review and update the Code of Conduct for Ministers regularly, taking into account evolving circumstances and needs. For example, the Government recently announced that going forward, officers with access to privileged information that can influence the outcomes of decisions related to state-owned properties must make a declaration before they can rent Government properties managed by their agencies. The same would apply to political office holders. Let me now address the questions raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam relating to the Public Service Code of Conduct and avenues for public officers to report wrongdoing and protection of whistle-blowers. The Public Service Code of Conduct sets out the principles and rules that public officers must abide by.”
“I should also remind Members there are Constitutional safeguards for the appointment or removal of the Director of CPIB, which require the concurrence of the President. There were also several queries by Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Leong Mun Wai seeking more details on CPIB's investigation findings. Members must remember that this is an ongoing investigation. Therefore, I am unable to disclose further details at this juncture. This is to ensure that the investigations are not jeopardised and affected individuals or entities are not prejudiced. Mr Don Wee asked why Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian continued with their duties while being investigated by CPIB on the Ridout Road bungalow issue. There is a crucial difference between that earlier CPIB investigation into Ministers Shanmugam and Vivian, and CPIB's ongoing investigation involving Minister Iswaran. For the Ridout Road bungalows matter, the two Ministers had asked the Prime Minister for an independent investigation into their rental of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) black and white bungalows and the Prime Minister had tasked CPIB to do the investigation. The Prime Minister had no reason to believe that the Ministers had committed any wrongdoing then and, therefore, saw no need to put them on leave of absence during the investigation. The CPIB investigation subsequently cleared both Ministers. The Prime Minister could have asked the Ministers to take leave of absence should evidence have surfaced during the investigations that warranted it. For the case involving Minister Iswaran, CPIB came across some information concerning him while investigating a separate matter. It then decided it should look further into the matter.”
“In due course, further details of the investigations will be made public. But I hope we can all recognise that we must give CPIB the time and space they need to do their work. This was a case that CPIB had uncovered by themselves. We can rely on CPIB to conduct its investigations thoroughly and independently, and to see this case to its logical conclusion – as it has with every other case it has investigated over 70 years. May I caution Members that the CPIB investigations are still ongoing. Minister Iswaran has not been charged, much less convicted. Members should, therefore, avoid speculating on or prejudicing the outcome of the investigations. Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Louis Chua asked whether all CPIB investigations require the Prime Minister's concurrence and if CPIB is obliged to seek the Prime Minister's concurrence to open formal investigations of potential offences that CPIB has uncovered. While CPIB reports directly to the Prime Minister, it is functionally independent. CPIB does not require the Prime Minister's concurrence to conduct its investigations. In this case, it kept the Prime Minister informed and sought his concurrence to initiate formal investigations of Minister Iswaran because the investigations concerned a Cabinet Minister. The Prime Minister concurred within a day of receiving the Director of CPIB's report. Under Article 22G of the Constitution, in the event the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent to a CPIB investigation, the Director of CPIB can go directly to the elected President for his or her concurrence to proceed with the investigation. In reality, we have never had a Prime Minister who has impeded CPIB's work.”
“At that point, CPIB did not state that Minister Iswaran had been arrested, as it had wanted to first establish more facts of the case, including hearing his side of the story. These are decisions for CPIB to make. What law enforcement agencies, including CPIB, reveal at any point in time takes into account their operational considerations in the cases they deal with – including preserving the integrity of evidence, protecting the confidentiality of ongoing investigations and avoiding impact on other related parties. This is why the Prime Minister’s initial statement and Deputy Prime Minister’s doorstop interview on 12 July took reference from CPIB’s press release on the same day. This was the proper thing to do because Ministers, including the Prime Minister, should not reveal more than what the law enforcement agencies are prepared to disclose. While Ministers do have the final decision-making power, they will usually take the advice of the law enforcement agencies. Two days later, on 14 July, Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) issued a statement saying that Mr Ong Beng Seng had been "given a notice of arrest" by CPIB. The media asked CPIB about this. By then, investigations had been ongoing for three days and CPIB had obtained more facts. CPIB made the operational judgement call that it would be appropriate at that point in time to confirm that both Mr Ong and Minister Iswaran had been arrested. Some Members – Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms He Ting Ru – have asked about the considerations for timely and mandatory disclosure of information about a political office holder who is under investigation. The primary considerations are what I have just outlined. Singaporeans are understandably concerned about this matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relating to the CPIB case and the Public Service’s Code of Conduct together. Several Members – Dr Tan Wu Meng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Dennis Tan – have posed questions relating to timelines and circumstances surrounding the CPIB investigations involving Minister Iswaran, and on the information put out in the initial statements by the Government. I must emphasise that what information to put out on ongoing investigations are operational judgement calls that law enforcement agencies take. Other parties, including Ministers, defer to the judgement of these agencies, and do not and should not independently release such information. Those familiar with how law enforcement agencies operate, including CPIB, will know how they usually make their announcements. The standard practice is that agencies do not disclose the names of persons who are being investigated or arrested. And there are good reasons for this. Say someone has been picked up, arrested, and investigations are ongoing. If it is immediately announced that the person has been arrested and is being investigated, it may prejudice the person. The impression that he has done wrong will be there, even if subsequent investigations do not result in any charges being brought against him. Thus, to be fair to the persons involved, law enforcement agencies generally refrain from immediately naming the persons being investigated. There are situations where agencies will depart from this norm and mention names. In Minister Iswaran’s case, given that it involved a Minister, CPIB decided to disclose on 12 July that Minister Iswaran was assisting CPIB with investigations into a case uncovered by CPIB.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Oral Question Nos 1 to 18 in the Ministerial Statements to be delivered later at today's Sitting?”
“Over the last five years, foreign students made up around 5% of enrolment in our secondary schools and junior colleges. Similarly, foreign students formed about 5% of the GCE "O" and "A" level school candidature. Foreign students studied for six years, on average, in our national schools, that is, primary and/or secondary school, before sitting for the GCE "O" level examinations.”
“The Health Promotion Board (HPB) conducts Colours of the Mind workshops to enable parents to support their child's mental well-being. In 2022, over 3,000 parents participated in them. Whilst there may be some merits of mental health screening, this is an approach that is not straightforward and warrants further study. Parents are best placed to notice when their child is experiencing mental health issues. Schools work closely with parents to support students with mental health concerns through early identification, referrals to professionals and community resources, as well as interventions. The Ministry of Education (MOE) also supports parents with resources and tips as well as access to networks with other parents on good parenting approaches and fostering mental well-being.”
“The Ministry of Education's (MOE) tuition grants are awarded based on an applicant’s merit, rather than their country of origin or its income level. All international students who receive the tuition grant are required to work in Singapore or in a Singapore-based company for at least three years upon graduation, as part of their service obligation. Eighty percent of international students at the autonomous universities receive tuition grants while the remainder are paying full fees.”
“As of December 2022, the Ministry of Education (MOE) employed 24 Tamil Language teachers who are Work Pass holders. MOE’s focus is on recruiting suitable individuals with the right disposition and competencies to teach, with a priority on hiring local teachers. However, for certain teaching subjects, including for Tamil Language, we do recruit foreign teachers, given the limited availability of local applicants. When doing so, we carefully select those with good track record and experience, and who demonstrate potential to assimilate into our local cultural context.”
“But can I just summarise this? If the NCMP scheme applies to the ruling party, then it is essentially called a party list. Then, you just reconsider what I just said in the second point – is the party list a mechanism that will not polarise us and end up with people running on single issues? But this is new. That the ruling party shall also be entitled to NCMP, which I think, boils down to a party list. And finally, can I just make one plea to PSP. I think we already have enough challenges trying to make sure that we have a clear Presidential Election if it is to be contested and to help Singaporeans understand the role of the Elected Presidency as we have designed it into our system – as the Head of State, as the custodian of our Reserves, Public Service appointments, and so forth. Can I just make a plea? Please do not confuse the issue and suggest that we turn the Elected Presidency into a referendum on the GRC. I do not see how this serves our democracy. We have enough challenges trying to get everyone to come on board, understand the role of the Elected Presidency. It is not a check on the Government, it is not an Opposition party; it is the custodian of our Reserves and the Head of State for us. It is not a referendum for the GRC, to say the least.”
“You mentioned this two-vote system: vote once for the first-past-the-post and one for the proportional representation. This is precisely the problem. Once you have this, there will be a tendency and we cannot escape from the tendency that when you want to win the vote on the proportional representation, go on the sectoral interest. It could be race or religion, or it could be green issues, as the Member mentioned. But the question for us is this – even if we consider this seriously, do we want our electoral politics where people vote on single issue outcomes, or do we want a matured electorate that we are progressing towards, where people holistically consider all the challenges facing our country? Each and every one of us will have our pet topic that we may be happy or unhappy with this Government or whichever government we want to have, but what serves our interests best? For those countries that have proportional representation, yes, you have many parties representing many groups all on the sectoral basis. Have they become more effective in mobilising national action, whereby people are prepared to give trade-offs and consider it holistically whereby parties have to internalise the trade-offs within themselves, or is every party going to the Parliament just to contest on the basis of their narrow sectoral interests and end up with horse trading? Is that a better outcome for Singapore? Is that the kind of system that will allow us to have the strong and decisive government that you say that is required for us to distinguish ourselves as a nation? So, consider that seriously. Then, the third point. You mentioned – this is new to me – that the NCMP will also apply to the Ruling Party. This is new to me. Today, the NCMP scheme does not apply to the ruling party.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There were a couple of clarifications that Ms Hazel Poa asked of me. I will not go through point by point, given the time, but can I just make the following few points in response to her questions? First, I think as a generic point, it would be good for the PSP to at least lay out their whole proposal at the beginning of the debate. I am not sure those details that you just presented were a response to my comments or you already had them worked out all before. If I may humbly suggest that if you have got it all worked out before, I think it is good for us to debate the details and know the details right from the onset instead of having it in the concluding speech because then we might have to revisit many of these issues. So, that is just a point. Let me go to the substantive points. In the spirit of me taking an examination today, you said that we can have Party A, B, and C, making sure that their slate of candidates has X or Y number of minority candidates to make sure that there will be representation. So, can I just put it this way? Mathematically, unless each of the minority candidate compete in the same SMC, as you proposed, there is no guarantee that just because Party A, B, or C have so many minorities, we will end up with so many minorities in the Parliament. Party A fields a Chinese here, Party B fields a Malay there, and Party C fields an Indian there. Does it mean that it will guarantee minority representation? So, mathematically – not correct. Not correct. Just because people have a slate according to racial profile does not guarantee that the outcome will be a multiracial representation of the Parliament that we so desire. So, that is the first point. The second point.”
“The wider context is: how do we govern a small country with a short history, with no natural hinterland or resources except our people? How do we distinguish ourselves, find our relevance, find our own solutions, and make sure that we take care of people, not just in this generation, but in future generations? How do we evolve a system of government whereby people elected here will think seriously, not just about our generation, but also about future generations? That is how we govern, and that is how we steward our resources – from the way we manage land to the way we manage resources – that is what distinguishes us. And I hope, long may it be, that whoever runs Singapore will always think about this and never assume that there is a perfect system, or that we can just copy someone else's system and we will be exceptional and distinguished. I do not think so. [Applause.]”
“Every morning, when I walked down East Sussex Lane, I reminded myself of it. I have a saying: 跟潮流就是走在潮流的后端; to follow the tide is to follow and be a follower always. I do not want my country to just follow other people. I want my country and my people to stand tall because we are bold enough to know what our challenges are and come up with solutions for ourselves. And I know we are responsible enough to not try and do experiments, but to consider things seriously. Is democracy perfect? All of us here will agree that it has served us well, but it has its own flaws as well. One of the biggest problems of democracy is this – how do we ensure that when everybody votes, they do not just vote on this generation's interests but on the future generations' interests? This is what I have always called the missing-voter problem. When we want to do something, there will always be suggestions, protests or otherwise. But do we not do it just because of what this generation says? Or do we not do it because it does not benefit the next generation? As the highest legislative body in this country, we have a responsibility not just to this generation but to every generation that comes after. If you ask me, is democracy perfect, I will tell you that it is not the perfect system. Because no democratic system, or very few governance systems, perhaps minus the monarchy, will think about two or three generations down, because they think that they will still be around. But for Singapore, if we do not think for the future and do not think that we will be around for the future, we will definitely not be around for the future. And so, if I put that in the context of what Mr Lee said, that is a wider context.”
“It is to paraphrase Winston Churchill: democracy may be the worst form of governance except for all else that have been tried. So, the first question for us is – are we prepared to evolve our own system according to our needs, or do we just copy? And if we just copy, please tell us why copying another system will serve our needs better. Second, and this is my heartfelt response to Mr Leong, I have noticed very often in this House that we bring to this House various ideas from other jurisdictions and countries. And I think we all appreciate that. It is part of our DNA to never be satisfied with our own system, but to constantly seek improvement – because we want to defy the odds of history for Singapore to be around for as long as possible, for us to have enough time to evolve into what I call the Singaporean Tribe, regardless of race, language or religion. We want to be exceptional. We want to distinguish ourselves. But I have never believed that just by copying other people, we will be exceptional, or we can distinguish ourselves. Never. When I was in junior college, I walked the opposite way that Minister Shanmugam said the other day. He walked out of East Sussex Lane from Ghim Moh Road to Holland Road to take a bus. I alighted at Ghim Moh Road and walked along East Sussex Lane, scrambled down the railway track to Raffles Junior College at Ghim Moh Road. My friends would know that generally, I walk quite fast. And since that time, coming from a different family background, to say the least, I have told myself that I would never be able to compete with other people if I were to just follow them. I do not have the means and I may not have all their strengths. For me to compete, I must distinguish myself in my own ways.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, maybe I will just make two points in response. So, you quoted Mr Lee. I remember that was what Mr Lee said. But let us bring it back to this Motion. Was that the only reason that Mr Lee talked about the GRC system? Was Mr Lee not expressing this in a wider context of how we formed governments? Would you not accept that? Which then comes to my second point. So, I think, first point, please do not take things out of context. There was a context why Mr Lee said what he said. And what he said, I personally think was valid and I will come to that in a while. But that has nothing to do with today's Motion about the GRC and minority representation because what you have just highlighted was that, yes, Mr Lee was concerned about the stability and the effectiveness of any government system, especially for a small country like Singapore. And I will share with you my own views, having been in the Government, or served in the Government in various capacities all these years. Is there a reason for us to think very hard about the kind of governance system we want, be it democracy, or whatever else people call us. Or even democracy, or the variants of democracy that the world practises. It goes back down to two points, if I may say so. First, are we prepared to find our own solutions for our own problems and challenges, or do we just copy? And if we just copy, who do we copy from? And let us be frank, whether those systems that we intend to copy from have produced better outcomes than ours? Do not get me wrong. We do not profess that we have found the perfect system and we have delivered the perfect solutions for Singaporeans and Singapore. But is this better than other alternatives that have been considered? That is what we are talking about.”
“I am neither confirming nor denying when the GE will be held – but, in your belief, you said there are two more years. But what do we do from now till then? We are running a country; we are not running an experiment. If the proposal is to go back to an all-SMC system, then let us be clear. Then, we debate on the merit of that. But if you want us to consider, then we indeed have and I have assured you that I have thought deeply about those two suggestions. In fact, the experience of other countries, if we may be frank, is that when seats are allocated on party votes or party lines, it is a recipe for people to campaign precisely on the sectoral interest that we hope not to see. If seats are given to losing Opposition MPs to be NCMPs, then, I have just explained, we will end up in a House with a dominant party with the racial majority and then all our minorities are possibly, if all, if not, most of the minorities, will end up as NCMPs. Is that a better outcome? Nobody is professing that the GRC is a perfect system. But all we are asking is that even if we take your proposal at the face value, if that a better outcome for us? Consider that carefully. First, we are not running experiments and we have to think through this thoroughly. Unfortunately, respectfully, I cannot see how the two alternative proposals will lead to a more integrated Parliament, a more cohesive Parliament. It will end up with politics being contested on sectoral interests, if not, racial lines. It will end up with the Opposition in the NCMP seats, dominated by the minority, vis-à-vis the ruling party dominated by the majority. The minority and the majority are no longer working as a team because you do not have to compete as a team, as Mr Pritam Singh himself has pointed out. How does that help us?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would indulge me. Maybe I will take the second question. If Mr Leong believes that he knows the innermost thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time that is not recorded in the Hansard, maybe he should enlighten us because I certainly do not profess to know the inner thoughts of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1984 that have not been recorded in the Hansard. I think we can all read, search and find what is recorded in the Hansard and that is the basis of our discussion. But if Mr Leong is suggesting that he knows something about Mr Lee's innermost thoughts that are not recorded in Hansard or publicly, then I must humbly admit that I do not have access to the information. I come back to Mr Leong's first point. So, can I summarise our position as follows: Mr Leong and the PSP agree that we should have a multi-racial Parliament. Mr Leong and the PSP agree that we should take racial politics out of our electoral contest. The first point, I think, we have heard quite a lot. The second point, I am not so sure and I invite Mr Leong to confirm this, that Mr Leong and the PSP would also support this Government's efforts to reduce, if not, remove the racial elements or the chance of electoral contests being contested on racially motivated lines. Mr Leong, the Motion before us is to abolish the GRC system. What it is silent on is, abolish to what? It will be clearer if PSP comes to present your ideas to Parliament to say, let us abolish the GRC system and this is our alternative system. You have proposed and we have heard two suggestions. And I have also heard, if I am not wrong, correct me if I am wrong, it was said: "Let's discuss about this". I believe Ms Hazel Poa said that there are still two more years to the GE – I do not know about that.”
“Like you, I am very happy to see the progress that we have made in overcoming incidents and issues related to race and religion. And we agree. We have made much progress and that is why I said, I am confident we will make even more progress and we will endeavour to continue to make progress. That is our collective aim in this House. No one is claiming that we have not made progress. I did not hear anyone saying in this House that this is no longer an issue that we need to consider at all. I think that would be a fair representation. And if we all agree that this is something that we still need to consider, then I think let us have a care to see how we evolve and design our systems. We should not fall into this trap where we see the outcome, a satisfactory outcome, and we say "Voila! We have the outcome that we want and, therefore, we do not need all these measures that have brought us or contributed to the current outcome". It is like saying that on the roads, our traffic is generally safe because we have traffic rules. And when the traffic is relatively safe, then one makes the argument that we should not have so many traffic rules or traffic rules at all. I do not think we are making that argument. We are all here united in the recognition that we have made progress and we want to make further progress. But we are also under no illusion that this is a job done. And if I may look at the experiences of other countries, some countries have spent hundred over years trying to overcome this issue and they have not achieved anywhere near even our own system. So, all I am saying is, just have a care. And I thank Mr Pritam Singh for acknowledging that the GRC system has contributed to the development of our multi-party, multiracial democracy.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his comments and the various points that he agrees with us. First, as I have said, today's Motion is to abolish the GRC. It is not to reform the GRC. So, later, when we vote, it will be on this basis – to abolish the GRC. Because to abolish the GRC, then what do we put in place to safeguard multiracial representation in Parliament? And what do we do to safeguard racial politics from emerging again? So, I am glad to hear that Mr Pritam Singh – and the WP by extension, I presume – agrees with our two objectives: to have multiracial representation in this Parliament and to do our utmost to keep racial politics away from our political contests. Just as the Member has mentioned, today, nobody can try to go to the starting line without a minority. And that is significant. That is significant. I am glad that the Member acknowledged that the GRC has helped us to get to where we are. Are there other systems that we can think of, that we can evolve? Certainly. Even in the short history of our country, we have constantly tried to evolve different systems to meet our needs according to the times. And we must continue to do so. Any system that does not evolve according to the needs of the time will be obsolete, and that does not serve Singapore and Singaporeans well. So, we can continue to discuss how we can evolve the systems and what are the executional issues. But today, the vote on this Motion hinges on this: to abolish the GRC. Do we abolish the GRCs because we do not agree, as the PSP does, with the philosophy? Or do we abolish the GRC because we agree with the fundamentals, but there are some things in the execution that you think that we can evolve? That is the crux. The second issue that I would like to respond to is this.”
“To support this Motion is to go against our founding philosophy of ensuring that the interests of our minority communities are accounted for. To support this Motion is to risk having no or inadequate multiracial representation in the highest legislative body of the land. To support this Motion is to leave to chance the emergence of racial politics and forgo our continued progress towards a system where race is not to be a determining factor in electoral contest. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the PAP will vote against this Motion to abolish the GRC because it fundamentally goes against what we have been trying to do in building our country as a nation that we can be all proud of for all these years since our Independence. [Applause.]”
“To support this Motion is to leave to chance the emergence of racial politics and forgo our continued progress towards a system where race is not to be a determining factor in electoral contest. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you may just allow me to saw a few words in Chinese. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We are a young nation, with our unique history, circumstances and needs. We must find and evolve our own way of governance to meet our needs. We must be bold to evolve our own systems and processes where needed. For example, PCMR, HDB, EDB, GRC, CPF and NS. We must not degenerate into a state where we just blindly copy other people’s systems, especially when it is demonstrated that they could not achieve better results, even for themselves in their own circumstances. Nor do we profess that we have found the perfect system for ourselves. But we need not be shy to say that our system has largely delivered satisfactory outcomes for our country and people, that is, peace, stability, good governance and an ethos of stewardship and care for future generations. We have largely achieved a cohesive society and a non-racially divided Parliament. These did not just happen fortuitously. They came about because we have carefully designed our systems to manage the possible race issues that could have been politicised and divided us. By any measure, we have not done too badly compared to others. Today, including the Opposition, when we go overseas, we feel proud. This also demonstrated that we did not do too badly. We will continue to learn from others, but we are also not afraid to chart our own destiny in our own ways. We will certainly continue to evolve as our needs change. Finally, let me reiterate why we will not and should not support this Motion.”
“But we do not need to be shy to say that our system has largely delivered satisfactory outcomes for our people and country – peace, stability, good governance, multiracial politics and an ethos of stewardship and care for future generations. We have also largely achieved a cohesive society and a non-racially divided Parliament. These did not just happen fortuitously. They came about because we carefully designed our system to manage the possible race issues that could have been politicised and divided us. By any measure, I suggest that we have not done too badly compared to others. We will continue to learn from others, but we must never be afraid to chart our own destiny in our own ways. We will continue to evolve our system according to our needs. I really appreciate Mr Raj Joshua Thomas' comment and Ms Janet Ang's comment about business in this House. I take it to heart. This House is about governance, of how we run our country. This House is not about experimentation. It is not about just copying other people. If we get it wrong, we lose everything that we have built over all these years. Singaporeans lose everything that we have built. We will not have the chance to strive towards the Singaporean Tribe that I described, regardless of race, language and religion. It is not a gamble. It is not an experiment. It is serious business. Finally, let me reiterate why we will not and should not support this Motion. To support this Motion is to go against our founding philosophy of ensuring that the interests of our minority communities are accounted for. To support this Motion is to risk having no or inadequate multiracial representation in the highest legislative body of the land.”
“We certainly do not believe that we will continue to be exceptional and able to distinguish ourselves by just copying others. Yes, certainly, we will continue to learn from other people, but we must be fair. When we look at other people's systems and bring them to this House, let us also tell fellow Singaporeans the pluses, the minuses of their systems, of how their systems have performed in their respective countries and, most importantly, even if it has performed relatively well in their country, would it apply to our context? That is our job as Members of this House. If governance is just about copying best practices elsewhere, we will not be spending so much time trying to find our own unique solutions and models that best serve Singapore and Singaporeans, not just in this generation but also for generations to come. Just last week, the US Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action programmes in universities. The reactions in America have been sharply polarised. To some, this was the right thing to do. You can only end racial discrimination by being colour-blind. To others, this was completely unrealistic and did not take into account the discrimination that blacks and other minority groups continue to face. We do not judge other systems – they will have to find their own answers to their own issues – nor do we profess that we have found the perfect system for ourselves. We certainly will not promote our system to others without context, understanding and appreciation of their circumstances. So, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas is right. There is no perfect system. But which is the least imperfect system that serves us best, that serves Singapore and Singaporeans best in this generation and going forward?”
“The GRC system is thus a safeguard to ensuring that every GRC will have at least one minority candidate competing as a team and as a result, Parliament is multiracial, and we do our best to take race and religion out of the contest. It does not prevent parties from filling more than one minority ethnic candidate in a GRC. The PAP and the WP have done so. I welcome the PSP to do so too. What the GRC system seeks to prevent is for parties to campaign singularly for one race and for Parliament to be represented by one race and have all our minorities in another system, whatever we call it. This is not the Singapore that we want and aspire to be. Mr Deputy Speaker, before I restate our position on the GRC Motion, I want to make one final point to conclude. The point is this – we are a young nation. With our unique history, circumstances and needs, we must find and evolve our own way of governance to meet our needs. We must be bold to evolve our own system and processes where needed – from the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) to GRC, from CPF to HDB, from the the Economic Development Board (EDB) to National Service (NS). We must not degenerate into a state where we just blindly copy other people's systems, especially when those systems are struggling to find the right answers to their own issues. We must not get into a state whereby we come to this House and tell people to experiment on this system or that system when it has been proven that those systems cannot even deliver a better outcome than ours. I will put it to this House. Many of us on the front bench do not believe that we got here by being an exceptional nation just by copying others.”
“And I have been with my men, through and through. We promised each other that this will be a unit that will take care of one another, through hell and high water. But it can be stirred up. In 2013, after the Little India riot broke out, many of us in the leadership had sleepless nights. We wondered whether we would have a repeat of what happened in the 1960s, where the suggestions and allegations of racial problems would spiral out of control. Not just only in Little India, but to every other corner possible in Singapore. It was a moment that I asked myself, if this goes out of control, will we lose it all again? These are life and death issues. Hence, I urge Members to have a care when discussing racial issues. They are not abstract, philosophical issues. They are real issues, with real consequences, sometimes of life and death. These are issues where other mature democracies have to grapple with and many involving life and death situations. The visceral emotions, once stirred, have long lasting consequences. The wounds and scars can be deep. Even with time, the wounds may never really heal completely and the scars will remain. Today, we have made progress. Every exception that is raised in this House is a point for us to cheer. But as mentioned, exceptions do not make the rule. The rule is not whether Senior Minister Tharman can get elected or not. The rule is, all else being equal, when someone of Senior Minister Tharman's calibre goes to the polls, does it matter, even at the margins, that his race predominate or is considered as one of the factors although it is not the sole factor?”